Autism - Neurological (physiological) vs. Conditioned

Post Reply New Topic

I have been reading a lot about various hypotheses regarding the formation of autistic traits. There is plenty of evidence that much of it is something physiological / congenital / genetic - i.e. developed from birth physiologically - such as the disparities in pathways between sections of the brain. We already know this is where much autistic behavior comes from, and so also the proclivity for it to be reinforced socially.

It also seems that some of it can be conditioned. I know in myself that these behaviors have been strengthened (or, exacerbated) by social interactions. There is yet also some pliability in my systems which has allowed me to disguise my asperger's well with other behaviors, often by becoming aware of the autistic behaviors which disrupt or damage my interactions with others. So, for this reason, I take it quite seriously when I am reading about "defense mechanisms" and "behaviors" in the psychology of autism - because it is a highly relevant aspect of it, just as much as the physiological (neurological) information.

There is no denying that humans are creatures of a social context. To attribute behaviors solely to one aspect seems misdirected - especially when it comes to methods of coping / healing / understanding the condition and moving forward. In this, I am a bit confused by those who desire for it to be a firmly rooted systemic issue - people who rebel / withdraw from the notion of conditioned behaviors - which somehow say to them that their autism isn't "that big" of a difference - as though something behavior-oriented somehow implies 'discretion' 'control' or somehow downplays the issue. (To me, it doesn't.) In a sense I have encountered some who don't care to find out what behaviors come from where, so much as to keep themselves away from thinking about it in certain ways. --- For some reason, I have always been indifferent. If it shows up in brain scans as a physical disparity in brain intercommunication, then that's obviously a big factor. It doesn't rule out entirely behaviors which may be conditioned, though. And it's important to find out what one has control over, and what one does not - because even behaviors which "NT's" think of as intrinsic, can often be altered.

I wonder -- do people with asperger's/autism take pride in seeing themselves as more basically "different" than "NT's" via an actual physical difference? I'm not denying there is one, I'm asking a question of intent. Behaviorally, it seems naturally "autistic" (-aut_ism- = 'self' state of being)' to be concerned with the self and it's difference, it's isolation, so in a way this tendency to insulate and potentially alienate would seem only natural (it was one of my defining characteristics as a child). Does it prevent us looking at something more objectively? Does an awareness of this potential isolating behavior open up new consideration for other people, as it does for me? Can we not employ some of our wider pathways to override this tendency?

Food for thought.

I think the tendency of aspies to see their traits as being fixed comes from the basic need to feel validated as person. Most of us have gone through life feeling wrong and different from other people. It can be a great relief to find out about aspergers - finally you realise that your eccentricities are not your fault, it's all about brain wiring.

I think for that reason many aspies are resistant to the idea that they aren't so different to NTs and that their traits are dependant on maturity and the environment. It kind of detracts from that comforting group mentality that us aspies have, and puts us under more pressure to be normal. I don't blame people for not liking that idea, it's certainly not very comfortable for me.

I think there is a lot of truth in what you say - food for thought indeed

The fact that there is a more or less measurable neurological difference is fundamental to my understanding and definition of autism. I'm autistic because my brain operates differently, because I cannot, even with a lot of training, do certain things nearly as well as most people (e.g. follow a conversation involving several people). At the same time, the different mode of operation enables me to do certain things more effectively or faster than most people. The difference in both cases is also relatively large in comparison with what I would consider normal variation between different people.

Personally, I don't consider behaviour to be autistic in itself. There are certain behaviours that may be common to autistic people, for example because they're coping mechanisms, but they can also be seen in non-autistics, and they can often be unlearned.

I think the problem people might have with your behavioural explanations is that it would mean you can simply stop being autistic, which most people probably have tried and failed to do.

Even introversion and extraversion are supposed to be partly genetic. I wonder if anyone would claim that you can train any infant to become introverted or extraverted regardless of its original genetics. Presumably in the case of the predisposition to have autistic traits the environment can exert an influence (otherwise why would there be intervention programs?) but I would imagine there is some limit. I can't help feeling that ultimately autistic traits are just more extreme versions of normal traits (just as extreme introversion or extraversion are more extreme versions of something everyone has to some degree). (By the way, I have qualms about the way having AS seems for some people almost to be like belonging to a kind of sect, with NTs as the demonised outsiders. In the end we're all just people.)

It's possible even if someone isn't born autistic, they can develop certain traits depending on the conditions in which they are raised. I like to think of it as "the castaway effect." Say you're marooned on a deserted island after a shipwreck/plane crash/whatever, and you survive by living off of the island's plentiful flora and fauna for about 3-5 years. During this time, you encounter no other humans because this island is uncharted, and no indigneous tribes live here. In other words, complete and total solitude.

Then, after 4 years of living on your own, a bottle washes up on the shore of a major coastal city. Inside is a message you wrote explaining your situation, as well as your last known geographical position. This information is relayed to a nearby naval fleet who scramble a rescue team. They extrapolate from your last known position and find this island, with you on it, and return you to your country of citizenship. Now you have the problem of having to re-adjust to the idea that you are not the only person in the world, after 5 years of solitude have deleted the notion of human interaction and all of the related societal mannerisms from your brain, as it was not explicitly necessary for your survival.

Ok, maybe its a bit exaggerated, but you WILL have problems re-integrating socially with your former peers, and you may never be able to view the human race the same way again. You were born neurotypical, but the re-wiring of your brain caused by having to survive with zero human interaction has resulted in you "becoming autistic."

The scenario itself isn't likely, but the theory is sound. Also, in some cases neuotypical children who are raised in conditions that limit interaction with their peers (i.e. living in the middle of nowhere) can cause them to develop autistic tendencies later in life, at least where the social element is concerned.

My girlfriend is the perfect example of the above. She's neurotypical (has self-diagnosed ADD) and understands social customs a hell of a lot better than I do, but she was born and raised on a ranch in the middle of Nowhere, WY. It takes 30 minutes by car for her to reach Casper which is the nearest city, and there are no other people that live within walking distance of her home. In other words, she had almost no friends her age up until high school, and the only people she saw on a regular basis were her mother and surrogate father figure (her biological father left before she was born, but her mother was friends with a man called Henry, who is about as close to a father as she got during her childhood).

As a result, even though she has none of the genetic properties of an autistic individual, she still retains a good degree of autistic-like social awkwardness due to spending the majority of her childhood in solitude. In a way, this works out, because she can relate to my social ineptitude even though she herself does not suffer from it; as a result she can tell me where I went wrong when I screw up but still be understanding enough to realize I didn't mean it. In a way, when it comes to relationships I have an edge on her, which is something few Aspie men can claim It's because I have been in two relationships prior to meeting and dating her, whereas she told me I was the first boy who ever asked her out, and she had no clue how she was supposed to react socially when I did. Even though my past two relationships ended with breakups (and one ended in a permanent estrangement), I am grateful for my exes because they were both more experienced women, thanks to them I now have an idea of what relationships are like, which I think has helped me a lot with this girl.