I’ve been on Substack but a month so imagine my surprise to find myself so noticed!
We may not agree on everything but I agree with you on several underlying points: The DSM and our current diagnostic understanding and categorization aren’t perfect, a diagnosis shouldn't exempt anyone from accountability for harmful behaviour, and people with very high support needs shouldn't be left out of conversations about neurodivergence.
However I am unclear on how your proposed method actually distinguishes between the people you're describing. You identify accommodation-seeking as potentially entitlement, late unmasking as potentially identity instability, and objections to criticism, etc. as evidence of the Cluster B pattern.
At the same time, you acknowledge that genuine autism and ADHD may be present.
So what evidence would distinguish a Level 1 autistic woman genuinely describing her disability and requesting appropriate accommodation from someone using autism as a shield for Cluster B pathology?
With only a month's worth of notes to go on, you don't know me terribly well. For example, I come from a very working-class family and I'm not of high socioeconomic status. So I'm also curious: what could any one of the women you've named here say or do that would cause you to conclude that your assessment of her needs updating? Is that possible? Or not?
My feed is also quite full of Level 1 autistic men, many of whom talk about late diagnosis and masking as well. If Cluster B pathology isn't the explanation there, is there an equivalent mechanism you think is driving that?
I'm asking sincerely, because if disagreement, defence, blocking, seeking support, identifying as disabled and requesting accommodation can all become further evidence for your hypothesis, I am unclear how the hypothesis remains falsifiable. What evidence could ever count against it?
Thanks — I’d be genuinely interested in your thoughts.
Those are great questions! That’s also the root of the challenge. This investigation started because I found something lurking in the Neurodivergent space that felt wrong. Right now, I’m trying to name it so we can better suss it out when we see it.
One method is what I wrote about how many of these people ‘unmasking’ with late diagnosis for ADHD and Autism self-ID as having been diagnoses with a Cluster B diagnosis earlier…. so they’re actually not unmasking, they’re masking a social pathology with a neurological disability.
One of the issues with the nuerodiversity culture in general is that it’s part of the ‘I’m special’ differentiatior. It’s a topic that got me into this analsyis in the first place where that drive is collapsing ‘typical’ into nothing while claiming normal, healthy, yet diverse personality and nueroatypical. You can read more on that, here: https://www.polymathicbeing.com/p/personality-or-pathology
Another element is what @Kit Perez calls Identity Protective Systems. The language isn’t that I HAVE a disability, it’s that I AM a disability. Overcoming the disability then becomes erasure, not curing. The identity protective system, and you see this with Level 1 Autism, has gone so far as to suggest research into curing auitism (which levels 2 and 3 and their caregivers would love!) is bad. That’s no longer Disability, that’s a personality pathology.
Two main cases here are ADHD and Autism. I maintain that ADHD is actually mostly out of context.
Autism is another one where quirky personality and emotional immaturity has exploded the level 1 diagnoses while levels 2 and 3, now called profound, have not grown at all.
But back to the point of Idenitty protective systems, the diagnosis absolves many people from the real work of what we used to call ‘adulting’ just 15 years ago.
What I love about your questions is that naming the issue and exploring the nuances in the article allow them to be asked. I don’t have all the answers, but together, we can probably figure something out.
Thanks for the thoughtful reply. I think I understand better now what first made you suspicious that something else might be going on, and I agree that it's worth asking questions about diagnostic overlap, misdiagnosis and using diagnosis to avoid accountability.
And correct me if I’m wrong: when you said ADHD is mostly out of context you meant something like it’s a neuro-difference that in the wrong context or environment is a disability, but in the right context it doesn’t have to be so disabling. This is something I also think and write about - though I admit I have more questions than answers. I have even thought about it with Level 1 autism at times, but the spectrum is so broad it’s harder to think about it that way.
I've kept my autism diagnosis pretty private for years, professionally because I worried about judgment, and personally because I have Level 2 and 3 people in my family whose needs are so much greater than mine. I've sometimes felt almost sheepish saying we have the same thing. The spectrum is so wide. As a Level 1 person, I need some support and minor accommodations; things don't need to be perfect or easy. I have two Level 3 cousins whose families have taken quite different approaches: one pursuing every possible treatment, the other focusing on support and a fulfilling life. I can't judge either. With a spectrum this broad, how could we possibly expect everyone affected by it to agree on what treatment, support or even a hypothetical cure should look like? Between the levels, or even within the levels, I can’t imagine all will agree! But perhaps some people are not being clear that they’re referring to their level. I don't really understand at what point disagreement about that becomes personality pathology. I wish we could pursue both options - we kind of have for now, because there’s currently no cure.
So I think I'm still stuck in the same place. The things you've described explain what makes you suspicious; I'm not sure they explain how you determine which explanation is correct. Take someone who previously received a Cluster B diagnosis and is later diagnosed autistic. One possibility is the one you're proposing: the autism diagnosis is being used to mask personality pathology. That’s possible. But another is that the original personality-disorder diagnosis was wrong. Or both could be present, right? Or the autism diagnosis could be wrong. Differential diagnosis could have improved. Humans are complicated and we don’t understand everything about the brain perfectly yet, so I’m sure all of those things happen sometimes! There are multiple hypotheses. The existence of the earlier diagnosis doesn't automatically tell us which explanation is correct, if I’m reading your essay correctly. That's really what I'm trying to get at with falsifiability. You included me among women of high socioeconomic status (which I’m not - well not in my country but by global comparison I suppose I am!) and who are displaying “clear Cluster B behaviours,” but you also say here that you're still trying to name and suss out what you're seeing. So what observation would make you think: this one seems to be displaying a Cluster B disorder’s pathology, vs this one does not, vs even, oops I got this one wrong?
I respect a person’s right to observe and hypothesize. There is much we’ve got wrong in the past, and even more that we don’t know yet. I’ve never been diagnosed with any Cluster B disorder so I’m interested in how the distinction is made. I think that's important if we're going to publicly distinguish ‘true’ neurodivergence from personality pathology. Otherwise there’s only suspicion and interpretation.
Anyway, it’s all complicated! This got long. I appreciate that you don't claim to have all the answers, neither do I, not at all… but I do find it fascinating, and important… I also find myself wondering about it a lot. So thanks for the thoughtful exchange.
Marie, you landed where I landed, that I appreciate the sentiment that something is "off" in the neurodivergent bandwagon but it needs a little more depth than simply "female client claims neurodivergence plus has relational conflict therefore probably BPD" which just isn't clinically defensible. Someone with autism *can* get labeled BPD if I (as a clinician) interpret overload, rigidity, shutdowns, intense attachments, or communication difficulties through a personality-disorder lens. Someone with BPD can adopt an autism/neurodivergence framework that explains away all relationship problems and blames everything on the world out there as "poor misunderstood me".
So where I think it gets clinically helpful (and this is how I handle it when I'm trying to formulate something with a client) is moving from the abstract to the specific. So maybe I have a client who walks in and says “I'm neurodivergent, and people don't accommodate me.” That's super abstract, almost empty. Rather than debating the label, I get more concrete. Client then says "People abandon me because they don't understand my neurodivergence.” Right off, we're in muddy territory between cluster B and autism
So tell me about that concretely...
“When someone doesn't answer me for several hours, I become extremely distressed.”
Well when did that happen most recently?
“Yesterday my partner didn't respond for four hours. I became convinced she was withdrawing from me, so I sent 327 text messages, furied out when she finally replied, and then told her I didn't want to see her again and hung up.”
At this point I think both formulations are still possible. An autism formulation would see difficulties with uncertainty, trouble interpreting social signals, maybe some cognitive rigidity. But at this point I'm starting to look harder at BPD. If I want to make a *good* clinical formulation, I need more concrete information.
As I ask a client to get more detailed, I am asking which explanation continues to hang together with all the concreteness and specificity. If I get a client that then says "I've taken all the tags off my clothes since I was six and I've eaten the exact same breakfast for nine years and that will never change until I die" that's concrete information and steers me away from BPD. It makes assessment a real, professional thing rather than a vibe. (Unpopular opinion: "masking" is mostly vibe right now. There might be something there, but I can't get anyone to get specific about the label in any way that is diagnostically helpful.). So what I'd say to both Cognitive Ecologist and Woudenberg is this: can each of you make your explanations work with increasingly specific details to see where it falls apart? Let's see what kinds of direct, concrete observations would make your analysis hang together and what kinds of direct, concrete observations make it hit a limit? There's the interesting challenge to rise to that would make the whole thing useful.
I'd say, if you struggle with this, you aren't the Cluster B that's the problem. As I described in the essay, it's when the neurodivergence excuses or is the quick salve, that there are flags.
Yeah! and I think patiently getting specific is the key to really figuring out what's going on for the client. I could easily jump to the conclusion of BPD because my patience is thin one day for what I hear as victim whining and I don't do my clinical diligence to get into what's happening and I miss some key piece of data, or reject it because my bias then becomes the clinical inference. A boots on the ground clinical perspective is a little bit of different experience from a systems perspective. How do I actually *do* this assessment with a person in the room? This is a clinical skill that therapists have to develop over time, it's not as simple as say when you go to a doctor and the x-ray says you have a broken bone. There's real nuance and it's a process of sifting that can change over time. Clinical categories are specific but determining what you are looking at often isn't. So for example, I have worked with presentations that look like trauma from childhood abuse but over time a sort of hidden OCD revealed itself. When i wasn't trained in OCD, I misinterpreted what was happening, and missed the markers of OCD. When I got better training in OCD and could recognize it, the sense of relief a client feels at being recognized is unmistakable, it's very different from propping up a persona. And sometimes it's just not a clinical hill I need to die on with a client, I can adjust the treatment approach based on what I'm seeing no matter what label the client wants to use, and if I'm seeing relational instability and fear of abandonment we can work with that. "Neurodivergence" has zero diagnostic criteria, so I really need a client who wants to describe themselves that way to get concrete and specific in order to figure out how to to approach anything. Whether is's personality or OCD or autism, victim / blame narratives in anyone are very tough to work with, and I think the autism community would actually serve itself well by getting outside of that identitarian argument.
Very true, that's the proper role of therapy. That last part about dignostic cirtiera and people trying lock it down is incredibly key to the original essay. We don't want to face the messy, and hard. We want the easy button that absolves.
Thanks for sharing Verena, nice to ‘meet’ you here! I think your thinking here is similar to what I was trying to get at with my questions around falsifiability. I don’t doubt that either scenario can happen. I’m merely interested in how we distinguish between the possible explanations. Your point about: “My bias then becomes the clinical inference” is a good way of putting it and something to consider.
Hello, I was sent this to read and, although I’ve not been mentioned, have thoughts on this that I would like to discuss!
Whilst it appears you want to come across as fairly neutral, I’d like to highlight certain language that rang alarm bells for me. Referring to a woman making an article on backed scientific findings as “nearly gets to the problem” comes across as condescending, and a very common pattern for men to dismiss women’s voices.
Also you referring to the women writing about neurodivergence as “influencers” and not writers, or advocates. However, and even more alarming, is how you have worded your ‘findings’.
“The challenge here is that we’re finding it’s not a misdiagnosis at all!” is what you have written here. However you are not a doctor, have not conducted any scientific study, and have come to your own conclusion and stating it as factual evidence. Which actually goes against the peer-reviewed research: 1 in 3 autistic women report being misdiagnosed with a personality disorder before their autism was correctly identified. Meaning autism was the accurate diagnosis and the personality disorder label was the mistake. This is a reflection of gender bias in diagnostic criteria, and not on the women themselves who this post focuses on.
You’ve taken that finding and flipped it to mean the opposite of what the researchers found.
“it lines up with my own analysis that 1:3 women claiming autism are using it as a mask for their personality disorder”. what credentials do you have to identify personality disorders? What study did you conduct? Has it been peer reviewed and evidence backed?
You write “I’m not offering a diagnosis, but I’m seeing and naming patterns.” But you’ve just told your readers a named list of specific women displaying “clear Cluster B behaviors” Cluster B being four DSM personality disorders. Naming the diagnostic category and attaching it to real, named people is diagnosing by another name.
There is a difference between exploring whether there is a link, and posting an article positioning yourself as providing factual findings that actually provide more harm than education.
You may disagree with my points, and scientific research, which you can do as you are your own person, i’m just highlighting the issue that arises when you push these out as factual evidence! I’m not here to name call, or slander, and we can agree to disagree on these matters. I just wanted to highlight them!
Interesting points. I think I was clear in the article on how the diagnosis for Autism is significantly LESS stringent than the diagnosis of Cluster B disorders. That the research shared and published was self-reported by participats meaning they had both a rigorous Cluster B diagnosis AND a non-rigorous Autism diagnosis confirms my point.
What Autism provides them is a mask, a ‘disability,’ for what was properly diagnosed as a social pathology. Which is the core thesis of my article.
As for for my credentials? Well, that’s a logical fallacy, an appeal to authority, and since you had difficulty in the simple logical constructs here, I think that puts me as a bit more credible in my analysis than you in your ciritque.
Further, you biased the conversation that this was dismissal of women’s voices. It’s actually not. It’s highlighting the true nature of those voices so we can properly identify them as pathological and create a healthier society.
Ah, I thought we could have had a mature conversion. However, saying that I “had difficulty in the simple logical constructs here” whilst me opening up a discussion proves you may struggle with that. You have not replied any factual response as this post is merely rooted in your opinion, which, as you have demonstrated, appears to be flawed. My point still stands, you did not conduct a study. Your ‘findings’ were looking at women’s substack and coming to a conclusion without any medical knowledge. I would really recommend doing some further reading on mis diagnosis in autistic women, and perhaps frame your wording as more of an opinion and not scientific findings for future!
Doubling down on a logical fallacy isn't helping you, Ella. If you think this is my first rodeo with passive-aggressiveness, you should refer to my reply rules.
You have yet to actually provide evidence that disproves what I've said, while, if you look closely, I have hyperlinks and other sources that support mine.
A mature conversation is one where you don't try to shut it down because you don't like it. And yes, understanding simple logical constructs matters greatly.
Thisis a genuine conversation. As stated in my original comment! I am not being passive aggressive, I genuinely want to ensure you don’t propose further posts as studies with findings, when they are actually just your opinion as this causes harm! I see you have also thrown it back to me to provide evidence whilst you have dodged my own points, the fact that this post misses huge factual evidence itself. I’m not here to argue wether you can get an autism diagnosis easily (I’m from the UK, and it can take 6 years to get one on the NHS) because although I have two degrees in psychology, I am not trained nor have the medical knowledge to do so!
"You cannot construct a logical argument, therefore I'm more credible" is a lovely bit of false logic, if not just WILDLY dismissive. And while we all find the Jungian concepts mystical, it's healthy discourse that proves a good character. Which would welcome interrogation. "LOL - I don't have a degree in this stuff, I just like it. Here's where I got this 1 in 3 figure."
There's a whole socio-economic history you've left out. Never mind the Endocrine system disruptions and how Cluster B arises from "Freudian-neurotic" trauma. I have just as many issues, but are they an easy target? Do you get a little dopamine hit from this? I take issue with a lack of ethics regardless how it arises, but I refuse to come across as enjoying the cruelty.
Only 50 years ago, women couldn't inherit property or own a credit card. They've been gate-kept from education or prohibited from the inner Leadership Teams till recently. The pay gap, the boys club, the expectations. How rare it is to find a woman in Philosophy. This barring from one's ability to control their own livelihood still happens in many cultures and it's the looming threat of totalitarian regimes. The ONLY reason everyone but Grunya focused on boys was because Capitalism demands their Duty to feed the machine. An invisible woman at home can remain... invisible. She will be noted shy instead of having difficulty decoding in real time. A bit of a cute techie, instead of helped into a potential for engineering.
The thing is, I don't disagree with much of what you've stated. I've been trying to make a point about the Persona for over five years - it's not helpful for young autistic kids to latch on to the term "mask" when they're actually Stuck in Survival Mode. That feels like a massive disadvantage. They'll be laughed out of a therapists office and most therapists cannot resonate with such a different way of perceiving the world and the internal battle with social semiotics.
Autistic forums are awash with just as many females with this Autistic socio-linguistic difference as males and a running thread is how they end up married to (and or divorcing) the sociopath or cluster B. Predator-Prey.
But don't make an elegant point and then ruin it by trying to summon up a bit Aristotelian argumentation when you can't even spell out the formula correctly.
Wow! On the one hand, it seems obvious. On the other hand, it's been 'hiding' in plain sight for a long time. On the third hand, now that you've named it, I see it even more. I'm struggling with this because it just named something that I've felt but couldn't articulate.
Well done! I had to do a double take on the headline.
This is the type of article I need to digest over two readings because there are many intersecting concepts/pathologies assembled to build this compelling story. Congrats on finally getting it out!
This one was a challenge for exactly that. There were so many other threads to follow and I kept having to trim. You’ve had a lot of influence on my thinking for this as well and I appreciate your insights!
Right for the jugular. I find these exact same patterns in the holistic health space as I work through my own health issues, and it gets old fast. Great piece, and even greater beard.
Everything is connected to everything else in some way or another. I despise the word gifted as it generally implies some sort of superiority to many people. The difficulties of persistent and life long existential depression, the empathy that is toxic ( to the gifted individual as opposed to others), and much more, is not an inner life i wish upon anyone. The overlay of ADHD/ADD/AuDHD/ASD that a gifted person experiences is difficult to sort, if it even should be. The academic excellence is a byproduct that masks all of these things, disproportionately in women, too.
The overlay of all of this is also similar to the covert narcissist. The grandiose one, as well, if I take a moment to consider it more fully.
In any case, excellent reading here. Thank you. I do not mask. I take the steps that I can, to let my daughters not mask. There are no accommodations and never have had accommodations, except the persistent seeking of "how can I be a better person" in the face of not letting my toxic empathy (which again is not the same kind of toxic empathy you've got under this microscope) destroy me.
The type of toxic empathy I allude to is wherein the empathy a person has for anyone suffering or going through hardship is too high. Can that be a "thing"? Oh yes. The desire to help another human can run so high that the sacrifice of time, energy, compassion, and resources mean little and, ironically, it is the covert narcissist taking advantage of THAT toxic empathy. ..With the type of toxic empathy you've described, here.
Irony..... Everything is connected. And now.... I will spend to many hours thinking about those 2 words/phrases/ideas are the same and different and how they are connected. Lol weeeeeeeeeeeeeeee (lol is even ironic laughter!)
The term ‘gifted’ cracks me up because it used to mean super smart and now it means functionally limited and egotistical. (there’s a lady who calls herself ‘twice gifted)
Did she say 2E ( Twice Exceptional)? Exceptional there is not supposed to mean twice gifted. It means 2 "exceptions " to the norm. Such as: gifted AND autistic (aspie, often) or gifted AND dyslexic, etc. . I cant find the place to return and edit my to to too, above.... why?!?!? Extra thought re: 2E - gifted AND narcissist..... hmmm...
This article summarises much of what I also have toyed with. As you note, the enormous increase in autism prevalence over the past 13 years comprises late-diagnosed women. We are not seeing this explosion among those diagnosed in early childhood.
Ive written about the origins of masking: it was a politically conceived construct, the result of sustained lobbying by a neurodiversity-informed advocacy group. The research informing the construct was derived almost entirely of late-diagnosed women in the UK. The changes to the diagnostic criteria - requiring assessors to consider that 'masking' might be a reason that neurodivergent traits were not identified in childhood - and the allowance that diagnosis could now occur retrospectively across the lifespan - created a very porous 'autism' construct.
The masking literature comprises almost entirely of inference. However it has increasingly been cited as 'evidence' that women have been incorrectly diagnosed with personality disorders.
The proponents of masking were very reluctant to look at criticisms from respected individuals in the autism field (such as Prof. Fombonne and Prof Frith), or the impact of the construct.
That makes a lot of sense. I didn’t get into the mechanisms to that level but it jives with everything I’ve found, particularly, as well, that Autism Levels 2 and 3, what we now call profound autism, are still holding the same rates of about 1:300 where as the explosion is in level 1 which, I argue, we used to just call quirky personality and that put the ‘autism’ rate at 1:33.
But what better cover for a social pathology than the inflation of a recognized disability?
Wow! You have just explained something that I have not been able to put my finger on for quite a while. Thank you! I have a genuinely gifted son without any other "exceptionality" and I have seen this behaviour around his school for gifted kids. I was almost pulled under myself there for a while when he was identified and I started reading about it. Lots of parents creating victim kids and pave the road for them because "life is so hard for gifted kids". Thankfully I have seen the light and you have put it in words!
Phenomenal piece, Michael! I have an entirely new way of viewing Cluster B manifestations going forward. Lots of people in my former profession (medicine) to whom this analysis applies. I appreciate the obvious time you put into this.
Sheesh, a lot to unpack here. First of all, never knew someone could set up a online appointment and get diagnosis for autism. That is just mind blowing and really unnerving as well as the system is failing miserably. But the part of your essay I found very mind-boggling is that one out of there women will claim to have autism to mask their personality disorders. This is interesting, because autism in general is not looked down upon, and many times those who have autism are elevated. There are plenty of shows out there that elevate those with autism, which I think is pretty awesome. However, I can see how someone who has a personality disorder sees that and also how society in general responds to mental illness such as a personality disorder and choose the latter. Scary thought for sure. Was a lot to unload, but very well presented. Thanks for sharing it with me!
It is a lot. It took me four months to unpack and check. That's one reason why so many others are tagged. This isn't my idea. I wish it were but I'm still learning like you. 👊🏼
Really pleased to read this--thank you for putting it out there, Michael. You're seeing what's actually going on for what it is, not what the manipulators want the public to perceive.
Terrific article, Mike. I learned so much. I hadn't realized Cluster B is so heavily female. This article also explains more clearly what's behind this tend of self-diagnosis to excuse away bad behavior.
Awesome to hear. I think the world focuses a lot on the classic Dark Triad of masculine behaviors which makes sense. @Kit Perez and I were also just talking about how so many of these women love the claim of Neurodivergent because it gives them benefits PLUS absolves them of correcting anti-social behaviors. It truly is a perfect mask.
Cluster B diagnoses are more common in men over all, so if we extend the logic, cluster B would also be more “masculine” because men are statistically overrepresented (I’m leaving a more psychodynamic reading aside here because it muddies the waters between archetypal readings and clinical diagnoses). The Dark Triad is mostly about traits (it’s not a personality disorder with a clinical frame), and those traits mostly align with antisocial and narcissistic personality disorders (which are both cluster B). The only cluster B disorders women are overrepresented in are borderline and histrionic. Overall speaking, women are more likely to be cluster C, so that’s the more “feminine” if you will (avoidant/fearful).
But generally speaking, none of this is “gendered”, unless we want to assign masculine and feminine in a more Jungian sense. But then it also becomes a bit jumbled quickly because one is a clinical diagnosis and the other is an archetypal concept you mostly see in psychodynamic approaches. They’re not the same.
There's a distinct bimodal distribution between the Dark Triad and Cluster B between male/female. That's, as far as my reading goes, been quite well documented.
If you start throwing in gender identity.... well, that's just messed up a lot of conversations.
Sometimes I like to think my life would be easier if Asperger's were as "special" as gender fluidity. There are certainly many more of us than them, by a couple orders of magnitude. But it wouldn't be easier, I would just be treated like that kid with a crash helmet at school. I wouldn't exactly call it a super power, either; more like Cassandra Syndrome.
I can see what's wrong with neurotypical social behavior in broad patterns, but can't explain it in a way that makes normal people want to listen. I can see rapidly narrowing decision funnels that lead to political disaster, but can't make black-swan predictions with enough accuracy to play prediction markets. I can identify thought taboos, but struggle to explain them without offending anyone.
So I strongly agree with the notion that what is called "masking" is just a more elaborate version of what everyone must learn to do in order to become socially productive. The focus on specialness is better suited to the Superfriends who convene for liar's poker at the Fortress of Solitude, or for the Watchmen. It's of little use to the rest of us, who must learn to get along in an indifferent world.
I still haven’t found a good definition for ‘neurotypical’ that doesn’t fall apart under minor scruitiny. Even ADHD is out of context and I think the rest just falls under the diversity of normal behavior.
The legendary living-room comic Joe Ancis said "The only normal people are the ones you don't know very well." I can't define that word either; I just know it ain't me. I have struggled to communicate with most people for most of my life. The "autistic bluntness" you mentioned is a chronic problem for me. And knowing it is only partially successful in my case. Coupled with the fact that I wish many more of my "normal" friends had been more honest with me in the past about my behavior that bugs people; I would have tried to course correct much earlier. But for "normal" people such candor would be unthinkable--and unlikely to have positive results--so they prefer to abstain.
It's interesting because I've never met a person who felt they navigated life perfectly.... well... I take that back, the sociopath is typically very very good at that. In fact, when the Emotional Intelligence (EQ) tests started becoming popular, they found the best indication of a sociopath/psychopath is that they scored exceptionally HIGH! They were brilliant at reading people but used it for harm.
Normal people score about 85-90% Aspergers score about 80-85%. It doesn't take a huge difference to feel different but yet, they're still 80%
Wow, that's surprising about Aspergers; I would have guessed a significantly lower score for myself. Although as I get older I have the "masking" under a lot better control. Which I think is a common experience, unless people just don't care to make the effort.
I’ve been on Substack but a month so imagine my surprise to find myself so noticed!
We may not agree on everything but I agree with you on several underlying points: The DSM and our current diagnostic understanding and categorization aren’t perfect, a diagnosis shouldn't exempt anyone from accountability for harmful behaviour, and people with very high support needs shouldn't be left out of conversations about neurodivergence.
However I am unclear on how your proposed method actually distinguishes between the people you're describing. You identify accommodation-seeking as potentially entitlement, late unmasking as potentially identity instability, and objections to criticism, etc. as evidence of the Cluster B pattern.
At the same time, you acknowledge that genuine autism and ADHD may be present.
So what evidence would distinguish a Level 1 autistic woman genuinely describing her disability and requesting appropriate accommodation from someone using autism as a shield for Cluster B pathology?
With only a month's worth of notes to go on, you don't know me terribly well. For example, I come from a very working-class family and I'm not of high socioeconomic status. So I'm also curious: what could any one of the women you've named here say or do that would cause you to conclude that your assessment of her needs updating? Is that possible? Or not?
My feed is also quite full of Level 1 autistic men, many of whom talk about late diagnosis and masking as well. If Cluster B pathology isn't the explanation there, is there an equivalent mechanism you think is driving that?
I'm asking sincerely, because if disagreement, defence, blocking, seeking support, identifying as disabled and requesting accommodation can all become further evidence for your hypothesis, I am unclear how the hypothesis remains falsifiable. What evidence could ever count against it?
Thanks — I’d be genuinely interested in your thoughts.
Those are great questions! That’s also the root of the challenge. This investigation started because I found something lurking in the Neurodivergent space that felt wrong. Right now, I’m trying to name it so we can better suss it out when we see it.
One method is what I wrote about how many of these people ‘unmasking’ with late diagnosis for ADHD and Autism self-ID as having been diagnoses with a Cluster B diagnosis earlier…. so they’re actually not unmasking, they’re masking a social pathology with a neurological disability.
One of the issues with the nuerodiversity culture in general is that it’s part of the ‘I’m special’ differentiatior. It’s a topic that got me into this analsyis in the first place where that drive is collapsing ‘typical’ into nothing while claiming normal, healthy, yet diverse personality and nueroatypical. You can read more on that, here: https://www.polymathicbeing.com/p/personality-or-pathology
Another element is what @Kit Perez calls Identity Protective Systems. The language isn’t that I HAVE a disability, it’s that I AM a disability. Overcoming the disability then becomes erasure, not curing. The identity protective system, and you see this with Level 1 Autism, has gone so far as to suggest research into curing auitism (which levels 2 and 3 and their caregivers would love!) is bad. That’s no longer Disability, that’s a personality pathology.
Two main cases here are ADHD and Autism. I maintain that ADHD is actually mostly out of context.
Autism is another one where quirky personality and emotional immaturity has exploded the level 1 diagnoses while levels 2 and 3, now called profound, have not grown at all.
But back to the point of Idenitty protective systems, the diagnosis absolves many people from the real work of what we used to call ‘adulting’ just 15 years ago.
Kit and I are doing a live stream tomorrow talking about this exact topic if you’d like to tune in or listen later: https://open.substack.com/live-stream/324482
What I love about your questions is that naming the issue and exploring the nuances in the article allow them to be asked. I don’t have all the answers, but together, we can probably figure something out.
Thanks for the thoughtful reply. I think I understand better now what first made you suspicious that something else might be going on, and I agree that it's worth asking questions about diagnostic overlap, misdiagnosis and using diagnosis to avoid accountability.
And correct me if I’m wrong: when you said ADHD is mostly out of context you meant something like it’s a neuro-difference that in the wrong context or environment is a disability, but in the right context it doesn’t have to be so disabling. This is something I also think and write about - though I admit I have more questions than answers. I have even thought about it with Level 1 autism at times, but the spectrum is so broad it’s harder to think about it that way.
I've kept my autism diagnosis pretty private for years, professionally because I worried about judgment, and personally because I have Level 2 and 3 people in my family whose needs are so much greater than mine. I've sometimes felt almost sheepish saying we have the same thing. The spectrum is so wide. As a Level 1 person, I need some support and minor accommodations; things don't need to be perfect or easy. I have two Level 3 cousins whose families have taken quite different approaches: one pursuing every possible treatment, the other focusing on support and a fulfilling life. I can't judge either. With a spectrum this broad, how could we possibly expect everyone affected by it to agree on what treatment, support or even a hypothetical cure should look like? Between the levels, or even within the levels, I can’t imagine all will agree! But perhaps some people are not being clear that they’re referring to their level. I don't really understand at what point disagreement about that becomes personality pathology. I wish we could pursue both options - we kind of have for now, because there’s currently no cure.
So I think I'm still stuck in the same place. The things you've described explain what makes you suspicious; I'm not sure they explain how you determine which explanation is correct. Take someone who previously received a Cluster B diagnosis and is later diagnosed autistic. One possibility is the one you're proposing: the autism diagnosis is being used to mask personality pathology. That’s possible. But another is that the original personality-disorder diagnosis was wrong. Or both could be present, right? Or the autism diagnosis could be wrong. Differential diagnosis could have improved. Humans are complicated and we don’t understand everything about the brain perfectly yet, so I’m sure all of those things happen sometimes! There are multiple hypotheses. The existence of the earlier diagnosis doesn't automatically tell us which explanation is correct, if I’m reading your essay correctly. That's really what I'm trying to get at with falsifiability. You included me among women of high socioeconomic status (which I’m not - well not in my country but by global comparison I suppose I am!) and who are displaying “clear Cluster B behaviours,” but you also say here that you're still trying to name and suss out what you're seeing. So what observation would make you think: this one seems to be displaying a Cluster B disorder’s pathology, vs this one does not, vs even, oops I got this one wrong?
I respect a person’s right to observe and hypothesize. There is much we’ve got wrong in the past, and even more that we don’t know yet. I’ve never been diagnosed with any Cluster B disorder so I’m interested in how the distinction is made. I think that's important if we're going to publicly distinguish ‘true’ neurodivergence from personality pathology. Otherwise there’s only suspicion and interpretation.
Anyway, it’s all complicated! This got long. I appreciate that you don't claim to have all the answers, neither do I, not at all… but I do find it fascinating, and important… I also find myself wondering about it a lot. So thanks for the thoughtful exchange.
MM.
Marie, you landed where I landed, that I appreciate the sentiment that something is "off" in the neurodivergent bandwagon but it needs a little more depth than simply "female client claims neurodivergence plus has relational conflict therefore probably BPD" which just isn't clinically defensible. Someone with autism *can* get labeled BPD if I (as a clinician) interpret overload, rigidity, shutdowns, intense attachments, or communication difficulties through a personality-disorder lens. Someone with BPD can adopt an autism/neurodivergence framework that explains away all relationship problems and blames everything on the world out there as "poor misunderstood me".
So where I think it gets clinically helpful (and this is how I handle it when I'm trying to formulate something with a client) is moving from the abstract to the specific. So maybe I have a client who walks in and says “I'm neurodivergent, and people don't accommodate me.” That's super abstract, almost empty. Rather than debating the label, I get more concrete. Client then says "People abandon me because they don't understand my neurodivergence.” Right off, we're in muddy territory between cluster B and autism
So tell me about that concretely...
“When someone doesn't answer me for several hours, I become extremely distressed.”
Well when did that happen most recently?
“Yesterday my partner didn't respond for four hours. I became convinced she was withdrawing from me, so I sent 327 text messages, furied out when she finally replied, and then told her I didn't want to see her again and hung up.”
At this point I think both formulations are still possible. An autism formulation would see difficulties with uncertainty, trouble interpreting social signals, maybe some cognitive rigidity. But at this point I'm starting to look harder at BPD. If I want to make a *good* clinical formulation, I need more concrete information.
As I ask a client to get more detailed, I am asking which explanation continues to hang together with all the concreteness and specificity. If I get a client that then says "I've taken all the tags off my clothes since I was six and I've eaten the exact same breakfast for nine years and that will never change until I die" that's concrete information and steers me away from BPD. It makes assessment a real, professional thing rather than a vibe. (Unpopular opinion: "masking" is mostly vibe right now. There might be something there, but I can't get anyone to get specific about the label in any way that is diagnostically helpful.). So what I'd say to both Cognitive Ecologist and Woudenberg is this: can each of you make your explanations work with increasingly specific details to see where it falls apart? Let's see what kinds of direct, concrete observations would make your analysis hang together and what kinds of direct, concrete observations make it hit a limit? There's the interesting challenge to rise to that would make the whole thing useful.
I'd say, if you struggle with this, you aren't the Cluster B that's the problem. As I described in the essay, it's when the neurodivergence excuses or is the quick salve, that there are flags.
Yeah! and I think patiently getting specific is the key to really figuring out what's going on for the client. I could easily jump to the conclusion of BPD because my patience is thin one day for what I hear as victim whining and I don't do my clinical diligence to get into what's happening and I miss some key piece of data, or reject it because my bias then becomes the clinical inference. A boots on the ground clinical perspective is a little bit of different experience from a systems perspective. How do I actually *do* this assessment with a person in the room? This is a clinical skill that therapists have to develop over time, it's not as simple as say when you go to a doctor and the x-ray says you have a broken bone. There's real nuance and it's a process of sifting that can change over time. Clinical categories are specific but determining what you are looking at often isn't. So for example, I have worked with presentations that look like trauma from childhood abuse but over time a sort of hidden OCD revealed itself. When i wasn't trained in OCD, I misinterpreted what was happening, and missed the markers of OCD. When I got better training in OCD and could recognize it, the sense of relief a client feels at being recognized is unmistakable, it's very different from propping up a persona. And sometimes it's just not a clinical hill I need to die on with a client, I can adjust the treatment approach based on what I'm seeing no matter what label the client wants to use, and if I'm seeing relational instability and fear of abandonment we can work with that. "Neurodivergence" has zero diagnostic criteria, so I really need a client who wants to describe themselves that way to get concrete and specific in order to figure out how to to approach anything. Whether is's personality or OCD or autism, victim / blame narratives in anyone are very tough to work with, and I think the autism community would actually serve itself well by getting outside of that identitarian argument.
Very true, that's the proper role of therapy. That last part about dignostic cirtiera and people trying lock it down is incredibly key to the original essay. We don't want to face the messy, and hard. We want the easy button that absolves.
Thanks for sharing Verena, nice to ‘meet’ you here! I think your thinking here is similar to what I was trying to get at with my questions around falsifiability. I don’t doubt that either scenario can happen. I’m merely interested in how we distinguish between the possible explanations. Your point about: “My bias then becomes the clinical inference” is a good way of putting it and something to consider.
Thanks for the reply. Dinner hour coming up here so can’t respond atmo but wanted to acknowledge it, and chat tomorrow. Thx. MM.
Hello, I was sent this to read and, although I’ve not been mentioned, have thoughts on this that I would like to discuss!
Whilst it appears you want to come across as fairly neutral, I’d like to highlight certain language that rang alarm bells for me. Referring to a woman making an article on backed scientific findings as “nearly gets to the problem” comes across as condescending, and a very common pattern for men to dismiss women’s voices.
Also you referring to the women writing about neurodivergence as “influencers” and not writers, or advocates. However, and even more alarming, is how you have worded your ‘findings’.
“The challenge here is that we’re finding it’s not a misdiagnosis at all!” is what you have written here. However you are not a doctor, have not conducted any scientific study, and have come to your own conclusion and stating it as factual evidence. Which actually goes against the peer-reviewed research: 1 in 3 autistic women report being misdiagnosed with a personality disorder before their autism was correctly identified. Meaning autism was the accurate diagnosis and the personality disorder label was the mistake. This is a reflection of gender bias in diagnostic criteria, and not on the women themselves who this post focuses on.
You’ve taken that finding and flipped it to mean the opposite of what the researchers found.
“it lines up with my own analysis that 1:3 women claiming autism are using it as a mask for their personality disorder”. what credentials do you have to identify personality disorders? What study did you conduct? Has it been peer reviewed and evidence backed?
You write “I’m not offering a diagnosis, but I’m seeing and naming patterns.” But you’ve just told your readers a named list of specific women displaying “clear Cluster B behaviors” Cluster B being four DSM personality disorders. Naming the diagnostic category and attaching it to real, named people is diagnosing by another name.
There is a difference between exploring whether there is a link, and posting an article positioning yourself as providing factual findings that actually provide more harm than education.
You may disagree with my points, and scientific research, which you can do as you are your own person, i’m just highlighting the issue that arises when you push these out as factual evidence! I’m not here to name call, or slander, and we can agree to disagree on these matters. I just wanted to highlight them!
Interesting points. I think I was clear in the article on how the diagnosis for Autism is significantly LESS stringent than the diagnosis of Cluster B disorders. That the research shared and published was self-reported by participats meaning they had both a rigorous Cluster B diagnosis AND a non-rigorous Autism diagnosis confirms my point.
What Autism provides them is a mask, a ‘disability,’ for what was properly diagnosed as a social pathology. Which is the core thesis of my article.
As for for my credentials? Well, that’s a logical fallacy, an appeal to authority, and since you had difficulty in the simple logical constructs here, I think that puts me as a bit more credible in my analysis than you in your ciritque.
Further, you biased the conversation that this was dismissal of women’s voices. It’s actually not. It’s highlighting the true nature of those voices so we can properly identify them as pathological and create a healthier society.
Ah, I thought we could have had a mature conversion. However, saying that I “had difficulty in the simple logical constructs here” whilst me opening up a discussion proves you may struggle with that. You have not replied any factual response as this post is merely rooted in your opinion, which, as you have demonstrated, appears to be flawed. My point still stands, you did not conduct a study. Your ‘findings’ were looking at women’s substack and coming to a conclusion without any medical knowledge. I would really recommend doing some further reading on mis diagnosis in autistic women, and perhaps frame your wording as more of an opinion and not scientific findings for future!
Doubling down on a logical fallacy isn't helping you, Ella. If you think this is my first rodeo with passive-aggressiveness, you should refer to my reply rules.
You have yet to actually provide evidence that disproves what I've said, while, if you look closely, I have hyperlinks and other sources that support mine.
A mature conversation is one where you don't try to shut it down because you don't like it. And yes, understanding simple logical constructs matters greatly.
Thisis a genuine conversation. As stated in my original comment! I am not being passive aggressive, I genuinely want to ensure you don’t propose further posts as studies with findings, when they are actually just your opinion as this causes harm! I see you have also thrown it back to me to provide evidence whilst you have dodged my own points, the fact that this post misses huge factual evidence itself. I’m not here to argue wether you can get an autism diagnosis easily (I’m from the UK, and it can take 6 years to get one on the NHS) because although I have two degrees in psychology, I am not trained nor have the medical knowledge to do so!
Is this where it all started? And she accuses you of not engaging? That's pretty ballsy.
Yep.
"You cannot construct a logical argument, therefore I'm more credible" is a lovely bit of false logic, if not just WILDLY dismissive. And while we all find the Jungian concepts mystical, it's healthy discourse that proves a good character. Which would welcome interrogation. "LOL - I don't have a degree in this stuff, I just like it. Here's where I got this 1 in 3 figure."
There's a whole socio-economic history you've left out. Never mind the Endocrine system disruptions and how Cluster B arises from "Freudian-neurotic" trauma. I have just as many issues, but are they an easy target? Do you get a little dopamine hit from this? I take issue with a lack of ethics regardless how it arises, but I refuse to come across as enjoying the cruelty.
Only 50 years ago, women couldn't inherit property or own a credit card. They've been gate-kept from education or prohibited from the inner Leadership Teams till recently. The pay gap, the boys club, the expectations. How rare it is to find a woman in Philosophy. This barring from one's ability to control their own livelihood still happens in many cultures and it's the looming threat of totalitarian regimes. The ONLY reason everyone but Grunya focused on boys was because Capitalism demands their Duty to feed the machine. An invisible woman at home can remain... invisible. She will be noted shy instead of having difficulty decoding in real time. A bit of a cute techie, instead of helped into a potential for engineering.
The thing is, I don't disagree with much of what you've stated. I've been trying to make a point about the Persona for over five years - it's not helpful for young autistic kids to latch on to the term "mask" when they're actually Stuck in Survival Mode. That feels like a massive disadvantage. They'll be laughed out of a therapists office and most therapists cannot resonate with such a different way of perceiving the world and the internal battle with social semiotics.
Autistic forums are awash with just as many females with this Autistic socio-linguistic difference as males and a running thread is how they end up married to (and or divorcing) the sociopath or cluster B. Predator-Prey.
But don't make an elegant point and then ruin it by trying to summon up a bit Aristotelian argumentation when you can't even spell out the formula correctly.
yeah, we tend to dismiss illogic. It's a fools errand to debate it.
Oh hey, we were just talking about you.
Wow! On the one hand, it seems obvious. On the other hand, it's been 'hiding' in plain sight for a long time. On the third hand, now that you've named it, I see it even more. I'm struggling with this because it just named something that I've felt but couldn't articulate.
That’s basically how I felt as the patterns fit.
Well done! I had to do a double take on the headline.
This is the type of article I need to digest over two readings because there are many intersecting concepts/pathologies assembled to build this compelling story. Congrats on finally getting it out!
This one was a challenge for exactly that. There were so many other threads to follow and I kept having to trim. You’ve had a lot of influence on my thinking for this as well and I appreciate your insights!
Right for the jugular. I find these exact same patterns in the holistic health space as I work through my own health issues, and it gets old fast. Great piece, and even greater beard.
Oh, I can imagine with what you’re working through! That makes it even harder to deal with.
And, really, the only thing I can control is my beard but I think I’ve lost control of that as well!
Excellent.
Everything is connected to everything else in some way or another. I despise the word gifted as it generally implies some sort of superiority to many people. The difficulties of persistent and life long existential depression, the empathy that is toxic ( to the gifted individual as opposed to others), and much more, is not an inner life i wish upon anyone. The overlay of ADHD/ADD/AuDHD/ASD that a gifted person experiences is difficult to sort, if it even should be. The academic excellence is a byproduct that masks all of these things, disproportionately in women, too.
The overlay of all of this is also similar to the covert narcissist. The grandiose one, as well, if I take a moment to consider it more fully.
In any case, excellent reading here. Thank you. I do not mask. I take the steps that I can, to let my daughters not mask. There are no accommodations and never have had accommodations, except the persistent seeking of "how can I be a better person" in the face of not letting my toxic empathy (which again is not the same kind of toxic empathy you've got under this microscope) destroy me.
The type of toxic empathy I allude to is wherein the empathy a person has for anyone suffering or going through hardship is too high. Can that be a "thing"? Oh yes. The desire to help another human can run so high that the sacrifice of time, energy, compassion, and resources mean little and, ironically, it is the covert narcissist taking advantage of THAT toxic empathy. ..With the type of toxic empathy you've described, here.
Irony..... Everything is connected. And now.... I will spend to many hours thinking about those 2 words/phrases/ideas are the same and different and how they are connected. Lol weeeeeeeeeeeeeeee (lol is even ironic laughter!)
Great points and a great mindset.
The term ‘gifted’ cracks me up because it used to mean super smart and now it means functionally limited and egotistical. (there’s a lady who calls herself ‘twice gifted)
Did she say 2E ( Twice Exceptional)? Exceptional there is not supposed to mean twice gifted. It means 2 "exceptions " to the norm. Such as: gifted AND autistic (aspie, often) or gifted AND dyslexic, etc. . I cant find the place to return and edit my to to too, above.... why?!?!? Extra thought re: 2E - gifted AND narcissist..... hmmm...
Good point.... I can't remember but I am aware of the exceptional element too which just adds fuel to the fire of ego.
Thought provoking, thank you. I agree that victim culture (and over diagnosing and wokism in general) has done lots of harms to our society.
Thanks. This is why I write on agency so much because it’s the only thing that can fix it.
100%. This is classical philosophy -- take ownership for your actions and accept what you can't control. Opposite of today's brainwashing.
Exactly right. Hence why I appreciate the timelessness of the Stoics.
This article summarises much of what I also have toyed with. As you note, the enormous increase in autism prevalence over the past 13 years comprises late-diagnosed women. We are not seeing this explosion among those diagnosed in early childhood.
Ive written about the origins of masking: it was a politically conceived construct, the result of sustained lobbying by a neurodiversity-informed advocacy group. The research informing the construct was derived almost entirely of late-diagnosed women in the UK. The changes to the diagnostic criteria - requiring assessors to consider that 'masking' might be a reason that neurodivergent traits were not identified in childhood - and the allowance that diagnosis could now occur retrospectively across the lifespan - created a very porous 'autism' construct.
The masking literature comprises almost entirely of inference. However it has increasingly been cited as 'evidence' that women have been incorrectly diagnosed with personality disorders.
The proponents of masking were very reluctant to look at criticisms from respected individuals in the autism field (such as Prof. Fombonne and Prof Frith), or the impact of the construct.
That makes a lot of sense. I didn’t get into the mechanisms to that level but it jives with everything I’ve found, particularly, as well, that Autism Levels 2 and 3, what we now call profound autism, are still holding the same rates of about 1:300 where as the explosion is in level 1 which, I argue, we used to just call quirky personality and that put the ‘autism’ rate at 1:33.
But what better cover for a social pathology than the inflation of a recognized disability?
Wow! You have just explained something that I have not been able to put my finger on for quite a while. Thank you! I have a genuinely gifted son without any other "exceptionality" and I have seen this behaviour around his school for gifted kids. I was almost pulled under myself there for a while when he was identified and I started reading about it. Lots of parents creating victim kids and pave the road for them because "life is so hard for gifted kids". Thankfully I have seen the light and you have put it in words!
That’s awesome to hear and he’s going to be so much better off because of what you’re doing.
Phenomenal piece, Michael! I have an entirely new way of viewing Cluster B manifestations going forward. Lots of people in my former profession (medicine) to whom this analysis applies. I appreciate the obvious time you put into this.
Great to hear!
Sheesh, a lot to unpack here. First of all, never knew someone could set up a online appointment and get diagnosis for autism. That is just mind blowing and really unnerving as well as the system is failing miserably. But the part of your essay I found very mind-boggling is that one out of there women will claim to have autism to mask their personality disorders. This is interesting, because autism in general is not looked down upon, and many times those who have autism are elevated. There are plenty of shows out there that elevate those with autism, which I think is pretty awesome. However, I can see how someone who has a personality disorder sees that and also how society in general responds to mental illness such as a personality disorder and choose the latter. Scary thought for sure. Was a lot to unload, but very well presented. Thanks for sharing it with me!
It is a lot. It took me four months to unpack and check. That's one reason why so many others are tagged. This isn't my idea. I wish it were but I'm still learning like you. 👊🏼
100%
As a daughter of a narcissistic Mother and a Grandmother to a darling boy who has ADHD+dyslexia I can attest to you being 💯% on target here.
Good? To hear. Though this is a time I'd love being proven wrong.
Really pleased to read this--thank you for putting it out there, Michael. You're seeing what's actually going on for what it is, not what the manipulators want the public to perceive.
I appreciate that. Your writing and podcasts have helped me understand Cluster B so much better.
Terrific article, Mike. I learned so much. I hadn't realized Cluster B is so heavily female. This article also explains more clearly what's behind this tend of self-diagnosis to excuse away bad behavior.
Awesome to hear. I think the world focuses a lot on the classic Dark Triad of masculine behaviors which makes sense. @Kit Perez and I were also just talking about how so many of these women love the claim of Neurodivergent because it gives them benefits PLUS absolves them of correcting anti-social behaviors. It truly is a perfect mask.
Cluster B diagnoses are more common in men over all, so if we extend the logic, cluster B would also be more “masculine” because men are statistically overrepresented (I’m leaving a more psychodynamic reading aside here because it muddies the waters between archetypal readings and clinical diagnoses). The Dark Triad is mostly about traits (it’s not a personality disorder with a clinical frame), and those traits mostly align with antisocial and narcissistic personality disorders (which are both cluster B). The only cluster B disorders women are overrepresented in are borderline and histrionic. Overall speaking, women are more likely to be cluster C, so that’s the more “feminine” if you will (avoidant/fearful).
But generally speaking, none of this is “gendered”, unless we want to assign masculine and feminine in a more Jungian sense. But then it also becomes a bit jumbled quickly because one is a clinical diagnosis and the other is an archetypal concept you mostly see in psychodynamic approaches. They’re not the same.
I haven’t seen that evidence in any of my research.
I’ve replied in the other thread.
Well, Mike said otherwise on the gender breakdown in Cluster Bs.
There's a distinct bimodal distribution between the Dark Triad and Cluster B between male/female. That's, as far as my reading goes, been quite well documented.
If you start throwing in gender identity.... well, that's just messed up a lot of conversations.
We’re currently discussing it in another subthread in case you’re interested: https://www.polymathicbeing.com/p/masking-as-nuerodivergent/comment/318198471?r=2ho4pd&utm_medium=ios
You both make compelling arguments. I will keep an open mind.
Sometimes I like to think my life would be easier if Asperger's were as "special" as gender fluidity. There are certainly many more of us than them, by a couple orders of magnitude. But it wouldn't be easier, I would just be treated like that kid with a crash helmet at school. I wouldn't exactly call it a super power, either; more like Cassandra Syndrome.
I can see what's wrong with neurotypical social behavior in broad patterns, but can't explain it in a way that makes normal people want to listen. I can see rapidly narrowing decision funnels that lead to political disaster, but can't make black-swan predictions with enough accuracy to play prediction markets. I can identify thought taboos, but struggle to explain them without offending anyone.
So I strongly agree with the notion that what is called "masking" is just a more elaborate version of what everyone must learn to do in order to become socially productive. The focus on specialness is better suited to the Superfriends who convene for liar's poker at the Fortress of Solitude, or for the Watchmen. It's of little use to the rest of us, who must learn to get along in an indifferent world.
I still haven’t found a good definition for ‘neurotypical’ that doesn’t fall apart under minor scruitiny. Even ADHD is out of context and I think the rest just falls under the diversity of normal behavior.
The legendary living-room comic Joe Ancis said "The only normal people are the ones you don't know very well." I can't define that word either; I just know it ain't me. I have struggled to communicate with most people for most of my life. The "autistic bluntness" you mentioned is a chronic problem for me. And knowing it is only partially successful in my case. Coupled with the fact that I wish many more of my "normal" friends had been more honest with me in the past about my behavior that bugs people; I would have tried to course correct much earlier. But for "normal" people such candor would be unthinkable--and unlikely to have positive results--so they prefer to abstain.
It's interesting because I've never met a person who felt they navigated life perfectly.... well... I take that back, the sociopath is typically very very good at that. In fact, when the Emotional Intelligence (EQ) tests started becoming popular, they found the best indication of a sociopath/psychopath is that they scored exceptionally HIGH! They were brilliant at reading people but used it for harm.
Normal people score about 85-90% Aspergers score about 80-85%. It doesn't take a huge difference to feel different but yet, they're still 80%
Wow, that's surprising about Aspergers; I would have guessed a significantly lower score for myself. Although as I get older I have the "masking" under a lot better control. Which I think is a common experience, unless people just don't care to make the effort.