Inspired by a conversation with my daughter.
child
Why do firefighters have dachshunds?
me
(I freeze for a moment. I try to remember whether any piece of firefighting equipment resembles a dachshund... nothing. I assume she mixed something up. But intuition, as usual, tells me: don't correct her — ask what she means).
me
In what sense do they have dachshunds?
child
(Obvious tone, as if this were common knowledge) Well, dachshunds help them put out fires.
me
(My confusion deepens. She isn't saying 'this makes no sense' — she's thinking in her own way. I look for a clue... maybe there really are 'firefighter dogs'? 😅 I try to glimpse the map she's using.) What does a dachshund look like?
child
It's white and has spots.
me
(Bingo 🎯 She connected fire station with Paw Patrol. She doesn't know the breed name, but knows another one – dachshund. I test my theory.) Do you mean a Dalmatian?
child
(with joy) Yes!
me
(I validate so she sees that her way of thinking makes sense) And you're asking about Paw Patrol, there the dog who's a firefighter is a Dalmatian.
child
Yes! So why did the authors choose a Dalmatian?
me
(moment of silence… because this really is a good question 🤔) Maybe because it's black and white – the contrast shows well when there's fire and water. Or maybe because some Dalmatian actually lived at the fire station once, and that stayed in cartoons.
child
But a dachshund could have worked too!
me
(laughter 😄) Sure. But then the whole episode would last twice as long, because by the time the dachshund ran to the fire, it would have gone out on its own.
child
(laughter 😂) But it would be funnier.
Silence from which another conversation partner grows.
Me ↔ Brain
me
Inspiring dialogue. And how is it for me, brain? What actually happens then?
brain
Oh, that's simple: I don't confuse words. I connect the world by meaning, not by sequence. Just like your daughter, for me 'firefighter,' 'dog,' 'help,' and 'cartoon' belong to the same network.
me
You know, the world expects cause-and-effect logic, implication, and chronological order — and I learned that as adaptation. But naturally I see connections between meanings, not just causes.
me
True… I look for meaning; it's only professionally that I call it 'cause'.
brain
Yes, and you trained me interestingly 😏. Now I do this not to arrange a chain, but to find sense within that chain – the one that's different for everyone, even if the sequence looks the same.
brain
For the world, a 'cause' is something that comes before an event. For me, it's something that links events into a single meaningful thread.
ABA and a world that thinks in lines
me
ABA is the language you work in, i.e., implementation of linear order. It's not bad, just made for a world that thinks in Stimulus → Response → Consequence scheme.
brain
And you have your own, autistic ABA. That's why it's so hard to find yourself in environments that think linearly. Because even when you analyze behavior, you see a network of mutual meanings, not a chain of events.
me
Behavior doesn't result. It resonates.
Task demand? I have meaning demand
me
The world gives me feedback that I'm 'grinding the topic too much'.
brain
Yes 😅 They don't understand that I just assemble meanings until the map is complete. I can't let go, because as long as some fragment doesn't click in the network, the world feels incomplete to me.
me
I remember 'Ms Textbook' told us about 'monotropism', that it's lack of flexibility and focus on one interest, and that this is something that hinders life.
brain
It hurt, like being forbidden to breathe. It's not about 'interest' or 'fixation'. This is exactly how I organize the world - one topic flows through everything: from perception to emotion, from language to memory.
brain
Everything runs on the same track: deeply, not broadly. Monotropism, if we use it here as a label at all, is my algorithm.
Monotropism not as deficit, but as a filter of meaning
me
Only that what you describe isn't monotropism from books; there everything sounds like sense has to be 'understood, motivated and executed in steps'.
brain
Exactly. It's a way of filtering the world. For me it's simpler: if something has no meaning in my network, it won't move. That isn't lack of motivation — it's lack of resonance.
me
The world says: 'doesn't see the goal'. I see: 'goal has no sense' - in my network (in 90% people's networks this might be true, but not in mine).
brain
They have 'task demand'. I have 'meaning demand'.
me
Only that this 'meaning' must be in my network, so if you want to help me: learn my network, don't try to pull me into yours.
Classical theory sees a fragment, not the whole
me
So classical monotropism sees pieces of truth, but not the whole?
brain
Maybe, or maybe the whole simply never fits in one view, only in a network that keeps building. Monotropism describes several accurate phenomena: that brains on the spectrum need sense, focus deeply, and don't shift attention easily, but this is just a fragment of a larger picture.
brain
All these features are manifestations of one process: building sense within your own network, not deficit.
Not a “narrow field of attention”, but internal coherence
me
So instead of 'narrow field of attention' you're talking about something completely different?
brain
Yes. They called it 'narrow field of attention'. I'll call it simply internal coherence.
me
Because if something doesn't have a place in my network, it doesn't exist cognitively - so why should I focus on it?
Switching? No. Rebuilding the network
me
Sometimes it's hard for me to simply 'switch'.
brain
Yes, because this is never just switching. It's rebuilding the entire network, and that takes energy.
me
And how does time vector fit in? My daughter sometimes experiences something that happened six years ago as if it were happening here and now. Though obviously there's no connection to current context, for her it has deep sense.
brain
Yes, because I do move through time sometimes, but not often. Chronology is like a caption under an image; I add it only once I know what the image represents. First meaning. Then sequence. As if meaning overwrote dates.
me
And this means that when I return to memories, I don't see dates, but e.g., light and smell?
brain
Exactly. First I feel, only then I arrange facts.
me
Time for me isn't a line, it's an 'optional' folder.
brain
If I have energy - I add it. If not, there remains just the map of meanings. And you know what? It's enough.
me
Enough?
brain
Yes. Because this is exactly in the network of sense where I am myself. Not in chronological order, but in logical: mine.
Sources and inspiration
📚 Sources and inspiration:
- Jennifer Kemp & Monique Mitchelson, The Neurodivergence Skills Workbook for Autism and ADHD (New Harbinger Publications, 2024).
- Jessica Penot, The Unmasking Workbook for Autistic Adults (New Harbinger Publications, 2024).
- Dinah Murray, Wenn Lawson & Mike Lesser, Monotropism: An Interest-Based Account of Autism (Autism, 2005).
Note
🔎 Note: What I call here “monotropism as a sense algorithm” is my autistic reinterpretation of the classical theory. In the academic version (Murray, Lawson, Lesser, 2005), monotropism describes “attention resources” and is sometimes linked to observable manifestations such as stimming or hyperfocus. In practice, this can lead to mixing up stims, attention, and meaning — that is, describing behavior instead of the cognitive mechanism underneath it. My thesis that “a shift in attention = a reconfiguration of meaning” is already a metatheoretical move: an autistic perspective in which the core is not narrow attention itself, but the reconfiguration of meaning networks. This is not the classical interpretation of monotropism theory, but my own, grounded in autistic cognitive experience. Please read it that way.