My breakdown of the autism Princeton study… part 1

Ok, let’s decode this thing together. Because it’s… a lot. (Even for someone like me with a relevant degree. 😅)

I’ll start here. The study was conducted on a sampling of diagnosed children. Mostly male. 80-ish percent. And racial representation was not explicitly looked at. This means that the 5k+ people studied are not representative of the autistic population in general.

Next…

They identified 4 presentations of autism within this particular group, which many people discussing the research have been referring to as “subtypes.”

It sounds like a simple finding, but there are several important things to understand about this result…

My breakdown of the autism Princeton study… part 2

In my last post I talked about the research uncovering 4 pattern clusters in the autistic sample group, which people are calling “subtypes,” and explained why using the term “subtype” is causing confusion…

(If you’re interested in my explanation of that, you should go look for part 1. 🙂)

In this post, I’ll share what the patterns clusters actually were and how they were grouped in the study…

My breakdown of the autism Princeton study... Part 3

Let’s talk about the why behind the gender distribution of the study because a lot of people are understandably frustrated that nearly 80% of the participants were male.

But first, let’s talk about where the participants came from…

My breakdown of the autism Princeton study... part 4

I think I’m finally ready to get into the biological / genetic findings of the study…

My breakdown of the autism Princeton study, part 5

Ok, so now that I’ve laid out all the details of the actual study, I’m going to get into how it all relates to the late diagnosed, level 1, high masking, lower support needs version of autism... my version of autism.

Aka, the version that often looks like absolutely nothing but is rife with internalized anxiety….