They determined that local neuronal networks in the three brain regions tested in rats are hyperreactive….
Now that’s an experimental validation.
Further, the Markrams and their team found that neural networks in valproic acid–treated rats are also hyperplastic… When connectivity patterns between neurons in local and expanded networks were examined before and after widespread and prolonged (overnight) activation of the entire network, valproic acid–treated rats exhibited an increase in the rate of rewiring, mostly evident in the nonlocal networks, compared to controls…
If this applies to autistic humans too then it would have interesting implications.
Intense World
Your sensory sensitivity chart is accurate for autistic people (acknowledging that there is variation from person to person). For me in particular, it slightly underestimates how easily I get startled.
The starting point has to be innate, not learned. We’re talking here about startle reflexes, orienting reactions (e.g. where you turn your head and body towards a sound), flinching, releasing cortisol, etc. Nobody teaches you how to do those things! Moreover, there’s nothing in your sensory input data that says that an unexpected 27 dB sound is sufficiently threatening to warrant startle and cortisol, but an unexpected 19 dB sound is not. This is a heuristic threshold set by the genome. No wonder it’s different in different people! (It could also be modified over time by experience, I’m not sure. But anyway, it has to start somewhere.)
I always like information that helps me distinguish hard-coded from trainable attributes.
I figure what happens as a consequence, at least sometimes, is: the person with autism gradually learns to interact with and understand people, but without using empathetic simulation. Instead, they just take their general intelligence, and leverage it to build a new human model from the ground up, just as people can model any complicated system from the ground up (e.g. a complicated piece of software). So there’s still a human model, but it’s built on a different foundation—a foundation without that strong innate connection to brainstem circuits.
I think this explains why (IIUC) there are intelligent people with autism who are able to do theory-of-mind-type reasoning (as in the book excerpt at the top), and able to understand social interactions and conventions, but need to deliberately learn aspects of these things that neurotypical people might find intuitive and effortless.
I can confirm this happened for at least n≥1. I built a model of human beings from first principles by systematically combing through the scientific, historical and economic literature.
Schizophrenia
Maybe people with schizophrenia have their innate social instincts very powerfully active all the time, for whatever reason.
When I interact with fortune tellers, I feel like their social intuitive sense is supercharged in a way that’s very similar to reports of schizophrenia. The difference is that healthy fortune tellers can tell that their intuitions in their head are not “real” in the physical sense whereas schizophrenics can’t tell the difference. (It gets confusing because fortune tellers frequently do believe in literal magic [which is not real] but there’s a big difference between being a Wiccan and being a schizophrenic.)
I can confirm this happened for at least n≥1. I built a model of human beings from first principles by systematically combing through the scientific, historical and economic literature.
Me too. Although my soruces where mostly asking my parents and other kind people to explain. Often they where not able to, but over time I got enough pices.
lsusr, do you find empatic simulations to be painfull? Because I don’t. When I’m able to look at someone and feel what they are feeling, that’s awsome.
But most of the time this don’t work, because a) Neruotypicals are too alien. Although I’m getting better, by conecting my deliberatly learned model to my empathy model. It’s similar the colurblind box in Example 1 one here, but much more extensive. b) I have high epistemic standards. Sort of the oposite of what you expereince with the fortuen teller. My empathy needs a stong evidence to trigger.
Great post, as always.
Now that’s an experimental validation.
If this applies to autistic humans too then it would have interesting implications.
Intense World
Your sensory sensitivity chart is accurate for autistic people (acknowledging that there is variation from person to person). For me in particular, it slightly underestimates how easily I get startled.
I always like information that helps me distinguish hard-coded from trainable attributes.
I can confirm this happened for at least n≥1. I built a model of human beings from first principles by systematically combing through the scientific, historical and economic literature.
Schizophrenia
When I interact with fortune tellers, I feel like their social intuitive sense is supercharged in a way that’s very similar to reports of schizophrenia. The difference is that healthy fortune tellers can tell that their intuitions in their head are not “real” in the physical sense whereas schizophrenics can’t tell the difference. (It gets confusing because fortune tellers frequently do believe in literal magic [which is not real] but there’s a big difference between being a Wiccan and being a schizophrenic.)
Me too. Although my soruces where mostly asking my parents and other kind people to explain. Often they where not able to, but over time I got enough pices.
lsusr, do you find empatic simulations to be painfull? Because I don’t. When I’m able to look at someone and feel what they are feeling, that’s awsome.
But most of the time this don’t work, because
a) Neruotypicals are too alien. Although I’m getting better, by conecting my deliberatly learned model to my empathy model. It’s similar the colurblind box in Example 1 one here, but much more extensive.
b) I have high epistemic standards. Sort of the oposite of what you expereince with the fortuen teller. My empathy needs a stong evidence to trigger.