It is the "spectrum" that is an oversimplification. What they call "the spectrum" is a cover name for a huge array of behavioral quirks, some of genetic origin, some cultural related, some linked to an individual's history, that have been lumped together under this idea of an "autism spectrum". Most of these quirks have nothing to do with each other and lumping them together does not help in any way. It just gives the impression that Psychiatrists know what they are talking about while they in fact don't. A genuine understanding of all the little different phenomena now lumped under "the spectrum" would require a science of the brain that is way beyond our current capacity.
When I say that we should limit ourselves to Rain-man style cases when using the word "autist" is because they are the only ones that we can really identify. The rest of the "spectrum" we don't understand shit about and we should therefore shut up. Most of it has probably nothing to do with Rain-man style cases and it is therefore fraudulent to use the same word.
For all those cases which are now being forced into the "spectrum", we should just say: "well that guy obviously is not performing optimally and he looks quite unhappy too but we have no idea whether it is genetic, or if it is related to the way he was raised, or whether it is because he watched too much TV, or whatever the fuck else". That is what an honest doctor (or anybody else) would say. He would not use the word "autism" because he doesn't know if it has anything to do with indisputable Rain-man style cases.
This is all Mumbo-Jumbo, not Science. There is no way to scientifically test for this because you cannot control the environment of an individual. You would have to keep test subjects in a 24/7 Truman-show style environment for at least 20 years to have real experimental data.
In the absence of such data, you are just talking out of your ass.
