Autism and ASD: Current State of Knowledge and Main Theories Under Discussion

This publication examines what is commonly called “the current state of knowledge about autism.” The expression appears simple, but in practice it covers several different objects: diagnostic criteria, group observations, genetic or biological associations, perceptual and cognitive models, developmental hypotheses, research on social interaction, and social and political debates.

The first methodological problem is therefore not to transform automatically everything studied under the clinical label autism spectrum disorder (ASD) into knowledge directly about autism itself.

Classifications such as ICD-11 and the DSM describe criteria used to group people for clinical diagnosis. Research conducted on these populations can produce very robust observations. But a diagnostic category, an empirical observation, and an explanatory theory do not have the same status.

This publication therefore adopts strict terminological discipline:

• when discussing classifications, diagnosis, or cohorts constituted from clinical criteria, we refer to ASD, ASD diagnosis, ASD criteria, or people meeting those criteria;
• when discussing autistic people, autistic functioning, or autistic characteristics, the word autism may be used without automatically equating it with the full set of difficulties grouped into a diagnosis;
• when an author uses expressions such as “risk,” “deficit,” “syndromic autism,” “profound autism,” or “severity,” those terms are attributed to the relevant literature instead of being adopted without distance as the publication’s own vocabulary.

The aim is not to deny medical, biological, psychological, or neuroscientific data. It is to distinguish what has been observed, how it has been interpreted, and what can actually be concluded from it.

The publication follows the usual structure of composite publications on Autismology.org.

A — Documentary state of knowledge

Part A presents, as faithfully as possible, the main areas of knowledge and theories currently under discussion: classifications, heterogeneity, genetics, biomarkers, perception, cognition, Bayesian models, learning, categorization, double empathy, neurodiversity, and categories of support needs. It does not seek to impose an Autismological critique.

B — Critical examination

Part B examines problems of logic and method: construction of the object being studied, heterogeneity, confusion between categories and mechanisms, movement from correlations to causal claims, mixing of levels of analysis, effects of vocabulary, limitations of group studies, and the role of the non-autistic frame of reference.

This part should remain open to discussion even by someone who does not endorse the specific concepts of Autismology.

C — Analysis according to Autismology

Part C explicitly changes the frame of reference. It examines what happens to the same data when autism is distinguished from disorders, difficulties, disabilities, associated conditions, and environmental consequences, and when the object of study becomes autistic functioning itself, non-autistic functioning, and their interface.

The proposals in this part are presented as analyses and hypotheses specific to Autismology, not as an external scientific consensus.

An essential precaution

An accumulation of accurate measurements does not in itself guarantee correct understanding. If different phenomena are brought together from the outset within the same category, it is possible to obtain highly precise data about that category while remaining uncertain about what the category actually represents.

Conversely, the fact that a theoretical framework is debatable does not automatically make the observations produced within that framework useless. An observation may remain important even if its original interpretation needs revision.

The guiding thread of this publication is therefore simple: retain useful data, distinguish levels of statement, examine assumptions, and then progressively reconstruct the object we are trying to understand.