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:

1. The nature of Kolmogorov complexity. Autistic people may study something, but not find a clean, useful solution. But when it works, you can find successful physicists.
2. Missing some pieces that encourage the computation of Kolmogorov Complexity. As autism is a spectrum, there could be someone who has savant-like discrete memory, but lacks mathematical background. Or someone with tunnel vision, who does not have a good memory. But when all the pieces come together, you get someone who can do a version of Solomonoff Induction really well.
3. Tradeoffs for having this phenotype, related to flexible thinking patterns.

Again, thanks for the feedback!

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"?

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.