[pseudocomposer]

I’ve long thought that autism is basically a few thousand very normal, small neurodivergencies (which may each be compounded with social effects). The absence of any of them is “perfect functioning human cog/prime chunk of workmeat.”

The presence of too many/particular ones of them is notably disabling for certain tasks, or makes perceiving some things difficult (and other things easier). But I think the presence of some is preferable to having none, and implies “can think abstractly for/about oneself.”

(And yes, a lot of the “problems” that arise with folks on the spectrum happen because, well, being aware of yourself as a cog/workmeat creates friction… It’s important to keep in mind how much of our history of psychological medicine that created the label “autism” is ultimately oriented towards “fixing the cog/workmeat.”)

[aDyslecticCrow]

> presence of too many/particular ones of them is notably disabling for certain tasks

Setting asside the very clear science of neurodevelopmental causes, in practice your description is very helpful way to describe it.

(Ive often myself described it as a standard deviation beyond 2 sigma in a normal distribution with 500 dimensions.)

The traits associated with autism are naturally present in the population in healthy and useful ways.

Matching a large fraction of the definition may pose no problem for alot of people. But another smaller deviation in another sub permutation may be detrimental to live a normal life.

So it's really difficult to draw a line between "condition" that need assistance and just outlier human that like trains.

I mildly match a significant fraction of the diagnostic criteria myself, but have had a rather easy time. I don't need special resources, and feel wierd to count under a medical term.

But recognising the traits of ASD had allowed me to find quite a lot of good practical advice that improve my life significantly. So the broad definition has been helpful.

[orange_fritter]

I agree with your take but interestingly it seems to be both an argument for, and against, calling it a spectrum. Humans are so good at adapting/conforming/masking, and we adjust ourselves toward a common accepted way of behaving, which further confounds the difficulty in understanding the problem.

I think the "spectrum" analogy has reduced stigma overall, especially toward people with poor social skills. But it isn't always helpful.

[amatecha]

Yeah I agree. I see it something like this as well. I often feel like calling it an "illness" or even "disability" is kind of a misnomer, because having traits that are encompassed by the definition of "autism" are often actually strengths and advantages (to an overwhelming extent, not in just some weird edge case situation).