None of us really believe Intense World Theory, right?

Post Reply New Topic

This is by far one of the cleverest fallacies against the autistic community I have ever seen. The idea is that autism is caused by overactive circuits in our brain that make us view senses, ideas and feelings as more intense than they really are. In short, it is that we are deluded and lack every form of moderation.
But are we still so ignorant of ourselves to believe that autism and AS are nothing but obsession and delusion? I truly believe that we are not. We think the way we think because of how we see the world, and we see it the way we do because of how we think. We think methodically. This is why we see the world in all of its minute details, and all of the details from all of the senses is just a little overwhelming sometimes. Our way of thinking is why we are known for our good memories. It gives us our special interests, those few things whose details we can see with such clarity that we never tire of them. It causes us to focus on what is true and factual, enabling us to speak without lying and to distinguish between feeling and knowledge. (Believe me, very few NTs can do that.) It even causes us to be awkward in our speech, because we think, speak and interpret literally. Just like I am writing a little bit formally right now.
So in the end, this is like every other attempt by NTs to understand us by treating our mind as deficient or diseased in some way. They think they know us better than we know ourselves. I do not know why we are the way we are. Maybe it's in our genes, maybe it's at the molecular level, or maybe it's supernaturally made (No religion debates on this thread please ). But whatever its cause is, autism is not a disease, not a delusion, not an obsession, it is the way we are.

I think you should reread the interview on homepage. I believe you have misunderstood what is, without doubt, the most positive and neurodiverse theory of autism to ever gain recognition.

The theory more or less suggests that we experience a heightened state of consciousness. It DOES NOT make disease/disorder claims like other theories.

I don't think it is flawless, but it is absolutely the best we've gotten. What specifically do you object to about this theory? I find it refreshing because it does not degrade autistic people in any way.

I think what we call "autism" actually encompasses differences with various biophysiological causes.

Ultimately, this results in an individual who is not able to interface with the world "normally". In fact there are various macroscopic brain anomalies which result in "autistic traits", as do impairments which ultimately isolate the individual from the world from a young age.

While it's possible that the intense world theory might explain the behavior of some individuals diagnosed with autism or similar issues, I don't think it applies to everyone.

I had fairly severe hypersensitivity as a child but as with most people with AS, this peaked when I was 7, and contrary to the perceptions of NTs on the subject, I generally did not perceive things as much louder, or painful. Most of the time, I perceived things as simply more irritating, nagging, or itchy. I suppose there were some situations where the stimuli may have been too much for me to process but I think NTs can only envision this through analogies much as those who are not dyslexic can only understand what dyslexics experience through analogies.

Wait a minute. What is so negative about being hyper sensitive? I dont really see how it paints asperger out as being a disorder.

I like it, it says we have more powerful brains, haha.

The Intense World Theory largely fits what I've observed for a while now. It also fits with my theory of NTs, called Deadened Senses Theory, which clearly states that they ignore what they are feeling so they can be more socially acceptable.

OK maybe I misunderstood them, I thought they were saying we were deluded in some way because of faulty wiring.
Still, we're not the way we are because of our senses, rather we sense things because of the way we are. This is the biggest problem with their theory: It does not take our methodical thinking into account. In fact, according to IW theory we would be less thought-based & more feeling based because our senses and emotions would be heightened. However, assuming we think the way we already know we do, it would only make sense that our physical senses would be hightened, but it would also follow that we are more logical, not less. So I think our way of thinking is the cause, the heightened senses are the effect.
That said, I'm still afraid they are trying to propagate the idea that we are not intelligent. The way we think - the part it seemed like they were trying to obscure - is what makes us good at what we're good at. It makes us always want to know the hard truth about things. Maybe the scientific community (and anyone else in a position of prestige or authority) doesn't want that. Or maybe I'm just reading a little too far into it...

I do feel like I experiance those things more intense then they are, so I am not sure how that is inaccurate.

I do. It fits the facts better than anything else.

Personally, we cannot notice the differance, as Tony Attwood said, to cure autism, put them in a room alone.

I have noticed a few clues to neurotypical, most people do not dream in color, in highly detailed images, or at all. That is Normal.

We would not percieve ramped up senses, unless we had something to compare them to. Autistics make great painters. Some Musicians, and as the Markrams say, we are all different, even if we do have some things in common.

Lower and less perception would lead to relying on social support.

When I take a very bad drawing to my machine shop, they make another bad drawing that corrects it, but if I take it to a Hardware Store, all they see is lines on paper that make no sense.

I have been following the Markrams for a while, and they do seem to understand from small child to adult what we live in, and they are in favor of making it work.

Is it so strange that in a world where we accept things like IQ tests, that there would also be perceptual and thought ranges?

I think if I was put in a room alone for too long I might develop some other problems.

I don't know about everyone else, but IWT fits my experiences perfectly, which is why I was so proud and excited to interview the Markrams for the homepage. This positive theory needs as much recognition as possible.

Anything you guys can do to spread it around will help change the way the world views autistics for the better.

The basic tenent of the theory makes sense to me and fits my personal experience of autism well, however, although the Markram's did not describe autism adjectively speaking as a devasting disorder in the interview, they describe autism in their actual research paper, as a devastating neurological disorder.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2518049/



They describe the genious of autism as something that is currently locked in that they feel they can alter through research, potential intervention, and therapy.

They are not suggesting that autism is a beneficial disorder as is, they are suggesting they can potentially make it a "beneficial disorder", through that research, potential intervention, and treatment.

I think controlling the stimulus in the environment already present, could be accomplished now. But what this means is things like restricting TV watching, playing violent video games, all the things in life that can be highly stimulating for a very young child. Also avoiding environments that include large crowds of stressed out individuals, like SuperWalmart, considering their theory that affective empathy is ramped up in some of these children with autism.

In other words, from the perspective of their theory, it could potentially be a horrible thing to sit a very young child in front of a Big Screen High definition TV, with dolby digital surround sound set up, with an extremely action packed, special effects, movie.

They suspect that extreme stimuli at a young age could lead to nightmarish results for the young developing child, that could lead to permanent changes in neurology, as opposed to older individuals with autism.

It makes sense to me, because I see some individuals with autism in the present day, much more overwhelmed by environmental stimulus, per reports here, from a young age, that could be explained from exposure from a very young age, to extreme environmental stimulatory exposure. Others love it, so it doesn't appear to affect everyone in the same way.

So, in short, the environmental toxins trigger the autism, and the hypersensitivity in some individuals with autism, and the modern cultural environment of stimulatory attack, can potentially make the disorder much worse for some than others.

The amish country analogy, makes a great deal of sense, in light of this, along with the incidence of autism in developed countries as opposed to undeveloped countries. As they suggest, overstimulation can be part of what locks the child in his own world blocking out a stimulatory world that is more offensive than can be normally tolerated.

Without electricity the world is not nearly as stimulating a world, from the perspective of neurological development. It is stimulating reflective of the way humans have adapted to it for thousands of years, with or without autism.

It could be part of the reason why diagnosed cases of autism are much lower in amish country than other areas of the country. At one point in time they suggested the incidence was 1 in 15,000, then researchers went in and surveyed an entire county, going door to door, and found the prevalence at about 1 in 295, if I remember correctly.

However the rest of the general population of the US, has never been surveyed like this so one cannot accurately compare the 1 in 295, to the 1 in 110 government statistic, based mostly on children already diagnosed with autism in classes for the developmentally disabled.

There is a study currently funded for screening the general population in the US, so at that point we will have a real idea of just how prevalent autism is in the general population.

England did such a study limited to higher functioning autistic individuals in the adult population and it was 1 percent.

I think chances are pretty good once the entire population is scanned, it's going to probably be something like 1 in 60, in the US because this study is not going to be limited to one part of the spectrum. Considering it was 1 in 38 in south korea just based school children across the entire spectrum, 1 in 60 might be a reasonable estimate at this point.

Just the factor of available stimulation in the environment could influence the number of individuals actually diagnosed, in our current society, as compared to previous decades, where the environment was not nearly as stimulating as it can be now, if Markram's theory is correct.

If the Markram's theory and advice for controlling the stimulatory environment is widely accepted, I see a great potential for the improvement in the lives of many autistic individuals.

Identifying environmental toxins that may trigger autism and eliminating them from the prenatal environment, may also take autism back to where it used to be, before these type of environmental triggers were part of the prenatal environment, potentially exacerbating symptoms, turning potentially advantageous one's into debilitating ones.

The actual process of identifying the environmental toxic triggers and eliminating them, is going to really be hard, in our world though, unless someone moves to a deserted Island, if there are any of those left.

The only thing I really question about the theory is their statement they may be able to manipulate these environmental agents to change the course of the evolution of the brain.

I feel more comfortable with the idea of eliminating the environmental triggers, letting nature take it's course, along with careful adaptations to our stimulatory world, tailored to each autistic child.

Seems better to me than relying on drugs later on to tamp down hyperfunctional components. Although that might still be advantageous for some, if effective drugs are produced.

i've always felt it has described me pretty well. maybe neurons just have more connections. which would make things more intense, and make us smarter. not anything like broken or delusional.

I think as a cognitive theory it fits generally well with peoples' experiences, so for that I think it's a great theory. It also puts more importance on the sensory and obsessive/repetitive aspects and less on the social and language issues which, while challenging, are not always as prominent for all individuals and diagnosis may be missed on subtler cases of autism.

As for the theory at the level of neuroanatomy and biological function, I have hesitation in saying that what occurs following prenatal valproate exposure, due to evidence of a single series of valproate-related animal models, is what occurs in all forms of the hetergeneous autistic population. Hyperconnectivity and hyperplasticity are not always reflected in all autism animal models which have equal footing in the research world as does VPA: the Fragile X and Rett syndrome animal models, for instance, do not show this same morphology and in fact show reduced dendritic complexity. That doesn't mean hyperconnecitivity/plasticity doesn't exist in the valproate-induced human condition and leads to changes in behavior, BUT it may mean that the hyperplasticity and hyperconnectivity may not be the important underlying factors to what is "autism" across all circumstances. When talking about these characteristics of connectivity and plasticity, you're really only focusing in on one or a few cells at a time, not taking a look at the entire network. The lowest common denominator of autism may not lie at the single cell level but may be a pattern in how those cells connect to one another.

I think Markram's group's work has been impressive and I've certainly cited it a number of times. But it may be trying to reach too far to explain everything. If his cognitive theory is applicable, then it may mean that hypersensitivity to the world may not lie within a single cell's complexity or plasticity but within the larger network.

Just remember: there is the animal model and the data that comes from that; there is the interpretation of that data on a smaller more concrete scale; and then there is Markram's explanatory theory of autism. These are each very different things and can be discussed and appreciated at different levels.

The world is intense.

Lights are too bright.
Sounds are bleeding in cutting off what others are saying.
Sounds too loud.
Too many things going at at once.
Difficulty processing multiple conversations.
Too many billboards, too many flashy lights in some places.

Yes, there's more but this is just the limited edition.

It all has an impact.

I strongly agree with the this theory's basic concept. It explains, well, everything.

However, I'm not informed enough to formulate an opinion on some of the finer details. Hyper connectivity, hyper functioning and hyper plasticity? Yes! Toxic insult during pregnancy? Um... Can I just smile and nod here?

Whether or not I fully understand this theory, I do understand it enough to say it's the best we have so far.