mintmerino

Who is right? In a conversation between two non-autistic people, there's a good (but not 100%) chance the non-autistic Person A is right. In a non-autistic person, ambiguous facial expression and hesitation before speaking might indicate that they are masking what they are really feeling and that "I am fine" is not the whole story. HOWEVER, if Person B is autistic (or otherwise atypical in their mannerisms), then maybe subtle cues like a monotone voice, ambiguous facial expression, and pausing before speaking are just their natural way of expressing themselves regardless of how they feel. The non-autistic Person A will often be right, but not always, especially if their friend is autistic.

Evolution connection: A caveman sees a shape moving toward them that could either be a lion or something harmless. If the caveman guesses it IS a lion and runs away and it's NOT a lion, we call that a false positive. If the caveman guesses it is NOT a lion and does NOT run away and it IS a lion, we call this a false negative. When the caveman runs away, he is safe regardless of whether or not it is a lion. When he doesn't run away, he is only safe if it is not a lion. This is an example that shows how natural selection might prefer false positives.

If a person guesses that certain subtle cues are meaningful and is wrong, that is a false positive. If they guess that certain subtle cues have no meaning and there really is significance in those subtle cues, that's a false negative. Through the lion example, you might see how natural selection came to favor people who prefer making errors in prediction that are false positives rather than false negatives. A false negative can be fatal! The importance of avoiding false negatives in avoiding danger may explain why the non-autistic majority have a stronger tendency to assign meaning to weak signals.

Automatic: Note my use of the word automatic when referring to how people process weak signals. Both autistic and non-autistic people are capable of noticing and dismissing subtle signals depending on the context. However, for autistic people trying to see weak signals as important information and process that in the moment can take lots of extra effort.

Further questions to explore: Are there situations where it is advantageous to ignore weak signals? (I think so) Could over-assigning meaning to weak signals and noticing patterns in weak signals lead us to believe things that are not true such as conspiracy theories? Autistic people are often considered to have a "systemizing" cognitive style, which involves a tendency sort thoughts and ideas into systems. Is there is a spectrum from "people who tend to notice details and patterns in their environment" to "people who tend to map out patterns and frameworks in their head" and how might that relate to autism? How could our relationship to weak signals effect sensory processing differences in autism? How does the autistic interpretation of weak signals affect how we process information in non-social contexts? Could struggles with automatically processing weak signals be the reason why autistic people struggle to properly notice and regulate our own emotional state leading up to a meltdown? Could all this relate to poor interoception in autistic people?

Disclaimer: This is...

A framework for understanding my own autism

A reflection of my life and my experiences

One way to think about how autistic people and non-autistic people differ

A tool that other people may use to help them reflect on their own experiences

NOT a theory rooted in scientific literature or intended to replace scientific theories

NOT intended to unfairly pathologize or glorify autism