Yes, being autistic is sometimes the same thing as being “highly sensitive”™
I told you I’d be back. This time with a reaction to a very ableist and very badly written article on Psychology Today (link in the next section), a publication that doesn’t really care what they publish, as long as the text has current buzzwords in it.
The article is written by Rachel Samson, M. Psych (yes, that’s a Master’s degree, do not confuse with MD, which includes a PhD in medicine), who likes to market herself as “the helper of highly sensitive children”. I’ll leave aside how predatory that sounds just because I’m not from her culture and it might sound fishy to me, but hey, there are worse people out there.
But from traumatizing children in your psychology practice (by using “attachment-focused therapeutic intervention”, her words, not mine) to making unfounded claims in a publication with huge visibility and impacting people who are just starting to learn that they might be autistic (and oh, what a relief that is when you do find out that you were not wrong or evil this whole time, you were just wired differently!), that’s a huge leap. And one that I will not forgive.
I cannot stand by idly and watch as someone who clearly cannot make the distinction between actual scientific literature and two phony books written by a lady based on no science whatsoever (I ranted on her HSP BS in another article here, jump to “Elaine Aron” if you’re curious) is undoing all the hard work that autistic advocates have been pouring into autism acceptance over the past… many years.
This is clearly a position of privilege — to just publish any crap you want on the Psychology Today blog, with no regards to scientific accuracy, no regards to language, and most importantly no regards to logic!
So, since I can’t leave a comment below the blog post (eww, comments on blog posts, we could never), I wrote a comment “letter” to the editors themselves. They will probably ignore it and maybe get wrapped up in the things I mention that I don’t have any citations for (because they don’t exist, because most scientists think that autism is a disease that needs to be destroyed, even though many of them are probably autistic and have no idea), so I just pasted it below.
In case it gets lost, you know how it works. And because I believe that these comments should be public, even if they (PT) don’t want them to be.
You may perceive the anger in my words, but it is all warranted, trust me. I haven’t read such a load of crap in a long while (have been laying low for sanity’s sake), but wow, this makes me angry…
Hello. This is a comment about this article: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-highly-sensitive-child/202112/no-being-autistic-is-not-the-same-being-highly-sensitive
I really wish you had a moderated comment section for each article, so you don’t get the same observations over and over again.
This article about “being highly sensitive” is very poorly written, with a clear lack of understanding of the fact that there is no such thing as “highly sensitive people” in the scientific literature.
Besides some unsubstantiated references written more than two decades ago (which have not been backed up by science), there is no reference in the cited literature to this “high sensitivity”.
As supported by the cited literature, the sensory processing sensitivity is part of the human neurodiversity. Some people have more sensitivity than others and some less, in a spectrum specific to each type of stimulus.
Those whose sensitivity lies outside of the accepted values for the majority of society are usually identified (or diagnosed, in the pathological view of autism) as autistic.
Some of the other characteristics that are used to describe us (perceived “lack of emotions or empathy”, issues with communication and social interaction, repetitive actions and activities) stem from the same neurological differences that generate these different levels of sensitivity, or even from the sensitivities themselves, coupled with having to live in societies where our differences are considered “evil” or “unacceptable” and where autistic people are tortured into submission (see ABA).
Everything that is mentioned in this article relating to “highly sensitive people” is also valid for autistics, even if it is framed as if it were the opposite.
Putting into place accommodations and creating a nurturing environment will lead to autistics having thriving lives. Being willing to meet us halfway and not insisting that we know what is not being said, answering questions when we ask them, listening to our lived experiences and using our own answers in actual research, this will make the lives of autistics better.
There is no difference between HSP and autistics because there is no such thing as HSP, just autistic people who live in a highly ableist society, who mask well and are not yet aware of who they really are.
I will not even enter into the whole “temperament” issue, as the cited source is from 1981 (!!!) and clearly outdated. Feeling something, having the sensory experience of a stimulus, has nothing to do with how you react to the stimulus, either naturally or after training or self-training (such as screaming with pain as a child or just wincing and biting your lips as an adult who has learned that it is “socially unacceptable” to scream in pain, even if the pain feels the same).
Even if I can’t defend this view yet because the scientific literature is way behind on research that considers autistics as actual people with feelings and ability to communicate, I can still bring to your attention that this article does a lot of harm to the people who are still unsure whether they are autistic or not, as they will be even more confused by this badly written article that is backed by such a large publication as yours.
The last thing I want to mention is the disdain that is apparent from the language the author uses with regards to online sources relating to autistic experiences. Since science in general is not yet willing to listen to actual autistic experiences and use those to create and test new theories regarding autism (there are a few scientists who have started to do this work, but most of them regard us as “broken” and in need of “fixing”), there is no other place for autistic people to express themselves than online and through books.
Calling these resources that are essential for the well-being of a large proportion of the human population “pop psychology” is demeaning and petty and should not appear in a text published in a serious publication. Just because it is believed that the percentage of autistics in the population is only 2%, that doesn’t mean that at least 160 million people should be left without resources written by like-minded people who understand what it’s like to live in a world where most people hate you for existing, or that the people who write these resources have no education, authority or scientific experience.
I hope I have made myself clear and that you can use this information to read through again and possibly remove this article that has no point, no argument to stand on, and is detrimental to the population at large.
Kind regards,
Andrea — a highly sensitive autistic person
