Theoretical problems with oversimplifying autistic diversity into a single category

Mao (2023) presents a unified theory of language acquisition and processing which aims to bridge the gap between nativist constructionist views on pragmatic competence. argues that autism comprises specific population reveals how an Integrative Model Pragmatic Competence works given apparent autistic difficulties in competence but intact grammatical lexical systems. concludes features perceived be indicative all people (egocentrism lack mind) do not prevent linguistic It is possible for internal modular components function without recourse intersubjective sociocultural engagement. argued this ultimately supports view over relation acquisition, thus proposes subsequent research should focus neurobiological aspects processing. Our commentary will broader debate about reconciling positions nativism constructionism. Rather, we wish instead specifically assumption puts forward constitute homogenous category studying basic properties human language. This underscores theoretical problems within ideas proposed discussed below. also has important moral ethical implications light way have been historically misrepresented as being entirely egocentric unable partake authentic life (Heasman & Gillespie, 2018; Ochs et al., 2004). Indeed, more precise application double empathy (i.e., there understanding non-autistic due two-way dispositional differences), highlights relational construct functions critically examine knowledge produced. Thus, can help guard against risks unintentionally perpetuating overgeneralised deficit-framed stereotypes autism. We therefore raise five issues with Moa's suggest pathway strengthen would shift away from complex label define populations study based measures relevant question at hand. First, acknowledges describes wide range abilities lacking functional competent verbal abilities. Such extremes ambitious aim developing model its use could resolve divergent beliefs constructionism nativism. The problem while may demonstrate abilities, reasons why are multifaceted, diagnosis, it amalgamation social, cognitive, sensory interactional criteria. Across spectrum vastly different competencies, developmental trajectories, associated learning co-occurring diagnoses greatly complicate attempts create unifying using alone. Moreover, notable differences ability population, such males females, where females observed higher propensity communicative skills (Sturrock 2021). Therefore, any develop hypotheses needs consider complexity. A second issue theorisation results ever-shifting definitions support profile comprising two core features, enduring insufficiency communication lasting mind-reading. creates further “linguistic profile” now no longer people. someone autistic, example who diagnosed social disorder other criteria diagnosis. wealth literature difficulty interlocutors experience (e.g., conversational repairs; Schegloff, 1992). What strengthened Mao's here operationalisation what meant by intersubjectivity apply people, used describe variety situations (Gillespie Cornish, 2010). appears propose immediate consensus only form “successful” communication, contrasts distal patterns 2019b). third issue, related above point, claim mind-reading component non-intersubjective use. makes broad when describing individuals conducting self-sufficient thinking activities To completely understand others' intentions thoughts oversimplification inconsistent contemporary evidence much nuanced picture interact each (Crompton 2020), familiar others 2018), indeed, struggle imagine minds (Sasson Morrison, 2019). Mind-reading mind received numerous critiques (Boucher, 2012; Dant, 2015; Yergeau Huebner, 2017) acknowledged rationale presented. However, conflates another egocentrism, described capable steady mental computations. vague diversity subjectivity or consistent autobiographical accounts (Milton Sims, 2016; Ridout, 2017). Egocentrism highly contentious very depends one's position field whether speech classified egocentric. term referring debunked many reasons, least because said engage (Begeer 2016). fourth derives arguments Dated references assumptions, Baron-Cohen al. (1985) high slim chance others. extent enriched recent years through both neurodiversity paradigm inclusion voice had previously “frozen out” (Milton, 2014). At times, analogy reference savants, Stephen Wiltshire William Christopher. Yet savants themselves incredibly rare population. Savants suitable wider spectrum, nor basis universal These four concerned accurately defining result fifth misapplication theory. uses fundamentally these parties. closer reading theory, sociologist Milton (2014), (1) difference, deficit attributable one party implies; (2) difference caused factors far beyond style; (3) amplified harmful circulate science popular culture. idea dyadic rather than individual impacts strategies reducing gap. Specifically, follows (or increased similarity) lead reduction gap, empirical shown case context peer-to-peer successful, less so even ameliorated supporting shared experiences (Chapple situates internalised Under proposal, parties sharing same able overcome fit aligned. alone already addressed above. potential reinforce negative scientific endeavour does require attention, highlighted looping effects epistemic injustice (Chapman Carel, 2022; Hacking, 1999). representations created inquiry impact see themselves, often ways their deficits Autistic navigate stigma various levels having personal lived overlooked (Botha Heasman 2019a). For reason, studies take careful sensitive approach towards topic recognises read, work taken forward, strongly recommend avoiding heterogenous illustrate property acquisition. measure competence, hand, yield robust exploration Data applicable article datasets were generated analysed during current study.