Autism Researchers Miss the Forest for the Trees... Again

Ah, another day, another study on autism that manages to completely miss the point. One might think that after decades of autistic people shouting from the rooftops about how we actually experience the world, researchers might start to listen. But no, apparently that's too much to ask.

Let’s dive into another gem, shall we? A group of well-meaning (I’m feeling generous) researchers set out to study the gesture and vocabulary development of infant siblings of autistic children. Fascinating stuff, truly. They meticulously tracked these tiny tots from 8 to 24 months, carefully noting every gurgle, wave, and “mama” along the way.

And what did they find? Hold onto your hats, folks: autistic children develop language differently! I’ll pause for your gasps of shock and awe.

But here’s the kicker: in their entire study, not once did they mention gestalt language processing. Not. Once. It’s as if they decided to study fish whilst steadfastly ignoring the existence of water.

Now, for those of you who haven’t been paying attention (I'm looking at you, researchers), gestalt language processing isn’t some newfangled theory cooked up by the latest autism guru. No, it’s been studied since the 1980s, thanks to the groundbreaking work of Dr Barry Prizant. That’s right, for over four decades, we’ve known that a majority of autistic individuals (and a minority of the neuro-majority) process language as whole chunks rather than individual words.

But apparently, this crucial information hasn’t made its way into the hallowed halls of autism research. Perhaps it’s written in gestalt and they can’t understand it?

The implications of this willful ignorance are staggering. These researchers looked at autistic children’s slower vocabulary growth and saw delay and deficit. But through the lens of gestalt processing, this could simply be a different, equally valid way of acquiring language. It’s not a bug, dear researchers, it’s a feature!

And it’s not just this study. This myopic view permeates autism research like a bad smell. Take the so-called ‘science of reading,’ for instance. In my own work studying literacy in gestalt language processors, I’ve found that these widely touted reading programs fail spectacularly for many autistic individuals. Why? Because they’re built on the assumption that everyone processes language the same way. Spoiler alert: we don’t.

The result? Countless autistic children labeled as ‘reading disabled’ when the real disability lies in the narrow-minded approach to teaching reading. It’s like trying to teach a fish to climb a tree and then declaring it deficient when it fails.

But why stop at language? This ignorance of gestalt processing has far-reaching consequences. It affects how autism is diagnosed, how autistic children are educated, and how autistic adults are supported (or rather, not supported) in the workplace. It’s a domino effect of misunderstanding, with autistic individuals bearing the brunt of the impact.

Let’s consider education for a moment. Picture an autistic child, a gestalt processor, sitting in a classroom. The teacher, trained in ‘evidence-based’ methods that completely ignore gestalt processing, is breaking everything down into tiny, disconnected pieces. Meanwhile, our young gestalt processor is desperately trying to see the big picture, to understand how it all fits together. Is it any wonder so many autistic children struggle in traditional educational settings?

Or take the workplace. An autistic adult, a gestalt processor, is given a task broken down into step-by-step instructions. Their neurotypical manager thinks they’re being helpful, but for our gestalt processor, it’s like trying to appreciate a masterpiece painting by looking at it through a drinking straw. They need the big picture, the context, the why as much as the how. But because the people designing workplace accommodations don’t understand gestalt processing, our autistic worker is left frustrated, underperforming, and probably labeled as ‘difficult’ or ‘unable to follow simple instructions.’

The tragedy is, none of this is necessary. If only researchers, educators, and employers took the time to understand and account for gestalt processing, so much struggle and misunderstanding could be avoided.

But no, instead we get studies like this one, which look at autistic children through a neurotypical lens and then act surprised when the image comes out distorted. It’s like trying to measure temperature with a ruler and then concluding that heat doesn't exist.

So, to the researchers behind this study, and indeed to all autism researchers out there, I have a radical proposal: try listening to actual autistic people. I know, I know, it’s a wild concept. But trust me, we have some insights into our own lived experiences that might just be valuable.

And whilst you’re at it, maybe crack open a book on gestalt language processing. I hear they’ve been around since the 1980s. You’ve got some catching up to do.

In the meantime, I’ll be over here, processing this entire article as one giant gestalt and wondering how many more decades it will take for the research community to catch up with what autistic people have been saying all along.

But don't mind me. I’m just an autistic person with lived experience. What could I possibly know about autism that a researcher doesn’t?