How credible is the "intense world" syndrome theory of autism?

I think it is very promising. I am disappointed in a few aspects of the practice as it has been articulated to date: 1) There is an intense focus by the founders on the earliest stage of life, and a certain conviction that at a certain point the theory offers no further hope.  What I have seen online suggests that they believe that after the age of 5 or so, there is no further insight from the theory that will be helpful. I understand why, given the nature of the research.  Nevertheless I find this troubling because I think the human brain in considerably more plastic for a longer time than it is given credit for; and also because there is a certain suggestion that, if you can apply the insights of Intense World Theory at an early age, you can get a supergenius who is not troubled by the symptoms of autism. I am always nervous when people start talking about producing superman in the future instead of looking at what we already have.  Given what we have seen in terms of changing the environment for people with autism, I am not so sure that this suggested goal is either possible or desirable.    However, it can just as easily be true that this is the fault of the reporting.  So I am holding this concern in abeyance at the moment. 2) The suggestions they do give border on sensory deprivation, and the suggestions are for children at a very early age.  It would suck very much if you were to follow this advice and were wrong.  Now, it is my hope that people would have enough sense to seee that a particular approach was not working and would change it; but I think the evidence suggests that this is not invariably the case.  This worries me to some extent.  I am not sure how much it worries me. I do think -- and have thought for a long time -- that simply looking at what a child is doing and working from that is certainly the best way to go.  If this framework helps people to do that, then I am all for it.   So as a conceptual framework I think it has promise.  It is early days yet, so whether it works out in the specifics?  Too early to tell.  But I think its influence has been a positive thing.

From a scientific point of view I think it counts as "interesting": The Markrams have published their theory in a peer-reviewed journal (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/49714733_The_Intense_World_Theory_-_A_Unifying_Theory_of_the_Neurobiology_of_Autism). Henry Markram in particular was granted a very large sum to build a computer model of the human brain - he is hardly a lightweight: http://www.wired.com/2013/05/neurologist-markam-human-brain/ There is at least one study which might support it: e.g.http://www.spring.org.uk/2014/02/intense-world-austistic-brains-create-42-more-information-at-rest.php The sense of being overwhelmed - of "too much" rather than "too little" - tallies with the subjective experience of adults on the autism spectrum. We are not deficient, but overstimulated. On the other hand, the Markrams themselves caution that their work requires much more research before one can talk about its validity, let alone appropriate therapies or treatment based on their work. The Intense World syndrome is a hypothesis, not a substantiated body of theory, as they acknowledge.Secondly, there are criticisms from others about apparent implications, including from reputable researchers like Uta Frith: https://spectrumnews.org/opinion/viewpoint/intense-world-theory-raises-intense-worries/The Intense World theory is based on work with rats involving valproic acid, a substance known to cause some cases of autism in humans. The problem here is that autism is a set of behaviours with many different causes, even if we just focus on genetic factors. There are single genes that can cause autism; copy number variations (where chunks of a chromosome either go missing or are repeated many times over); and many many candidate genes with a modest, but significant, correlation with autism. And then there are the various substances like valproic acid and thalidomide; and also illnesses during pregnancy like German measles. Different people may end up in the autism population from quite different causes, and it is unclear that a biological model based on just one causal factor can capture all the possible neurological issues and their behavioural implications.Personally I am agnostic about the underlying neurological theory in the Markram's paper. But I think their emphasis on autism as "too much", rather than as "too little", is a welcome change to the conversation about autism.

A2A.  On the surface, there are things I agree with about the  intense world theory, but in the first article there are parts of it I find disturbing and a bit like we are being viewed as potential X-Men.  If raised in an ideal environment with just the right type of stimulation, we hold the secrets of the universe with our amazing brains and are the next stage in human evolution.  I do not want any of us treated as lab rats in an attempt to unlock potential.  We are people, gifted and flawed and complex.  I also am not sure where they are finding autistic animals to do research on or how they are diagnosing animals; I thought it was difficult enough to diagnose people.But from the inside, I'd say some things in the theory are attractive.  I have a couple family members with noses like bloodhounds, way more sensitive than the average person.  Visually, I notice a lot of detail that most do not, and sounds as well.  I as well as many others are more sensitive to drugs, alcohol, and medications.  So my conclusion is that it is a decent way to understand the struggles and strengths of an autistic person, but mad scientists should stay away from optimizing us or institutionalizing children "for their own good."  X-Men was a good movie but wouldn't be a good life.