Subject: Autistic ‘black and white’ thinking.
It's framed as a deficit often seen in autism, but... is it that simple? 
Autistic people are traditionally criticized for our inflexibility, or cognitive rigidity.
But I think this isn’t the whole picture.
To start with what we know, here are ten things we autistic people generally have in common (refs at the end of the thread):
⬇️
#Autism #Neurodivergent #ActuallyAutistic #AuDHD #Neurodiversity
1. Autistic people like to base our positions and decisions on data.
2. We’re into justice, and fairness.
3. And logic (which is, I feel, a good strategy for bringing about more fairness).
4. We're not comfortable trusting reassurances without evidence.
5. We like clarity. Lack of clarity can make us anxious.
6. We think probabilistically / statistically.
⬇️
7. We can be a bit like pattern-seeking missiles.
8. When new evidence comes to light, we’re generally adaptable – even if it takes a minute.
9. That said, we may dig in our heels about things (like change) when we’re anxious or scared.
10. We like gathering data, and interactions that are a true exchange of information.
But none of this amounts to cognitive rigidity or ‘black and white’ thinking 🤔
⬇️
Probability patterns (based upon data) are many shades of grey.
Not black or white.
I’m starting to think the ‘rigidity’ thing may be down to a misunderstanding?
I’m sometimes told I’m being ‘black and white’ when I point at a logical inconsistency in someone’s reasoning.
I don’t want to be annoying, but I like clarity in parameters and definitions… or else (stands to reason) we’ll never see each other’s points of view!
And, sometimes, people don’t like this 🤨
⬇️
Ok, I can see why school management doesn’t like it – e.g. in a public consultation when they’re pushing through a policy that goes against the kids and parents, while justifying it with arguments that are a) logically inconsistent, and b) funnily, involve them taking no responsibility.
I’m also told I’m bad at ‘just trusting’ – that I’m suspicious.
“But,” I protest, “it’s just that I like evidence. Um – where’s the data, please?”
⬇️
Zooming in here…
And dividing this into 4 strands (I know: very autistic 😊 ):
1. Clarity vs rigidity;
2. Probabilistic vs local thinking;
3. Cognitive vs social uncertainty;
4. Are we right not to ‘just trust’?
And addressing them one by one:
⬇️
1: Clarity vs rigidity.
Clarity is about:
- Explicit parameters
- Defined variables
- Stated assumptions
- Predictable processes
Rigidity is about:
- Refusal to update
- Low tolerance for model revision
- Over-attachment to a rule regardless of new evidence
A probabilistic thinker can be extremely non-rigid, while still demanding clarity.
In fact, probability thinking requires flexibility.
You constantly update priors when new data arrives. That’s Bayesian, not rigid 🥰
⬇️
2: Probability thinking and autism.
There’s growing discussion in cognitive science that many autistic people:
- Prefer system-level pattern detection
- Track contingencies more explicitly
- Think in conditional structures (“if X, then Y”)
- Notice statistical irregularities
That isn’t black-and-white thinking.
That’s model-based reasoning.
If anything, it can tolerate uncertainty better, because uncertainty is explicitly modeled rather than socially smoothed over.
⬇️
3: Conceptual vs social uncertainty.
Many autistic people seem to tolerate:
- Conceptual ambiguity
- Abstract uncertainty
- Complex models
- Open-ended questions
But we do struggle with:
- Unstated social rules
- Hidden expectations
- Implicit hierarchy shifts
- Unpredictable human behavior
So the discomfort isn’t with uncertainty per se. It’s with unmodeled variables.
Which ties in with discomfort with social reassurance, e.g. with trusting “everything will be fine.”
⬇️
4: Are we right not to ‘just trust’?
Many neurotypical social systems run on:
- Emotional smoothing
- Implicit trust
- Status-based reassurance
- Norm enforcement through vibe rather than data
If you’ve repeatedly experienced (and many autistic people have; refs at the end):
- Broken promises
- Social insecurity and unpredictability
- Rule inconsistencies and injustices
Then vague reassurance doesn’t reduce uncertainty – it increases it!
⬇️
So the demand for clarity isn’t rigidity.
It’s risk management.
Even if sometimes, due to habituation and chronic distress, I think we may ‘bunker in’ and be quite frustratingly intransigent, e.g. in human interactions.
But that may be more a question of ‘once bitten, twice shy’ rather than anything intrinsic to us.
⬇️
I think we autistics might know all this in our bones. In our hearts. Somewhere, anyway… but usually on an instinctive level.
Even if we’re not aware of our reasons or motivations, and instead struggle with shame and self-doubt (just as we’re encouraged and socialized to do).
But… clarity is the enemy of oppression!
It replaces confusion with transparency. It throws light on the landscape 🔦
⬇️
I think our bones are right.
In fact, I think embracing a reasoning style based on data, patterns, and probability could be a huge bonus for everyone.
As – objectively speaking – it could pave the road for authenticity, equity, and justice to replace former murkiness, power plays, and empty promises.
End of 🧵
References below 👇
Refs:
Arendt, H. Truth and Politics
https://german.yale.edu/sites/default/files/arendt.truth_and_politicslying_in_politics.pdf
- Explores why factual truth is politically fragile, and how organised lying distorts shared reality.
Beasant, L. et al. (2023) autistic adults’ views on RCT randomisation and blinding (open access, PMC)
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11134970/
- Here, autistic adults emphasised the need for clear explanations of how decisions are made.
more below👇
Bloom, P. Against Empathy: The Case for Rational Compassion
- Argues empathy can be biased and spotlight-driven, and defends rational compassion as a better moral guide.
Demetriou, E.A. et al. (2018) executive function meta-analysis (Molecular Psychiatry)
https://www.nature.com/articles/mp201775
- Meta-analysis showing executive-function differences in autism relating to flexibility.
more below 👇
Evidence of executive dysfunction in autism spectrum disorders (ASD) across development remains mixed and establishing its role is critical for guiding diagnosis and intervention. The primary objectives of this meta-analysis is to analyse executive function (EF) performance in ASD, the fractionation across EF subdomains, the clinical utility of EF measures and the influence of multiple moderators (for example, age, gender, diagnosis, measure characteristics). The Embase, Medline and PsychINFO databases were searched to identify peer-reviewed studies published since the inclusion of Autism in DSM-III (1980) up to end of June 2016 that compared EF in ASD with neurotypical controls. A random-effects model was used and moderators were tested using subgroup analysis. The primary outcome measure was Hedges’ g effect size for EF and moderator factors. Clinical sensitivity was determined by the overlap percentage statistic (OL%). Results were reported according to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. A total of 235 studies comprising 14 081 participants were included (N, ASD=6816, Control=7265). A moderate overall effect size for reduced EF (Hedges’ g=0.48, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.43–0.53) was found with similar effect sizes across each domain. The majority of moderator comparisons were not significant although the overall effect of executive dysfunction has gradually reduced since the introduction of ASD. Only a small number of EF measures achieved clinical sensitivity. This study confirms a broad executive dysfunction in ASD that is relatively stable across development. The fractionation of executive dysfunction into individual subdomains was not supported, nor was diagnostic sensitivity. Development of feasible EF measures focussing on clinical sensitivity for diagnosis and treatment studies should be a priority.
Farmer at el. (2017) consistent decision-making in autism (open PDF copy)
https://docs.autismresearchcentre.com/papers/2017_Farmer_People-with-ASCs-make-more-consistent-decisions.pdf
- Finds autistic people to make more consistent choices in a decoy-effect decision task.
Farmer, P. Pathologies of Power: Health, Human Rights, and the New War on the Poor
- How ‘structural violence’ produces suffering & why naming power works towards real-world change.
Freire, P. Pedagogy of the Oppressed
- Connects oppression & liberation to social, learning, & language frameworks
more below 👇
Fricker, M. Epistemic Injustice: Power and the Ethics of Knowing
- Defines how power wrongs people, incl. how society lacks concepts to describe harms.
Hollocks et al. (2025). Cognitive flexibility mediates the associations between perceived stress, social camouflaging and mental health challenges in autistic adults. Autism Research, 18(8), 1595–1607. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/aur.70061
- Higher stress in autistic people was linked to worse anxiety/depression & more rigid thinking.
more below 👇
Jameel, L. et al. (2015) clear-cut vs ambiguous social rules (UCL PDF)
https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/1469956/1/Jameel%20et%20al.%20Great%20Expectations.pdf
- Looks at whether social rules are clear-cut or ambiguous and measures responses as a direct test of rule clarity.
Jin, P. et al. (2020) fairness games in autism (open access, PMC)
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7137314/
- Uses economic fairness tasks to compare fairness-related choices in autistic and non-autistic groups.
more below 👇
Karvelis, P. et al. (2018) Bayesian visual integration and autistic traits (open access, PMC)
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5966274/
- Tests autistic traits in Bayesian integration and links traits to stronger perception via more precise sensory information.
Li, J. et al. (2014) moral judgement and cooperation in autism (open access, PMC)
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3945921/
- Relates moral judgements in autism to cooperation behaviour in a game context.
more below 👇
Recent theories propose that schizophrenia/schizotypy and autistic spectrum disorder are related to impairments in Bayesian inference that is, how the brain integrates sensory information (likelihoods) with prior knowledge. However existing accounts ...
Orwell, G. (1946) “Politics and the English Language”
https://www.orwellfoundation.com/the-orwell-foundation/orwell/essays-and-other-works/politics-and-the-english-language/
- Shows how vague language protects cruelty & frames clarity as resistance to manipulation.
Pellicano, E. & Burr, D. (2012) Bayesian explanation of autistic perception (UCL record)
https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/1476122/
- A Bayesian framing of autistic perception showing how priors and uncertainty differ in shaping experience.
End of refs.
THANK YOU FOR THIS THREAD. SO MUCH.
I am often accused of being inflexible or overly stubborn, and it's not either of those things. I just want clarity. I want information. I want to KNOW. I want to UNDERSTAND.
And frankly if having strong morals and actually sticking to them makes me rigid to the assholes trying to make me go against them, then fuck 'em. I know what's right and what's wrong, dammit, and I'm constantly working on improving myself and undoing the unconscious biases society drilled into me.
My fellow autistic people are the best. I know where I am with them, and I know that if we have different beliefs we can talk about them safely without shouting or intimidation.
K.J. Elphinstone
Tiny Gamer Alec