How much of the literal-ism attributed to autistic people comes down to a hyperfocus on the present that leads to the decontextualization of the word or statement that leads to them being interpreted literally? Makes sense as a trauma response to a childhood with instability or deprivation.

How much of it comes down to an unconscious act of resistance against inconsistent and, especially, passive aggressive authority figures.

Not to mention that many people use metaphorical language to obscure ill intent or to hide true meanings from bad actors, such as when a parent has to explain they and their partner's vices and acts of abuse. Little kids can't parse that nuance even if they can intuit the parent's true emotions. This trains them to distrust metaphors as lies as they grow up.

Talking about ratios, of course, varying by person. But notice the common theme: trauma.

Each one of those causes falls on a spectrum of exposure and impact, too. Is it any wonder, then, that autism is measured on a spectrum and that the label covers so many different symptoms? Or that scientists have struggled to pin down an "autism gene"?

The push to "cure" autism may be a categorical attack on sensitively in humans to the exclusion of its true socio-economic roots.

A tendency towards literal-ism makes sense as a survival response to a traumatizing childhood. It may not need much if any genetic or neurological explanation. Therefore, society needs to stop trying to "fix" autism and fully support families and children starting before conception instead.