shapeofsoup
  • Monotropic Expansion
  • 1. Introduction
    • 1.1 Prevailing Deficit Framework
    • 1.2 Purpose and Goals
    • 1.3 Monotropic Expansion Model
    • 1.4 Addressing Accessibility
    • 1.5 Paper Overview
    • 1.6 Positionality and Rationale
  • 2. Model Mechanism
    • 2.1 Anchoring
    • 2.2 Iterative Context Building
    • 2.3 Cognitive Inertia
    • 2.4 Directionality and Precision
    • 2.5 Scalability and Flexibility
  • 3. Neurological Foundation
    • 3.1 Salience Anchoring and Internal Relevance
    • 3.2 Attentional Modulation and Cognitive Inertia
    • 3.3 Predictive Coding and Inside-Out Construction
    • 3.4 Neurodevelopmental Trajectories and Structural Divergence
    • 3.5 Implications for Structural Modeling and Neuroethical Practice
  • 4. Theoretical Alignment
    • 4.1 Monotropism (Murray, Lesser, Lawson, 2005)
    • 4.2 Executive Dysfunction and Attentional Flexibility
    • 4.3. Weak Central Coherence (Frith, 1989)
    • 4.4. Theory of Mind (ToM) and the Assumption of Deficiency
    • 4.5. Language Processing and Internal Narrative
    • 4.6. Trauma, Inertia, and Pattern Reinforcement
    • 4.7. Double Empathy Problem (Milton, 2012)
    • 4.8. DSM-5 Framing and Pathologized Comparison
  • 5. Implications
    • 5.1. Diagnostic Framing and the Myth of Functioning Labels
    • 5.2. Coexisting Neurodivergent Conditions and Inertial Structures
    • 5.3. Rethinking Support and Accommodation
    • 5.4. Therapy Approaches, Cognitive Models, and Ethical Misalignment
    • 5.5. Self-Perception, Identity, and Communication Disconnects
    • 5.6. Social Systems, Education, and Institutional Friction
  • 6. Reframing Autism
    • 6.1. The Structural Model of Divergence
    • 6.2. Moving Beyond Developmental Language
    • 6.3. Implications for Language, Ethics, and Research
  • 7. Conclusion
  • 8. Update Log
  • Contact & Support
Powered by GitBook
On this page

5.3. Rethinking Support and Accommodation

Traditional approaches to support often target behavioral compliance rather than cognitive accessibility. This is particularly damaging for individuals with monotropic cognition, where focus is not a matter of willpower, but a function of cognitive anchoring. Attempts to forcibly redirect attention without recognizing the anchoring mechanism can result in cognitive dissonance, emotional distress, or shutdown—not due to stubbornness or avoidance, but because the redirection itself requires more structural effort than the system can immediately perform.

Support strategies must therefore be anchor-aware. The most effective accommodations are not those that push for flexibility, but those that scaffold transitions through familiar context, minimize abrupt pivoting, and allow re-anchoring to occur at a manageable pace. This can include allowing extended focus time, building transitions through narrative logic, and leveraging known points of interest or relevance when introducing new material.

In educational settings, this means valuing depth over multitasking. In professional contexts, it means aligning job roles with cognitive orientation, and resisting the urge to equate productivity with parallel processing or split attention. In daily life, it means recognizing that “stuckness” is not a character flaw—but a real expression of how monotropic cognition functions when external demands violate its structure.

Previous5.2. Coexisting Neurodivergent Conditions and Inertial StructuresNext5.4. Therapy Approaches, Cognitive Models, and Ethical Misalignment

Last updated 2 months ago