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: [3]It is merely that the neurotypical population far outnumbers the autistic population which causes the neurotypical ways of social conduct prevails. It is this outnumbering that is the root cause for every problem that is experienced by people that fall outside the ways of doing and being of the majority. Be it autistic, be it extremely intelligent, be it a more complex worldview, be it left handiness, be it sexual orientation, it doesn't matter how an individual differs. To differ means there's a gap both sides have to overcome.

    To apply this on the individual level: Every person has a certain way of interacting with others that is natural for that individual. Also each person has a certain range with whom she/he can interact. Of course the range varies from person to person. But if the natural ways of communicating between two people are far enough apart, having a huge range can still mean the two of them have trouble communicating, or are even unable to communicate. Both will interpret the reactions and behavior of the other in ways that is comprehensible to themselves. And this is by definition limited, and does not always include the way the one giving the reaction will interpret it.
    If the natural way of being between individuals differs only slightly, communication is much more fluent. This is so simple and obvious that hardly anyone seems to realize this to be at the root of communication between people. Communication difficulties as well as success depend on the differences between the natural ways and the range both can reach.
    Just to make the most obvious point so far: if the group is autistic, the differences are small, and thus even a small range is more than sufficient. The same goes if the group is neurotypical, or extremely intelligent, intuitive, non-verbal or any way of being that anyone can think of.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.