Reading the Research: Text Message Therapy

Welcome back to Reading the Research, where I trawl the Internet to find noteworthy research on autism and related subjects, then discuss it in brief with bits from my own life, research, and observations.

Today's article starts off with kind of a shocking statistic: 19% of all adults in the USA have a diagnosable mental illness.  That's basically 1 in 5 adults.  That's several people in your family.  Count off people in the grocery store.  Every time you get to five, know that one of those people suffers from depression.  Or anxiety.  Or a personality disorder, or some other condition classified as mental illness.  

That's absolutely awful.  

As simple as it would be to blame the coronavirus for Messing Everything Up, it's unfortunately not that simple.  The fact is, people in the US mostly don't get preventative care.  Our medical system is set up to treat symptoms and bankrupt us in the process.  Our food is created to be addictive, nutrient-deficient, and laced with sugar.  We overall don't get enough movement to be anything close to healthy, and we don't spend much, if any, time outside in nature.  

The end result is a profoundly unhealthy population.  The obvious consequence: staggeringly high rates of mental illness.  

While I'm pleased to see this idea of therapy-via-text message seems to work, I'm a little dubious as to how high quality it can really be.  It's one thing to generally teach people about mental illness, self-care, and support techniques, and quite another to put together a file on a client and be able to offer targeted, specific advice and strategies the way a typical therapist would.  

Something is better than nothing when it comes to mental illness, and having someone outside your circle that you can trust to ask about things is extremely valuable.  But I will note that similar systems have been tested using chatbots, with some success.  This might, I suppose, be a better educated and human-centric version of that.  

Mostly, though, I'm just frustrated these sorts of things aren't taught in school.  It would go a long way toward a healthier country if people knew what mental illness looks like and how to help with it.  After all, almost everyone experiences major depression at least once in their lifetime.

(Pst! If you like seeing the latest autism-relevant research, visit my Twitter, which has links and brief comments on studies that were interesting, but didn't get a whole Reading the Research article about them.)

Book Review: Come As You Are

Come As You Are: The Surprising New Science That Will Transform Your Sex Life, by Emily Nagoski, is not the usual fare for this blog, but... given how often autistic people miss out on proper sex education, the sections about the stress cycle (which are sadly highly relevant to autistic people), the importance of the subject overall, and the excellence of this particular book, I'm making an exception.  

Fair warning: this is a book about sex.  If the subject makes you uncomfortable, you may feel you should skip this book.  Quite frankly, I strongly suggest you don't.  This book contains information you would typically need to pay a therapist thousands of dollars to obtain over a very long period of time, and only after you're literally at your wits' end (because that's typically the point at which people stop putting off getting help for this sort of thing).  

Also, while the book's cover suggests it mainly covers sex from women's point of view, the information therein is useful for all sexes (intersex people exist) and all genders (hi, I'm agender!).  My spouse and I read this book together, and it cleared up a lot of falling down points we'd had around the subject, as well as improving communication between us overall.  It'll take time to improve our actual sex life, since the book revealed some serious issues we have to work through, but I fully expect positive changes and a better relationship as a result.  

One of the key points that's stuck with me?  Sex is not a drive.  "Sex drive" is a common phrase to refer to peoples' desire to have sex, but the phrase is wrong, and worse, it's harmful.  Drives, you see, are things your body demands in order to live.  Food, air, and water, for example.  However, there are zero cases of someone dying because they didn't have sex for X years.  (There are cases of people believing they're owed sex, and because of inadequately supported mental illness and access to deadly weapons they definitely didn't need, killing people and/or committing suicide over it... but that's significantly different).   

Pop culture and media teach us that the hero always gets the girl (and the kiss, and the sex, etc).  And somewhere between that expectation that women throw themselves at the hero as soon as the hero succeeds, and the stigmatization of men who haven't had sex and/or aren't some kind of sexual genius with dozens of partners, this idea that sex is a physical need came into play.   

However, the research shows us this is wrong.  Sex can be pretty great, but it's merely an incentive-reward system, not a physical need.  Another thing that fall into this category is "tasty food" or snacks, which you might find yourself wanting even when you're not hungry.  

There are a lot of really helpful insights in this book regarding how much context matters (a lot!), your physical parts (are normal!), and how stress affects everything (also a lot!).  Shoutouts to the parts that talk about brakes and accelerators, which was easy language for my spouse and me to adopt in our discussions.  

I found the sections on the stress cycle especially helpful.  Autistic people like myself are often under a great deal of stress.  The Japanese saying is, "The nail that sticks up gets hammered down."  Meaning, roughly, the person that doesn't fit in is going to get a lot of abuse until they do.  You can probably guess how I feel about that, but the point is that this book will teach you, broadly, how to allow your system to let go of that stress.  The specifics are up to you, since you have to find what works best for you.  

I could probably go on and on about the insights in this book, but in all honesty, the author will do a better job of explaining them than I would.  There are six copies of this book in my local library system and another seven (including two eBooks) in the neighboring library system.  Go get one.  

Please note: this book is not specifically written for autistic people.  It contains broad and highly useful explanations of our best (current) understanding of how sexuality works, especially as pertaining to physically female people.  Things like sensory sensitivities, communication difficulties, and consent are not covered.  You may want to refer to the resources listed here for information on these subjects.  

Read This Book

No If.  You, yes you, should read this book.  The only exception is I guess if you're 100% certain you don't want a sex life and you either don't have a partner or that partner is just as onboard with that certainty.  And even so, I'd suggest you still read the book, simply because there's a massive sea of misunderstandings around sexuality and just by existing you're subject to them.  Even if you don't expect to be having sex anytime soon, knowing the toxic garbage, myths, and flat out misunderstandings in popular culture is important.  Especially for women, but as stated above: my spouse and I read this book together, and we are both better people for it.  

Reading the Research: Improving Likability Measures

Welcome back to Reading the Research, where I trawl the Internet to find noteworthy research on autism and related subjects, then discuss it in brief with bits from my own life, research, and observations.

Today's article is somewhat of a relief.  It seems that, when asked, people tend to appreciate the autistic people in their lives.  That's a kindness to know, because I and other autistic people I know have often felt burdensome.  

This is particularly highlighted when you look into how these poll questions have been asked in the past.  Some these questions involve reminding the askee of how much money and time and effort it can take to support an autistic person.  Which naturally is neither our fault, nor terribly kind.  

Saying "Autism is the costliest health condition in the UK, moreso than cancer, stroke, and heart disease combined, now how do you feel about autistic people?" is like saying, "cats are a lot of money and effort to take care of, and in the end you're not really guaranteed a loving, loveable pet, now do you think people should have cats?"  Or perhaps more to the point, "Children cost, on average, about $13,000 a year, they will try your every nerve regularly as long as they live with you, perhaps even after, and make decisions you don't approve of on a regular basis.  They may or may not even take care of you when you're old. Now how do you feel about people having kids?"

My point is that phrasing in polls has a lot of falling down points.  They actually teach you a significant amount about this if you go for a degree in psychology, because you need to know how to write good questions instead of crap ones like these when setting up an experiment or conducting other forms of research.  Replacing a clearly biased and unkind survey with a simple thermometer scale seems like a very small, but probably valuable step to humanizing autistic people (and getting more valid data on how people actually feel about us).

Notably, by the way, if you used this thermometer scale in the US, but instead asked about how people felt about autism rather than autistic people, I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that the response would be much much more negative.  With Autism Speaks basically demonizing the condition as loudly as their millions of dollars allow (which is pretty loud), it ends up being kind of a "love the sinner, hate the sin" thing.  Except autistic people didn't choose to be born the way we are, nor should it be stigmatized to be autistic.  

A shiny new survey that isn't inherently problematic is a very small step, in my opinion, but perhaps an important one.  I can only hope that's true.  Public opinion does indeed play into policy change, but even more than that... autistic people have to live on this planet, among everyone else.  The less people shun and hate us for existing, the easier that existence is.  

(Pst! If you like seeing the latest autism-relevant research, visit my Twitter, which has links and brief comments on studies that were interesting, but didn't get a whole Reading the Research article about them.)

Book Review: The Social Skills Picture Book

The Social Skills Picture Book for High School and Beyond, by Dr. Jed Baker, was recommended to me by a fellow autistic person.  It's meant to be a kind of rudimentary "how to" for social skills.  Unlike most such books I've read, this one is mainly pictures rather than words.  The pictures demonstrate, in the most basic way, various common social interactions and how they should go, ideally.  They include word bubbles and thought bubbles to help people understand the pictured situations better.

This was an unusual read.  The idea, I think, is to appeal to and teach more visual autistic people.  While this category does not include me, the idea itself is sound.  Teaching in pictures rather than textwalls is a very reasonable way to try to make this knowledge accessible. I didn't love the picture quality, or perhaps the printing quality, of the book itself.  Sometimes the pictures were hard for me to parse, though that could also be my poor visual processing capabilities shooting me in the metaphorical foot.

The implementation was, um... well, probably as good as could be expected, really.  The problem with trying to teach real life social skills is that the types of reactions, facial expressions, postures, etc, vary on the person and situation.  The pictures in this book were taken of people posing for these situations, not of actual live situations.  So as good as the intentions were, as an autistic person who has learned to interact relatively successfully, I didn't personally think the pictures really conveyed the kind of visual information needed to truly generalize from.  The pictured people tended to over-act their body language and use stiltedly formal verbal language (like saying "do not" fairly often instead of "don't"). 

Obviously, doing this can help get the point across more clearly to new students of body language, but I'm not sure the method is good for anything other than the most basic introduction to the subject.  Which I guess could be the point?  But if so, where's the advanced version?  Where does someone who's mastered these basics go?  There's a great deal more to social skills than these very few situations listed in the book.

Also, despite the title, I really feel like most of the situations listed in the book are more for late elementary school to middle school, not high school and beyond.  By the time you're in high school, you should probably be familiar with these skills and trying to learn more advanced ones.  Which makes me wonder if the book is actually meant for middle schoolers and they're just being clever with psychology.  Y'know, the "well this is only supposed to be for the older kids, but you're pretty cool so we'll make an exception this time" trick that younger kids and people with low self-esteem (see: most middle schoolers) eat right up because they want to feel like they're mature and worthy.  

About the only section I read and said "yeah, sure, this is for high school and beyond" is the very last one, the one that deals with interviews.  And even then, while the advice is good, it's very very basic.  

Honestly, reading this book reminded me of how many obnoxious nuances there are to neurotypical-handling.  It's not just what you say, it's how you say it... and it's not just what skills or expertise you have, it's how well you can put others at ease.  If there's one book I have yet to see in my reading, it's a philosophical and detailed "autistic's guide to neurotypical handling" that goes indepth about the how and why of the systems and typical reactions people have.

Which I guess is a book I could probably write, given time.  

In any case...

Read This Book If

You want a refresher on the Very Basics of social interaction, or need to teach an autistic person the Very Basics of social interaction.  Parents, professionals, and teachers could all find a use for this book, assuming the autistic person in question is visually-inclined.  This book may be more approachable for some autistic people than others, and the pictures can help convey the concepts better than any textwall.  I loved the idea of this book, but in practice it's very limited, hence calling it "Very Basics."  

Reading the Research: Probiotics and Your Brain

Welcome back to Reading the Research, where I trawl the Internet to find noteworthy research on autism and related subjects, then discuss it in brief with bits from my own life, research, and observations.

Today's article underlines how the gut affects the whole body, and why taking care of it can help support a healthy mind as well as body.  One wouldn't typically think of the intestinal tract as an important key in how well the brain functions, but as we've found out recently, the intestinal area contain neurons (enteric nervous system) that are linked to your brain via the spinal cord.  If your gut is unhappy or out of balance, often your brain will be as well.

This study is a research review, which means the authors trawled research databases for studies done by others around a certain topic.  In this case, they were looking for studies about probiotics, prebiotics, depression, and anxiety.  The idea in lining up all this research is to find out, in a broader sense, what the research shows about the effects of probiotics and prebiotics on depression and anxiety.  

Perhaps unsurprisingly, most of the good bacteria strains studied helped people manage their depression better.  I say "perhaps unsurprisingly" because I also take probiotics (bought from a medical source, not off the store shelves), and it helps me.  

If anyone is wondering or wants to try probiotics that definitely do something (and are on the list of things they mention in this article as working), the probiotics I use are these: Theralac and TruBifido.  They're comparatively expensive, but on the other hand, you're basically shredding up your money and stuffing it down the drain when you buy probiotic products from a grocery store.  Also, I only need to take one of each a week and that's sufficient, so the bottles last more than half a year.  

Notably, repairing one's gut is not like taking a painkiller.  It's a process that can take weeks, so patience is required and the changes may be gradual.  Still, I found it worthwhile, as it's reduced the severity of my dysthymia and anxiety.  

(Pst! If you like seeing the latest autism-relevant research, visit my Twitter, which has links and brief comments on studies that were interesting, but didn't get a whole Reading the Research article about them.)

Book Review: My Point of View

My Point of View: Growing Up on the Autism Spectrum, by Mark Hogan, is a set of autobiographical snippets and short stories about the author's life growing up autistic in Ireland.  It's a very short book, so if you want to immerse yourself in the headspace of an autistic adult, this is probably the quickest read I've ever found for that category.

So, the very first thing to note here is that the author repeats quite often that he has no theory of mind.  Theory of mind is the skill of putting yourself in another person's shoes and trying to imagine how they might be thinking or feeling.  It's what you use to predict whether a joke will be funny to your audience.  It gives you the information you need to know whether someone is being sarcastic. 

If you're familiar with the concept of theory of mind, you'll recognize how fundamental this is to communication.  When you make jokes, or decide what subject to talk about, or even decide whether to start a conversation, you use theory of mind to decide what kind of joke is appropriate, what subject that other person would be interested in, and whether the person is going to be receptive to a conversation at all. 

For example, when I go to start a conversation with my spouse, I can make the assumption, based on what I know of him, that he will be interested conversations about the trading card game Magic: The Gathering.  I, personally, am not interested in this subject much, so without theory of mind I might assume no one was interested in Magic: The Gathering and never talk about it.  People without theory of mind don't see beyond their own point of view. 

Maybe a more important example is in how my spouse and I handle reconnecting post-argument.  With theory of mind, I know that my spouse appreciates hugs after we've been at odds with each other.  Without it, I would assume that my spouse, like myself, would prefer some space to calm down and mentally distance from the argument.  If you suddenly hug me after an argument I am likely to react very poorly, which is why it's good that my spouse tends to ask for hugs after arguments rather than demanding them or just starting them without warning.  But if I always walked away to get my space and distance after an argument, my spouse would feel hurt and alienated.  So theory of mind helps both of us communicate and reconnect. 

Lacking theory of mind, therefore, is a significant disability, which I hope I've made clear here.  Notably, lacking theory of mind is not a specifically autistic trait.  It's a trait that can go along with autism, but it is not specifically autistic.  I can say that because I'm autistic, and several people I know are autistic, but we all have theory of mind. 

There's a catch to that ownership of theory of mind, though.  That is: the more different the mind is from your own, the harder it is to have a theory of it.  Autistic people are simply different. Not less, but definitely different.  So like my example above, my spouse (and many neurotypical humans) prefer to re-establish physical closeness after an argument.  This is affirming and positive for most people.  It says, on an emotional level, "I am still close to you and care about you."  That kind of affirmation is a very good thing after an argument and hurt feelings. 

For me, though?  If I'm upset (and I usually am after an argument), my skin is going to be extra sensitive.  Touch, especially hugs or other kinds of closeness, will actually hurt or at least be unpleasant.  So my preference is to go off by myself and cool down so I can refocus and move past the argument.  I already know my spouse loves me, and giving or receiving a hug will not change that to me.  So in this way, my spouse and I differ fundamentally. 

(If anyone is curious, the compromise is that we usually hug or have some kind of touch, and then my spouse leaves me alone so I can cool down.)

I have theory of mind, but what's normal for me isn't what's normal for most people.  I have, therefore, had to learn to figure out specifically what's normal for neurotypical people, bit by bit.  I have a talent for recognizing patterns, which is also somewhat an autistic thing, so that helped me learn. 

However, it's something like trying to learn what's normal for another culture, or even what's normal for aliens.  Y'all simply don't work, act, or think like me.  So I, and other autistic people with theory of mind, have a much harder time using theory of mind.  Even though we often have it. 

Theory of mind explanation aside... reading this book made me kind of sad.  Like many autistic adults, there's a lot of frustration in the author's memoirs.  A lot of alienation, a lot of miscommunication, and a lot of forcing himself to do things he didn't want to and knew ahead of time was going to make him miserable. 

The book is all of 55 pages, so it's not a long read and it does, as advertised, give you a sense of what it's like to be the author.  This was made more interesting to me by the fact that he's Irish, so there's bits and pieces of that culture in the stories. 

Read This Book If

You want to explore a facet of the autism spectrum and get a sense for what it can be like to live without theory of mind.  Fellow autistics might read this book to meet a kindred spirit, and parents and teachers might find the descriptions of the author's reasoning helpful to understanding their loved ones and students.  This is a very short book, at 55 pages, written in short chunks of story or perspective on specific subjects.  It's written fairly accessibly.  There are some words or concepts that reference Ireland's accent and culture, but overall I didn't have trouble understanding the book.  

Reading the Research: Personality By Writing Style

Welcome back to Reading the Research, where I trawl the Internet to find noteworthy research on autism and related subjects, then discuss it in brief with bits from my own life, research, and observations.

Today's article had a surprisingly positive take on autistic electronic communication, which I thought was interesting.

I've never given a whole lot of thought to my emails, but the trends described here about autistic email styles seem to hold about true for me.  In my emails, as in my life, I tend to get directly to the point.  

Social niceties are fine, but I typically only ask about such things if A) I remember, B) there's a good reason to ask (such as something being amiss previously), and C) I care.  C is true more often than not, but email communication is often with people I don't know well enough about to have anything to actually ask about (B).  

I've also noticed the preference for precision in writing.  When I write emails, I try to include all pertinent information so I can be sure I'll be understood.  Perhaps this extra care has something to do with how frequently autistic people are misunderstood?  Because then neurotypical folks wouldn't be as inclined to be careful.

I received an email recently asking me to complete a task for someone, but they didn't actually give me all the information I needed to do the task, so it sat for a bit before I finally just gave it my best shot and asked for further information.  The situation turned out okay (and honestly, didn't matter that much), but it was one of those communications that could have been handled in seconds and then forgotten entirely if communication styles had matched.  

I gotta say, I personally prefer the "autistic email communication style" as laid out here.  If I have to get email, I'd rather it contain all needed details, be polite, and get right to the point.  I guess most neurotypical people prefer the emphasis on niceties? 

(Pst! If you like seeing the latest autism-relevant research, visit my Twitter, which has links and brief comments on studies that were interesting, but didn't get a whole Reading the Research article about them.)

Worth Your Read: Bringing Parents and Adult Autistics Together

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/my-life-aspergers/202007/your-autistic-child-is-perfect-and-may-need-help

There are two majors schools of thought around autism at present. 

Autism as a Disease

The first, the older of the two, is the one most often held by medical professionals and parents: autism is bad.  It makes our children and loved ones suffer.  We should look for a cure and try to help those with it rather than letting them struggle on their own.  This viewpoint includes the medical model of disability as well as Autism $peaks' brand of demonization. 

At its best, it's the worried but ignorant parent, misled by possibly similarly ignorant others in positions of authority.  Such people simply want the best for their loved ones, and see the autism as the summation of the child's problems, whether those problems are caused by society or internally.  But something that, with the right treatment, could be taken away so their cherished child would finally thrive. 

At its worst, this philosophy devolves into rampant ableism.  Tyrannical individuals who won't stomach human diversity.  Only some idealized neurotypical "way of living" is correct, and all that don't fit into it must be forced to do so.  Abusive and coercive ABA "therapy" is common, and the mental and emotional scars of such cruelty "for your own good" can last decades.  Pointing out that some of our disabilities are societally created, like the unfairness of the job hiring process, doesn't typically phase these kinds of people.  The retort tends to be, "that's just how it is, deal with it." 

Keep in mind that while many things are wrong with this philosophy, it isn't totally wrong in every aspect.  It acknowledges that autism comes with challenges, regardless of whether those challenges are medical or social.  It recognizes the need for help and support.  It's what got autism research started, and what lead to the good therapies we have, such as Floortime, our AAC tools, and things like probiotics, enzymes, and nutritional supplements. 

Neurodiversity

The second is the neurodiversity movement, which opines that autism is good.  That human diversity in general is good, and that the human species needs people who are different to survive and thrive.  The social model of disability features here, which notes that some disability is socially created. 

For example, the state of hiring for jobs, especially ones with upward mobility, is slanted heavily against autistic people.  When getting a job, it's far more often "who you know" than "what you know."  Autistic people may be experts at our hobbies and interests, but without the broad social networks and ease of communication (and white lies) that our neurotypical peers have, we typically don't get hired.  And if we do, we're often fired for not fitting in.  This is simply how things currently work.  It is not an innate problem with us.

The best of this philosophy is perhaps a conscientious young autistic adult, likely abused by "therapeutic" ABA, fighting for inclusion for all people to the best of their ability.  Typically such a person is highly verbal, and while they may struggle in day-to-day life, they may not suffer the crippling chronic medical issues that other autistics must face.  As such, they may not advocate for all the same things that someone with epilepsy, intellectual disability, and gasto-intestinal issues might.  And they may not understand or be able to advocate for users of AAC.

The worst of this philosophy is the sort of person that thinks their experience of autism is everyone's, and while they may struggle with some things, overall their perception of their life is literally, "There's nothing wrong with me, and if neurotypical people would stop being jerks and just accept us, we'd all be fine." 

This sort of person may believe that people with more serious disabilities simply need to try harder, or that all their problems are created by neurotypical people, or that if other autistics would adopt a certain diet that helped them, and then everything would be fine.  Unfortunately, you cannot simply diet away epilepsy, visual processing differences, muscular communication challenges or cerebral palsy.  Certainly, a good nutritious and balanced diet can help manage your symptoms and improve your quality of life, and might even help improve the severity of these challenges.  But cure?  No.  This mindset is shortsighted to the point of being cripplingly flawed.  Challenges exist.  Help may be required to manage them.

The other falling down point here is that making a society that works for all kinds of human diversity does not start by telling one group to drop everything and change.  At the moment, the situation is mostly the neurotypical majority telling the autistic minority to do exactly that.  But what these sorts of people advocate for is the polar opposite: autistic people shaping policy for ourselves, without input or care for neurotypical folks.  And sometimes, without input or care for members of any other minority group, such as our fellow minority groups: black and brown folks, people with mental illness, religious minorities, and others.  While only one of those examples fits the "neuro" in neurodiversity, these other minority groups include autistic individuals. 

In fact, even if the world was literally only neurotypical people and autistic people, and all those other groups didn't exist, the fairest form of society is a compromise.  Autistic needs should be supported and accommodated, but those needs vary, sometimes widely, and having neurotypical people avoid things simply because they might upset an autistic person means a lot of metaphorical walking on eggshells, possibly pointlessly. 

Putting It Together

The thing is, at least in the best case scenario, we all want the same thing: better lives for autistic people.  We may disagree on what that looks like, and each autistic person is different and has different needs, interests, and desires for life.  Like John Elder Robison in this article, I hope someday to help these two groups find common ground so we can more powerfully and effectively advocate for change.  

As is often the case around an issue, there are differing opinions and each side has the tendency to go off the rails.  The truth of the matter is often in the middle ground.  In this case: some autistic people are absolutely disabled, and innately, not merely socially.  This is a fact, not an opinion, and no amount of arguing or whining about neurotypical people being terrible will make it not true.  However, autistic people are also not merely our disabilities.  We are also our strengths, our joys, our quirks, and our creativity.  Humanity needs us, and it has for thousands of years.  Rather than be alienated from humanity in institutions, we should be supported so we can live our best lives within the larger community of humanity.  

I wish this wasn't such a hard concept for both sides.  

Reading the Research: Life Rituals and Stimming

Welcome back to Reading the Research, where I trawl the Internet to find noteworthy research on autism and related subjects, then discuss it in brief with bits from my own life, research, and observations.

Today's article puts a "normal life" into much-needed context.  Rituals, it turns out, ease the effects of stress in humans.  Sounds familiar, right?  Autistic people chewing on things, or rocking, or using echolalia?

Actually, that's not what the researcher is talking about.  He's talking about going to church, watching football, and having weddings and funerals.  Those are rituals.  Coming home every day from work, feeding the dog, and flopping on the couch to read the news before starting anything else... that is also a ritual.  Sitting around the dinner table together to eat dinner every day is another ritual.  And of course, saying a prayer over a meal is a ritual.

These familiar behavioral patterns make us comfortable and put us at ease.  But they're so routine and commonplace that people don't typically recognize them as rituals.

But perhaps they should, because if they did, autistic people might not seem so odd after all.  Our rituals and stimming behaviors may be more obvious, but they serve exactly the same purpose: to help us cope with anxiety.  Our lives are full of stress, but according to the article, even neurotypical people become more rigid and repetitive in their behavior when put under stress.

This is not to mention socially appropriate stimming, like cracking your knuckles, bouncing your leg, twiddling your thumbs, fidgeting with your phone, scrolling down Facebook endlessly, and humming.

So basically, autistic people are human... just moreso.  Our behavior is everyone's behavior, just amped up.

(Pst! If you like seeing the latest autism-relevant research, visit my Twitter, which has links and brief comments on studies that were interesting, but didn't get a whole Reading the Research article about them.)