The Misguided Framing of Autism: A Critique of Hierarchical Assumptions in Social Behaviour Research
The study Distinct Social Behavior and Inter-Brain Connectivity in Dyads with Autistic Individuals aims to compare social dynamics between autistic and ‘neurotypical’ individuals, specifically examining how they engage in leader-follower roles during imitation tasks. The central thesis suggests that autistic individuals display distinct social behaviours and brain activity patterns compared to their neuro-majority counterparts, with a particular focus on the role of leadership in social interactions. However, the framing of the study is deeply rooted in ableist assumptions, particularly around the hierarchical leader-follower dynamic so prevalent in the neuro-majority. This bias overlooks the fact that many autistic individuals engage in social interactions in fundamentally different ways, often valuing egalitarian communication and cooperation over leadership roles.
This article argues that the study’s bias clouds its understanding of autistic social norms and fails to account for key autistic traits such as alexithymia and gestalt processing, both of which profoundly influence social interactions and communication. The omission of these factors not only weakens the study’s conclusions but also reflects a deeper issue: a lack of understanding of the population being studied or a belief in something that is simply not true. Moreover, ethical concerns arise from the absence of autistic representation on the research team, which contributes to these oversights, as well as from the Institutional Review Board's (IRB) approval of a study that does not seem to fully grasp the complexities of autism. This critique will explore these issues in depth, highlighting the flaws in both the framing and execution of the research and questioning the need for the study in the first place.
The Flawed Framing of Autistic Social Dynamics
The study assumes that leadership is inherently more valuable or desirable in social interactions, reflecting the neuro-majority’s hierarchical model of social engagement. This assumption reinforces the idea that the most effective or appropriate social interaction is one where clear roles of dominance and submission—leader and follower—are established. Such a framework may work for white cis-hetero members of the neuro-majority, who often operate within systems that prioritise leadership as a marker of social competence or success. However, this outlook neglects the reality that many autistic individuals do not function within such hierarchical systems and, in fact, may find these dynamics uncomfortable or irrelevant to their communication styles.
Autistic social interactions are often more egalitarian in nature, with a focus on shared roles and mutual cooperation rather than strict leadership and followership. In many cases, autistic individuals prefer collaborative or parallel methods of engaging with others, which reflect a respect for autonomy and non-dominance. Furthermore, in autistic-to-autistic interactions, communication can often be non-vocal, relying on alternative methods such as texting, exchanging memes, or even sharing sensory experiences in silence. These dynamics are indicative of the autistic tendency to value authenticity and understanding over traditional power dynamics. The study’s failure to recognise these differences—and its insistence on fitting autistic behaviours into neuro-majority expectations—demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of how autistic people navigate social relationships.
By interpreting autistic participants’ preference for non-leadership roles as a deficiency, the study misrepresents difference as deficit. This reflects a patriarchal bias in research, where traits associated with power, dominance, and leadership are seen as inherently superior, whilst more cooperative or non-hierarchical behaviours are framed as inferior. Autistic engagement styles, which tend to be more matristic, valuing nurturing, cooperation, and non-dominance, are pathologised in studies like this one. These biases are not only misleading but harmful, as they perpetuate the belief that autistic people should adapt to neuro-majority social norms rather than being accepted for their authentic modes of interaction.
The impact of these assumptions is profound. By framing the lack of leadership among autistic participants as a shortcoming, the study invalidates autistic communication styles and contributes to the harmful notion that autistic individuals must be ‘fixed’ to conform to the standards of the neuro-majority. This further entrenches the ableist idea that the neuro-majority’s social behaviours are the only acceptable forms of interaction, reinforcing stereotypes and limiting the scope of research into truly understanding and supporting autistic individuals. In doing so, the study fails to appreciate the diversity of social engagement and communication, which is key to fostering more inclusive and accurate research in autism.
Absence of Key Autistic Traits: Alexithymia and Gestalt Processing
One of the most significant omissions in this study is its failure to control for alexithymia, present in roughly 80% of autistic systems - including mine. Alexithymia, characterised by difficulties in sourcing, identifying, expressing, and interpreting one’s own emotions, plays a crucial role in shaping how emotions are communicated and perceived. Given the high prevalence of alexithymia in autistic individuals, it is a major factor influencing their social behaviour, yet the study does not account for it in its analysis. By not including alexithymia as a variable, the researchers overlook how this condition impacts the emotional dynamics of social interactions, skewing their conclusions about autistic social behaviour.
This omission is particularly problematic in the context of a study on social dynamics, where emotional communication is key. Autistic individuals with alexithymia often express emotions in ways that may appear unconventional to the neuro-majority. Their emotional expressions might seem muted, atypical, or difficult to interpret, leading to misunderstandings by neuro-majority participants. Additionally, alexithymia, when combined with hyper-empathy (another factor unaccounted for in the study), creates a complex emotional landscape. Hyper-empathic autistic individuals may feel emotions intensely but struggle to source and express these emotions accurately due to alexithymia. The failure to control for these emotional processing differences likely skewed the results, as what may be interpreted as a lack of emotional engagement or difficulty in leadership could actually be an alexithymic expression of intense, but poorly sourced and articulated emotions. This crucial oversight undermines the study’s conclusions, making them less about autistic traits and more about the researchers’ lack of understanding of how these traits manifest.
The absence of gestalt processing from the study further highlights the research team’s limited understanding of autistic communication. Gestalt processing, a communication style in which individuals process language and information holistically, with an emphasis on patterns and meaning rather than individual words or sequential logic, is common among autistic individuals. When autistic people engage in social interactions, our approach is often informed by these gestalt frameworks, making our communication more multi-layered and less linear. By failing to acknowledge or study this form of processing, the researchers miss an essential element of how autistic individuals engage in and interpret social interactions. Their results are therefore not an accurate representation of autistic communication dynamics, as they do not reflect how autistic gestalt processors truly interact with language and with others.
The failure to control for these key traits—alexithymia and gestalt processing—indicates a deeper methodological flaw. It suggests that the researchers do not fully understand the population they are studying, nor the complexity of autistic communication. This oversight leads to flawed conclusions that misrepresent autistic behaviour, reinforcing misconceptions about autistic social functioning. Without addressing these traits, the study’s findings cannot be seen as valid representations of autistic social dynamics, but rather as reflections of the research team’s inability to account for the true diversity of autistic experiences.
Ethical Concerns: Lack of Autistic Representation and IRB Oversight
A glaring issue with this study is the complete absence of autistic researchers on the research team, which is entirely dominated by members of the neuro-majority. This lack of representation plays a significant role in the study’s flawed framing and its inability to capture the true social dynamics of autistic individuals. Autistic voices are essential in research about autism, as we bring lived experiences and insights that cannot be replicated by neuro-majority individuals. Without autistic researchers involved, the study falls into the common trap of imposing neuro-majority assumptions on autistic participants, leading to misunderstandings and biased interpretations. The hierarchical leader-follower dynamic imposed on the autistic participants is a prime example of this bias, reinforcing a model that fails to account for the diverse ways autistic people interact socially. This neuro-majority dominance not only skews the results but perpetuates harmful narratives that suggest autistic individuals are inherently deficient for not conforming to neuro-majority norms.
In addition to this lack of representation, the IRB bears responsibility for approving a study that exhibits significant methodological flaws. The IRB, whose role is to ensure ethical standards in human subject research, seems to have overlooked the fact that the study neither adequately represents nor fully understands the population being studied. One must question whether the autistic participants in the study were truly able to give informed consent, given that their behaviours would later be framed through a neuro-majority lens that pathologises normal autistic interaction styles. Were these participants aware that their social behaviours would be characterised as deficient in the eventual report? This raises serious concerns about the validity of the consent process, as it is unlikely the participants could have anticipated such a biased portrayal of their interactions.
This failure by the IRB is emblematic of broader ethical concerns regarding research on marginalised populations, particularly autistic individuals. When research is conducted on any marginalised group without proper understanding or representation, the study risks reinforcing harmful stereotypes and inaccuracies. In the case of this study, the researchers approach autistic participants as if they are a problem to be solved, without any consideration of the unique communication styles and lived experiences that shape autistic social interactions. Conducting research on autistic individuals whilst disregarding these essential aspects raises fundamental questions about the legitimacy of the study. How can the researchers claim to study a population they seem to know so little about?
Moreover, the ethics of researching any population without their full and accurate representation is highly questionable. Autistic individuals, as a marginalised group, have long been subjected to studies that pathologise our behaviours rather than embracing our differences. The lack of understanding shown by the research team, compounded by the IRB’s approval, speaks to a larger issue in autism research: a failure to engage meaningfully with the very people whose lives are being studied. Until researchers begin to work alongside autistic individuals, and until studies are scrutinised by those who understand autistic experiences, the research will continue to be flawed, harmful, and ethically unsound.
The ‘Double Empathy Problem:’ A Missed Opportunity
The Double Empathy Hypothesis suggests that the communication gap between autistic individuals and members of the neuro-majority is a mutual one. It argues that both groups struggle to understand each other, challenging the traditional narrative that autistic people alone are responsible for communication difficulties. However, whilst this theory is a step forward from earlier deficit-based models, I’ve always found the term “Double Empathy Problem” to be problematic. The issue is not one of mutual deficit—autistic people communicate just fine with each other. The problem lies in the neuro-majority’s inability or unwillingness to recognise the validity of our communication styles and social norms. We do not struggle to engage with other autistic individuals, which makes it clear that the so-called problem isn’t ours to solve. The burden of misunderstanding lies with the neuro-majority, who tend to frame any deviation from their norms as a failure rather than a difference.
The study in question fails to acknowledge this mutual disconnect. Instead, it adopts a one-sided approach, focusing solely on autistic participants’ behaviour without examining how participants from the neuro-majority might be contributing to the disconnect. There is a pervasive bias in research like this—why is it always assumed that the problem lies with autistic individuals? The study neglects to explore whether the neuro-majority participants even realised that their autistic counterparts communicate differently in the first place. This lack of awareness speaks volumes about the biases at play here. The neuro-majority is so often centred as the default in research, which leads to the assumption that their social norms are correct and universal. This framing conveniently absolves the neuro-majority from any responsibility for the communication breakdown, placing the blame squarely on autistic individuals instead.
Had the study acknowledged the mutual nature of the disconnect, it could have reframed the social dynamics in a more inclusive and accurate way. The issue is not autistic people’s social skills; rather, it’s the lack of understanding and effort from the neuro-majority to bridge the gap. A more productive approach would have examined how the neuro-majority could adapt and accommodate autistic communication styles instead of framing the latter as deficient. Only by addressing this two-way street can research begin to understand the true nature of the communication divide and work towards solutions that honour autistic ways of being.
The Importance of Alternative Frameworks
One of the most significant opportunities missed in this study is the exploration of egalitarian and non-hierarchical engagement, which reflects how many autistic individuals naturally interact. Rather than relying on the rigid, hierarchical models so prevalent in neuro-majority research—models that value dominance and leadership—future studies should investigate how autistic people engage in social interactions that are cooperative, shared, and equal. A matristic framework, for example, which values nurturing, collaboration, and mutual respect, would offer a more accurate reflection of how many autistic individuals form relationships and communicate. This approach focuses on shared experiences and lateral engagement, rather than positioning one individual as dominant over the other. Such a framework could reveal richer, more authentic insights into how autistic individuals engage with the world, free from the constraints of neuro-majority biases.
Future research should also explore neurodiverse social models, specifically how autistic individuals interact with one another. Autistic-to-autistic interactions are often overlooked, despite the fact that they provide a unique opportunity to study social engagement without the pressure to conform to neuro-majority standards. These interactions often do not rely on traditional forms of communication like spoken language, but rather involve sharing sensory experiences, emotions, or even using text-based communication, such as memes or other non-verbal forms of connection. For example, many autistic people may sit together in silence or exchange simple gestures that carry profound meaning. What does it look like when we communicate without words, or when we share through the act of simply being present with one another? Research should focus on these ‘non-traditional’ forms of communication that are meaningful and valid in autistic social settings but are rarely recognised or studied in neuro-majority-driven research.
To create truly inclusive and accurate studies, it’s crucial that research is designed with the input of autistic individuals. As an actually autistic GLP researcher and author (also, alexithymic and hyper-empathic … and a trans woman), I am intimately familiar with the unique ways in which we communicate and process information. Our strengths, particularly in holistic processing and multi-sensory engagement, need to be centred rather than dismissed as deficits. Including autistic voices in the research design process ensures that studies move beyond the narrow neuro-majority lens, focusing on strengths-based approaches that acknowledge the full spectrum of autistic social interaction. This would mean conducting studies not to “fix” autistic people, but to understand and support us in ways that respect our authenticity. Researchers must stop pathologising the differences between autistic and neuro-majority communication and instead embrace the diversity of neurodiverse social models.
Ultimately, creating research frameworks that honour autistic social norms—rather than imposing neuro-majority standards—will lead to more meaningful, inclusive, and respectful findings. These frameworks will not only allow autistic individuals to be seen for who we are, but also help challenge the biased assumption that we must conform to majority expectations in order to be valid participants in social life.
Final thoughts …
To wrap up, today’s article has highlighted several fundamental flaws in the study Distinct Social Behavior and Inter-Brain Connectivity in Dyads with Autistic Individuals. From the outset, the research was hampered by biases deeply rooted in the neuro-majority’s assumptions about social interactions, particularly the insistence on hierarchical leader-follower dynamics. This framing is not only irrelevant to many autistic individuals, who prefer egalitarian forms of engagement, but also reflects an ableist view that pathologises differences rather than understanding them. The study’s methodological flaws, including the failure to account for key autistic traits such as alexithymia and gestalt processing, further undermine its validity. By not controlling for these significant factors, the researchers missed the mark on understanding how autistic individuals truly communicate and interact. Additionally, the absence of autistic representation in both the research team and the study design reflects a broader issue in autism research—one where the voices of those most affected are excluded from the conversation, leading to biased and incomplete findings.
Ethical concerns also abound, particularly regarding the IRB’s approval of a study that failed to fully grasp the complexities of the autistic population. The informed consent process is questionable at best, as the autistic participants likely did not anticipate that their behaviours would be pathologised and framed through a neuro-majority lens. This calls into question the legitimacy of the study as a whole, raising important issues about the ethics of conducting research on marginalised populations without their full understanding or representation.
Moving forward, it is imperative that future researchers adopt more inclusive and accurate frameworks that respect the unique ways in which autistic individuals interact. Rather than forcing autistic behaviours into neuro-majority molds, research should be designed to explore the diversity of neurodiverse communication. This means engaging autistic individuals in the design and execution of studies and focusing on strengths-based approaches that recognise the value of different communication styles.
Whilst the study attempted to innovate by employing inter-brain synchrony, it ultimately falls short of providing meaningful insights into autistic communication. Its biased framing and methodological oversights prevent it from truly contributing to the understanding of how autistic individuals engage with the world. Without significant changes to the way autism research is conducted, studies like this will continue to misrepresent and misunderstand the very people they claim to study.