You can read this document in different ways:
This paper questions the common diagnosis of autism as a symptom-based disorder and proposes a systemic-sensory model instead. It argues that many autistic behaviors - such as social withdrawal, language avoidance, or repetitive patterns - should be understood as secondary strategies in dealing with sensory processing. The diagnostic threshold does not arise from the presence of certain traits, but from the collision of individual stimulus profiles with societal demands. This results in a differentiated, multidimensional approach to explaining, classifying, and supporting neurodivergent individuals.
Autism is a term that has remained simultaneously familiar and surprisingly vague. It suggests clarity, specificity, a known clinical picture – and yet in reality, it is a catchment basin for diverse phenomena connected more by external observation than by internal logic. Those who delve deeper into the subject quickly encounter a disconcerting juxtaposition: On one hand, clear diagnoses, support measures, public discourse. On the other hand, a bewildering variety of manifestations, contradictions, and individual differences that are difficult to reconcile.
In current medical and psychological practice, autism is defined primarily through symptoms: difficulties in social interactions, language peculiarities, repetitive behaviors, special interests, sensory sensitivities. But what if many of these symptoms aren’t primary – but rather reactions to a much more fundamental cause?
This paper proposes a radical shift in perspective: Away from superficial description, toward a systemically understood model that places sensory processing as the central cause at its core. Sensory sensitivity – in all its variants – is not a minor aspect, but possibly the key to understanding the phenomenon. Behavior described as “autistic” could then reveal itself as an emergent strategy for dealing with sensory reality.
At the same time, we would need to accept that “autism” is not a uniform syndrome, but rather an observational umbrella for different forms of adaptation to internal and external conditions. Such a perspective would not only deepen scientific understanding but also lead to more individualized, respectful, and effective forms of support.
Autism is commonly referred to as a “spectrum.” This sounds differentiated and modern – but often suggests more clarity than actually exists. The term usually serves to embrace the enormous range of possible manifestations without really explaining them. But what does it mean to be on a “spectrum”?
It is often suggested that all people are located somewhere on this spectrum – just with differently pronounced characteristics. But this is a conceptual flattening. Not every introverted person is “a little autistic,” just as not everyone with good observational skills is highly gifted. It’s not about personality traits, but about a pattern of behaviors based on neurobiological differences – and one that differs qualitatively (not just quantitatively) from so-called neurotypical behaviors.
The central error in thinking is equating symptoms with causes. Current medical practice classifies autism purely phenomenologically: A diagnosis is made based on external features – such as language avoidance, social withdrawal, repetitive movements. Yet these symptoms can arise for completely different reasons. Two people can behave similarly externally yet have entirely different internal causes. Conversely, similar sensory causes can lead to very different behaviors.
This creates a diagnostic fog: We name a behavior but act as if we have thereby identified its cause. As a result, people with very different neurobiological conditions, life realities, and needs end up under the same label – with correspondingly questionable consequences for research, therapy, and social perception.
What if many of the behaviors we label as “autistic” are not disorders in themselves, but rather logical adaptive responses to a divergent sensory inner world?
The central thesis of this paper is:
Sensory sensitivity – its expression, type, and processing dynamics – is not a peripheral phenomenon of autism, but its primary driving force.
People with autism diagnoses often report experiencing a world that is too loud, too bright, too complex, or simply too intense. These are not “quirks,” but existentially tangible realities: fluorescent lights that burn like a welding torch, fabrics that feel like sandpaper, sounds barely perceptible to others that put the nervous system on high alert.
This sensory world is not just different – it is formative. From it emerge many of the observable characteristics:
Additionally, the type of sensory sensitivity varies greatly – in several respects:
These differences are not coincidental, but reflect different neural sensitivities – possibly mediated genetically or hormonally. What’s striking is that despite highly individual sensory profiles, similar behavioral patterns repeatedly emerge, as if there were certain “standard responses” to sensory overload.
This suggests the idea: Sensory sensitivity systematically generates similar reaction patterns – not because people are the same, but because the body-mind-world system responds similarly to overload. And these reaction patterns are what we currently label as “autism.”
Even if sensory sensitivity may be the common denominator – the reaction to it is by no means uniform. Even with very similar stimulus profiles, people develop completely different coping strategies: one withdraws, another becomes aggressive. One ritualizes their daily routine, another develops fixations on controllable content. Why?
The answer lies in emergence: Behavior is not directly derivable from an input (e.g., high stimulus level), but arises through interaction with other system factors:
All these factors act as filters, amplifiers, or dampeners – shaping different paths from the same starting point. Nevertheless, it’s striking: “Autistic” reaction patterns often strongly resemble each other. And that is actually remarkable.
Why is this? Two hypotheses:
There are evolutionarily robust standard strategies for dealing with sensory overload – such as withdrawal, stimulus control, repetition. These strategies establish themselves independently because they are functional.
The social environment forces selection: Only certain behaviors are tolerated or viable. For example, someone who regulates their sensory sensitivity through open stimulus avoidance becomes socially excluded – while “quiet withdrawal” remains as silent suffering and thus less noticeable.
This creates a picture of autism that systematically deceives us: The observed similarity is not the result of identical personalities, but the result of similar adaptation logic in a limited space of possible solutions.
If we no longer view autism as a clearly defined disorder with fixed symptoms, but as an emergent reaction to sensory and systemic conditions, then the focus of research and therapy also shifts.
Currently, symptom-oriented diagnostics dominates, supplemented by genetic studies that often remain inconclusive. What’s missing is a targeted, systemic approach that asks questions such as:
Such questions require interdisciplinary research: neuroscience, endocrinology, psychology, education, and even cybernetics would need to cooperate. What’s missing today is an overarching functional model that doesn’t classify symptoms, but maps the interaction of the levels involved.
Current practice often aims at behavioral training. Autistic children learn eye contact, interrupting routines, or “appropriate” social behavior. But if these behaviors are symptoms of a profound stimulus imbalance, then training merely addresses the surface – without changing the inner reality. In the worst case, the child only learns to mask better – at the expense of energy, well-being, and identity.
A cause-oriented support would need to take a different approach:
This type of help is not corrective, but understanding. It aims not at normalization, but at cooperation with a different mode of perception. The focus shifts: from deficit to fit.
From the preceding considerations, a simple yet far-reaching model emerges:
Autistic behavior is not the result of a single disorder, but the outcome of a system in which multiple dimensions interact.
These dimensions vary individually and interact with each other – yet can still produce typical patterns that we currently group under the label “autism.”
| Dimension | Function |
|---|---|
| 1. Sensory Profile | Which stimuli are amplified or diminished? |
| 2. Neurochemistry/Hormones | How is sensory information modulated internally? |
| 3. Environment & Socialization | Which experiences and contexts shape behavior? |
| 4. Cognitive Resources | How is sensory processing intellectually managed? |
| 5. Coping Strategies | Which patterns have proven effective? |
Such a framework not only allows for more differentiated diagnostics but also tailored support that is aligned with actual needs.
At the same time, this model breaks with the illusion that autism is a fixed entity – and opens our perspective to what is actually happening: a highly complex form of adaptation to a world that is not designed for a particular way of perception.
This paper is not a manifesto, nor a theory claiming absoluteness – but an offer for reconsidering our thinking. It suggests viewing autism not as a rigid diagnosis, but as an emergent phenomenon: a pattern that arises from the interaction of sensory perception, neurochemical modulation, individual conditioning, and environmental factors.
The term “autism” has helped many people better understand themselves or to be seen at all. But it has also confined many to rigid categories, standardized therapies, and created expectations. What is missing is a model that is both differentiated and comprehensible, one that targets causes rather than symptoms – and that takes people seriously in their perceptual logic.
We are not advocating for a new label, but for a new epistemic humility: the courage to say that we are dealing with a multi-layered system – not with a disorder that can be diagnostically “solved.”
Perhaps it is time to start from a different perspective:
Autistic behavior is not the result of a deficit – but a competent reaction to an overwhelming, poorly matched world. And this reaction deserves not “training,” but understanding, contextual adaptation, and dialogical support.
Research is invited not to create even more refined symptom lists, but to turn to the causal spaces: sensory processing, hormones, stress axes, developmental environments. And society is invited to stop thinking in categories of “normal” and “conspicuous” – but to ask: How many different ways of perceiving can a world sustain without losing people?
Then that’s good. Because the goal is not to have the final word, but to set thinking in motion. A model is not right or wrong – it is useful or not useful. And we believe: This model has the potential to explain more, connect more, and enable more.
We welcome criticism, additions, experiences, objections. Not because we want to be attacked – but because we want to engage in dialogue. Better understanding is not a goal – it is a process.
When we understand sensory processing as a central axis of human behavior, a subtle but far-reaching shift in perspective emerges.
Autism is not recognized because a person feels differently – but because their reactions to this world do not function smoothly. This also means: The diagnosis does not arise from the brain alone, but from the collision between inner world and environment. What we call a “disorder” is often just the visibility of a system that cannot find peace in a particular environment.
In this light, the boundary between “neurotypical” and “autistic” is remarkably soft. Many people show similar sensory peculiarities – but as long as they don’t disrupt, they are considered temperament or idiosyncrasy. The visible deviation begins where the system experiences stress – not before.
And if sensory processing is indeed so central, then many other phenomena could also lie on this axis – ADHD, high sensitivity, burnout, anxiety disorders. Not as part of the same spectrum, but as related resonance phenomena of an overstimulated system.
We are therefore not arguing for putting everything under one term – but for examining a common model: A model that understands sensory processing as the foundation from which behavior, adaptation, stress, and ultimately suffering emerge.
Perhaps this is the next step – out of the boxes, into the system analysis of being human.
This paper emerged from a dialogue between a systems-thinking engineer and an AI-based writing assistant. It is intended as a contribution to objectification and reorientation in dealing with neurodivergent behavior – open to criticism, additions, and further development.
This paper was created in dialogue between a systems-thinking engineer and an AI-based writing assistant. It is intended as a contribution to objectivity and reorientation in dealing with neurodivergent behavior – open to criticism, additions, and further development.