Transforming the Well-Being of Persons with Autism

ABSTRACT

The prospects for attaining well-being do not appear to be improving for most persons with Autism. We believe it is essential to understand the obstacles preventing persons from experiencing life satisfaction and optimism for the future. The current paper seeks to address this question and provide an alternate model that we believe can significantly increase the potential for autistic persons to achieve greater well-being. We first review recent findings concerning the well-being of autistic adults. Next, we present evidence supporting our belief that a significant factor suppressing autistic well-being is the failure to develop Dynamic Intelligence, the mental resources needed to function successfully in situations resembling Complex Dynamic Systems. This section includes a brief qualitative study of four young men with Autism who participated as children in Relationship Development Intervention (RDI). RDI is a family-based program where through careful assessment, support and training, RDI consultants provide parents with Autism a new opportunity to form and manage an Experience Guiding Relationship (EGR) with their autistic children. The Experience Guiding Relationship is the universal pathway for developing the mental resources needed to thrive in Complex, Dynamic environments. We provide strong evidence supporting our belief that due to a diverse range of early vulnerabilities, future Autistic infants and their parents cannot form this critical relationship. The final section offers recommendations for adapting intervention goals and methods for persons with Autism.

KEYWORDS:

• Autism
• ASD
• well-being
• quality-of-life
• complex-dynamic situations
• dynamic intelligence
• RDI
• paradigm change

Introduction

There is a growing consensus that most adults with Autism, including those with average and above IQ, do not experience well-being. There are increasing reports of autistic adults feeling stressed, discouraged, and depleted, suffering from long-term mental health problems, and far too often considering and even choosing to end their lives.

We believe it is essential to understand why so many people with significant strengths fail to achieve well-being and to use this understanding to improve the current picture.

We have divided the article into four sections: The first section reviews current research on the well-being of persons diagnosed with Autism without co-occurring intellectual impairments. This population has been the focus of almost all recent outcome research. Additionally, Autistic persons without intellectual disabilities are the current “default” autism population, representing about 2/3 of newly diagnosed individuals (Maenner et al., 2021). Consequently, we use the term “Autism” to refer to these persons and “Autism + ID” to denote persons with Autism and co-occurring intellectual impairments.

The second section begins by providing an overview of our primary hypothesis, linking the failure of persons with Autism to experience well-being to their inability to develop the mental resources needed to engage with situations resembling Complex, Dynamic Systems successfully. We describe the significant differences between the Complex-Dynamic and Complicated-Static situations that comprise the multi-variable real-world situations we encounter daily. Next, we provide a brief overview of our Dynamic Intelligence model. Dynamic Intelligence is our term for the mental resources needed to successfully engage with and learn from situations, decisions & problems whose attributes resemble Complex Dynamic Systems. The section concludes by presenting evidence from various areas supporting our primary hypothesis.

The final section argues for a new autism paradigm that includes adapting certain implicit beliefs about persons with Autism that we believe have inhibited progress. We also make recommendations geared towards revising goals and intervention methods to be more aligned with preparing persons with Autism to thrive in the complex, dynamic environments they face in daily 21st-century life.

The current state of well-being for persons with Autism

While authors have defined well-being in many ways, there is general agreement that a central component of the construct centers around two factors; current life satisfaction and optimism about the future.

Current life satisfaction

Several recent reports have portrayed the daily life experience of adults with Autism as highly stressful, even employing terms like “Autistic burnout” (Raymaker et al., 2020) to describe their experience. Authors point out that experiencing satisfaction with one’s life may not be possible for many persons with Autism who feel they are paying such a high cognitive and emotional cost just to get through the day (Bishop-Fitzpatrick et al., 2017; Griffiths et al., 2019; Hull et al., 2017).

Optimism about the future

Multiple authors have highlighted the growing discouragement experienced by youth with Autism who experience multiple obstacles when transitioning from school to adult life. Pellicano and colleagues (Pellicano et al., 2020) reported that the autistic youth in their study felt the burden of continuing adaptive difficulties. Other studies have focused on the discouragement felt by autistic adults following multiple failed attempts to remedy their loneliness and social isolation (Elmose, 2020; Hickey et al., 2018; Umagami et al., 2022).

Depression and suicidality; indicators of poor life satisfaction and loss of optimism

Depression is a powerful indicator of poor well-being. Reports of lifetime rates of Depression for adults with Autism have ranged from 30% to almost 60% (Gillberg et al., 2016; Pezzimenti et al., 2019). Hudson and colleagues (Hudson et al., 2019) found that compared to their non-autistic sample, adults with Autism were four times more likely to experience depression in their lifetime (In contrast, persons with Autism + ID were not at greater risk).

Suicidality, the feeling that life is not worth living and is unlikely to improve is an even more poignant indicator of poor well-being. Reported rates of suicidal ideation among autistic adults are over 65% (Arwert & Sizoo, 2020; Hedley & Uljarević, 2018). Cassidy and colleagues (Cassidy et al., 2014) found that 35% of young adults with Autism reported they had planned or attempted suicide. In a later study (Cassidy et al., 2018), 72% of autistic adults in their large sample scored above the psychiatric cut-off for suicide risk, twice as high as the general population.

Reports of high rates of suicide completion among autistic adults are especially concerning. Segers and Rawana (2014) found that adults with Autism comprise up to 15% of those who commit suicide, even though they represent less than 2% of the total population. Hirvikoski and colleagues (Hirvikoski et al., 2016) found that adults with Autism were nine times more likely to die from suicide than others. As with depression, results in the above studies were sharply different for persons with Autism + ID, whose rates of suicidal behavior were similar to the non-autism population.

Factors contributing to well-being

Three factors, satisfying employment, meaningful relationships, and autonomy, are those most frequently cited as associated with well-being and quality of life for persons with Autism (Chou et al., 2017; Kim & Bottema-Beutel, 2019; Lam et al., 2020). Unfortunately, most reports indicate that prospects in these areas remain poor for persons with Autism (Magiati & Howlin, 2019; Mason et al., 2021).

Satisfying employment

A significant source of discouragement involves the failure to attain and maintain satisfying employment. More young adults with Autism are completing college and career training programs than ever before. However, prospects for obtaining satisfying full-time employment commensurate with education and training remain poor. Hillier and Galizzi (2014) found that while a third of their autism sample held jobs during the study period, only one was in a skilled position (software engineer). All others had unskilled entry-level jobs, with most engaged in hourly, part-time work. Taylor et al. (2015) found that of the 35 young adults with Autism in their sample who had completed postsecondary education, only three worked in fields for which they had trained.

Another source of discouragement results from an inability to remain employed. Taylor et al. (2015) found that while many Autistic adults in their sample who completed post-secondary education obtained employment, far fewer remained employed for any significant period. Taylor and DaWalt (2017) found that 50% of their sample of Autistic youths had already experienced significant disruption in vocational and educational activities over a relatively short period after leaving school. These disruptions were not minor and included job loss and expulsion from institutions of higher learning.

Meaningful relationships

When queried, Autistic adults have pointed to their limited social lives as the most significant factor interfering with well-being (Ayres et al., 2018; Kraper et al., 2017). Unfortunately, investigators have found that Autistic adults face continuing obstacles when trying to establish and maintain meaningful relationships outside their families. Young adults with Autism have been found to have more limited social relationships than peers with intellectual disabilities and learning disabilities (Gotham et al., 2015; Kirby et al., 2016; Levy & Perry, 2011; Roux et al., 2013). While many autistic adults are socially active, these interactions do not appear to lead to forming or maintaining close friendships (Chan et al., 2023; Mehling & Tassé, 2014).

Autonomy

Autonomy includes the ability to care for personal day-to-day responsibilities, such as finances, transportation, living arrangements, and routine tasks related to self and home care. Unfortunately, it appears that a large portion of adults with Autism remain primarily dependent on family or caregivers for daily living tasks such as cooking, managing finances, and making appointments (Anderson et al., 2018; Magiati & Howlin, 2019; Magiati et al., 2014).

The failure to develop dynamic intelligence: Why people with Autism do not experience well-being

The evidence for poor well-being is mounting. However, we have little understanding of why so many persons with Autism, receiving early intensive intervention, possessing intellectual strengths, and in many cases having advanced post-secondary education and training, are unable to succeed in modern society.

We believe that the major obstacle to well-being for persons with Autism involves their inability to thrive in a world comprised of so many Complex-Dynamic Situations. Authors from multiple disciplines point out that our daily lives involve encounters with two types of situations whose attributes are dramatically different, resembling either Complex-Dynamic or Complicated-Static Systems. (Bennet et al., 2015; Klein, 2011; Mascolo & Fischer, 2010; Miller & Page, 2008; Mitchell, 2009; Shayan, 2019). The following section provides an overview of essential Complicated-Static and Complex-Dynamic situational attributes. A complete review of situational differences is beyond the scope of this paper. A simple yet central distinction involves contrasting the terms “static” and “dynamic” and “complicated” and “complex.”

Static and dynamic

The term “Static” refers to a situation’s high degree of predictability, during any situational instance and across multiple instances. We expect every Static Situation to remain stable, proceeding invariantly. Static Situations possess high replicability. We can treat future instances of a situation as unchanged from those encountered in the past. We can fully employ any knowledge acquired during prior instances.

Dynamic Situations are only partially predictable. Because specific conditions at any point in a dynamic situation are a product of an ongoing, complex process, we cannot predict them in advance. We expect to encounter new information as we engage with dynamic situations that often require adapting strategies and revising goals.

If we can find common invariant qualities across multiple similar situations, we can learn from our experience and construct dynamic situational knowledge. However, we expect each new situational instance to be similar and different from prior instances. Therefore, situational knowledge can only serve as an initial framework for future engagement.

Emergence is the tendency in Dynamic Situations for some confluence of variations to surpass a threshold, or “tipping point,” resulting in non-linear change. Conditions can remain within a specified range for an extended period and then abruptly change in ways that may challenge expectations and prior understanding. Even a small change can sometimes result in significant unintended consequences if, unbeknownst to us, we are already close to a threshold.

Complicated and complex

Complicated and Complex Situations are multiple component versions of one and two-variable “Simple” Static and Dynamic Situations. One crucial distinction has to do with the interdependence of components. The elements comprising Complicated Situations are independent. Additions, losses, or changes to any single component will not significantly alter the situation or the other situational components. For example, how someone responds on any sub-test while taking a standardized test will not affect the other sub-tests. Element independence also means that breaking apart a task to analyze the specific components can increase our understanding.

The multiple components of Complex Situations are highly inter-connected. Even small changes to one can significantly impact others and the entire situation in unpredictable ways. Complex connectivity makes it hard to determine causality or predict the potential consequences of decisions and actions. Additionally, their complex interconnection means that attempts to analyze individual components will not increase situational understanding.

Additional challenges found in complex-dynamic situations

Real-world CD situations present additional challenges not encountered when engaging with their CS counterparts. Among these are Contextual Relativity, Subjectivity, Ambiguity, and Unclarity.

Contextual relativity

The meaning and significance of information in CS Situations is absolute. Each task or goal is associated with a “correct” sequence of actions needed to achieve a specific outcome.

In contrast, effective judgments and decisions in CD Situations require a “relative” mode of thinking. A good decision “best fits” current situational conditions, which can rapidly change.

Subjectivity

When engaging with CS Situations, there is no need to understand a person’s experiential history, feelings, intentions, or unique perspectives. Anyone following the same method will attain the same results. In contrast, CD situations are often strongly influenced by subjective factors. Our experiential history, along with our feelings and needs, is a significant factor. We harbor conflicting emotions. We act differently depending on our moods or how we got out of bed that morning.

Ambiguity

Ambiguity has to do with the extent that a situation presents us with multiple valid ways in which events may unfold, along with multiple ways we might understand, interpret or respond. CS Situations progress in a single, unambiguous manner. We pursue a single goal and use a single method for goal attainment. CD situations are full of multiple possibilities, including multiple viable decision options, possible ways that situations can unfold, desirable outcomes, and multiple possible strategies and methods to arrive at the same outcome. Different persons will inevitably have different but equally valid intentions, viewpoints, opinions, recollections, and plans.

Unclarity

Anyone engaging with CD situations must learn to live with a great deal of unclarity. Many of us have participated in work situations where goals and performance expectations are unclear and where the lines of authority and areas of responsibility are confusing.

Unclarity in CD Situations also results from the way humans make everyday judgments. We refer to unclear “middle states” (e.g., almost, sort of, not entirely, a bit more or less) or relative to past conditions (a bit better, getting closer). For a poignant example of judgment unclarity, consider how a jury member has to determine whether they have heard enough evidence to judge a defendant guilty of first-degree murder beyond a reasonable doubt.

Complex-dynamic situations are everywhere

Anyone wanting to engage in modern society cannot avoid Complex-Dynamic situations. In the following passage, Bennet and colleagues (Bennet et al., 2015) illustrate the increasing challenges presented by our complex, dynamic modern world, “While some levels of complexity have undoubtedly existed throughout history, the explosion of information, communication speed, and networking has moved the world towards an exponential increase. To operate successfully, we must learn to deal with the increasing speed, unpredictability, and complexity of the environment” (Location 382).

Static and dynamic intelligence

Given the dramatically different attributes of Complicated-Static (CS) and Complex-Dynamic (CD) situations, readers will not be surprised to learn that successful engagement with each requires a very different repertoire of mental resources.

Static intelligence

Static Intelligence, measured by IQ and standardized achievement tests, is our term for the skills needed to succeed in Complicated-Static Situations. Static Intelligence includes abilities such as analysis, logical and conceptual thinking, conditional reasoning, and associational, procedural, and semantic memory. Static Intelligence is sufficient as long as the world functions in a predictable, stable, orderly, linear, step-by-step manner. The limitations of Static Intelligence rapidly become apparent when trying to engage in the complex decisions, problems, and relationships that constitute significant parts of our lives (Juggling multiple demands and goals, coping with unexpected adverse life events, and managing collaborative and emotional relationships). The inadequacy of Static Intelligence is also evident when considering the dynamic mental abilities required to hold even a simple conversation.

Dynamic intelligence

“Dynamic Intelligence” is the term used to represent the mental resources needed to prepare for, engage with, adapt to, and learn from Complex-Dynamic Situations.

The dynamic intelligence model

Following a multi-year, multi-disciplinary search for factors contributing to success in Complex-Dynamic environments, we constructed a Dynamic Intelligence model. The model divides the mental resources comprising Dynamic Intelligence into three main components: 1. Complex-Dynamic (CD) Experience-Managing Tools, 2. Growth-Seeking Motivation and 3. A Dynamic Self.

CD experience managing tools

We have placed CD Experience-Managing tools into four toolboxes (Past, Alternate, Internal, and Dynamic Process Managing), representing the primary modes of human experience.

Past experience managing

Humans have uniquely evolved to put our past to work to attain a more desirable future. Our ability to journey into our past has little value if we cannot construct effective products that represent what we have found meaningful for our future self, store them in an organized manner and efficiently retrieve them when needed.

Personal Experience Representations, called Episodic or Autobiographical Memory, are the equivalent of CD situation “remembering” products. They provide the means to revisit personally significant intervals of our subjective experience. Scientists agree that personal experiential representations are pretty inaccurate in terms of details. However, their purpose is not to be accurate. Instead, they represent our subjective interpretation of what we find significant for our future selves.

Personal Knowledge products provide a continually revised and updated summary of what we are learning about ourselves, others, and the personal challenges and problems we face. Personal Knowledge is valuable to the extent that it is helpful in aiding us to manage the problematic goals, emotional challenges, relationships, and other challenging situations we expect to encounter in our future lives.

Alternate experience managing

Zittoun (2016) described the essence of Alternate Experience Managing as providing an expansion of experience, a way to get beyond surface limitations, safely explore alternate perspectives and consider challenging and problematic situations in a creative, safe and playful way. Alternate Experience Managing tools aid us in exploring alternate realities, including situations that might or might not exist in the future and could have but did not exist in the past. We can mentally try out new perspectives and alternate responses before employing them and generate innovative responses when needed. Alternate Experience Managing tools also play a central role in empathy and perspective-taking by providing the means to simulate another person’s experience.

Internal experience managing

Internal Experience Managing tools help us manage our emotions, obtain necessary information from feelings, understand our mental states, manage our ongoing internal self-communication and employ intuition to make effective judgments.

When we learn to anchor feelings with real-world experiences, they can become essential experience-managing tools, providing a critical source of information for judgment & decision-making. Similarly, Self-Communication can become a pervasive, constructive force if we learn how to manage it.

Dynamic process managing

Successfully engaging with “online” CD situations, such as typical conversations, involves remaining engaged with an ongoing, rapidly changing process and requires devoting substantial mental resources to remaining plugged into the flow of what is happening within and around us. The Dynamic Process Managing toolbox contains mental tools needed to succeed when specific actions cannot be scripted, sequenced, or planned. Tools enable us to select optimal moves, recognize rapidly changing contexts, and quickly adapt.

A dynamic self

A dynamic self requires developing a sense of oneself that extends from our past into multiple possible futures and is always in the process of adapting, evolving, and becoming. The construct of a Dynamic Self requires the ability to see progress over time, recognize our capacity to overcome adversity, and reinforce the belief that we possess the personal resources to continue growing, improving, and moving closer to the person we hope to be.

Growth-seeking motivation

Dynamic Intelligence development is fueled by intrinsic growth-seeking motivation. Psychologists believe that all humans are born with a unique growth-seeking drive that, while strongest in childhood, can provide the impetus for personal development throughout our lifespan. Humans are unique in possessing a strong desire to peer beyond short-term needs and goals, transcend limited perspectives, and strive for growth and transcendence. We are the only species that deliberately place ourselves in situations of difficulty, stress, and risk of failure without any expectations of instrumental gain to engage with potentially growth-promoting opportunities.

Supporting evidence

The following section provides evidence supporting our belief that the major obstacle to well-being lies in the universal failure of Autistic persons to develop Dynamic Intelligence. Support comes from six areas: 1. The limited relationship between IQ and well-being, 2. Explanations of inconsistent research findings, 3. Studies attributing impaired ASD functioning to Complex and Dynamic situational qualities, 4. Studies contrasting intact and impaired abilities of ASD persons, 5. Evidence supporting the failure of future ASD infants and their parents to form an Experience-Guiding Relationship, and 6. A case study of four young autistic men who participated in the RDI program.

The limited relationship between static intelligence and well-being

There is no question that Static Intelligence is necessary for success in daily life. However, as the poor well-being of many persons with Autism illustrates, we believe that it is insufficient to thrive in an increasingly complex dynamic 21st-century world (Hedley et al., 2019; Kim & Bottema-Beutel, 2019; Moss et al., 2017; Pugliese et al., 2016; Taylor et al., 2015; Van Heijst & Geurts, 2015). Several studies have failed to find a strong relationship between IQ and well-being. For example, Kraper and colleagues (Kraper et al., 2017) concluded that their findings, along with those of other investigators, “reflect the dire reality that average range or greater IQ does not protect those with ASD from everyday struggles navigating societal demands placed upon adults” (p. 314).

Explanations for inconsistent research findings

A second area of support comes from authors trying to understand why attempts to find universal autism impairments in diverse areas such as Theory of Mind (Atherton et al., 2019), Executive Functioning (Kenworthy et al., 2008; Leung & Zakzanis, 2014) and Emotional Awareness (Rum & Perry, 2020) produce inconsistent results. Time after time, subsequent investigations have failed to replicate initially positive findings. Additionally, in almost all studies, a significant subset of autistic subjects and non-autistic comparison groups performed similarly, no matter the variable under study.

Several authors have hypothesized that the inconsistency of research findings may reflect differences in the degree to which investigators replicated real-world, complex, dynamic conditions. While many Autistic participants might succeed in the static, low-complexity tasks and settings characteristic of many “lab-based” research studies, the strategies they used to succeed under those conditions would likely fail in more authentic, complex, dynamic situations (Scheeren et al., 2013; Livingston et al., 2019).

Studies attributing impaired ASD functioning to complex and dynamic situational qualities

To obtain further information about researchers’ attributions concerning the role of complex and dynamic qualities in Autism, the authors conducted a Google Scholar search of autism literature over the past 20 years, using the search terms “complex” and “dynamic.” We retrieved over 50 papers attributing impaired ASD functioning to either or both of these variables. Results spanned a diverse range of areas, including Autobiographical Memory (Bon et al., 2013; Crane & Goddard, 2009), Categorizing (Boucher & Anns, 2018), Contextual Awareness (Baez & Ibanez, 2014; Vermeulen, 2015), Decision-Making (Robic et al., 2015), Emotion Processing (Cassidy et al., 2015; Keating et al., 2022; Mazzoni et al., 2022), Executive Functioning (Van Eylen et al., 2015), Mentalizing (Gernsbacher & Yergeau, 2019; Schuwerk et al., 2016; Senju, 2013) and Social Interaction (Bolis & Schilbach, 2018; Bottema-Beutel, 2017).

Studies contrasting intact and impaired abilities

A significant source of evidence supporting the vital role of Dynamic Intelligence in Autism well-being comes from contrasting those abilities most often found to be “intact” in persons with Autism with abilities found to be universally impaired.

Tables 1 and 2 illustrate the match between intact abilities and Static Intelligence and universal ASD impairments and elements of our Dynamic Intelligence model.

Table 1. Representative research: Intact abilities.

Intact Static Intelligence Ability	Representative Studies
Abstract, Analogical, Conditional & Logical Reasoning	Hayashi et al., 2008; McKenzie et al., 2010; Morsanyi & Holyoak, 2010; Soulières et al., 2011
Categorizing (but only when supplied with criteria)	Alderson-Day & McGonigle-Chalmers, 2011; Mercado et al., 2015
Concept Learning (but not forming)	Williams et al., 2015
Abstract Counterfactual Reasoning (but not actual counterfactual experiencing)	Black et al., 2018; Scott et al., 1999
Associational, Procedural, and Semantic Memory	Boucher & Anns, 2018
Mathematical Ability	Titeca et al., 2015
Unimpaired reading mechanics but impaired inferential/implicit understanding	McIntyre et al., 2017

Table 2. Representative research: Documented autism impairments.

Impaired Dynamic Intelligence Ability	Representative Studies
Past Experience Managing	Bon et al., 2013; Brezis, 2015; Crane et al., 2013; King et al., 2013; McDonnell et al., 2017; Terrett et al., 2013
Alternate Experience Managing	Black et al., 2018; Christensen et al., 2010; Conson et al., 2015; Crespi et al., 2016; Hobson et al., 2009; Hanson & Atance, 2014; Lind et al., 2014; Morsanyi & Handley, 2012
Internal Experience Managing	Ben-Shalom et al., 2006; Cassidy et al., 2015; Erbas et al., 2013; Losh & Capps, 2006; Nuske et al., 2013; Russell-Smith et al., 2014; Shopen, 2014; Wallace et al., 2009; Williams & Happé, 2010; D. M. Williams et al., 2012
Dynamic Process Managing	Baez & Ibanez, 2014; Bertollo et al., 2020; Bottema-Beutel, 2017; Rosenthal et al., 2013; Sethi et al., 2019; Vermeulen, 2015
Dynamic Self Development	Berna et al., 2016; Crane & Goddard, 2009; Goddard et al., 2017; Grisdale et al., 2014
Growth-Seeking Motivation & Mindset	Anthony et al., 2013; Jacques et al., 2018; Sasson et al., 2011; Vasa et al., 2018; Vivanti et al., 2018

Evidence supporting the failure of future ASD infants and their parents to form an experience-guiding relationship

Another source of evidence comes from research involving infants who go on to be diagnosed with ASD (hereafter referred to as “future ASD infants”). These infants appear to lose the opportunity to engage with parents in a guided experiential learning relationship, the central route for Dynamic Intelligence development.

Decades of research conducted by Developmental Psychologists with diverse cultures have conclusively demonstrated that children in every society develop the abilities associated with Dynamic Intelligence through years of participation with parents and other primary caregivers in what we refer to as an Experience-Guiding Relationship (EGR). Beginning in late infancy, thousands of intuitive daily interactions between parents, other primary caregivers, and children provide the productive experiences needed to gradually increase children’s motivation, understanding, and ability to manage increasingly complex dynamic situations. Table 3 provides a small representative sample of the hundreds of research studies documenting the central role of the EGR in Dynamic Intelligence Development.

Table 3. Dynamic intelligence development and the experience-guiding relationship.

DI Component	Representative Studies
Past Experience Managing	Fivush et al., 2006; Fivush & Nelson, 2006; Hoerl, 2007
Alternate Experience Managing	Hudson, 2006; Lillard, 2007; Markova & Legerstee, 2015; Melzer & Palermo, 2016
Internal Experience Managing	Ayoub et al., 2014; Fernyhough, 2008; Van Bergen & Salmon, 2010
Dynamic Process Managing	Aureli & Presaghi, 2010; Brownell, 2011; Fantasia et al., 2014; Fogel, 1993
Dynamic Self Development	Berna et al., 2016; Goddard, 2018; Fivush & Nelson, 2006; Schachter & Ventura, 2008
Growth-Seeking Motivation	Banerjee & Tamis-LeMonda, 2007; Cleveland et al., 2007; Crockenberg & Leerkes, 2004; Haimovitz & Dweck, 2016

The formation of an Experience-Guiding Relationship is not automatic. It requires synchronous, mutual parent and child contributions. Brownell (2011) described the origins of this process as a “dyadic dance’ between an emotionally engaged, responsive infant partner and a proactive parent partner who frames and supports the infant’s engagement and manages the coordination of their respective actions” (p. 10).

The roles and responsibilities of Guide and Apprentice are akin to the interplay between the components of a guided missile. Infants’ strong desire for engagement and drive to find meaning and increase their agency provides the motivational “thrust” needed for “liftoff.” Parents function as the guidance-regulatory system, trying to channel the infant’s growth-seeking efforts in a productive direction while ensuring that the “engine” does not overheat.

While the seeds of this synchronous match begin during an infant’s first months, the EGR begins to emerge in complete form during the latter part of an infant’s first year, as the child’s intrinsic Growth-Seeking Motivation becomes dominant. Unlike other basic drives, Growth-Seeking is not dominant at birth. Instead, a “Stability-Maintaining” drive dominates the first several months (Bandura, 2008; Deci & Ryan, 1995). Several prominent social and non-social developmental transformations at the end of the first year signal the emerging dominance of Growth-Seeking. Socially, these signs include active engagement in simple dynamic co-regulatory activities (Aureli & Presaghi, 2010; Fantasia et al., 2014; Fogel, 1993) and initiation of frequent episodes of joint attention (Brownell et al., 2007; Carpendale & Lewis, 2004). Among the many non-social signs are a preference for novelty (Koterba et al., 2014; Perone & Spencer, 2013) and productive autonomous exploration (Herzberg et al., 2022; Lobo et al., 2014).

Autism infant researchers have produced multiple descriptions of the early pathway in which the disorder may emerge. An increasingly popular emergence model posits that future ASD infants are born with a diverse variety of initial vulnerabilities, whose cumulative impact initiates a negative “developmental cascade” disrupting the parent-child relationship with catastrophic consequences (Elsabbagh et al., 2014; E. J. Jones et al., 2014; Johnson, 2017; Johnson et al., 2015; Klin, 2022; Klin et al., 2020).

We have expanded upon this model by positing that the impact of a diverse range of innate vulnerabilities cumulatively surpasses a negative tipping point preventing the emergence of Growth-Seeking Dominance. Future ASD infants remain primarily driven by Stability-Maintaining, preventing them from contributing the essential energy and activity needed to form an Experience-Guiding Relationship, regardless of parental ability and motivation.

The work of autism infant researchers provides strong support for our model. ASD infants fail to make the end of the first-year transition from passive to active social partners. They provide little positive emotional feedback, make few attempts to actively “invite” or initiate interaction, demonstrate little responsiveness when parents and family attempt to engage them, and rarely if ever, initiate Joint Attention (Apicella et al., 2013; Baker et al., 2010; Bryson et al., 2007; Campbell et al., 2015; Rozga et al., 2011; Wan et al., 2013). Klin and Jones (2015) reported that the failure of future ASD infants to make this passive-to-active transition was the most apparent factor distinguishing future ASD infants from others.

Researchers have found similar results in non-social areas. For example, future ASD infants demonstrate a lack of productive autonomous exploration and a preference for sameness over novelty (Adamson et al., 2010; Elison et al., 2014; Harrop et al., 2014; Kaur et al., 2015; Koterba et al., 2014; Ozonoff et al., 2008).

Given their infant’s failure to make the Stability-Maintaining to Growth-Seeking transition, parents of future ASD infants, no matter how capable and motivated, cannot carry out their growth-promoting role. Simply put, their infant’s social passivity, limited engagement, and lack of productive autonomous activity offer parents nothing to guide them. Parents cannot function as guided co-participants because future ASD infants show little enthusiasm for attempts at engagement and either do not engage or fail to provide helpful feedback. Similarly, parents cannot act to support infant autonomy because ASD infants prefer familiarity over novelty, engage in infrequent, poor-quality exploration, take few mastery-oriented actions, and demonstrate little motivation to extend and expand areas of competence.

During their second year, the relationship between future ASD toddlers and parents frequently transforms into a more active negative mutual influence cycle. When parent engagement invitations fail, as they typically do when directed to future ASD infants, parents often become more directive and “noisier” in a desperate attempt to obtain some kind of response. Future ASD toddlers react by actively withdrawing, disengaging, and behaving in ways that present even more obstacles to forming an Experience-Guiding Relationship (E. J. Jones et al., 2014; Meirsschaut et al., 2011; Saint-Georges et al., 2011; Zwaigenbaum et al., 2013).

Consequences of failing to form an EGR

It is hard to overestimate the impact of losing access to an Experience-Guiding Relationship. It is an existentially disruptive event for children with Autism, severely attenuating future opportunities for dynamic growth because there is no alternate developmental route. Klin and colleagues (Klin et al., 2020) expressed this concern in the following passage, “ … toddlers with ASD may miss thousands of opportunities for social learning every day, and several million opportunities … within their first 2–3 years of life. These divergences not only sculpt a child’s experiences over time; they also sculpt abnormal brain structures and connections” (p. 7).

The continued dominance of Stability-Maintaining in the lives of ASD children gradually transforms into a pervasive mindset. Children diagnosed with Autism do not try to extend their mastery to new arenas. They fail to take advantage of critical opportunities to learn from their own and others’ experiences. Instead, they try to shape their environment to eliminate dynamic elements and find ways to avoid situations they perceive as potentially producing uncertainty or that challenge prior understanding (Adamson et al., 2012; Bottema-Beutel et al., 2014; Harrop et al., 2014; W. Jones & Klin, 2009; Rozga et al., 2011; Young et al., 2016).

A brief study of four young autistic men who participated in RDI

The following section includes the results of interviews and questionnaires with four young men diagnosed with Autism as young children who participated in the Relationship Development Intervention (RDI) Program with their parents. The young men agreed to complete a short protocol consisting of a structured interview and several questionnaires aimed at providing information about their state of well-being and their Dynamic Intelligence. The responses and stories of these four young men illustrate the potential for growth and well-being when persons with Autism enter the dynamic developmental pathway that typically developing children and their parents take for granted.

The men’s ages ranged from the early “20s to mid-”30s. They all graduated from High School and completed post-high-school educational programs. Mark, Chris, and Patrick received four-year college degrees, while Jake has been certified as a Dog Trainer.

At the time of their diagnosis these four men appeared quite similar to their ASD peers. They each developed a means for avoiding dynamic variability and maintaining stability through various means, including passive behavior, repetitive internal stimulation, restrictive actions, and controlling behavior and communication.

In most ways, their parents’ initial reactions were typical and included feelings of confusion, inadequacy, despair, and desperation. However, while parents fully accepted the seriousness of their child’s condition, they did not accept that Autism had to dominate their child’s life or their own. While experiencing painful feelings, including inadequacy and rejection, parents retained enough internal ego strength and external support to risk making a second attempt at forming an Experience-Guiding Relationship with their child, this time operating mindfully, with the guidance of an RDI consultant.

These young men’s parents demonstrated the type of courage typical in families who choose to pursue RDI. They did not participate in the prevailing autism culture, instead setting out on an alternate journey, even when this meant rejecting the strong recommendations of professionals and other parents. They remained focused on building the foundations needed for their child’s future success and refused to be swayed by the lure of short-term results or promises of rapid recovery.

Methods

We administered several well-being questionnaires, including the PERMA Flourishing Scale (Butler & Kern, 2016), the Warwick-Edinburgh Well-Being Scale (Stewart-Brown & Janmohamed, 2008), the Perceived Stress Scale (Cohen et al., 1983) and the Generalized Self-Efficacy scale (Schwarzer & Jerusalem, 1995). Interview topic areas included work, relationships, autonomy, and questions related to Dynamic Intelligence.

Results

Well-being

All of the young men reported a high degree of life satisfaction, including an absence of significant mental health concerns and suicidal thoughts. Questionnaire responses supported the general impression of well-being. On the Flourishing and Warwick-Edinburgh Well-Being Scales, the young men generally endorsed items indicating they experienced well-being most or all of the time. The Perceived Stress Scale, reporting subjective feelings of stress and coping ability, yielded more diverse responses. Patrick and Chris experienced little stress, while Jake and Mark reported more stress but viewed themselves as coping effectively.

Factors related to well-being

Satisfying employment

All four men reported experiencing success and satisfaction in multiple life areas. Three have full-time jobs; one, Jake, has a thriving online autism advocacy presence (over 30,000 TikTok Followers) and part-time employment as a dog trainer. The oldest, Mark, is currently Head Teller at a bank. Patrick works as a Sound System Designer & Technician. Chris is working full-time as a hospital technician, hoping to make enough money to support himself while getting his music performance career off the ground.

The young men expressed some concerns about their careers. Mark reported experiencing self-imposed pressure to accept an offered management position at his bank, which would increase his stress but enable his wife to leave work to care for their newborn. Chris, Patrick, and Jake reported wishing to further their desired careers. Chris’s current employment situation as a hospital technician pays his bills but is far from his future aspirations. On the other hand, Chris perceives his job as a typical temporary step for a young person seeking to launch a musical career. Although much happier with his new job, Patrick wants to do even more creative things in sound system development. While the pandemic has delayed Jake’s ability to launch his dog training career fully, he has succeeded in building his online presence as an autism advocate.

Meaningful relationships

The men reported close relationships with their families and long-term peer relationships. As expected, Mark noted that his wife was his best friend. Chris talked with great depth about several of his good friends. Jake also spoke in-depth about three close relationships; two with young men who live in his town and the third relationship with a young woman who lives in British Columbia, with whom he communicates through frequent Zoom calls. Patrick had the most difficulty discussing friendships. He reported having two long-standing friendships: one from high school and a second from college but was vague about the current state of these relationships.

Chris, Mark, and Jake described their pride in the support they provide to their friends and loved ones.

Chris:

Um, when my friend Jack, that’s a girl, by the way, fell into a really deep depression. I told her if you ever feel a bad depression, you give me a call. And she did, just about every day. One day I didn’t hear from her, and I got a little concerned. I called her. I said I’m just checking in to make sure you’re okay. She told me, Yeah, I’m fine. That’s why I didn’t call. We weren’t total best friends yet. But we are now.

 

Another example is about one of my friends who is on the Autism spectrum who I helped. They asked him to write a paper at school. I don’t remember what it was about, but I had taken this class a year prior, and not much had really changed. He was really struggling. He had a hard time understanding what they wanted because it was really abstract. I worked with him and told him, “let’s break this down.” We broke down each section of the assignment. I had to explain it to him a couple of times, but once he got it, he got it. I think he is a prime example of someone who struggles a bit more than I do, but he can still do it.

Mark:

One time, my wife’s sister was ripping into her for some small thing -just being nasty to her and criticizing her. And she looked at me and said, “Mark, how do you put up with this?” And I looked at her and said, ‘you know, you may have your opinion of her and everything, but that’s my wife you’re talking about. So, I firmly let my wife know whose side I was on if anything ever came up again.

Jake:

My friend Max has issues with his father always being angry with him. I tell him that if somebody yells at you, it’s not just about you. It’s about them too. I tell him that you don’t have to make excuses for people yelling at you or abusing you. I told Max that if he has problems, he can come and talk to me, and I’ll understand because my father and I had issues. And I will not tell him what to do. I’ll actually listen to him.

Autonomy

All four men rated themselves as generally satisfied with their current living conditions. Mark is married, lives with his wife and infant son, and has supported himself for over a decade. Patrick has lived independently, paid his expenses, and managed his daily life since he began his first job two years ago. Chris recently graduated from college and moved into his first apartment. Chris reported little parental involvement in managing his daily college life away from home. He independently selected his college major, obtained his degree, and is pursuing his intended musical career. Jake currently lives at home but manages his work, transportation, scheduling, and social life. Jake described how his mother accompanies him when traveling to autism speaking engagements. On the other hand, she has had no involvement in building his online presence as an autism advocate.

The young men attributed their current well-being primarily to personal effort. However, they also acknowledged the critical role of parental guidance and support, especially the parent’s decision to pursue RDI when they were young, which provided a different experience than most of their autistic peers. They have no painful memories associated with treatment. They were not rushed from one therapy to another or treated as handicapped.

Discussions with parents revealed that they have maintained an autonomy-supporting relationship. They have been careful to ensure that the help they provide functions as a “developmental affordance,” a temporary aid to help their child achieve greater autonomy, rather than fostering dependence and the loss of Self-Efficacy.

Potential dynamic intelligence factors contributing to well-being

While not conclusive, we believe that the following interview excerpts support our belief that Dynamic Intelligence is a critical factor contributing to the well-being of these young men.

Past experience managing

These young men have constructed and can access personal memories of having struggled to increase their mastery and autonomy, including narratives of coping with setbacks and adversity. Consider the powerful positive impact of Patrick’s memory of being laid off from his job and responding by immediately scouring the internet and submitting countless resumes, leading to his finding a job at a much higher salary.

Along with personal memories, they have developed a dynamically evolving body of hard-won self-knowledge representing what works for them, what challenges and problems they expect to face, and what they can accomplish. When reviewing this portion of the interview, we were struck by how well these young men understood their strengths and limitations and viewed their current personal problems as challenges to overcome rather than permanent obstacles.

Interviewer:

How would you describe your strengths?

Patrick:

I’m very self-motivated. Some people lost their job and just didn’t try to get another one. I started searching right away. I got one in two months after I got furloughed.

Mark:

I think it’s just that I come in every day to work with a goal, and I try to accomplish it the best I can. It allows me to do things at work. I went into this new job [A new management position at a different bank branch], and literally, I had the employees look at me like, “what are you doing?” And I looked at them and told them that audit work needed to be done. I came into the bank, and there were papers from five years ago sitting around. It was an absolute pigsty. I dedicated an entire day to just cleaning that whole mess up and implementing my system. And ever since then, we’ve honestly been pretty strong operationally.

Jake:

An attribute that helps me be successful in my daily life is that I can reframe negative feelings to positive feelings. Sometimes I get negative feelings. I get these inner voices telling me that I can’t do stuff, but then I say to myself, anything’s possible. I can do what I want to do. I can achieve my dreams.

Chris:

My empathy and kind nature are my strengths. I can really understand what people are going through, especially what a younger person’s going through. It’s really hard, but I try to be as understanding as I can. When my friend Chrissy fell into a deep depression., I tried everything I could to support her. And I really tried to understand it the best I could.

Interviewer:

What would you say are your greatest personal limitations?

Mark:

I hate cleaning, and I’m not good at it. My wife thinks I’m good at it. But you know, she works crazy hours, and she comes home exhausted. So, you sort of get the drift? I think I was neat when we had COVID hours at work. I’d have a whole week off, and I would have time to get things done at home the way I wanted them. I even had time to move us from one apartment into another. I guess one of the challenges that I’m already working on right now is just learning to use my time better.

Jake:

My big problem is self-comparison. I find that it really takes away from my goals and dreams. It just gets me very stuck. I think that I’m spending too much time looking at other people’s accomplishments. I need to set that aside and do something else that is more productive. Just do my own stuff and not spend so much time looking at other people’s stuff.

Chris:

I think the biggest problem would be my ability to take criticism. I am notoriously bad at that. During a band practice right before a show, this singer got mad at me because I was out of tune, and I looked to her like, ‘really? I took it as a personal attack, and then she got upset, and it almost ended our friendship.

Patrick:

Sometimes, I have a hard time thinking of stuff on the fly. Nothing pops into my head at the moment. It just takes me a while. For example, I feel like I’ve got some good personal strengths. But if somebody said, “tell me about something this past year where your strengths helped you out,” I would say, ‘Well, I don’t know, even though I’m sure that those strengths have played a role in a lot of things that I do. And that’s definitely a challenge I have.

Sometimes I feel kind of immobilized by stuff, and I feel like I just need to go to bed and not think about it for a while. But, depending on the situation, sometimes I might realize why I did wrong, and then I’ll just know what to do differently for the next time.

Internal experience managing: Emotional awareness and management

Emotional Intelligence, including personal emotional awareness, and the ability to employ effective coping resources in response to stresses, setbacks, and disappointments, is an essential factor contributing to well-being. The following excerpts display both of these components of Emotional Intelligence.

Interviewer:

Tell me about a recent stressful situation.

Patrick described how he managed the stress of being laid off:

In my old job, I still wasn’t doing as many technical things as I expected. I was still doing mostly’ shop work. And then I got laid off because of Covid. At first, I thought that losing my job would be a negative experience. But I think about it now in a positive way. I was able to get a better job which I like better, and I’m doing more technical work at the new job.

Jake discussed the decision to stop taking physical therapy courses:

Before I started getting into dog training, I decided that I was going to try and become a physical therapy assistant because that was marketable and involved helping people. But then I realized that to do this, you have to pass this really tough class called Human Anatomy, and I sucked at it. So, I had to make a decision. I decided to drop out of this class and move on with my life.

Mark talked about the stresses of taking on new work responsibilities:

Just a couple of months ago, my supervisor and manager didn’t get along, but I found a way to get along with both of them. The supervisor took a leave of absence. She cited health reasons, but we all knew the real reason was she didn’t like the manager and didn’t want to work with her. Well, this was supposed to be her week back. She didn’t come back. Anyways, long story short, my manager leaves and goes on this month-long vacation. And I’m pretty much left to be the manager for about a month. It was scary. Let me tell you. There are a lot of challenges. I actually think I earned the respect of everybody in the office, even though I just transferred there in February. It’s a hard job. You have to pay attention to like 20 or 30 different details, and they all come at you at once, and there are sales and customer service and coaching and observations and all of that. And I think I’ve done a pretty good job at this point of just balancing all of it.

Interviewer:

Tell me about past setbacks or disappointments, a time when something important didn’t work out the way you hoped.

Mark:

Dropping out of business school. I took business courses at night while taking on a 40-hour job. I just wasn’t ready to do all of the work. I think that I was not using my time away from work in a way that, you know, I should have been using it. I wasn’t reading enough of the material. I was barely passing courses. It was a frustrating experience. You know, in 2016, I made the decision to drop out. I was dating a girl at the time, and actually, we wound up ending the relationship over that issue. She looked at me as maybe just not quite being what she wanted me to be. But that led me to Linda (his current wife), who doesn’t care what I do. She’d love me if I was, you know, a garbage man or a plumber or something.

Jake:

I think I had a major setback during the Coronavirus lockdowns (especially severe in the New York, New Jersey area where he lives). It really sucked because I couldn’t go to work. I couldn’t do the job that I love. Also, I was not allowed to hang out with my friends during the first few months. Everybody was so afraid of the coronavirus spreading around, and there was so much panic going on and I wasn’t even allowed to go to the grocery store. At one point, I went to the store, and people were like, Jake, why did you go to the store? You kind of put us in danger of getting this virus. Then I got mad and said, “Is it my fault that this virus is spreading?” I’d get mad and scream and yell, and I’d make my mom embarrassed.

Then one time, I was just really feeling very depressed. I saw this YouTube video about people that jumped off the Golden Gate Bridge. I know it’s a tough subject to talk about. But I was thinking, wow, I wonder if any of them were autistic. A lot of these people that jumped off the bridge were young people. So, I sat in my room, and I just cried. And I felt like a failure because I wasn’t controlling my anger as well as I should have. And I really felt terrible that people would consider suicide as the answer to their problems, which is another reason why I decided to get on the TIKTOK bandwagon. So, people would know that suicide is not the answer.

Chris:

I haven’t had a ton of setbacks, but I think about the Regents exams when I failed the last exam I ever took. I kind of expected it, but I was disappointed because I was this close to an Advanced Regents diploma. And I didn’t get it because of that one test. It’s why I think that exams are an abomination, but that’s beside the point.

Dynamic process managing: Interpersonal engagement

During their interviews, all four young men were responsive and spontaneously contributed feelings, ideas, and memories. Conversations with interviewers never had a stilted or scripted quality to them. They left interviewers with the strong impression that they would be good companions on an extended trip, curious, open to new experiences, and taking their share of responsibility for mutual comfort and enjoyment. Their interpersonal fluidity and spontaneity challenge stereotypes about the limits of autistic social interaction.

Development of a dynamic self

Poor self-efficacy, the belief that one does not possess the personal resources to change one’s life situation, is a powerful factor contributing to the high frequency of depression and suicidal feelings among autistic persons. Further diminishing Self-Efficacy is the belief that life problems are due to intractable aspects of their Autism.

These young men do not perceive Autism as limiting their daily lives. They do not camouflage or hide parts of themselves from others. They do not experience the day-to-day burden, stress, and exhaustion of being autistic that has been linked to ‘autistic burnout. They do not experience Autism as limiting their future goals and dreams. They aspire to greater mastery. They are not afraid of challenges. They firmly believe they can continue to improve and reach their goals due to their efforts.

Growth-seeking motivation

At the heart of RDI is our unshakable belief that persons with Autism are human beings possessing the same universal drive to increase Agency, Mastery, and Relatedness. By seeking out new areas of challenge and mastery, these four young men offer strong evidence that persons with Autism can be motivated by the same “intrinsic” desires as anyone else once they recover from their fear of engaging with a dynamic world and experience their potential for competence.

Interviewer:

If you were to make a choice which would you do? Would you do something you already knew how to do well, or would you try something you are not sure you can master?

Chris:

I like a challenge. I would probably try something new. If I was given the choice

Patrick:

Well, actually, it’s funny you say that because, in my current job, there’s something that I didn’t have to know how to do with my old job, and now I get the chance to learn it.

Jake:

I would try to try something new that I couldn’t master just yet because I think to really be successful, you have to be trying new things, and you have to work at it. It gets easier over time. I know when I first started TIKTOK, it was so nerve-wracking. It was like, Oh my goodness, I don’t know if people are gonna like me or whatnot. But now I’ve been doing it for a pretty good while. And people tell me that my content helps them through their day.

Mark:

Trying something new because you don’t learn anything by doing the same thing over and over again. You gain confidence from trying new things, failing at them a few times, and then being successful.

Interviewer:

Why do you think some people try to do hard things, even though they know they might fail?

Patrick:

Because that’s what life is all about. Because you want to challenge yourself and just try to get better at certain stuff.

Mark:

Because they’re not comfortable with where they are. And they’re not satisfied with what they do. And they want eventually to do more. Or maybe they just like challenging themselves.

Jake:

Well, I think people, if they believe in themselves, they just wanna do it. They wanna defy the odds.

Chris:

Well, you learn from failure. You don’t learn from success. I’ve always believed in that. I failed at playing my instruments so many times before I mastered them, and I failed at riding a dirt bike many times before I got it.

Interviewer:

Tell me about a challenging thing you did that you didn’t have to do.

Mark:

Taking on Norman. He was a rescue dog. He came from a shelter. I looked at this dog, and I thought, this dog was me when I was a kid. And I’ll be damned if I’m going to let this dog fall through the cracks. I’m going to protect this dog, and we are going to give him a home. We are going to turn his life around. We could have just given him back to the shelter. But we knew it was the right thing to do. And he’s come a long way. He’s a great dog now. He is very calm. He listens. He still has his quirks, but he’s a calmer dog since we put the time and effort into it. It was a hard journey. But we learned a lot through it., I think that, honestly, it probably taught me a little bit about parenting.

Chris:

I’d say my biggest challenge was taking on as many instruments as I have. You know, my main one is bass, but I learned all the other rock instruments just for myself.

Jake:

My biggest challenge was learning how to control anger. That was a big challenge for me. I wanted to do it because I could feel the effects that my anger has on other people, and I knew that it wasn’t a good way of being. I didn’t want to be an angry person, so I decided to work on my anger by using Dynamic Intelligence to help me come up with strategies on how to deal with my anger. I think what stands out is that before I learned anger management strategies, I would just get mad and not know what to do with my anger. So, I’d kind of hold it in. Then it would come spilling out after a trigger happened. I knew that wasn’t a good strategy. So, I needed to come up with different strategies to help control the anger before the anger even started.

Conclusion

In this paper, we have presented a new way of understanding the difficulties adults with Autism experience in attaining well-being. While we presented supporting evidence from multiple sources, our argument is certainly not definitive or proven. Hopefully, our work will motivate others to further investigate our hypotheses.

Much of the evidence cited in this paper has been available in the autism literature for years. However, advocates of popular autism intervention programs, including those claiming their methods to be “evidence-based,” appear to ignore extensive research pointing to the impact of the debilitating impairments in Dynamic Intelligence experienced by persons with Autism. For example, they continue to measure success based on the same variables (e.g., IQ scores and improvement in Static skills) employed 40 years ago when experts believed that almost all persons with Autism suffered from an intellectual disability. These programs continue to teach children, adolescents, and adults with Autism to employ ineffective and sometimes harmful scripts and procedures in place of the dynamic mental tools needed for real-world success (Bottema-Beutel et al., 2018; Howlin, 2021; Morrison et al., 2020). We believe this broad divide between clinical practice and autism research raises serious questions about both communities.

One reason that programs fail to address Dynamic Intelligence may be the conflation of the words “ not yet” and “cannot.” In reviewing the extensive literature associated with autism-related impairments, we noticed that authors frequently discussed their findings as if the problem they were studying was a permanent, intractable attribute. There appeared to be an implicit inference that persons with Autism cannot develop these abilities.

We believe that unleashing the potential of persons with Autism must begin with a fundamental change from “cannot” to “does not yet.” This change requires operating from the premise that persons with Autism can develop the sophisticated mental abilities and motivations needed for success in a complex, dynamic world if we can find ways to provide them with the dynamic learning opportunities given to their non-autistic peers.

Such a paradigm change would communicate to persons with Autism that their diagnosis does not have to be an endpoint, a significant factor limiting their potential, or the primary component of their identity. They can view impairments in feeling, thinking, and relating not as intractable obstacles but as developmental challenges they can overcome if provided with appropriate developmental opportunities.

The journey of the young men presented in this paper and thousands of other children and parents who have participated in RDI have demonstrated to us that most persons with Autism can develop the mental resources needed to thrive in our complex dynamic, mid-21st-century world. The RDI process is long and, especially at the beginning, not easy. For example, a critical early step involves finding ways to provide reconstructive experiences for a highly resistant child. On the other hand, RDI is exceptionally cost-effective. As parents gradually learn to function as Experiencing Guides, they require less and less professional support.

The parents of the young persons described in this paper unquestionably believe their effort was well worth it. As for the young men themselves, their words eloquently represent their beliefs. They do not see their Autism diagnosis as an endpoint or obstacle to reaching their potential. They intend to continue expanding their personal and interpersonal worlds and challenging themselves throughout life. They hope their words and actions illustrate what is possible for persons with Autism.

Disclosure statement

Drs. Gutstein and Sheely are co-developers of the Relationship-Based Dynamic Intelligence Development Program (RDI). They are also co-owners of RDIconnect Inc.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Steven E. Gutstein

Dr. Steven E. Gutstein received his Ph.D. in Clinical Psychology from Case Western Reserve University. He has served on the faculty of Baylor Medical School and The University of Texas Medical School.

Rachelle K. Sheely

Dr. Rachelle K. Sheely received her Ph.D. from The Union Institute.

Drs. Gutstein and Sheely are co-developers of the Relationship-Based Dynamic Intelligence Development Program (RDI), and co-owners of RDIconnect Inc. They have both written extensively in the field of autism intervention.