Wouldn't it be nice if hypocrisy made people feel sick?

Guess what? It does. But not for enough of us.

This post is response to the note quoted below. It is not a critique. It is, hopefully, helpful in further understanding the mechanism that makes for “the canary in the coal mine.”

I hope to convey my alliance with The Cognitive Ecologist’s language choices, even though my language choices might be slightly different. My natural born tendencies have been to try to understand mechanisms and, in particular, more “automatic” mechanisms. I used to call myself “the nerdiest of nerds.” But, now, I think many folks have earned that title. (winkwink)

For my whole life I have been like “how does this work, how does this happen, what are the moving parts?”

So, when it came to trying to understand my clients who were, for 15 years of my practice, primarily ADHD/ASD types of all stripes, I got hooked.

I had the privilege of a private practice that allowed me to spend many hours getting to know not only the “identified” client, but also their partners or trusted ones who I asked to fill-out the same self-reports (as third-party observers to increase report accuracy) and to sit in to “be on the same page as the client.”

I came to the conclusion that sensory sensitivities were so highly amped in many ADHDer types (low working memory) that they had a completely different and more complicated journey for finding work arounds for a highly overwhelmed data processing system.

While interviewing, evaluating and gathering data from ADHDer types who were also sensory sensitive (mild to severe) it became clear that some of them did not fit the criteria for low working memory. High working memory types could still look ADHD due to many other variables, but trying to address those typical ADHD characteristics with dopamine enhancers was problematic.

I have been using the term Sensory Amplification Syndrome (SAS) since 2012. Very high amplification of incoming sensory data is a standalone that, on its own, can produce many of the characteristics of ASD/ADHD. My clients and I were able to use the knowledge from the literature and their expertise to find a way to reduce amplification.

I became much more informed and helpful with ASD scenarios and started noticing that easily, 90% of the time, ASDer types were being hit by huge amplification of sensory signals. (Think about “bracing” and “hesitation,” among the things, automatically, not chosen.)

I started noticing that there was another very common characteristic in many folks along with SAS that seemed to be a constant in the ASD world -- justice sensitivity. Or another way to say that is they were very good at noticing dispatterns (discrepancies), hypocrisy, dissonances, inconsistencies, mixed signals, and illogic, among other things.

To notice dispatterns requires noticing patterns. I discovered the dispattern part first because it was more apparent. Most people would not think that pattern awareness would produce a challenge, but it does.

To make a long story short, for now. My major conclusion from my 15 year inquiry and intensive work at gathering data, reading the lit, fact checking my conclusions with my clients, and modifying conclusions based on that feedback and the literature since 2009, it looks to me that the two major variables in the expression of ASD characteristics are SAS plus a very active conflict monitoring system.

Conflict monitoring is a meta monitoring process monitoring other monitors for signs of conflicts in sensory signals.

The two major variables that I have proposed are (1) powerful amped up data conflict monitoring by mostly anterior cingulate cortex operations, plus (2) significant sensory signal amplification (often called sensory sensitivities or sensory over-responsivity in the literature) which, together, produce a huge multiplier effect on conflict monitor signals

What first led me to looking at sensory issues were my observations related to a subset of ADHDers (about 15%) who clearly fit the criteria for enhanced sensory sensitivities. Such sensitivities had significant influence on not only the set of characteristics but also the outcomes of treatment strategies.

I then created my own sensory sensitivity rating sheet and gathered significant data from over 400 clients between 2011 and 2021. I coined the term “sensory amplification syndrome” (SAS) in 2012 to help identify the actual mechanism, not just the organism response.

Very few clients displayed a “sensory muting syndrome” except for independent, single-function muting related to hearing, vision, touch, numbness, pain, smell, taste, or balance difficulty, among others..

There is more than enough data on ASD types of brains to conclude that the same or similar anterior cingulate cortex zone in ASD type brains is larger and/or showing larger amounts of white matter in those areas. That can be present in anyone as a standalone. However, it may not have the same influence on monitoring conflict unless it is also combined with SAS.

The literature in the aughts revealed really good work on the functions of the locus coeruleus in providing “gain” to all cortical sensory interpretation areas.

I use the term amplification, since gain is not a widely understood word. The last 15 years has seen an explosion of LC and ACC research findings.

What is data-conflict monitoring (DCM)? You might guess that DCM would be one of the most important survival brain operations for humans.

DCM can be understood as a “meta-monitoring.” It consists of a specialized circuitry that allows the brain to track and compare sensory system signals.

If, for instance, it monitors a data conflict between what your eyes are noticing and what your vestibular (balance) system is noticing, it can get triggered. If the data-conflict continues and cannot be easily resolved, dopamine triggering will get intense enough to cause some of the typical discomforts of above optimal dopamine: a spectrum of gut discomfort from “weird or queasy” to full-on vomiting and/or many of the other symptoms of motion sickness.

Muscle motor movement is monitored. Movements are not just the product of one muscle group. To smoothly execute most movements, your system has to use opposing sets of muscles (extensors and flexors). That means two sets of data coming from two separate structures have to be resolved for the muscles to smoothly operate in conjunction. Such coordination is never perfect.

Sensory amplification from the LC to an already amplified conflict monitoring circuitry (ACC) will generate a more intense conflict signal than if your LC is not the sensory amplifier type.

I often use the term “hesitation” to describe the very short, but still evident, time it takes to resolve data conflict signals and complete the move, even if just a minor move, in the ASD scenario.

Some researchers use terms like “soft muscles” to describe a phenomena where such ASDer relaxed muscle tension has been called “hypotonic.” Although the mechanism has not been completely defined, you can imagine that a hyper-relaxed muscle state might be the default and would be a relief from the constant load of conflict signaling from muscle use. There is a significant disincentive to creating a muscle(s) tension.

Hesitation of this kind gets erroneously called “slow-processing.” I use “resolution pause” to try to convey what creates the hesitation. More sensitivity to conflict of all kinds means more demands for resolution. It’s a given, not a choice.

To use any words that would imply that such a hesitation is a willful decision would be wrong. It is a default hardware setting, and it is automatic. Would you want to fix it? I say not a chance.

It’s an integral part of the hardware that also creates huge upsides. Once it is understood as unalterable hardware that has a significant upside, it has a much better chance of being appreciated.

This particular automatic process of resolving conflicting signals is quite likely the main reason humans have been able to establish and improve on principles of morality, justice, auditing, truth-seeking, etc. Not a decision. A given. We have that processing mechanism to thank, not to pathologize.

SAS and DCM amplified scenarios common to almost all ASDers produce huge upsides like justice sensitivity, noticing discrepancies, hypocrisy, cognitive dissonance, illogic, irrationality, in addition to pattern and visual discrepancies, pattern and visual similarities, connecting dots (pattern recognition), movement detection, nuances of tone of voice, eye contact and movement, body language, etc.).

All things really good, but so not in line with our current intense de-civilization. Quite inconvenient for toxic marketing and dishonesty, and a slew of other discrepant behaviors.

The downsides for the ASDer? Overwhelmed by data conflict loads (even made to feel sick by such loads). Pathologized, misunderstood, shamed, ostracized, pilloried, arrested, hammered into conformity to so-called norms.

Most of us could use a little upgrading of our conflict monitoring. And, a bunch more admiration and respect for those who already have it hardwired.

I mean, in a world were hypocrisy makes most people sick, there wouldn’t be much hypocrisy going on, among other things. Maybe the golden rule would have a chance to rule.

**********************

Detailed footnotes and sources will be posted here soon.