TED Conversations

This conversation is closed.

The Intense World Theory and early intervention

In this TED talk, the speaker illustrates a graph where infants with autism seem to be born with a higher developed sense of eye connection than those without autism, and then dips down, whereas infants that are not eventual diagnosed with autism start lower but stay relatively stable.
The Intense World theory is a theory by Makram and Makram that pursues the idea that instead of the idea that people who are autistic were born with an undeveloped sense of empathy and connection towards other people, it is actually the opposite, and that over-sensitiviy has caused people with autism to have natural aversions to other people over time because it causes too much emotional distress.
What do you all think of this theory? The data shown in the TED presentation seems to be consistent with what the theory proposes. What kind of implications would this discovery have on this concept of early intervention?

Topics: autism

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb

    / /

    • 0
    Jul 1 2012: @Joel Pigeau

    "I did not say that we do not understand, I said that we have trouble understanding. It really isn't the same thing."

    Well, I would say I have not more trouble with understanding my girlfriend for example than other relationships in neurotypical people. And I do not think it's very significant if it were true that we have more trouble of understanding even other autistic people. I think it is studied in a biased way. See my next post why I think so
    [5][6] empathy
    The interesting thing is that neurotypical centrism keeps saying that autistic individuals can?t empathize with people very well. While the neurotypical scientists only mean that the neurotypical way of being is not within the range of the autistic people who are tested.

    "I would ask that an attempt be made to at least understand what my argument is before offering a rebuttal."

    Sorry, but I'm sometimes annoyed by people who don't know anything of autism and make sweeping statements about autism. Sorry my fault. I do not have difficulties with empathy, and i think the research on empathy and autism is been manipulated.

    "A literal meaning is not the opposite of a common meaning. That has nothing to do with metaphoric language."

    Okay, you're right it was a wrong example. But still, their are many examples were the literal understanding is better at some occasion than the metaphoric.

    "Well, a brain with a capacity for understanding symbolic language and metaphoric language is necesarily one that is highly complex, so... Yes, the understanding of metaphors could be considered a useful adaption, particularly as it allows for easy, if unnuanced and occationally innaccurate, communcation of complex ideas."

    I don't think it's more useful tbh and again autistic persons use metaphoric language too (see point 2).

    Can you prove me the 'more trouble' of understanding other autistic people in an autism-autism relationship compared to an neurotypical-neurotypical relationship? f u can I believ

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.