I think this is probably wrong, but even if it happens to be right, you probably won't get proper peer review here.
One suspicious part is that you describe autists as successful, but I think most of them are not. I think it's more like people with sufficiently high IQ can sometimes successfully compensate for the disadvantages brought by the milder forms of autism. And then, specifically autistic traits such as obsession and attention to details, can be useful to achieve something great.
But generally it sounds to me more like you found an interesting metaphor, than a real underlying mechanism.
Hi, thanks for the feedback!
"interesting metaphor ...than...underlying mechanism."
As for the mechanism part, no, this paper does not seek to investigate the neurobiology behind autism, just the outward behaviors. For example, the 'eye' has evolved multiple times in the animal kingdom, for different underlying biological reasons.
If one accepts Solomonoff induction, which is based on Kolmogorov Complexity, as a formalization of science, then it might be that evolutionary pressures would favor the development of a human phenotype that more closely approximates Kolmogorov Complexity. This paper suggests that such pressures may contribute to the emergence of the autism phenotype. https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/Kyc5dFDzBg4WccrbK/an-intuitive-explanation-of-solomonoff-induction#Formalized_Science
You said the paper "describes autists as successful, but [you] think most of them are not". This could be from multiple reasons, such as:
Again, thanks for the feedback!
The Komogorov complexity is what the neocortex does, or what autoencoders do, while the statistical approaches are a fallback mechanism that gets used when the neocortex can't build a model of something. It gets extra confusing, because you can be "autistic" both because you rely on the neocortex significantly more or significantly less than the general population.
As for the examples:
The stronger the neocortex, the better and more flexibly language can be used to say precisely what is meant. The weaker it gets, the more rigid the language. A large, rigid vocabulary is needed to communicate anything. The ability to derive words may disappear, in languages that allow it. Memorized phrases can take arbitrary meanings, words accumulate random "collocations" from the imprecise learning, and metaphors may be a fallback mechanism to replace words that can't be understood easily, or are not available in the language, or not known. This may cause confusion in more neocortex based speakers of the superficially identical language.
The stronger the neocortex, the less needs to be explicitly taught, as the person can build models that are good enough on their own.
The stronger the neocortex, the more can be seen (and heard), because you deal with better packed information, with much smaller volumes than more poorly packed, or even raw data. This likely also allows you to remember more, as there is less to remember.
The neocortex use appears to be negatively correlated with IQ.
I don't have the neurobiological background to dispute this, but I looked your name up and you seem to be involved in neuroscience studies.
Some of your statements don't make sense to me, and I've never heard of these in all the time i've spent reading about autism.
Where is the study that shows negative correlation between neocortex use and IQ? Additionally, I've not heard of this 'bimodal neocortex more-or-less use than the general population' being related to autism.
The neocortex allowing for more efficient information packing sounds like it could be plausible, because that's where a lot of higher order thoughts come from. But then again, I do not know about the neurobiological underpinnings. The focus of this paper is the outward phenotype and behaviors, not the neurobiological underpinnings at the moment, the brain is very complex, and I am just writing a paper based on my inner experience with autism and some of the autism theories I read. A few autistic programmers seem to agree with my assessments in this paper from their own experiences.
Own Brief summary. (what is not a brief summary)
I do not believe; That there is a framework specific to, individuals with "autism". In general specification; To those that are born with it. (since it is a developmental disorder, or categorized as such: I would go a step further and arbitrarily say that it is dependent on a multitude of factors of gene expression, late application of genome.)
You present no biases of collateral "Giftedness" in underlying effort that, demeans cognitive patterns as if; They were dependent as such. (being established) (einstein could have very well been a swagger), it makes for a good explanation. Though in rigid terms, "Autistic" can not differ in the dabbling of arts.
For it is the well-being of those with autism that, those with autism seek. As to the varying degrees, whereas, it must be as such. That ends with prejudice, because of standards of diagnosis deviating.
Prognosis. Underlying efforts aside.
So we can agree that autism, in it's own right, is modular expression... So that, information goes through another process than it usually does... So that it is noticed that it does not do as it usually does. But to the length of degree, if, it is a minimal change... To the neo-cortex while applying different changes to a higher degree... How is it noticed internally that said' change has been applied crucially? Speech change, for example, is a common deviator, except for eye contact... As for what I have heard without any professional opinion, to profess.
Would speech not be included as a disorder? (for a monumental undertaking)
Could you clarify what you meant by this statement? : "You present no biases of collateral "Giftedness" in underlying effort that, demeans cognitive patterns as if; They were dependent as such. (being established) (einstein could have very well been a swagger), it makes for a good explanation. Though in rigid terms, "Autistic" can not differ in the dabbling of arts."
What do you mean by "swagger"?