The Autistic Mode: A Way of Thinking

I photographed this rose with extreme underexposure, then recovered the image in post-processing. It looked invisible at first, but it was always there—fully formed, just waiting to be seen. My autistic mode is much the same.

We all have moments of deep concentration—those times when we are so absorbed in something that the world recedes. A musician practicing alone, refining a passage with exquisite focus. A philosopher turning an argument over in their mind, testing its weight from every angle. A scientist working through the layers of an equation, adjusting variables, refining the logic until it holds. In these moments, the noise of the world fades, and what remains is a kind of clarity, a steady presence of thought moving toward resolution.

For most people, these moments are rare—a fleeting immersion before attention is drawn elsewhere, before the pull of conversation, interaction, and social rhythm resumes. But for some of us, this is not a passing state. It is simply how our minds work.

I call it the autistic mode. It is not a deficit or a dysfunction. It is not a rigid way of thinking. It is simply a state of coherence, a way of processing the world that does not flicker in and out with social approval. When I am in my autistic mode, I do not pause to wonder whether my thoughts will be well-received. I do not instinctively check the room before determining whether an idea holds. If something makes sense, it makes sense. External agreement does not alter its shape.

This is not merely a matter of valuing logic over social context, nor is it about prioritizing independence. It is a difference in cognitive architecture—one that determines how certainty forms in the mind. Neurotypical^* thought is relational, meaning ideas are often refined through social feedback. In contrast, autistic cognition tends to settle internally, independent of whether it gains traction in the outside world.

This is where my way of thinking diverges from most. Of course, neurotypicals experience moments of clarity that stand alone, and autistic people can also seek social affirmation at times. But the underlying structure differs: for neurotypicals, external reinforcement is often an integral part of how understanding solidifies, while for autistics, it is optional—or even foreign.

Neurotypical cognition is structured by dialogue, by the interplay of perspective and response. Thought is not merely internal—it is something to be reflected, tested, echoed in the minds of others. This is not a weakness, nor is it an error. It is simply a different rhythm of knowing, one shaped by social cohesion.

Even the most rational neurotypicals, the most principled and independent thinkers, are not immune to this pull. They may arrive at clarity, but they rarely hold it alone. Instead, there is a quiet turning outward—a moment in which conviction seeks reinforcement. I call this the Atticus Finch Turn. Named for the iconic figure of To Kill a Mockingbird, it represents a mode of certainty that is always, at some level, a performance. Atticus did not merely live by his principles—he argued them. He explained, he defended, he ensured that his moral stance was not just correct, but recognized. His morality had an audience.

This is a pattern I see everywhere. A friend makes a parenting choice that fits her family, one she arrived at with thought and care. At first, she moves forward without hesitation. But then come the raised eyebrows, the comments, the subtle pushback from the world around her. And suddenly, she is explaining—on Facebook, in conversation, in long messages to skeptical relatives. What began as a simple decision has become something else: not just an act of living, but an act of justifying. The ease she once had begins to scatter. She is no longer only making a choice—she is proving it.

This is what I have come to recognize in neurotypical cognition: the quiet tether of social reinforcement. The way thought, even at its most disciplined, does not settle until it is received. For many, this is not experienced as a burden, but as the natural structure of knowing—thought as dialogue, as reflection, as something that takes shape between people rather than within them.

But in the autistic mode, knowing does not require a witness. It does not need applause, agreement, or reassurance. It does not move toward consensus or debate. It simply is.

This is not the same as being highly sensitive. Sensitivity often refers to heightened emotional responsiveness to one’s environment, whereas the autistic mode is about structural coherence. It is a form of knowing that does not seek reinforcement before settling into certainty.

This does not mean it is infallible. I can be wrong, and when I am, I adjust—but not because a thought has failed to gain traction in the world. I revise only when new evidence or new reasoning calls for it. My certainty is not stubbornness, nor is it defiance. It is simply a different way of moving through the world—one that does not rely on a raised hand count to determine whether something holds.

Neither way of thinking is inherently better—each has its strengths and vulnerabilities. The neurotypical mode fosters social cohesion and adaptability, while the autistic mode enables deep internal consistency and independent reasoning. The value lies not in choosing one over the other, but in understanding how they differ.

Perhaps there is something to be learned from this. I do not expect neurotypicals to abandon social mirroring; it is, in many ways, a strength. It binds communities together. It creates shared understanding. But I do wonder what would happen if more people could sit within their own knowing for a little longer—if more ideas were allowed to stand, not because they are agreed upon, but because they are true.

Maybe we do not always need to prove ourselves. Maybe, sometimes, it is enough to simply know.

---

^*“Neurotypical” is used here to refer to the most common pattern of social cognition—one that forms through intuitive social mirroring—while “neuro-majority” is sometimes preferred to avoid implying normalcy. I use the former without drawing lines around ability or identity, since I am primarily interested in how different minds come to know.

This piece was written to be easy to engage with, but it is only one way of expressing these thoughts. If you’re curious to see how this perspective unfolds when it moves in its own rhythm—without reshaping for readability—you can continue reading the original, long-form version: "My Autistic Mode." It moves the way my mind moves: not structured for external rhythm, but for its own coherence. You may find it different. You may find it unfamiliar. But perhaps, in stepping outside of familiar structures, there is something to see.

← View all in “Here Nor There” ← Previous "My Autistic Mode" Next →