The Causes of Autism

This section of the library shall be dedicated to commentaries on the Hubermanlab podcast. Included below is not a summary of the episode (I’ll leave that for you to check out), but rather my comments on the episode in terms of psychology, health, and human behavior. Whenever possible, I draw connections to autism as well. Most of my comments originally appear on Twitter/X, so be sure to follow on there.

Dr. James Hollis: How to Find Your True Purpose & Create Your Best Life

“You are not what happened to you”

Based upon my own studies of the work of Dr. David R. Hawkins who was, in part, influenced by Jungian and Freudian psychology, I would add that a sense of identity is useful as a part of development in that it allows one from a young age to draw a distinction between oneself and the environment around them, yet simultaneously can serve maladaptive functions -thereby in agreement with Dr. Hollis- when one over-identifies with a traumatic event, or one’s past, if it becomes a defining part of one’s own identity (i.e., a person may identify so much with a traumatic event of the past that they don’t entirely release it, but rather continue to carry that trauma and may even re-experience the event over and over in order to satisfy notions of identity around that trauma).

As an example, self-thinking phrases such as ‘I survived rape‘ or ‘I’m a rape survivor‘ turn the traumatic event into one where identity revolves around the traumatic event. Hence, why Dr. Hollis teaches individuals “you are not what happened to you” in order to undo that identity revolving around the trauma.

Conversely, it is certainly not useful to deny the traumatic event as this could lead to suppression of the past and the emotions of the trauma subsequently be carried over into other areas of one’s life. Denial of the event whether its traumatic or not, needless to say, could also result in pathologies manifesting elsewhere, leading to other distortions of reality because, in essence, if one is denying the truth in the past one is denying other truths in the present -in my opinion.

“The greatest burden a child must bear is the unlived life of the parent.”

From a behavior analytic perspective, the quote makes much sense due to the parents only being capable of modeling behaviors corresponding to their own level of self-awareness. Certainly, if a parent is “stuck” in a certain set of un-transcended attitudes from their own childhood, subsequent behaviors relating to those unresolved complexes will follow. These behaviors are in turn internalized and copied by their own children.

Dr. Huberman noted later in the episode that he doesn’t believe in notions that we become our parents: I would agree to the degree the son/daughter internalizes or rejects the behaviors of the parents (as Dr. Huberman sstated), and even with caveats, as behavioral manifestations may, on the surface, appear different from parental figures (e.g., a son’s adamant rejection of his father’s authoritarian style of parenting), but at the core may bear harsh similarities to other behaviors (e.g., themselves having an authoritarian style of parenting under other well-meaning disguises). It would be a good nature vs. nurture debate; the degree to which we imitate, reject, consciously or subconsciously internalize the attitudes and behaviors of our parents.

I would hypothesize the degree to which a person is willing to accept or reject similarities between themselves and their parents is impacted by the degree to which the parental behaviors are positively/negatively accepted or rejected, the valence of the emotion toward the behavior of the parent impacting the willingness or unwillingness to address that trait within oneself. Thus, for those who perhaps view their experiences being parented as ‘negative,’ they are less willing to accept or see how their own current behaviors, especially as a parent, might’ve been influenced by their parents’ behaviors. On the other hand, those who view their experiences growing up as ‘positive’ under their parents, would be willing to view their own adoption of parental attitudes and behaviors favorably, perhaps with some bias, even in cases where perhaps their current behaviors/attitudes are a complete deviation from their parents. So biases are possible both ways…

Shadow self

The distinction between the shadow self and the ‘ego/superego’ is one I do not see clearly, as the work of Dr. David R. Hawkins has taught me to see subconscious drives/motivations as one and the same with the shadow self.

Perhaps the shadow specifically refers to the darker aspects of the ego/superego, and that compartmentalization between the ego which serves adaptive functions so we can get around in our environment with a sense of identity is set apart from the ego with destructive drives.

Nevertheless, I would say perhaps the ego in its purest form is simply the foundation of self-identity via duality between oneself and the environment and events that happen to one-self. Is it possible to identify with a traumatic event with a weak sense of identity/sense of self? This would be considered separate from simply carrying the emotional trauma of an event and viewing that separately from identifying with the event.

If a child experiences a trauma at a young age, a trauma perhaps the child didn’t have a name for, and the child still has a weak sense of an ego/identity -how much identifying with the traumatic event occurs at a young age and does this level of identification grow stronger as a consequence of the child learning the name of the traumatic event as well as developing a stronger ego as they age? The memory of the trauma itself is not what I speak of, for I would surmise that would not be impacted at all. But rather, the level of identifying with the event…and how does that impact the shadow self/ego down the line?

Returning to the previous point, if the ego/self in its purest form is a sense of identity that is grounded in a sense of ‘I-ness’ via the separation of oneself and the environment…what is the source of the sense of ‘I-ness’? What is the consequence of not identifying with anything? Dissolving of the ego? Reference here can be made to the Buddhist practice of negation: ‘not this,’ ‘not that,’ ‘not anything’…a practice of not identifying with anything at all. What happens to the ego or the shadow? What’s the consequence of refusing to identify with all notions of identity?

I’ll always remember Dr. Hawkins sharing what he experienced at a young age: confrontation with the duality of existence versus nonexistence.

He became suddenly fully aware of his existence in the here and now, yet simultaneosly confronted with the thought “If I exist, could it be that I had not existed at all?”

Dr. Hawkins indicated it took him many years to resolve that duality.

Archetypes of Men and Women

The historical changes in perception of what it means to be a man have impacted all in our modern society, no doubt.

To share a bit of my own reality…

Little to no definition of what it meant to be a man was something I experienced. Growing up in a home of a dysfunctional marriage and viewing the impact of alcoholism toward worsening matters, with only a behavior model for a strong work ethic occurring from the father figure, there was much to be desired in terms of formations of self-identity around what it meant to be a man.

A rejection of the fatherly figure due to what was witnessed in the dysfunctional marriage, coupled with defense of the mother in tense situations, led to a weak conceptualization of what it meant to be a man from a parental father figure.

I was left to my own devices to determine what it meant.

This deficit (if one can call it that), I hypothesize led to trouble making friendships with other males who had a stronger sense of identity of being a man (whatever the term meant for them), resulting in few male friends both in elementary school years as well as throughout high school -I just didn’t resonate with many I came in contact with.

To the universe’s defense though regarding my high school years, I should’ve just quit playing Varsity basketball where much of those negative interactions were occurring and returned to other sports (namely, karate where I almost had a black belt), where more beneficial social interactions were occurring even if they weren’t with exactly same age peers. I’ve spoken previously about the possibility of going un-diagnosed with autism or some mild developmental delay at a young age, and that certainly still remains a factor impacting friendships in younger years, but now also including its interaction with weak notions of identity around being a man as a consequence of certain behaviors being modeled…

The ghosts of high school negative social interactions haunted me for a few years, but were ameliorated in college through friendships with male peers whose sense of identify didn’t revolve (at least it didn’t seem that way) around strong definitions of what it meant to be a man. Music, video games, good food, summer beach trips, the simple little things in life were commonalities I bonded with my college friends over and that helped heal and develop a better sense of identity around man/maleness.

The notion of masculinity is something that seems to be coupled with the definition of what it means to be a man in modern culture. I would argue masculinity in this context is often misinterpreted to mean that one does not engage in awareness of one’s feelings, talk about them, or close male bonding in which vulnerabilities are exposed, resulting in what is often referred to as ‘toxic masculinity’ in its overbearing, narcissistic pride based, ironically, upon weak notions of what it means to be a man (the complete reverse of self-awareness it seems, at times, based upon certain behaviors witnessed).

Anyway, the rejection of the father figure including the work ethic didn’t resolve itself until my late 20s out of necessity. I’m glad I took a few years to figure my life out though, as I don’t regret the personal growth I underwent at that period of my life of intense self-reflection. I couldn’t do the job I do today, holding high emotional standards for myself and others, had I not taken the time to go within and do the inner work.

I continue the practice of self-reflection, introspection, and brutal self-honesty to the best of my ability.

One might say it’s been beneficial toward gleaning insight into others lives through their own words, which has helped me stay in a place of compassion when communicating with others even as they unleash storms of emotions.

In the end, I’m grateful for everything I went through, suffering and bliss alike, because it’s helped me become the man I am today.

Erikson’s Stages of Adulthood

Arguably, any conceptualization about stages of adult life are based upon perceptions of life itself that are normative for any given society, and perhaps based upon limited paradigms of the physicality of the human body, as well as whether or not the person believes in life after death and the extent this notion is accepted or subjectively known.

I’ll never forget the premise of much of Dr. David R. Hawkins work: reality is subjective. Any notions of objectivity themselves are subjective, as objectivity itself is founded upon subjective experience.

There’s no getting around that, and it’s brought up here within the context of the subjective experience of life beyond notions of what life should look like or be beyond normative standards (societal expectations)

It is common in many religions/spiritual practices to accept the reality of life after death, perhaps even extending toward heavenly versus hellish consequences after life on this plane. Regardless, assuming one has lived a good enough life to presume heavenly consequences, some may view human life as no different than life beyond the physical body -but rather, just another step in the process and a change in form. Would this impact a person’s perceptions about what life is supposed to look like at certain ages, and how does this impact the stages of adult life as conceptualized by Erikson? This is not to say those life stages are not applicable to many if not most, but arguably they are certainly not definitive, absolute, or unavoidable.

For example, many men and women live removed from worldly affairs in monasteries and engage in daily meditation contemplating the mysteries of life, the self, the Self, reality, the universe, coupled with studying specific writings aimed at expanding consciousness. How are Erikson’s life stages applied to them given that they have engaged in enormous acts of non-attachment by abandoning worldly desires to live a monastic lifestyle with no belongings? To what extent are Erikson’s life stages based upon human attachments to worldly matters, and how much are these human attachments impacted by society the person is living in?

To what degree does the environment, the people in the environment and their own expectations that are shaped by the world around them, impact the degree to which a person undergoes those life stages? How much do people identify with the “American dream,” or other notions of identity, and does rejection of certain aspirations that align with the stages of adult development lead to a different pathway? Out of compassion for a friend sharing certain aspirations for their own life, do we implicitly adopt those expectations of life? How much do simple, innocent conversations with others about their own life expectations impact our own life view and our own development? It would almost seem one has to make a conscious effort to continually reject certain notions or expectations about life during such conversation if one is to continue aligning oneself with a different developmental pathway. The impact of the environment…

So, it is worth considering those outside of the bell curve to remember that the stages of life, according to Erikson, should not define any person’s life.

“Mortality is what makes life mean something.”

If one defines mortality to mean ‘limited time here on this planet’ then it could be stated that meaning is attributed to existence here on Earth based upon the time one has spent on Earth and future expectations for the time one has left.

However, if mortality is defined as ‘the existence of the physical body of which consciousness is attached to, therefore, the mortality of consciousness/body is what makes life mean something’ then I would disagree with the premise entirely based upon this definition that limits consciousness to the body.

Thus, the immortality of consciousness is something worth considering and how it may impact one’s understanding of the meaning of life or one’s purpose.

If you knew you were immortal, you could never die, how would that change your behaviors now? For better or for worse? To some extent the immortality of consciousness is accepted by most via religious doctrine regarding life after death and its forthcoming consequences. So some self-regulatory behaviors are put in place in expectation for pleasant/unpleasant consequences, although not entirely that alone drives most people’s motivation –for most the motivation to be a good person simply comes intrinsically and for many even without expectation of what happens after life here on earth.

Returning to the point of the immortality of consciousness and how this impacts how one draws meaning from life: the behavior of the person would most likely, I hypothesize, be impacted by a multitude of factors the person was subjected to at various points in their life, just like any other person. Albeit, the degree of maturity, or the level of consciousness of the person as Dr. Hawkins would say, would determine the consequent life-view, whether pessimistic, optimistic, hopeful, etc.

Thus I argue, an immoral person would remain immoral regardless of the mortality or immortality of their body/consciousness (and awareness of it) until a conscious decision is made to change themselves for whatever reason. For many humans on earth, decisions to change are often based upon very notions of the mortality of the body. But what would happen if life-spans were much longer? Would Erikson’s developmental stages still apply, yet remain extended over longer periods of time? What if a person lived for hundreds of thousands of years?

I guess in the end, does mortality or immortality of consciousness/body really mean anything? Or is it the level of self-awareness, consciousness, that determines the behaviors/attitudes the person will act upon?

Life’s mysteries eh?

Thanks for the lovely episode Dr. Huberman.

Autism Librarian