By Kenny Mathews
Opening
There is a storm building around how we talk about autism. Families are being told that autism is caused by something a mother did during pregnancy, or that it can be fixed with a pill or supplement. Politicians and commentators speak about autistic people as if they are broken, damaged, or destined to be a burden. These stories are not harmless. They shape how schools treat children, how workplaces view adults, and how neighbors see each other. When those stories are wrong, people get hurt.
The truth is far simpler and more solid than the noise suggests. Autism is not a tragedy and it is not a mistake. It is one of the many ways human minds are built. The differences we call “neurodiversity”—autism, ADHD, dyslexia, bipolarity, and others—are not signs of weakness but natural variations in how people think, feel, and remember. Each type of mind has strengths and challenges. When we mislabel those differences as sickness, we don’t just insult people—we blind ourselves to what they actually reveal.
That is why this article matters. It introduces a paper called Neurotypes — Memory and Recursive Collapse. That title may sound technical, but the message is clear: our feelings and memories are not random. They follow patterns. What we call “emotion” is not weakness—it is the body’s signal system, a way of showing when the pressure of life is too much or when things are flowing smoothly. What we call “memory” is not a filing cabinet that sometimes malfunctions. It is the trace left when an experience is too important, too painful, or too unique to be forgotten. When systems like schools or governments don’t understand this, they punish kids for being “noncompliant” or adults for being “unmotivated,” when in reality those people are simply carrying heavier loads than others can see.
The danger now is that public figures like Robert F. Kennedy Jr. are flooding the conversation with misleading claims. He has suggested vaccines caused autism. More recently, he is pointing at Tylenol during pregnancy. Each time the target changes, but the effect is the same: blame is shifted downward. Mothers are told they caused their child’s neurology. Autistic people are told their existence is proof of harm. Families are told to fear their own children. This is not science. It is scapegoating. And it lets those in power avoid the harder truth: that the real problem is how our institutions refuse to adapt to human difference.
History shows where this kind of talk leads. When societies define groups as “defective,” they feel justified in excluding them, locking them away, or worse. In the 1930s, the Nazis started by burning books and shutting down research centers that celebrated diversity. Today, we hear echoes of that language when leaders describe autistic people as “broken” or “unfit.” It is not just bad manners. It is the first step in erasing people.
The paper we are pointing to does the opposite. It shows that autistic people, and all neurodiverse people, are not problems to be solved but signals we need. They often see the world more sharply, notice patterns more clearly, and reveal where our systems are failing. If we ignore them, we lose that guidance. If we listen, we get a truer picture of reality. That is what objective accuracy looks like: not clinging to comforting stories about blame, but facing the structure of how minds actually work.
So this is the alarm: we are at risk of replacing truth with slogans. We are being asked to accept high-pitched rhetoric instead of real understanding. And if we do, the cost will not just fall on autistic families—it will fall on everyone, because when a society mislabels the signals that reveal its cracks, the cracks only grow. This article will walk through the core ideas of Neurotypes — Memory and Recursive Collapse, in plain language, side by side with the dangerous rhetoric being pushed right now. By the end, you will see the choice clearly: drift with the noise, or ground yourself in accuracy. The difference may decide whether we repeat the worst mistakes of history or finally learn from them.
Collapse and Emotion as Telemetry
If the first task is to sound the alarm about how dangerous mislabeling can be, the second task is to get clear about what emotions really are. For too long, people have been told that emotions are irrational, that they get in the way of thinking, or that they are proof that someone has lost control. Parents hear that their autistic child’s outburst is evidence of poor behavior. Adults are told that their sadness or their anger is a weakness, something to be ashamed of. Society treats feelings as the opposite of reason, as if they were static noise in an otherwise clean system. But that is wrong. What the paper Neurotypes — Memory and Recursive Collapse makes undeniable is that emotions are not random interruptions. They are the gauges on the dashboard of the human system. They are how the body and mind report back on whether the load of life is being carried well or whether it is breaking down.
Imagine driving a car without a fuel gauge, without an oil light, without any signal when the engine is overheating. You would keep driving until the whole machine seized up, and when it did, you might blame the driver instead of realizing that the car had been crying out all along. That is exactly what happens when society ignores the role of emotion. The meltdown of a child in a classroom is treated as disobedience. The exhaustion of an adult who can’t get out of bed is called laziness. The burst of anger from someone overwhelmed by demands is framed as instability. In each case, what is really happening is that the system is giving its most accurate report: the pace is too fast, the load is too heavy, the environment is out of balance. That is not weakness; it is clarity.
This shift in understanding matters because it changes the entire meaning of difference. Autistic people, for example, are often more sensitive to misalignment. Their emotions are not mistakes; they are sharper reports of what is happening at the edge of experience. When an autistic child melts down under fluorescent lights and constant noise, that is not a failure of discipline. It is a direct and faithful readout of overload. The child is saying, with every fiber of their body, that the environment is unsustainable. If we ignore that signal, the cost is not only borne by the child—it ripples through the entire system, teaching everyone involved that reality can be denied if it is inconvenient.
Contrast that with the story being told in public today by figures like Robert F. Kennedy Jr. He shifts the blame from environment and structure to poison and contamination. First it was vaccines, now it is Tylenol, tomorrow it will be something else. The point is not accuracy. The point is to find a surface-level scapegoat that explains away difference. This is not science; it is storytelling designed to redirect fear. It places the blame on mothers, telling them they caused their child’s neurology. It places the blame on the children themselves, treating them as damaged goods. And it places the blame anywhere but where it belongs: on systems that demand conformity instead of listening to the signals of those who process differently. In terms the paper uses, it raises the “deviation from reality”—the measure of how far our stories drift from what is actually happening.
Once you see emotion as telemetry, you can never unsee it. Anxiety is not a random storm of worry; it is a forward-looking signal that the system feels overloaded by future demands. Depression is not laziness; it is a conservation mode, a way of slowing down so the system doesn’t collapse completely. Even anger, which is so often condemned, is simply a signal that boundaries have been crossed and energy is being drained too fast. These are not pathologies. They are forms of accuracy. They are the gauges on the dashboard doing exactly what they were built to do. The only failure is our refusal to read them correctly.
And here is where the stakes become visible. If leaders and institutions accept the rhetoric that emotions are mistakes and autistic signals are evidence of contamination, then entire communities are erased. Their alarms are silenced, their telemetry ignored, their accuracy rebranded as failure. That is not just cruel; it is catastrophic. It leaves society without the very feedback it needs to understand when collapse is near. In this way, autistic people and other neurodivergent individuals are not burdens—they are early warning systems. They feel when the structure is cracking long before the cracks spread to everyone else. To ignore them is to choose blindness.
The difference, then, is clear. On one side, we have rhetoric that treats emotions as noise and neurodiversity as defect. On the other, we have a structural explanation that shows emotions as feedback and neurotypes as distinct architectures for carrying load. One side drives up deviation from reality. The other lowers it. One produces fear. The other produces clarity. The choice before us is not whether to have emotions or to live without them; the choice is whether we will listen to what they are telling us, or whether we will bury them under slogans until collapse becomes unavoidable.
Memory as Residue
If emotions are the gauges telling us how the system is running in the moment, then memory is the permanent record of when that system has been pushed past its limit. Memory is not a perfect diary that stores every second of life; it is selective, and it is brutally honest in what it keeps. We remember what we cannot ignore. We remember what bent us, what lifted us, what broke us open. A forgettable Tuesday fades, but a cutting insult in childhood or a sudden shock on the job can be recalled decades later with perfect clarity. That is not because people are dramatic or because they refuse to “move on.” It is because memory seals around pressure. When life demands too much at once, the system collapses to contain it, and the trace of that collapse becomes residue. That residue is memory.
This is why trauma cannot be reduced to content alone. The same event can leave different marks depending on the load at the time. One person may shrug off a harsh word, while another carries it forever because in that moment they were already stretched thin. What matters is not the size of the event on paper but the relationship between pressure and capacity when it happened. That is why small humiliations can scar and why catastrophic events can sometimes be endured if the person had support. Memory does not record by headlines. It records by collapse.
When society forgets this, it mislabels people again and again. Depression gets framed as laziness, when in truth it is the body conserving energy under the weight of residues too heavy to carry forward. Anxiety is written off as irrational fear, when it is actually the system remembering overload and sending signals ahead to avoid another collapse. Post-traumatic stress is seen as weakness, when it is the most faithful form of memory possible: the body replaying what it could not process at the time, insisting it must be faced. These are not disorders; they are honest reports. The only disorder lies in pretending that people can erase what their systems were forced to seal.
For autistic people and others who process the world differently, memory residue often runs even deeper. A child may replay an embarrassing moment for years, not because they want to but because the experience sealed so sharply it became part of their wiring. An adult may mask their differences to fit in at work and feel drained for days afterward, because each act of pretending leaves behind its own residue of collapse. These are not signs of weakness. They are signs of precision. They are the proof that the system is paying close attention, refusing to discard signals that others might overlook. To call this “oversensitivity” is to insult accuracy itself.
Contrast this with the way public voices now talk about autism. Instead of acknowledging the depth of memory, we are told that autism is a disease caused by a product or a pill. Today it is vaccines, tomorrow Tylenol, next week something else. The target shifts, but the pattern is the same: difference is explained away as contamination, families are told to blame themselves, and autistic people are treated as broken records of harm rather than faithful carriers of memory. This is not only false, it is cruel. It turns the very accuracy of memory into evidence against the person who holds it.
If we accept that framing, we blind ourselves. We lose the ability to see what memory is actually telling us: where the system overloaded, where collapse was sealed, where change is needed. Instead of listening to the record, we punish the recorder. Instead of valuing precision, we bury it under slogans. The result is not healing. The result is deviation from reality, and the higher that deviation climbs, the more harm spreads outward.
Memory is not pathology. It is history written into the body. To ignore it is to guarantee repetition. To listen is to bring society closer to the truth of what life actually demands. That is the line we are walking now. On one side stands scapegoating and distortion. On the other stands accuracy, however uncomfortable. What we choose will decide not only how autistic people are treated but how honest we are willing to be about our own lives.
Neurotypes as Architectures
If memory is the residue of collapse, then the next step is to understand why not everyone carries memory, emotion, and overload in the same way. This is where the idea of neurotypes matters. We are taught from childhood that there is such a thing as a “normal” mind, and everything outside that is a deviation, a disorder, or a disease. That assumption has shaped schools, workplaces, and medicine for generations. But it is wrong. Minds are not copies rolling off the same assembly line. They are architectures—different designs for processing the same reality. And if we stop pretending that one shape is the standard, it becomes clear that what has been labeled “broken” is often simply a different way of holding the world.
Take autism. Autistic people often focus with a kind of depth and accuracy that others cannot match. They notice small shifts, they hold threads of detail across time, and they resist letting go of what is true even when everyone else has moved on. These are strengths. But in an environment filled with conflicting signals—bright lights, loud noises, constant chatter—that same fidelity can become unbearable. The autistic person is not “rigid” for insisting on sameness; they are protecting their ability to think clearly in a world that overloads them. To call that rigidity a flaw is to miss that it is a survival strategy, a way of filtering noise so accuracy is not lost.
Consider ADHD. People with this architecture are often accused of being scatterbrained or impulsive, but what looks like distraction is often the exact opposite: a mind tuned to shifting importance, scanning the horizon for what suddenly matters most. An ADHD student might skip the steps of a math problem and land at the answer by instinct, or an ADHD worker might jump between tasks in a way that seems chaotic but surfaces connections no one else saw. They are not defective; they are scanning at a different rhythm. The cost is that they struggle in systems that demand rigid, linear focus, but the benefit is creativity that cannot be manufactured by rules alone.
Dyslexia tells a similar story. In a school system obsessed with text, children with dyslexia are marked as deficient. But dyslexic minds often grasp spatial patterns and physical relationships with an ease that others lack. They think in shapes, maps, and flows rather than in letters on a page. In a society that depends on builders, designers, navigators, and artisans, these are not deficits but gifts. When we frame dyslexia as a disability, we are not describing the person—we are describing a failure of the environment to make room for their way of processing.
Even conditions that sound frightening when spoken of clinically reveal their logic when seen as architecture. Bipolar minds, for instance, swing between high and low phases of energy. In one phase, there can be extraordinary productivity, vision, and creativity. In the other, there is conservation, a forced rest when the system cannot sustain that pace forever. Society calls this instability, but anyone who has lived it knows that both phases are part of the design—the expansion and the recovery, the push and the retreat. Dissociation, too, is treated as failure. But it is in fact a partitioning strategy, the mind’s way of dividing unbearable weight so that the whole system can endure. It is not a betrayal of self but a preservation of it.
When seen clearly, all of these neurotypes are not disorders but strategies. They come with costs—no one denies that—but those costs are the flipside of strengths. The same autistic focus that makes social multitasking difficult can yield unmatched accuracy in detail. The same ADHD salience-scanning that disrupts routine can open doors to innovation others miss. The same bipolar swings that leave scars also produce art and vision. These architectures are part of the human blueprint, not mistakes in it. The tragedy is not that they exist; the tragedy is that society insists on treating them as broken.
This mislabeling is not just academic—it is exhausting. Neurodiverse people spend enormous amounts of energy “masking” their differences, forcing themselves to act as though they are built like everyone else. An autistic child memorizes every social script in order to appear “normal,” at the cost of constant stress. An ADHD adult sets alarms and reminders to hold themselves inside a routine that feels unnatural, draining energy they could use elsewhere. A bipolar person hides their highs and lows in fear of stigma, cutting off both their capacity and their recovery. This masking is not proof of weakness—it is proof of how hard people work to survive inside a story that denies their architecture. The collapse comes not from the architecture itself but from the demand to pretend it does not exist.
And this brings us back to the danger of the rhetoric that fills the air today. When leaders like Robert F. Kennedy Jr. claim autism is caused by vaccines or Tylenol, they are not offering science. They are offering a story designed to erase architecture. By saying “this difference is damage,” they declare that the design itself is invalid. They shift the blame onto mothers, onto children, onto anyone who carries a mind that does not fit the official mold. In doing so, they encourage the public to see architecture as contamination rather than variation. That is not care—it is condemnation dressed as concern.
History teaches what happens next. When societies decide that difference equals defect, the result is not better medicine but harsher exclusion. Children are institutionalized, workers are denied jobs, families are shamed. The same pattern has played out under different names in different eras, but the result is always the same: erasure. And every time, society weakens itself by cutting off the very capacities it needs. A world without autistic precision, ADHD creativity, dyslexic pattern recognition, bipolar intensity, or dissociative resilience is a world that cannot adapt.
The choice before us is not whether neurotypes exist—they do, and they always have. The choice is whether we will continue to mislabel them as pathologies, raising the burden on those who carry them, or whether we will finally admit that human survival has always depended on different architectures working together. To deny this truth is to live further from reality. To accept it is to come closer to accuracy, even when accuracy makes us uncomfortable. That is what is at stake when we hear public figures declare that difference is damage. The question is not whether they are right or wrong—they are wrong. The question is whether the rest of us will have the courage to see what has been in front of us all along: that minds are many, not one, and that this is our strength, not our flaw.
Gender as Natural Variation of Self
Before the debate hardened into slogans, biology already told a quieter, truer story. Sex in nature is not a perfect on/off switch. It is a pattern that usually falls into two familiar shapes, but it makes room—consistently—for exceptions, blends, and in-between cases. That is not a social invention; it is how living systems work when many small factors—genes, hormones, timing, tissue responses—interact over months and years. Most people develop in ways that are easy to sort on a form. Some do not. The existence of intersex people, chromosomal mosaics, atypical hormone profiles, or bodies that don’t fit textbook categories is not a mistake in nature; it is nature doing what it always does—finding workable paths under many different pressures. When we force a rigid story onto that reality, the story breaks first, then people do.
If sex is the body’s development under many variables, gender is the self’s alignment across time. It is how a person brings inner life, memory, role, and presentation into a steady line so they can move through the world without tearing themselves apart. That alignment is not a costume or a fad; it is a stabilizer. Some people can line up their inner and outer life with the roles they were handed at birth and never look back. Others cannot—not because they are confused, but because their inner and outer never matched to begin with, or stopped matching as they grew. For them, changing name, style, pronouns, or medical care is not a performance. It is a repair. It is the work of making a life livable by bringing body, mind, and social signal into the same direction, so each day doesn’t feel like dragging a car with the wheels locked.
This broader view does not erase difference; it explains it. Development is a cascade of small pulses—when hormones rise and fall, what receptors respond and by how much, which tissues change and which do not, how stress and nourishment and environment affect timing. Those variables don’t flip like a light. They slide. Most slides end near familiar landmarks; some do not. Because of that, nature keeps flexibility in its design. It leaves elbow room in bodies and in the ways selves take shape. That flexibility is not chaos; it’s a safety feature. A species that can only survive by forcing every person into one of two narrow molds is a species that breaks when conditions shift. A species that allows many working configurations is harder to crack.
When a society refuses that reality, it pays for the refusal in human strain. People who can’t align their inner and outer life under the sanctioned mold are told to compress themselves into it anyway. That compression is not harmless. It raises the cost of every day—more masking, more pretending, more split attention, more pain. You see it in the kid who folds into silence because speaking honestly risks punishment; in the teen who changes dress on the bus, then changes back before walking in the door; in the adult who tries to be two different people to keep a job and a family and ends up losing both. None of this is dramatic flourish. It’s what happens when a system spends energy maintaining a story that doesn’t match the people inside it. The bill comes due as anxiety, depression, burnout, addiction, self-harm, and—too often—death. That isn’t “ideology.” That is physics lived at the scale of a life.
This is why the current wave of attacks on transgender people mirrors the attacks on neurodivergent people. The pattern is identical: treat a natural variation as contamination; demand that those who carry it prove they aren’t broken; threaten to erase records, restrict care, or criminalize ordinary steps people take to steady themselves. Public voices tell parents that firm boundaries will “bring them back,” as if force can turn misfit into fit. But force never closes the gap between a story and reality; it widens it. The more we punish people for telling us who they are, the more we teach everyone to hide accurate signals about where things are breaking. A culture that silences signals does not become stronger. It becomes brittle.
There is another way to see this. Gender expression is one of the tools human beings use to make life coherent. It is a practical solution to the problem of living with a mind that remembers, a body that changes, and a world that demands legible signals. For some, the solution is simple and stays simple. For others, it shifts with age, experience, and circumstance. That is not moral drift. It is adjustment, the same kind people make when they move towns, change work, become parents, heal after loss, or find faith. The self is not a statue. It is a rope braided from many strands over time. If we cut the strands that don’t fit our picture, the rope doesn’t become purer. It becomes weaker.
The test, then, is not whether a person matches a box on a chart. The test is whether their alignment holds—whether life gets steadier when inner truth and outer form stop fighting. For the vast majority of transgender people, that is exactly what happens when they’re allowed to name themselves, be recognized, and, when needed, receive care. The temperature gauge drops. The grinding stops. The whole system runs smoother. You can deny that by slogan, but you can’t deny it in a therapist’s office, at a dinner table, or in a quiet room where someone finally breathes like a person who is no longer bracing all the time. That is the level where truth shows: not on a talking-point sheet, but in a human face that has stopped flinching.
None of this requires anyone to surrender their values. It requires only that we be honest about how bodies develop and how selves steady. We can hold to the dignity of family, faith, and community without pretending that the only respectable lives are the ones that match a chart drawn on paper a century ago. A society that takes reality on its own terms—variation included—becomes saner, not looser; stronger, not softer. It spends less energy policing difference and more energy building homes, raising kids, caring for elders, and doing work that matters. That is the trade on offer: cling to a brittle story until it cracks, or widen the frame just enough to fit the people we already have. When we do, the noise drops and the truth moves closer. And when the truth moves closer, people stop breaking under the weight of being seen as a mistake.
High SDR at the Surface
Every society stands or falls on how closely its stories line up with reality. When the stories are accurate, people can act on them with confidence. When the stories drift too far from lived truth, the gap shows up everywhere—broken trust in schools, bitter divides in families, instability in governments. TAIRID names this gap for what it is: the Standard Deviation from Reality, or SDR. It is a measure of how far a system’s map has wandered from the terrain beneath it. Low SDR means life fits the frame and the frame fits life. High SDR means people are being forced to live inside lies, and those lies are costing more and more energy to maintain.
That is where we are today in the way autism, neurodiversity, and gender are being talked about in public. When leaders claim that Tylenol causes autism, when they repeat long-debunked myths about vaccines, when they call gender diversity “confusion,” they are not lowering SDR. They are raising it. They are pushing official stories further from lived reality. Parents follow those stories and end up blaming themselves. Children absorb them and begin to believe that their signals of distress are proof they are damaged. Communities repeat them and turn their frustration inward, punishing their own members instead of listening to what those members are trying to show. In every case, SDR climbs, and with it, fragility.
You can see the effects of high SDR in ordinary life. A teacher convinced that a child’s meltdown is defiance clamps down harder, and the classroom spins further out of control. A parent persuaded by scare campaigns that their child’s mind was “harmed” by something they did grows ashamed and distant, when what the child needed was presence. A teenager told that their gender identity is invalid learns to hide it, burning energy every hour to pass as someone they are not. These are not abstract missteps. They are the real cost of forcing people to live inside high SDR—of raising the deviation between what is said and what is true until the very effort of holding it together becomes unbearable.
High SDR also explains why propaganda can feel strong at first but always decays over time. A false story offers certainty, and certainty is appealing in confusion. But certainty without accuracy does not hold. Each time lived reality pushes against it—each autistic child who cannot mask forever, each trans teen who refuses to disappear—the pressure increases. The system either expands its cruelty to silence the reminders or admits that the story was wrong. Either way, the gap widens, because reality does not bend to match slogans. The deviation only grows.
Authoritarian movements depend on this cycle. They do not need to tell the truth; they only need to tell a simple story loudly and often. The cost is borne not by them but by the people forced to live inside that story while knowing it does not fit. That cost is measured directly in SDR. And once SDR climbs too high, the instability spreads everywhere. People lose faith in institutions. Communities harden into suspicion. Nations that could have drawn strength from their differences find themselves brittle, breaking under the strain of denial.
The lesson is clear: miscategorization is not just wrong for the groups being targeted. It is dangerous for everyone. A society that insists on high SDR spends its strength maintaining illusions instead of solving problems. It wastes its energy punishing signals of truth instead of learning from them. And eventually, it snaps—not because reality was too complex, but because leaders insisted on denying it. Standard Deviation from Reality is not a theory. It is a measure of fragility. Right now, that fragility is being built into the surface of public life, and unless it is recognized for what it is, collapse is only a matter of time.
Historical Continuity of Misclassification
High SDR—high Standard Deviation from Reality—is not new. We have seen before what happens when societies decide that difference equals defect and build their systems around that falsehood. History remembers the big catastrophes: wars, genocides, collapsed states. But each of those began not with tanks or prisons but with miscategorization at the surface—official stories drifting further and further from lived truth until cruelty became the only way to enforce them. That pattern is repeating now, and the echoes are sharp enough to cut.
In 1933, the Nazis stormed Magnus Hirschfeld’s Institute for Sexual Science in Berlin. They looted its archives, threw its books into bonfires, and declared the very study of gender, sexuality, and diversity a danger to the nation. This was not a random act of vandalism. It was a signal: truth about difference would not be tolerated, and any record of it would be erased. The institute had been a refuge for transgender and queer people, a place where their lives were studied seriously and recognized as real. Burning it down was the first step in a campaign that turned difference into defect, defect into danger, and danger into justification for extermination. High SDR at the surface—insisting that only rigid categories were legitimate—led directly to systemic violence.
We see the same playbook today. Politicians speak of autism as if it were contamination, an error caused by chemicals or medicine. They frame transgender identity as confusion, something to be stamped out by law. They strip books from schools that mention race, gender, or sexuality under the banner of “protecting children.” Each of these actions raises SDR, because they replace the lived truth of people’s lives with slogans designed to erase them. Families know their autistic children are not poisoned. Trans teenagers know their identity is not confusion. Disabled people know their challenges do not erase their humanity. But the official story insists otherwise, and the energy required to enforce that lie grows every day.
This cycle of erasure is not limited to words. Policies follow close behind. In Nazi Germany, the book burnings led to laws criminalizing homosexuality, barring Jews from professions, sterilizing disabled people, and eventually deportations and death camps. Each step was justified by the story that difference was defect and defect was danger. In America today, we see laws passed that ban gender-affirming care, roll back protections for LGBTQ+ workers, bar trans people from serving in the military, and restrict discussions of identity in classrooms. We see parents accused of abuse for supporting their children’s gender expression. We see autistic and disabled people denied accommodations while leaders argue about causes that have long been disproven. The drift from reality to rhetoric is wide, and with each widening step the cruelty escalates.
The disabled were one of the first groups targeted under Nazism, often forgotten in popular memory but central to the machinery of extermination. The “Aktion T4” program systematically murdered disabled children and adults, justified under the rhetoric of “mercy killing” and “cleansing the Volk.” These killings were not an afterthought; they were a pilot program for the death camps. The techniques of mass killing—gas chambers, crematoria, bureaucratic secrecy—were perfected first on disabled people before being scaled up to industrial genocide. This history matters now, because the same miscategorization is once again creeping into public life: the idea that some lives are “too costly,” that some people are “too dependent,” that resources should not be “wasted” on those who do not fit an able-bodied norm. These are not slips of the tongue. They are high-SDR stories designed to prepare the ground for exclusion.
Modern echoes abound. When leaders and pundits talk about who “deserves” healthcare, when disabled people are portrayed as drains on public funds, when COVID policies shifted to “acceptable losses” that disproportionately sacrificed the elderly and immunocompromised, the message is clear: some lives are less valuable. That message does not reduce costs; it raises SDR. Families know their disabled children deserve education. Workers know their disabled colleagues contribute meaningfully. Communities know care strengthens bonds rather than weakens them. Yet the public story insists otherwise, forcing everyone to live inside a fiction that punishes truth.
Ambiguity makes this worse. When Elon Musk raised his arm in a Nazi salute and it was brushed off as a joke or a misunderstanding, the refusal to name it for what it was allowed the gesture to linger in public as “maybe acceptable.” When Robert F. Kennedy Jr. repeats disproven claims about vaccines and autism, media often present it as “controversial” rather than simply false. And when disabled people are denied accommodations, it is often softened as “budgetary limits” or “efficiency,” rather than acknowledged as exclusion. These evasions all perform the same function: they normalize high SDR by making denial seem polite. History shows us exactly what that looks like. In the 1930s, small evasions allowed book burnings to be excused as “just culture wars.” Within a decade, that excuse had paved the road to genocide.
At the core, this is always about dehumanization. Whether it is autistic children treated as broken, trans people treated as predators, or disabled people treated as expendable, the script is the same: strip away individuality, collapse complexity into threat, and demand conformity at any cost. Once that collapse is enforced, people stop seeing neighbors and start seeing categories. And once they see only categories, cruelty becomes thinkable. That is the true danger of high SDR—when the deviation from reality grows so large that cruelty is not recognized as cruelty but mistaken for order.
The warning is clear. What is happening now is not isolated to one community, one law, or one leader. It is a repeat of a pattern we have already lived through: miscategorization raising SDR, SDR producing erasure, erasure paving the way to violence. The lesson from history is that waiting to act until the violence is obvious is waiting too long. Once difference is officially recoded as defect, the machinery of suppression spins quickly. We have the chance, right now, to recognize the signs at the surface—the bans, the rhetoric, the ambiguity—and call them for what they are: the early stages of collapse. To stay silent is not neutrality; it is complicity.
Masking, Shutdown, Dissociation
When official stories drift so far from reality that living inside them becomes unbearable, people do not simply vanish. They adapt, but the adaptations come at a cost. For those who are autistic, disabled, or gender diverse, survival in a high-SDR society often means constructing second selves—masks, partitions, and shutdowns that shield them from the violence of miscategorization while quietly draining their strength. These are not choices made in freedom. They are forced adjustments, the body and mind’s way of managing a world that insists its stories are truer than lived experience.
Masking is often the first line of defense. An autistic child learns quickly that their natural way of speaking, moving, or focusing draws punishment, so they copy the mannerisms of peers and recite social scripts they barely understand. A disabled worker hides pain or fatigue behind strained smiles so they are not judged as weak or lazy. A transgender teenager lowers their voice, changes their walk, or uses the bathroom in secret to avoid harassment. From the outside, masking looks like compliance—it reassures the majority that the system is working. But on the inside, it is costly. Each day spent maintaining the mask is a day spent burning energy that should have been used to learn, create, or rest. Over time, that cost accumulates into exhaustion so deep it can feel like life itself is being siphoned away.
When masking becomes impossible, shutdown often follows. For an autistic person, shutdown may look like retreating into silence, curling inward, or withdrawing completely from interaction. For a disabled person, it may mean collapsing into bed for days, unable to sustain the effort of constant performance. For a trans person, shutdown may mean disappearing from family or community, cutting off connections that feel unsafe rather than enduring the constant misgendering or hostility. These shutdowns are not failures of willpower. They are safety mechanisms. They are the body’s last-ditch effort to reduce overload when the demands of pretending become greater than the resources available. In truth, shutdown is as faithful a signal as any dashboard warning light—it tells us that the system has been pushed too far. But because society mislabels it as weakness, it becomes one more piece of evidence used against the person who collapses under the weight of pretending.
For some, even shutdown is not enough, and dissociation emerges as a deeper form of survival. Dissociation is often misunderstood as detachment or denial, but it is better understood as partitioning. When experience becomes unbearable, the mind walls it off into a separate compartment so the rest of the self can continue functioning. For someone with trauma, this may mean losing time or feeling as if they are watching life from outside their body. For a disabled person enduring constant medical scrutiny, it may mean slipping into numbness during procedures to avoid being overwhelmed. For a trans person living in constant hostility, it may mean splitting off the part of themselves that knows who they are in order to get through daily interactions without collapse. Dissociation is not proof of instability; it is proof of a mind refusing to shatter by dividing itself into parts. It is an act of desperate resilience—but it comes at the price of continuity, identity, and sometimes even memory itself.
The cruelest irony is that these survival strategies, born from necessity, are so often misread by the majority as defects. Masking is praised as “progress,” shutdown is dismissed as laziness, dissociation is pathologized as illness. In each case, the system takes a person’s best attempt to survive its misfit and uses it as further evidence that they are broken. This is the self-fulfilling spiral of high SDR: the greater the misalignment between reality and story, the harder marginalized people work to survive, and the more their survival efforts are used to justify the very miscategorization that forced them into those strategies in the first place.
Living this way is exhausting in ways those outside the experience rarely comprehend. A child who masks for eight hours at school may come home and melt down in safety, leaving parents bewildered about why they “hold it together” in public but collapse in private. A disabled worker may drag themselves through a shift only to collapse at home, with no energy left for relationships or joy. A trans adult may appear composed at work but spend their evenings in numb silence, unable to process the cost of being invisible all day. These are not anomalies. They are the hidden tax of high SDR—the tax paid by those forced to live where stories and reality no longer align.
And yet, despite the exhaustion, many keep going. They keep working, keep loving, keep fighting to be recognized. That resilience is real, but it should not be romanticized. Survival under high SDR is not a mark of special strength—it is evidence of how brutally costly it is to live in a world that refuses to accept accuracy. No one should have to split themselves in two, silence their own truth, or shut down their own life just to be left alone. The fact that so many do is not a testament to their brokenness. It is a testament to the failure of the systems around them to reduce deviation from reality.
The lesson here is simple, even if the lived experience is complex: masking, shutdown, and dissociation are not character flaws. They are survival strategies in environments that have raised SDR to unbearable levels. They are the body’s honest answer to misfit, the mind’s way of enduring when truth is denied. If we mistake them for defects, we only raise the deviation higher. If we recognize them as signals, we get closer to reality—and closer to building a world where people no longer have to live split against themselves just to survive another day.
Systemic Offloading
The weight of high SDR—high Standard Deviation from Reality—does not vanish into thin air. It has to be carried somewhere, and in practice it is always pushed onto those who have the least power to refuse. This is the logic of systemic offloading: when a society refuses to bring its stories back into alignment with lived reality, it does not pay the cost itself. It transfers that cost onto marginalized groups, making them the scapegoats and shock absorbers of collective misfit. Every dictatorship, every authoritarian regime, every brittle culture uses this strategy. It is efficient in the short term, but it is brutally destructive in the long term. The cruelty is not incidental—it is the very mechanism by which high SDR societies preserve the illusion of order.
Consider how autistic people are treated. Instead of adjusting schools to fit different learning rhythms, the system demands conformity and punishes those who cannot mask. Instead of admitting that the problem lies in rigid pacing and sensory overload, blame is placed on the child, the parents, or imagined poisons. The system’s misfit—its failure to accommodate architecture—is offloaded into the child’s body, which absorbs the stress through meltdowns, shutdowns, self-harm, or internalized shame. Every report card that labels difference as “defiance,” every therapy that trains masking instead of understanding, is a receipt of this offloading. It is the system’s way of saying, we will not lower our deviation from reality, so you must carry the cost of our refusal.
The disabled know this pattern even more starkly. Instead of designing infrastructure that works for all, buildings are constructed without ramps, workplaces without flexibility, transportation without access. The SDR of those systems—how far their design drifts from the reality of human variation—is then carried by disabled people themselves. They spend the extra hours navigating broken access, the extra money on private services, the extra energy advocating for what should have been built in from the start. Even in healthcare, offloading is constant: lives are weighed against cost-effectiveness, with disabled people consistently treated as less “worth” the investment. In these calculations, the misfit is not acknowledged as a failure of design; it is absorbed by the individual who is forced to live shorter, harder, more fragile lives.
Trans and gender-diverse people experience systemic offloading through law and culture alike. Instead of recognizing the truth of gender as a natural gradient, governments pass laws banning care, restricting bathrooms, or erasing records. The misfit between rigid binary stories and real human diversity is not corrected; it is pushed onto those whose lives expose the lie. Trans kids pay with suicidal ideation, families pay with legal battles, adults pay with unemployment or exile. The system does not reduce its SDR by adjusting its frame. It raises the SDR and compels trans people to carry the load through pain, isolation, and survival strategies that consume their energy and shorten their lives.
This strategy extends beyond individuals to entire groups. When economies mismanage resources, immigrants are blamed for scarcity. When public health fails, marginalized communities are accused of spreading disease. When political systems falter, minority groups are cast as infiltrators or saboteurs. In each case, systemic misfit is rerouted into human bodies. The stories remain uncorrected; the gap between map and terrain remains high; but the weight of that gap is displaced onto those least able to resist. That is why scapegoating is so consistent across history—it is entropy management by sacrifice. Instead of facing reality, the system demands victims.
The clearest historical example is the Nazi regime. Before turning to full-scale genocide, the Nazis perfected offloading through incremental steps. Disabled people were sterilized or killed under the justification that they were a “burden.” Jewish people were accused of causing economic collapse and stripped of their livelihoods. LGBTQ+ people were criminalized, their very identities labeled “degenerate.” In each case, the state raised SDR—deviating further from the truth that these people were integral members of society—and forced those populations to absorb the misfit through loss, suffering, and death. By offloading collapse costs into human lives, the regime prolonged its illusion of order until it cracked under the weight of its own lies.
Modern systems use the same mechanism, often in quieter but equally corrosive ways. A corporation that underpays its workers offloads the SDR of unsustainable profit margins into employees’ health and family life. A healthcare system that rations care offloads its deviation from true need into the bodies of the uninsured, who die younger. A political regime that spreads falsehoods about autism or gender offloads its deviation onto children who internalize shame, onto parents who bear stigma, onto communities that fracture under manufactured fear. Every time a society refuses to correct its own misfit, someone else pays.
What makes systemic offloading particularly dangerous is how invisible it becomes once normalized. People begin to accept that autistic children will suffer in school, that disabled adults will be excluded from work, that trans people will face constant harassment, that marginalized groups will absorb economic and political shocks. These are treated as natural facts rather than the deliberate transfer of costs from the system to the vulnerable. The public grows accustomed to seeing sacrifice as order, cruelty as stability. And once that logic is accepted, there is no natural limit to how much suffering can be demanded.
But there is always a hidden price. High SDR does not vanish when offloaded—it accumulates. The more a society forces marginalized groups to carry its misfit, the more brittle the society becomes. Each excluded person is a lost opportunity for adaptation. Each scapegoated group is a blind spot in collective vision. Each act of cruelty drains trust, erodes legitimacy, and hollows out resilience. What looks like strength from the outside—a society that enforces rigid conformity—becomes fragility from the inside, because it cannot adjust to reality. The sacrifice of others can buy time, but it cannot buy truth.
This is the lesson systemic offloading hides: you cannot outsource deviation from reality forever. The misfit always returns, magnified by the suffering it created on the way. Authoritarian regimes know this, which is why they keep expanding the circle of scapegoats—never correcting the lie, only demanding new victims to absorb it. What begins with autistic children or disabled adults soon expands to trans teenagers, then immigrants, then dissenters, until finally the weight grows too great and the system breaks. The question is not whether collapse comes. It is whether people recognize the pattern early enough to refuse to play their part in carrying someone else’s share of the lie.
Closing Invitation
What has carried through all of this is not an abstract argument but a pattern lived in flesh and blood. It is the autistic child who learns early that their laughter, their movements, their honesty in speech bring punishment unless carefully hidden. It is the disabled adult who feels the weight of being called a “burden” so many times that they start to apologize simply for existing. It is the trans teenager who practices their voice in whispers when no one is home, terrified that discovery will mean rejection or worse. These lives are not broken, but the stories told about them are. And when society insists that those stories are the truth, it forces people to live in fear and shame, to shrink themselves to fit a frame that was never drawn for them.
The price of this is staggering. A child who spends every ounce of energy masking at school returns home unable to speak, collapsing into exhaustion while parents wonder why their child is “different” only at home. A worker who pushes their disabled body through a job designed without them pays with days of pain and isolation. A trans young person who hears their identity described as sickness or threat spends their nights bargaining with themselves over whether life is worth the fight. These are not rare tragedies—they are daily consequences of a culture that treats deviation from its preferred story as defect. Every moment of hiding, every layer of shame, every survival strategy carved out of necessity is a tax levied by false narratives. And the cruelest part is that this tax is invisible to those who never have to pay it.
Rhetoric pretends to protect, but its protection is always conditional. It says to parents, “Your child is safe, as long as they are normal.” It says to workers, “You will be valued, as long as you perform without asking for help.” It says to communities, “You will be respected, as long as you never deviate from the official mold.” This bargain is a lie. No one is safe under such terms, because the line between belonging and exclusion shifts with the needs of those in power. Today it is autistic children or trans teens. Tomorrow it is the disabled, the poor, the elderly. Once the story is permitted to drift far from reality, it can be turned against anyone. What looks like order in the short term becomes terror in the long term.
Yet even in this climate of fear, people continue to live, to resist, to create. Parents still fight for their children to have classrooms where difference is not punished but supported. Disabled people continue to demand access, exposing every lie that convenience matters more than dignity. Trans people still step into the light of their own names, refusing to be erased even when the cost is high. Autistic adults still carve out communities where honesty is possible, where masking can drop, where truth is spoken without apology. These acts of endurance should never have been necessary, but their persistence is proof that truth has a force that rhetoric cannot extinguish. The fact that people keep surviving is not evidence that the system is tolerable. It is evidence of how much energy is being wasted demanding survival under conditions that should never have been imposed.
This is why accuracy matters—not as technical language, but as a lifeline. Accuracy means recognizing that autistic children are not broken, they are precisely attuned to signals others ignore. Accuracy means seeing that disabled lives are not burdens, they are testaments to the need for design that includes everyone. Accuracy means understanding that trans identities are not confusion, they are coherence across time and self. These recognitions are not luxuries or opinions; they are the difference between lives crushed by shame and lives lived with dignity. To deny them is to raise the cost of survival until collapse becomes inevitable. To affirm them is to lower the load until people can finally stop fighting to exist and start living freely.
The rhetoric of figures like Robert F. Kennedy Jr. offers only drift. It promises certainty in place of truth, scapegoats in place of solutions. It tells families their children are poisoned instead of teaching them to see their architecture as strength. It tells the public that trans lives are threats instead of teaching them that gender is a natural variation of self. It tells disabled people that resources are too scarce for their needs instead of admitting that exclusion is a choice, not a necessity. These stories do not protect anyone—they waste energy, fracture trust, and hollow out resilience. They build a society that looks solid on the surface but is brittle beneath, a structure kept upright only by the suffering of those forced to carry its misfit.
We stand at a threshold. On one side is drift: more bans, more scapegoats, more children hiding, more adults breaking under shame. On the other side is accuracy: stories aligned with reality, difference recognized as design, communities stabilized by truth instead of lies. This is not a small choice. It is the line between a culture that consumes its people to preserve appearances and a culture that draws strength from the full range of its lives. And it is not a decision we can defer. Every day that rhetoric wins, more people are forced into silence, more families fracture under guilt, more lives are lost to exhaustion or despair.
This article is an attempt at pulling back the curtain on the danger of high deviation between story and reality. But it is only a beginning. The paper—Neurotypes: Memory and Recursive Collapse—goes deeper, showing in detail how emotion, memory, architecture, and identity function as natural structures, and how miscategorization distorts them into pathology. And accuracy is what we need most now. To read it is to see not just the pain, but the pattern. To share it is to arm others with clarity, so they do not mistake fear for protection or shame for order.
Do not stop here. Do not let this moment pass with a shrug. The same signals that warned us in the past—burned books, scapegoated minorities, erased identities—are flashing again. We can lower the deviation now by facing reality with honesty, or we can raise it further by clinging to rhetoric until collapse arrives. The lives of those already hiding, already exhausted, already carrying the weight of lies should be reason enough to choose truth. Read the work. Share it. Refuse to live inside stories that make neighbors into defects. There is still time to build a culture strong enough to face reality without fear—but only if enough of us are willing to see it, name it, and act before the cost of hiding becomes more than anyone can bear.
Explore the Full TAIRID Series
Want to dive deeper into how TAIRID reframes the dynamics of time, collapse, and structure?
Click below to access all TAIRID-related articles—exploring its application across diverse fields including physics, psychology, climate science, AI ethics, political theory, and systemic design. Each piece helps illuminate how recursive alignment can transform entropy into adaptation.
Click here to view all TAIRID articles.
If this piece sparked something in you—if the idea of collapse as feedback, entropy as signal, and recursion as the structure of becoming resonates—consider supporting the emergence of TAIRID.
This work wasn’t shaped by institutions, but through lived recursion and a refusal to simplify the real. Every coffee helps sustain this unfolding structure.
0 Comments