I struggle to disagree, actually. It makes me wonder if the observations which we refer to as autism are really just observations of the differences people have with where they choose to focus their attention. That doesn’t explain the particularly debilitating experiences that some suffer but it may explain how others can relate so strongly but still hold down a job.
Anyway, I haven’t really heard of “polytropism”. Maybe nobody thinks that way. I don’t know how much that topic has been explored.
We likely wont have a strong theory of how brain architecture results in unique emergent temperments and subjective experiences until weve got data collected from millions of people with chips in their head, and a large database to work with.
Until then, I will remain agnostic on any theory unless it is very obviously causal.
This is an interesting take that I hadn't considered the reality of, before. We rely a lot on self-reporting but only for lack of a better option that doesn't violate ethical conventions. Self-reporting is subjective, making the data shakey at best, but even an objective observer can misinterpret what is being observed. I'm mot much of a scientist or philosopher, but that seems like a remarkably large problem when it comes to truly understanding the human brain.
How does neuroscience get around this problem, and how close are we to actual "brain chips" that could provide viable diagnostic data?
Anyway, I haven’t really heard of “polytropism”. Maybe nobody thinks that way. I don’t know how much that topic has been explored.