Formal modeling shows neurodivergent cognitive efficiency in Autism Spectrum Condition, suggesting a need for new frameworks.
This paper applies the mathematical framework of the General Theory of Stupidity (G) to the study of neurocognitive variance, specifically focusing on Autism Spectrum Condition (ASC). Challenging traditional deficit-based psychiatric models (DSM-5), we propose that the autistic phenotype represents a distinct "High-Precision / Narrow-Bandwidth" cognitive architecture designed for extreme efficiency in low-entropy environments. By mapping the sociological theory of Monotropism and the neurological model of Predictive Coding to the cybernetic variables of the G-Model (Information Load DD, Attention AA, and Social Pressure SS), we demonstrate that the "Autistic Paradox"—the simultaneous presence of savant-level capability and extreme susceptibility to burnout—is a deterministic outcome of a Phase Transition in the attention control system. Key Findings: The Rationality Advantage: Monte Carlo Agent Simulations (N=5000N=5000) demonstrate that Monotropic architectures achieve a 14.6% superiority in rationality in low-noise, system-driven environments compared to neurotypical counterparts. The "Masking" Tax: We formalize social camouflaging as a measurable metabolic resource drain (Emulation Tax), showing that high social pressure (SS) depletes attentional resources reserved for cognitive processing. Stupidity Singularity (Meltdown): Demographic risk projection using the Big Five Personality Test dataset (N=19,718N=19,718) reveals a 90.1% Singularity Rate under high-stress conditions for Monotropic profiles, identifying "hostile environments" as the primary driver of cognitive collapse. Reframing ASC: Reframes high-functioning autism not as a pathology of deficit, but as a specialized engineering trade-off between Robustness and Peak Performance.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Igor Sergeevich Petrenko (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: