False
Introversion is about what energises you
If you are energised by being alone then you are an introvert
If you are energised by being around other people you are an extrovert
Autism is something else
Moreover there can be extroverted autistic people. They're seen as more rare but they exist. This can happen when they can be different without feeling any resulting stress or drain - you'll know it because they will seek you out and talk you to death about every boring thing under the sun, because even though they want to be friends, their ability to compute social relationships is still non-typical.
What if all autists were introverts? Maybe we should ask a different question.
People like to get technical (more than usual) to evade controversy.
There's no controversy and explaining the truth is not "getting technical".
No evasion here because the idea is nonsense.
you can push the idea of truth conveniently to a topic that cannot be answered objectively. It seems we don't give topics like "what is love? (o bb don't hurt me)" the same scrutiny.
It's not that vague and can be answered relatively objectively. Introversion is not a force that causes behaviors, it is an observation about behaviors.
Saying that introversion causes autism is like saying falling on the ground causes gravity. We don't know exactly what causes autism but we do know that it is NOT "too much introversion." It makes zero sense.
If all this is based on the argument that introversion causes autism (which no one said), then I'm gonna ignore it. It's not my argument.
Could this be due to a exagerated introversion
It was said in the OP.
"Due to" is synonymous with "because" or "as a result of" or "by cause of" so don't tell me nobody said something that was clearly said.
Not to mention that the title of the thread quite directly implies that statement.
Your logic assumes that there is no difference between extreme introversion causing autism, and extreme introversion IS autism. Rejecting either when the thread does not make this explicit, is precisely the "getting technical" aspect I was referring to. I'm not saying being technical is bad, but in this case it is. I think that nit-picking an idea proposal is abusive of your argumentative ability. I'll accept whatever he meant to say whenever that becomes clear, and I'll argue for or against it at that point (if I want to), not at the moment I dislike the poster, and he opens his mouth.
There is a difference between causing autism and being autism. I need not make any assumptions about it! And if we always have to wait to see if somebody said what they meant to say then we can never get anywhere.
At some point I have to assume that he meant what he wrote and at this point it is clear enough to me. The language is plenty explicit. If he writes something different he would be changing what he has said so far. Why should I wait until then instead of now? If I can't trust that he says what he means now, why should I trust it later?
@o_q
Moreover it doesn't matter if hes asking whether extreme introversion causes autism, or if he's asking if it IS autism because in both cases the answer is still "no."
If you look at the OP within the wider context of Lucy jnrs posts you will find that he is launching a sustained attack on the INFJ type
By trying to associate INFJ's with autism via their introversion function he is implying that INFJ's are mentally defective
He was so excited by this particular avenue of attack that he actually posted this thread in two different sections of the forum and twice in the same section!
This is a conspiracy theory
More importantly, I am interested in why you think autism isn't introversion. You can say the idea is stupid, but i'm not interested in that. I'd like to hear reasoning.