Reframing Dissociative Identity Disorder: Adaptive Brilliance in the Autistic Brain

Exploring Dissociative Identity Disorder as an Adaptive Strategy of the Autistic Brain

Positioning Statement

I enter this conversation as someone who occupies multiple, intersecting identities that inform my understanding of Dissociative Identity Disorder (DID) and its relationship with autism. I am a late-diagnosed autistic individual, also identified as gifted, ADHD, and a system. These neurodivergent experiences have profoundly shaped my personal journey, pushing me to explore the relationship between neurodivergence, trauma, and dissociation in ways that challenge traditional frameworks.

As someone credentialed in the psychology of addiction and peer support for trauma recovery, including addiction recovery, I bring a unique perspective to this discussion. My academic background includes a degree in the Psychology of Addictions, as well as advanced studies in Transformative Social Change, with an emphasis on peace and justice. My current graduate program, focused on transformative social change and peacebuilding, has allowed me to integrate these personal and academic experiences into my work.

Additionally, I have been deeply influenced by the work of practitioners like Dr. Joey Lawrence, whose systems-based approach to neurodivergence and mental health provides a new lens through which to view the adaptive nature of conditions like DID. Dr. Patty Gently’s work on gifted trauma, particularly her gear theory, has also provided invaluable insights into how the brain’s various parts adaptively function to manage trauma, sensory overload, and stress. I approach this work not only from an academic lens but also through the lens of lived experience, as I continually engage with neurodivergent communities who share similar experiences of dissociation, anxiety, and trauma.

By integrating my personal journey, academic training, and communal insights, I aim to offer a reframing of DID in late-diagnosed autistic individuals, positioning it as an adaptive function of the autistic brain rather than a co-occurring disorder. Through SYNPRAXIS, a framework I developed that synthesizes lived experience and theoretical models, I hope to contribute to this growing body of knowledge in a way that is both academically grounded and personally resonant.

Introduction

Dissociative Identity Disorder (DID) is commonly understood as a result of early trauma, marked by distinct identities or personality states (American Psychiatric Association, 2013). However, in late-diagnosed autistic individuals, I propose that DID might function as an adaptive strategy rather than a co-occurring disorder. This hypothesis is rooted in theories like Monotropism (Monotropism.org, n.d.), Intense World Theory (Markram & Markram, 2007), Polyvagal Theory (Porges, 2011), and the Hyperconnectivity Hypothesis (Belmonte et al., 2004). Together, these theories suggest that DID can be reframed as a survival mechanism, helping autistic individuals navigate a sensory-overwhelming world.

While Dr. Joey Lawrence’s work in system dynamics focuses on the brain's adaptive nature, I draw from her approach to suggest that the brain operates as a self-organizing, complex system, constantly responding to external pressures (Lawrence, 2023). From this perspective, dissociative identities are not pathological but rather adaptive mechanisms that help the brain manage conflicting environments and sensory overloads. This view allows us to see the autistic brain as a dynamic, context-dependent system capable of restructuring itself in response to various challenges (Belmonte et al., 2004; Cerliani et al., 2015). It’s important to note that while Lawrence’s work addresses system dynamics more broadly, my interpretation extends this to DID in autistic individuals.

In addition, Dr. Patty Gently’s Gear Theory—developed through her work in gifted trauma recovery—provides a critical framework for understanding the emergence of dissociative identities in neurodivergent individuals. Gently’s model explains how different parts of the brain function like gears, each playing a distinct role in managing trauma and cognitive overload (Gently, 2024). While Gently does not explicitly connect her Gear Theory to dissociative identities, I apply her framework to suggest that, in late-diagnosed autistic individuals, this "gear system" can explain how distinct identities emerge as adaptive responses to overwhelming sensory input or emotional stress. This interpretation extends her work into a broader discussion of DID and neurodivergence. Gently’s focus on asynchronous development and trauma in gifted individuals further supports the idea that DID can be an adaptive survival mechanism of the brain (Gently, 2024).

This essay will offer a reframing of DID and co-occurring conditions, such as OCD and personality disorders, in autistic individuals. Rather than viewing these experiences as pathologies, I propose that they are context-dependent adaptations. I will also critique the limitations of current diagnostic frameworks, particularly for late-diagnosed autistics, and address the harmful impacts of rigid support-level classifications (American Psychiatric Association, 2013).

Context Dependency of the Autistic Brain

Autistic individuals often process and interact with the world in ways that significantly differ from neurotypical expectations. A key element in understanding this divergence is the context-dependent functioning of the autistic brain. Theories such as Monotropism and Intense World Theory provide valuable insights into how the autistic brain focuses intensely on specific tasks or stimuli to manage sensory and cognitive overload.

Monotropism, for example, posits that the autistic brain operates by concentrating on a narrow range of interests, filtering out other stimuli to cope with overwhelming external inputs (Monotropism.org, n.d.). This intense focus can be highly adaptive in certain contexts. However, when the external world demands multitasking or quick shifts in attention, the brain may struggle to adapt, sometimes creating distinct functional parts to manage these demands.

Building on this, Intense World Theory explains that autistic individuals experience heightened sensory, emotional, and cognitive inputs, which can lead to extreme overload. In such situations, the brain may compartmentalize stimuli, not as a disorder but as a survival strategy (Markram & Markram, 2007). This mechanism enables the autistic brain to handle multiple, conflicting stimuli by creating distinct mental states or identities, which may often be misinterpreted as Dissociative Identity Disorder (DID). These identities allow the brain to function despite overwhelming conditions, which might otherwise be seen as dysfunction in a neurotypical framework.

Dr. Joey Lawrence’s system dynamics model informs much of my thinking about how the brain self-organizes in response to external pressures. While Lawrence’s work focuses broadly on system dynamics, my interpretation extends this idea to hypothesize that dissociative identities in late-diagnosed autistic individuals serve as adaptive mechanisms rather than pathologies. In Lawrence’s view, the brain operates as a complex system capable of dynamically reorganizing itself based on the environmental context, allowing dissociative identities to emerge as functional, context-dependent solutions (Lawrence, 2024). This process, I argue, is not pathological but an advanced adaptive strategy that enables the autistic brain to survive in environments that are not designed for its sensory and cognitive intensities.

Gear Theory, as developed by Dr. Patty Gently, focuses on how different parts of the brain function in relation to gifted trauma recovery. I build upon this framework to suggest that these parts could also represent adaptive dissociative identities formed in response to the unique sensory and emotional demands placed on autistic individuals. In Gently’s workshops, she emphasizes how each "gear" of the brain serves as an interdependent part of a system, responding to different sensory or cognitive challenges. In this model, the brain creates functional parts to manage stressors and allow for smoother transitions between tasks or environments. The development of dissociative parts in autistic individuals can thus be understood as a reflection of the brain’s context-dependent functionality rather than as a disorder (Gently, 2024).

Personal Example:

In my own life, my early development of reading at age three is best understood through the lens of Monotropism—a theory which posits that the autistic brain focuses intensely on a narrow range of interests (Monotropism.org, n.d.). For me, reading was more than an activity; it was an adaptive mechanism that allowed me to manage the overwhelming sensory and communication demands of my environment. By concentrating on reading, I was able to create a structured and predictable space where I could process information and shield myself from external chaos.

At age eight, I experienced public shaming during a reading contest, where I was accused of lying about the number of books I had read. This traumatic event triggered what I now recognize as my first monotropic split—a dissociative response that helped protect me from emotional pain. Informed by Patty Gently’s Gear Theory, which I encountered in her trauma recovery workshops, I now see that this was not simply a defensive reaction but rather an adaptive "gear" that my brain created to help me navigate an environment of emotional overload (Gently, 2024).

The Autistic Nervous System: A Polyvagal Perspective

Polyvagal Theory examines how the autonomic nervous system responds to stress through three primary states: social engagement, fight/flight, and shutdown (Porges, 2011). This theory offers a critical framework for understanding why autistic individuals, who often struggle with the overwhelming social and sensory demands of a neurotypical world, may be more prone to experiencing chronic states of fight/flight or shutdown. The heightened sensory sensitivities common in autism push the autistic nervous system into these survival modes.

Through this lens, Dissociative Identity Disorder (DID) can be reframed as an adaptive form of nervous system regulation. Dissociative identities or functional parts of the system may emerge as responses to different stressors, allowing the individual to manage the body's varied responses. For example, one part of the system may stay hypervigilant—operating in fight/flight mode—while another part might retreat into emotional shutdown to protect the individual from further sensory or emotional overwhelm. In this context, DID is not necessarily a disorder but a sophisticated survival mechanism that helps autistic individuals maintain functionality despite ongoing environmental stress.

Dr. Joey Lawrence’s work on system dynamics builds on this idea by framing dissociative responses as natural, adaptive processes. She posits that the brain and nervous system collaborate to create parts that can handle conflicting environments, allowing the individual to survive overwhelming external conditions (Lawrence, 2023). These parts function as protective adaptations, enabling autistic individuals to cope with the intense stress caused by neurotypical societal expectations, particularly in environments that do not account for their sensory or emotional needs.

Additionally, Dr. Patty Gently’s gear theory offers a complementary perspective. According to Gently, dissociative parts function like interlocking gears that help regulate the body’s response to chronic stress (Gently, 2024). Each “gear” in the brain operates as an integral part of the system, assisting the individual in managing emotional, sensory, or environmental challenges. Rather than being dysfunctional, these parts act as gears within a well-tuned machine, regulating stress responses while allowing the individual to continue functioning.

Personal and Communal Examples:

In my own life, following the traumatic reading contest incident in school, my system became stuck in fight/flight mode. I developed distinct parts to help me manage the ongoing stress. One part of me became hypervigilant, constantly scanning for social threats and avoiding situations where I might be shamed or ridiculed. Another part, however, entered a state of emotional shutdown, protecting me from further emotional harm by detaching me from overwhelming situations. This adaptive regulation allowed me to survive emotionally challenging school environments while continuing to function cognitively. I now understand these parts not as separate identities but as protective mechanisms that helped me navigate a complex and emotionally demanding environment.

Similarly, a community member shared her experience of chronic shutdown during periods of intense social anxiety. Her nervous system would shut down, causing her to emotionally detach from social situations she found overwhelming. To manage these environments, her brain developed functional parts that allowed her to engage with others on a surface level while protecting her emotional core from becoming overloaded. These dissociative parts enabled her to continue functioning in social settings without succumbing to sensory and emotional overload, highlighting how the brain adaptively regulates its response to stress.

The Hyperconnectivity Hypothesis and Identity Fragmentation

The Hyperconnectivity Hypothesis suggests that the autistic brain may exhibit increased neural connectivity in certain regions, particularly in areas associated with sensory processing and social cognition (Belmonte et al., 2004). This heightened connectivity can result in cognitive and sensory overload, as the brain struggles to filter irrelevant stimuli and prioritize essential information. Excessive connectivity between brain regions may also impede cognitive flexibility, making task-switching difficult and leading to the compartmentalization of mental functions as an adaptive strategy.

Rather than viewing this compartmentalization as a disorder, the development of distinct functional parts or identities in autistic individuals can be reframed as a sophisticated survival mechanism. These dissociative parts or identities help the brain cope with sensory complexity by creating specialized mental states. Each part manages a specific set of tasks or environments, thus allowing the brain to effectively allocate its resources to navigate overwhelming stimuli and maintain functionality (Cerliani et al., 2015).

For instance, hyperconnectivity between the default mode network (DMN) and other brain regions has been shown to affect emotional and social processing (Cerliani et al., 2015). In autistic individuals, this overconnectivity may foster the development of multiple “subsystems” or functional parts of the self, each designed to handle distinct sensory or cognitive challenges.

In this context, the emergence of dissociative identities in autistic individuals serves as an adaptive mechanism, with each identity compartmentalized to address a particular type of sensory input or social environment. These identities should not be pathologized but rather seen as adaptive strategies that help manage the autistic brain’s hyperconnected neural network, enabling the individual to function effectively in various, often overwhelming, contexts (Belmonte et al., 2004).

Personal and Communal Examples:

In my personal experience, I have dealt with lifelong generalized anxiety. This anxiety was constantly triggered by the chaotic nature of my environment, making it difficult for me to manage my sensory input. However, when my surroundings changed dramatically—becoming more structured and predictable—I experienced significant relief from my anxiety. I now understand that this shift in environment allowed my system to regulate more effectively, highlighting the adaptive nature of my dissociative parts. The structure provided the necessary support for my brain’s hyperconnectivity, reducing the need for compartmentalization and allowing me to function more fluidly.

A communal example further illustrates how these dissociative parts emerge as adaptive responses to overwhelming environments. A woman working in a high-pressure corporate environment only realized the presence of her dissociative parts after experiencing severe burnout. Before her breakdown, she had maintained high performance, met rigorous deadlines, and navigated complex social dynamics. However, her sensory and emotional overload eventually led to her burnout, leaving her emotionally numb and unable to function.

Upon reflecting on her experience, she identified several parts within her system that had formed in response to the demands of her job. One part, the "Performer," allowed her to focus intensely on tasks like meeting deadlines and managing clients, while the "Protector" shielded her from emotional vulnerability. Another part, the "Sensory Regulator," managed the overwhelming sensory input from the noisy office, and the "Social Negotiator" helped her mask her true emotional state to navigate office politics successfully.

This communal story supports the Hyperconnectivity Hypothesis, which posits that heightened neural connectivity in autistic individuals leads to the development of distinct identities to manage different types of overwhelming information. In this case, the woman’s brain created these parts as an adaptive response to the cognitive and sensory complexities of her corporate environment, demonstrating how dissociative parts can emerge in high-pressure settings as functional survival mechanisms (Belmonte et al., 2004; Cerliani et al., 2015).

Reframing Co-Occurring Conditions: OCD, Personality Disorders, and Anxiety

When viewed through the lens of adaptive functioning, Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder (OCD) can be understood as a context-dependent strategy developed by the autistic brain to create a sense of control in environments that are unpredictable or overwhelming (Gillan et al., 2016). For autistic individuals, repetitive behaviors or obsessive thoughts, often associated with OCD, may be creative attempts by the brain to restore order amidst sensory and cognitive overload. The need for structure and predictability in a chaotic environment is reflected in these repetitive actions, offering relief from overwhelming external stimuli.

In late-diagnosed autistic individuals, these OCD-like behaviors can be seen as protective mechanisms, allowing them to focus on a narrow set of tasks or thoughts to manage a chaotic world (McDougle et al., 1995). Rather than treating these behaviors as separate from autism, they should be recognized as adaptive functions of the autistic brain’s overarching drive for structure and order in overwhelming contexts. These behaviors are not "disorders" in the traditional sense but mechanisms the autistic brain uses to maintain equilibrium (Russell, 2002).

Similarly, conditions like Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD) can be reframed within this adaptive framework. The instability in identity and emotional regulation often seen in BPD may be better understood as the brain's adaptive attempt to navigate conflicting demands in a neurotypical world. For autistic individuals, rapid shifts in emotional states or identity may represent advanced survival strategies, where different parts of the self (or distinct identities) emerge to handle conflicting environments or emotional stressors (Skodol et al., 2002). This reframing moves away from pathologizing these traits and instead sees them as context-specific responses to environmental misalignment.

Anxiety disorders, such as Generalized Anxiety Disorder (GAD), can also be reframed as adaptive responses to overwhelming sensory and emotional stimuli. Autistic individuals often experience anxiety due to sensory overload, social stressors, and the demands of functioning in a neurotypical world. The constant state of hypervigilance and anticipatory anxiety becomes a way for the brain to prepare for unpredictable or chaotic environments (White et al., 2009). In this way, anxiety serves as an adaptive response, helping the brain manage uncertainty and sensory discomfort rather than being a purely pathological state.

Dr. Joey Lawrence’s and Dr. Patty Gently’s Contributions

Drawing from Dr. Joey Lawrence’s system dynamics approach, which views the brain as an adaptive system, I suggest that OCD-like behaviors and personality traits should be seen as context-dependent adaptations. This builds on, but diverges from, Dr. Lawrence’s model to incorporate the view that these behaviors represent protective survival mechanisms in overwhelming environments. For example, OCD-like behaviors or personality traits are not isolated disorders but adaptive responses to environments that overwhelm the individual’s emotional and sensory capacities (Lawrence, 2023). This model helps explain why behaviors that appear pathological may actually be complex, adaptive mechanisms designed to protect the individual from sensory or emotional overload.

Dr. Patty Gently’s Gear Theory, which I explored through her workshops on gifted trauma recovery (Gently, 2023), provides a practical understanding of how different parts of the brain or personality work together to maintain structure and control in challenging situations. Each "gear" performs a distinct role in regulating sensory, cognitive, and emotional input, working in coordination to keep the system functioning smoothly in overwhelming environments. For example, obsessive behaviors or identity fragmentation can be understood as necessary gears within the system, each gear working to maintain balance and regulate the individual’s internal and external environments.

Personal and Communal Examples

Throughout my life, I experienced generalized anxiety that manifested in various forms, particularly in social situations. For many years, I found myself mentally rehearsing social interactions—anticipating responses, planning conversations, and preparing for multiple outcomes. While this behavior might appear obsessive, it served an adaptive function. In unpredictable social environments, mentally rehearsing interactions gave me a sense of control and predictability, helping me cope with the uncertainty of social dynamics.

This aligns with the understanding of OCD-like behaviors in autistic individuals, where repetitive thoughts and actions serve as mechanisms for restoring order in an overwhelming world (Gillan et al., 2016). These behaviors were not a dysfunction but an adaptive response to a chaotic environment. After shifting to an environment that better supported my neurodivergent brain, my generalized anxiety diminished significantly, demonstrating how environmental factors shape these adaptive behaviors.

Similarly, a member of my neurodivergent community shared their story of using repetitive organizational habits to manage anxiety. For this individual, keeping their personal space meticulously organized allowed them to create a controlled, predictable environment in an otherwise overwhelming world. Every object had its place, and following this strict routine provided a sense of order amidst chaos.

In both examples—whether through mental rehearsal or physical organization—these repetitive behaviors represent the brain’s way of navigating unpredictability. According to Dr. Joey Lawrence’s system dynamics approach, these behaviors are adaptive responses to sensory or emotional overload (Lawrence, 2023). Likewise, Dr. Patty Gently’s Gear Theory helps explain how different parts of the brain, like those responsible for obsessive thinking, collaborate to manage external stressors and ensure survival in challenging environments (Gently, 2024). Both personal and communal examples demonstrate the adaptive nature of these responses, showcasing how neurodivergent individuals use creativity and strategy to cope with a world that wasn’t built for their neurotype.

The Role of Positive Disintegration in Autistic Adaptation

Kazimierz Dabrowski's Theory of Positive Disintegration (TPD) provides a valuable framework for understanding how late-diagnosed autistic individuals experience personal growth through periods of psychological disintegration. In TPD, certain forms of stress, trauma, or internal conflict lead to personal growth and higher levels of emotional and intellectual development, rather than mental breakdown. For late-diagnosed autistic individuals, the process of uncovering dissociative parts, repetitive behaviors, or rigid personality traits can represent a phase of positive disintegration, as the brain deconstructs earlier survival mechanisms in favor of more integrated, authentic ways of functioning (Dabrowski, 1964).

For autistic individuals, this process may be especially relevant during or after autistic burnout, as they become aware of their dissociative identities or adaptive behaviors. This disintegration process allows for the harmonization of these once-fragmented parts, leading to personal growth—a concept central to Dabrowski’s TPD.

Personal Example:

I experienced a significant period of positive disintegration when I first began exploring my autistic identity after a late diagnosis. Before my diagnosis, I relied on certain rigid coping mechanisms, including obsessive planning and an intense focus on productivity, to navigate the overwhelming sensory and social demands of my environment. However, as I began to understand the root causes of these behaviors, I noticed a slow unraveling of these once-necessary survival strategies. What once seemed like concrete parts of my personality—such as the need to hyper-organize my day or avoid social interactions—began to break down, allowing for a more nuanced and compassionate understanding of myself.

This period of psychological disintegration was not without its challenges. There were times when I felt completely lost, unsure of how to function without the crutches I had relied on for so long. However, through this process, I experienced significant growth, as I gradually learned to integrate my dissociative parts and create more fluid, flexible strategies for navigating the world. This journey towards self-integration aligns with Dabrowski’s notion that disintegration ultimately leads to a higher level of personal development and authenticity.

Additionally, Patty Gently’s gear theory from her workshops in Intersection of Intensity Psychoeducation helps elucidate how these different parts of the brain function. Gently suggests that gifted and twice-exceptional individuals, including autistic individuals, often develop different "gears" that work together to help manage sensory overload and trauma (Gently, 2024). These gears can be seen as functional parts that interact dynamically, much like Dabrowski’s stages of disintegration, to foster personal growth. Over time, these parts transition from functioning in isolation to becoming more coordinated and integrated within the individual's broader self, enabling a person to thrive.

For late-diagnosed autistics, positive disintegration is not just about the collapse of old structures, but about the awareness and acceptance of one’s unique cognitive and emotional landscape. As Gently explains, this process is particularly relevant for gifted individuals who experience asynchronous development and have to reconcile multiple intensities and challenges (Gently, 2024).

The Harmful Impact of Current Diagnostic Frameworks

The existing diagnostic criteria for autism, as outlined in the DSM-5 and other classification systems, focus heavily on observable behaviors and deficits. These frameworks emphasize social communication challenges, repetitive behaviors, and restricted interests. However, they fail to account for the adaptive, context-dependent functioning of autistic individuals (Gillberg, 2010). While these criteria may work for identifying autism in young children who exhibit overt behaviors, they are often inadequate or even harmful for late-diagnosed autistic individuals, who have developed complex, adaptive mechanisms to navigate the demands of a neurotypical world (Lawrence, 2023).

For late-diagnosed autistics, the criteria do not recognize how these adaptive strategies—such as the creation of dissociative identities or the use of repetitive behaviors—are survival responses, not dysfunctions (Gently, 2024). The DSM’s framework assumes these traits are deficits, overlooking the autistic brain’s dynamic response to sensory and emotional overload. These mechanisms allow autistic individuals to function in environments that are not designed for their sensory and cognitive needs, but the current diagnostic system pathologizes rather than understands them as adaptive survival strategies (Gillan et al., 2016).

Dr. Joey Lawrence’s system dynamics approach critiques this deficit-based model by proposing that the brain’s ability to reorganize and adapt under stress should be seen as a strength, not a disorder. In Joey’s model, late-diagnosed autistics are not suffering from fragmented identities but are exhibiting the brain’s natural capacity for self-organization to manage environmental demands (Lawrence, 2023). However, the DSM and related diagnostic tools are static and mechanistic, failing to recognize this dynamic complexity in late-diagnosed autistics (APA, 2013).

Similarly, Dr. Patty Gently’s gear theory explains how different parts of the brain work together to manage sensory, emotional, and cognitive overload. Gently argues that current diagnostic frameworks fail to appreciate how dissociative identities or repetitive behaviors are not pathological but necessary gears within a well-functioning system (Gently, 2024). These adaptive gears work together to maintain balance in overwhelming environments, but the DSM only views them through a pathologizing lens, labeling them as disorders rather than as context-dependent adaptive strategies.

This failure to understand the adaptive nature of these behaviors has led to harmful consequences for late-diagnosed autistics. These individuals are often categorized as "high-functioning" or placed in the Level 1 support category based on superficial assessments of their social or communicative behaviors (Lawrence, 2023). This classification ignores the immense effort and emotional toll required to maintain these behaviors in neurotypical environments. As a result, they are often under-supported, as their complex internal coping mechanisms are not recognized by current diagnostic tools.

Furthermore, the focus on childhood diagnosis in the DSM-5 creates significant challenges for adults who were diagnosed later in life (Baron-Cohen et al., 2009). Because the criteria are based primarily on developmental markers observable in young children, adults who have spent years developing coping strategies are frequently dismissed or misdiagnosed. This creates a narrative of exclusion for late-diagnosed individuals, reinforcing the belief that autism is something that should be "outgrown" or only exists in its most overt form in childhood (Gently, 2024). This disregard for late-diagnosed individuals further pathologizes their adaptive traits as dysfunctions, compounding the emotional and psychological harm caused by inadequate support.

Communal Example:

Within the late-diagnosed autistic community, it is widely acknowledged that the current diagnostic frameworks create multiple overlapping harms. Adults, often having spent decades navigating the world without understanding their neurodivergence, develop highly sophisticated adaptive strategies to cope with sensory overload, social interactions, and the demands of neurotypical environments. Many of these individuals report that their behaviors—whether repetitive actions, emotional regulation mechanisms, or dissociative identities—are misinterpreted by healthcare professionals as evidence of other disorders, such as OCD or personality disorders, rather than as autistic coping mechanisms.

A common sentiment among late-diagnosed individuals is the deep sense of alienation they experience when their adaptive behaviors are pathologized. Instead of receiving support that acknowledges the complexity of their internal world, they are often given dismissive diagnoses that focus on surface-level behaviors, leaving their underlying struggles unaddressed. This shared experience underscores the need for diagnostic models that recognize the full spectrum of autistic adaptation, including how individuals create protective parts or identities to survive in a world that was not designed for them.

In contrast, both Dr. Joey Lawrence’s and Dr. Patty Gently’s models advocate for a strengths-based approach to diagnosis. Rather than focusing on deficits or childhood markers, diagnostic frameworks should acknowledge how autistic individuals of all ages use adaptive mechanisms like DID, repetitive behaviors, or emotional regulation strategies to survive in environments that are often hostile to their neurotype (Lawrence, 2023; Gently, 2024). By shifting the diagnostic focus to recognize and appreciate these strategies, clinicians could provide more accurate and compassionate support to late-diagnosed autistics.

Conclusion: The Need for Diagnostic Reform

The current diagnostic criteria for autism, as outlined in frameworks such as the DSM-5, are fundamentally harmful to late-diagnosed autistic individuals. These individuals, who have often developed sophisticated adaptive mechanisms such as dissociation, OCD-like behaviors, or rigid personality traits, are not adequately represented by a system that focuses primarily on deficits, childhood development, and observable behaviors (Lawrence, 2023; Gently, 2024). By focusing solely on external markers of autism, the existing criteria fail to capture the full complexity of the autistic experience, particularly for those who have spent years navigating an overwhelming world using adaptive strategies.

Not only do these criteria ignore the internal experiences of autistic individuals, but they also pathologize what are, in reality, advanced coping mechanisms designed for survival in a neurotypical world (Gillberg, 2010). As this essay has argued, dissociative identities and repetitive behaviors should not be seen as signs of dysfunction but rather as adaptive functions created by the autistic brain to manage sensory overload and conflicting demands (Gently, 2024).

Dr. Joey Lawrence’s system dynamics model supports this adaptive view, reframing behaviors like dissociation or OCD not as separate disorders but as survival mechanisms that the autistic brain develops in response to overwhelming and often hostile environments (Lawrence, 2023). Additionally, Dr. Patty Gently’s gear theory illustrates how different parts of the brain work together like gears, each regulating sensory, cognitive, and emotional input to keep the system balanced. These gears should be seen not as dysfunctions, but as sophisticated mechanisms that help individuals cope with the complexities of the world (Gently, 2024).

The current support level system, which ranks individuals based solely on external functionality, similarly fails to account for the internal struggles of autistic individuals. The emotional toll of masking neurodivergence, maintaining neurotypical expectations, and managing sensory overload is often invisible to external observers, yet deeply felt by late-diagnosed autistics (Baron-Cohen et al., 2009). Therefore, the support system must be reformed to consider these internal experiences, recognizing that outward functionality may obscure significant internal challenges.

Future research and diagnostic models should prioritize the adaptive nature of autism, focusing on how individuals navigate their environments and develop coping mechanisms in response to external stressors (Lawrence, 2023). Diagnostic frameworks must evolve to embrace the context-dependent and dynamic functioning of the autistic brain, recognizing the full spectrum of experiences—from sensory processing to emotional regulation. By moving away from a deficit-based view and adopting a more holistic approach, we can provide better support for late-diagnosed autistics, empowering them to thrive in environments designed with their needs in mind (Gently, 2024).

Ultimately, creating a more inclusive and understanding world requires recognizing the adaptive brilliance of the autistic brain. Rather than focusing solely on deficits and dysfunctions, we must celebrate the strengths and resilience that autistic individuals bring to navigating a world not designed for their neurotype. This shift in perspective will lead to more effective support systems, helping neurodivergent individuals not just survive but truly flourish in their own unique ways.

Looking Forward: The Next Stage of Exploration

In conclusion, while this essay has drawn on the works of Dr. Joey Lawrence and Dr. Patty Gently to frame Dissociative Identity Disorder (DID) as an adaptive function of the autistic brain, my forthcoming work will explore the broader hypothesis that neurotypicality itself may not exist as an intrinsic aspect of human neurology. This hypothesis represents my own evolving SYNPRAXIS, building upon but distinct from the foundational work of these scholars.

Ultimately, understanding the adaptive nature of DID within the context of autism shifts our focus from deficit-based frameworks to one that celebrates resilience and survival. Looking forward, my next step in this ongoing SYNPRAXIS journey is to explore the hypothesis that "neurotypicality" itself is a social construct, shaped by the norms and expectations of society, rather than an inherent aspect of human neurology. By dismantling this binary between neurotypicality and neurodivergence, we might reveal that all human behavior—whether categorized as "typical" or "divergent"—is an adaptive response to environmental and social dysfunctions.

References

American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). American Psychiatric Association.

Baron-Cohen, S., & Bolton, P. (2009). Autism spectrum conditions: Enhancing recognition and diagnosis. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 48(8), 801-805.

Belmonte, M. K., Allen, G., Beckel-Mitchener, A., Boulanger, L. M., Carper, R. A., & Webb, S. J. (2004). Autism and abnormal development of brain connectivity. Journal of Neuroscience, 24(42), 9228-9231. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3340-04.2004

Cerliani, L., Mennes, M., Thomas, R. M., Di Martino, A., Thioux, M., & Keysers, C. (2015). Increased functional connectivity between subcortical and cortical resting-state networks in autism spectrum disorder. JAMA Psychiatry, 72(8), 767-777. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2015.0101

Dabrowski, K. (1964). Positive disintegration. Little, Brown, & Co.

Fingelkurts, A. A., Fingelkurts, A. A., & Neves, C. F. H. (2010). Consciousness as a phenomenon in the operational architectonics of brain organization: Criticality and self-organization considerations. Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, 44(1-3), 114-125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chaos.2009.06.022

Gillan, C. M., Fineberg, N. A., & Robbins, T. W. (2016). A trans-diagnostic perspective on obsessive-compulsive disorder. Psychological Medicine, 46(12), 2477-2490. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291716002086

Gillan, C. M., Kosinski, M., Whelan, R., Phelps, E. A., & Daw, N. D. (2016). Characterizing a psychiatric symptom dimension related to deficits in goal-directed control. eLife, 5, e11305. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.11305

Gently, P. (2023). Gear theory: Psychoeducation in gifted trauma recovery [Workshop materials].

Gently, P. (2024). Intersection of intensity: Exploring giftedness and trauma. Patricia Gently MSMHC Ph.D.

Just, M. A., Keller, T. A., Malave, V. L., Kana, R. K., & Varma, S. (2012). Autism as a neural systems disorder: A theory of frontal-posterior underconnectivity. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 36(4), 1292-1313. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2012.02.007

Lawrence, J. (2023). The brain as a self-organizing system. Substack. https://drjoeylawrence.substack.com

Markram, H., & Markram, K. (2007). The intense world theory: A unifying theory of the neurobiology of autism. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 1(77), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.3389/neuro.09.077.2007

McDougle, C. J., Kresch, L. E., & Posey, D. J. (1995). Repetitive thoughts and behavior in pervasive developmental disorders: Treatment with serotonin reuptake inhibitors. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 25(6), 619-632. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02178190

Monotropism.org. (n.d.). Monotropism: A unifying theory of autism. Retrieved from https://monotropism.org

Porges, S. W. (2011). The polyvagal theory: Neurophysiological foundations of emotions, attachment, communication, and self-regulation. Norton.

Russell, E. (2002). Autism as an adaptive response: In support of a transformative approach to understanding autism spectrum conditions. Autism Development and Theory, 10(3), 27-43.

Skodol, A. E., Gunderson, J. G., Pfohl, B., Widiger, T. A., Livesley, W. J., & Siever, L. J. (2002). The borderline diagnosis I: Psychopathology, comorbidity, and personality structure. Biological Psychiatry, 51(12), 936-950. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0006-3223(02)01324-3

White, S. W., Oswald, D., Ollendick, T., & Scahill, L. (2009). Anxiety in children and adolescents with autism spectrum disorders. Clinical Psychology Review, 29(3), 216-229. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2009.01.003