Douglas Edwards :neurodiv: (@[email protected])

@[email protected] Several weeks ago, I undertook to post more about the concept of the #kaleidotropic mindset — a further development of the classic concept of the #monotropic mindset underlying autism. I'm continuing to develop my thoughts on these topics, but they are threatening to overrun even the 5000-character limit of the zeroes.ca Mastodon server — in fact, they're starting to look more like something I'd consider submitting to NeuroClastic than like a Mastodon post. Also, I've now realized that if I'm right, it's not just the theory of #monotropism that will need to be revised, but the formal diagnostic criteria for autism as well. So rather than try to wait until my thought process is complete, I'd like to share something of the current state of my thinking — especially what I consider to be most essential. The concept of #kaleidotropy was suggested to me as a consequence of my recent self-diagnosis in late 2024; while I appeared to be mostly a very good fit for C.L. Lynch's Person One (a classic "aspie"-type autist), there were a few important details that didn't fit. In particular, while I definitely shared the characteristic #monotropic intensity of attentional focus, I felt that the characterization of my interests as "narrow and restricted" was not merely untrue, it was the exact polar opposite of the truth. Intensity of focus and narrowness of focus don't necessarily correlate. Although my self-diagnosis and my familiarity with the concept of #monotropism are very recent, I've known for a very long time that my interests and my focus of attention were a departure from the norm, and in a very different way than the concept of #monotropism or the formal diagnostic criteria for autism would suggest. I've been aware that my interests were broader, AND deeper, AND more labile, than is typical for most people — the supposedly #polytropic neurotypicals emphatically included. To me, THEY are the ones whose interests are narrow and restricted! I realize that this assertion is likely to be challenged — and my attempts to anticipate and answer those challenges has been one of the principal reasons for the rapid growth in volume of this material. Unlike autism — which is so heavily stigmatized that a self-diagnosis on inadequate grounds is usually unlikely — CURIOSITY mostly has a very favorable reputation. Implying that someone's supply of it might fall short of the theoretically possible maximum can look like an accusation of stupidity, and tends to draw emphatic denials. But rather than present the considerable evidence available, to the effect that my interests really do exceed the norm along several different dimensions, I'd like that possibility to be at least taken seriously for the sake of argument — and consider how and why such a state of affairs could be consistent with a diagnosis of autism. In the theory of #monotropism, the characteristic social difficulties of autistics are explained in terms of an inability to allocate attentional focus optimally for social interaction. Social adroitness requires a myriad of things to be monitored in real time — a task calling for #polytropic breadth of attention. The formal diagnostic criteria for autism simply require social difficulties and a restricted range of interests both to be present, while remaining agnostic as to any potential causal relationship between the two. What I suggest is that the theory of #monotropism has the causal relationship backwards. The fundamental characteristic of the neurotypical mindset, that separates it from autistic cognition, is precisely the intense and constant, though diffuse, focus on the social world. For this reason, I propose that this mindset be given not the misleading label #polytropic, but a more accurately descriptive characterization as #ecotropic — yoked tightly to the social environment. An #ecotropic mind has a wider focus of attention than SOME autistic minds, not because it CAN, but because it MUST. The complementary autistic mindset I term #autotropic — responsive to its own internal logic, rather than to the environment. An #autotropic mind is thus under far weaker constraints than an #ecotropic one — and we would accordingly expect to see a much greater variety of subtypes within #autotropy. The classic, stereotypical #monotropic mindset is certainly one of these — the ability, for example, to focus exclusively on a single spinning object, oblivious to all else. But other subtypes of #autotropy can also exist. Attention can be given, not to fewer, but to MORE topics at once, than is likely for an #ecotropic intellect subservient to its social surroundings. Likewise, while an #ecotropic attentional set is limited by external reality in the speed with which it can undergo change, this subtype of #autotropic intellect — which I term #kaleidotropic — can refocus from one entire panoply of topics to another in an instant. Just about anything can have the effect of Proust's madeleine.