The AutSide Podcast

A new school year means new students, new relationships, and a Script Garden filling with meaning. But how does any of it become usable language? I’m starting with the question between Stage 0 and Stage 1.
It is the beginning of another school year, which means I am back in the Script Garden. New students on my caseload. New students in the Maths classes I support. New teachers, new classroom dynamics, new relationships, and an enormous amount of information arriving all at once. I am paying attention to all of it. Rather spectacularly so. But thinking about something and having usable language for it are not the same event for me.
At Stage 0, there is already a great deal there: scripts, patterns, memories, sensations, observations, language, relationships, notices, wonders, and things other people have said. It isn’t empty. There is something almost superpositional about it—multiple possibilities remaining simultaneously alive whilst new information keeps arriving. A student may understand. They may not. They may understand the mathematics but not its language. They may understand both and not yet trust me enough to show me. I don’t necessarily want to collapse those possibilities too early, because sometimes that is precisely how I get a student wrong. Meaning is forming. There just may not be a sentence yet.
But eventually I need one. I am an RSP teacher. I have students to support, teachers to collaborate with, IEPs, meetings, documentation, and decisions to make. At some point I have to step out of the Script Garden carrying a word. And that has left me with a wonderfully inconvenient question: How do I actually get from Stage 0 to Stage 1? What has to happen for meaning to become language? Sometimes I know the whole before I can find its parts. Sometimes I know that a sentence is wrong before I have any idea what the right sentence would be. What, exactly, is happening in between?
This is very deliberately N = 1. I am not speaking for all autistic people, all gestalt language processors, all RSP teachers, my colleagues, or my employer. I am following my own problem of practice. My ASD Level 2 diagnosis matters here because much of the support I need has to be constructed by me: externalising information, collecting it, parking it somewhere safe, returning to it, moving it around, letting patterns emerge, and eventually developing words and scripts stable enough to use when I need them. That is accommodation, but it is also simply part of how I make my work possible.
So this video is a prologue, not an answer. I don’t know where the question is going yet. I’m going to do what I tend to do on Substack: collect things, park them, play with them, and see what grows. Somewhere inside that rather overgrown Script Garden, I am hoping to understand a little more about what has to happen before all that meaning becomes something I can actually say—and, with any luck, come out the other side with enough usable words and scripts to remain employed for another year.
The AutSide is a reader-supported publication. To support my work, consider becoming a paid subscriber.



This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit autside.substack.com/subscribe

What if reducing workload is not about doing less? This episode explores Quantity, Concurrency, and Content—and how real support can give unfinished information somewhere else to wait.
I put yesterday’s AutSide piece into Gemini Notebook because I wanted to hear what happened when the argument was handed back to me in another form. The resulting conversation begins with the deceptively simple arithmetic of workload reduction: if twenty problems become ten, surely the work is now half as heavy. The hosts quickly discover the problem I was trying to name in the essay. Once we move from physical quantity into cognition, the arithmetic stops behaving so neatly. A single problem can carry directions, retrieval, intermediate results, formatting expectations, uncertainty, and unresolved information simultaneously. Cutting the page in half does not necessarily cut any of that in half.
What I particularly enjoyed hearing them work through was the distinction amongst Quantity, Concurrency, and Content. Quantity is what schools can easily count. Content is what I actually need a student to know or demonstrate. Concurrency is the less visible part between them: how much information must remain alive at once for the student to continue. The episode reaches for the image of fifty browser tabs—not fifty extraordinarily difficult things, simply fifty things that have not been permitted to close.
The discussion becomes most interesting to me when it turns from explanation towards practice. If retrieval is not the Content I am assessing, I can provide the formula. If an intermediate result needs to remain available, I can give it somewhere outside the student to wait. If several instructions are competing simultaneously, I can change their arrangement. The student still has to understand the mathematics, science, history, or language in front of her. I have not necessarily reduced the intellectual demand at all. I have changed where the unfinished information has to live. The episode puts this rather nicely: the human does the processing; the tool can do some of the maintaining.
And I was glad that the conversation followed that idea into special education itself. This is why the work cannot be reduced to sitting beside a student and keeping her “on task.” To reduce a workload without accidentally reducing the learning, I have to understand what is load-bearing in the assignment in the first place. The episode describes that as finding the load-bearing walls of the Content—knowing what can move, what can be externalised, and what must remain. That is specialised intellectual labour, performed across students, teachers, subjects, and an entire school day.
A style note here, because I know this will matter to some readers: yes, I know Gemini Notebook is AI. I have disclosed my use of it before, and I am disclosing it again here. This episode is another demonstration of why the tool has become valuable in my life. I put my article—my research, my argument, my thoughts, my writing—into Notebook, and it explains the whole back to me in another form. Sometimes I need that. When I have spent days working from inside an idea, hearing an automated system reconstruct the complete gestalt helps me check whether the whole I thought I had written is actually the whole that made it onto the page. It can expose a missing relationship, an ambiguity, or simply reassure me that the architecture holds together. The tool is not originating the thought for me; it is giving my thought back to me so that I can inspect it from outside. I can error-check that reconstruction against what I actually wrote, and then choose to share the result with subscribers and followers. For me, that is not an embarrassment to hide behind euphemisms about technology. It is support.
The AutSide is a reader-supported publication. To support my work, consider becoming a paid subscriber.



This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit autside.substack.com/subscribe

I do not use Gemini Notebook because I need it to think for me. I use it because too much thought remains alive at once. Essay, timeline, infographic, podcast—different doors into the same relational whole.
I keep returning to Gemini Notebook because it does something I genuinely need—not because I need it to think for me, but because I need support moving through the world of words once too many of them become alive at the same time. My difficulty is rarely the absence of thought. It is almost embarrassingly the opposite. Sukhareva is there. Peters is there. Prizant, Nelson, Kanner, Shaqaman, contemporary Chinese scholarship, developmental psycholinguistics, the Naysayers, my own nine essays, their citations, the disagreements amongst them, the historical changes in terminology—all of it remains available simultaneously. I know the shape before I know how to walk another person through it. As I wrote in the piece, the expensive part is often moving from that relational whole into the selective, sequential form through which somebody else can encounter it. That is where I require substantial support.
Notebook has become part of that support infrastructure because it gives me several different ways of moving through the same material. I can give it my own articles, research, arguments, and sources, then ask it to help me reorganise what is already there. An infographic lets relationships coexist spatially. A timeline lets chronology become the organising structure. A mind map lets me move amongst relationships without pretending they arrived sequentially. And now there is this podcast—a conversational rendering of the same informational field. None of these replaces the scholarship underneath them. They are different entrances into it. The original experiment was precisely this: could something that exists for me as a large relational whole be made available to somebody else without requiring them first to reproduce my entire journey through thousands of words?
And I rather love what the podcast notices about the actual argument. It begins with the absurdity at its centre: a century of researchers can repeatedly encounter recognisable patterns in autistic language, but those observations become remarkably easy to erase if we search backwards demanding contemporary vocabulary. Sukhareva did not need the term gestalt language processor for the children she observed to be there. Neither did Kanner, Peters, Nelson, or Prizant. Different researchers brought different questions, theories, disciplines, languages, and desired outcomes, but the humans did not vanish between those frameworks. The podcast compresses this beautifully: “The humans didn’t change, just the lexicons did.” That is very close to the historical gestalt I have been trying to make visible—the lexicographers change; we remain.
What becomes especially striking, though, is that the podcast itself eventually turns towards the reason I am using Notebook in the first place. It describes the problem as trying to take a vast web and force it into a single straight piece of string—the researchers, dates, clinical disagreements, frameworks, and relationships all informationally alive together, whilst academic prose demands that I select one thing, then another, then another, paragraph after paragraph. Notebook can hold some of that intermediate organisational labour for me. That matters. My support need does not disappear because I can eventually produce fluent prose. Successful language can conceal an extraordinary amount of machinery. Here, some of that machinery is external, visible, and twenty dollars a month.
Perhaps that is why I find this podcast so delightful. I wrote the research. I followed the citations. I made the historical argument. Then I gave that body of work to a tool that could return it through another doorway—and, listening to two synthetic voices discuss why an autistic researcher might need multiple representational forms to move a relational whole into communicable language, I find the form becoming part of the argument. Essay, infographic, timeline, mind map, podcast: not five different thoughts, but five ways into the same one. Accessibility does not mean finding the single simplified version through which everybody must enter. Sometimes it means allowing the whole to have more than one door.
Here’s the link to the source article with the complete reference list: https://autside.substack.com/p/we-have-been-here-all-along
Let me know what you think.
The AutSide is a reader-supported publication. To support my work, consider becoming a paid subscriber.



This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit autside.substack.com/subscribe

Cathy and I begin with workload and signal-to-noise, then arrive somewhere deeper: if meaning is already present before words are available, what conditions allow us to step out of the Script Garden with language?
This week, Cathy and I began with workload—specifically, what we actually mean when we reduce it. There is a tendency in education to treat workload as quantity: fewer questions, fewer pages, fewer things to complete. But that is only one part of the load. A student may have ten questions instead of twenty and still be required to hold instructions, formulae, vocabulary, prior knowledge, shifting representations, and the purpose of the task informationally alive all at once. Sometimes the difficulty is not how much work exists. It is how much must remain simultaneously available whilst the work is being done.
That brought us back to signal and noise. If the communicative signal is simply we are leaving at noon, everything surrounding that message may be meaningful in its own right without being relevant to the immediate communication. For me, the difficulty is that I may not yet know which information is signal and which is noise. Until the organising meaning becomes clear, too many things remain alive. The same thing happens in classrooms: teachers can flood a room with language, directions, explanation, context, encouragement, and detail, leaving a student to discover retrospectively what she was actually supposed to do. By the time the signal resolves, the lesson has moved on.
And then the conversation turned towards the question that has been occupying me increasingly this week: what has to happen for meaning to become language? I can watch students manipulate a geometric figure until it reaches the correct position—they know what happened, because their hands can do it—then watch them stop when asked to name the transformation or write the proof. Meaning is present. Language is not yet available. That is the Script Garden problem for me: how do I get from Stage 0 to Stage 1 with a word? A sentence frame cannot solve that merely by existing. Somehow the internal meaning has to connect with the available language.
Cathy brought that question back into relationship. Perhaps our task is not to make a child produce more language but to create the conditions within which language can grow. That distinction matters enormously to me. I increasingly struggle with calling this intervention, because intervention suggests something introduced from outside to alter an existing trajectory. What Cathy described was different: noticing, wondering, attending to movement and scripts, offering natural language models, building safety, and allowing connection itself to become part of the conditions for development. The Script Garden does not grow because somebody keeps demanding flowers. It grows because the conditions permit growth.
Which brought us, unexpectedly but perhaps inevitably, back to evidence. My old forensic world taught me to ask whether an observation can be documented, repeated, and reproduced by somebody somewhere else. Cathy recognised Marge Blanc’s descriptions in the children she already knew; she used the framework in her own practice; parents recognised their children within it; other practitioners have done likewise. That does not answer every question about efficacy, nor does it remove the need for research. But it does leave me increasingly interested in a question beneath the argument about interventions: what architecture are all these people independently encountering? Before we ask whether we can make language happen, perhaps we need to understand what is already happening when meaning becomes language at all.
The AutSide is a reader-supported publication. To support my work, consider becoming apaid subscriber.



This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit autside.substack.com/subscribe

Cathy and I ask what counts as evidence in gestalt language processing—and who gets believed. Across lived experience, families, clinicians, and research, perhaps the evidence was never absent. We were looking for the wrong thing.
Cathy and I began this week with a question that has been following much of my recent writing: what do we actually mean when we say evidence? Not simply whether evidence exists, but who gets to decide what counts as evidence, who is permitted to produce it, and whose observations are allowed into the record. Around gestalt language processing, those questions have become particularly sharp. Again and again, people ask, Where is the evidence? Yet gestalt processors are describing our experiences, parents are describing their children, clinicians have accumulated decades of observation, and researchers across different disciplines and countries have encountered related patterns. At some point, the question begins to change. If all of these people are telling you something is happening, what would you need before you were prepared to believe them?
For me, that question is inseparable from my own life. I am autistic, with substantial language and pragmatic support needs, yet I can sit with Cathy and have this conversation, teach high school, write, research, and speak publicly. Those things can look contradictory only if the support underneath them disappears from view. I remain a gestalt processor. I can take the whole that arrives and disassemble it into increasingly precise language when the conditions and supports allow me to do so. Under enough emotional or informational load, however, I can lose access to that granularity—sentence structures become unavailable, then smaller structures, sometimes until I am relying upon a handful of familiar scripts. That is not regression into some earlier kind of person. It is the same architecture operating with different levels of available support.
This led us towards another way of asking about evidence: what became possible? I came to occupational therapy relatively late, at a time when there were few obvious language services for an autistic adult who already had a career and children. A creative occupational therapist eventually led me towards theatre and improvisation. Where is the randomised controlled trial proving that improv theatre would improve my pragmatic communication? I do not have one. What I have is the life afterwards. Conversation became easier. Teaching became possible. Standing in federal court and being cross-examined about scientific evidence became possible. Refusing something I did not want to do became easier. Eventually, even performing in a musical became possible. Nobody needed me to disappear in order for those things to happen. The evidence is partly in what the support made available.
Cathy brought the same question into her work with children and families. Parents know things because they are there: they see how their children communicate across days and years, what changes when they feel safe, what supports communication, what closes it down, and what becomes possible in relationships where someone is genuinely curious about the person in front of them. Clinicians and educators accumulate another kind of knowledge through repeated encounters. And autistic people bring knowledge from inside the phenomenon itself. None of these perspectives is infallible, but dismissing them because they do not resemble a controlled clinical trial does not make the resulting position more scientific. It simply narrows in advance the kinds of reality science is prepared to notice.
By the end of our conversation, the scale had widened considerably. Gestalt processors are finding one another across countries, cultures, disciplines, languages, and writing systems, and the similarities are difficult to dismiss as an internet fashion. Psycholinguists, philologists, speech and language practitioners, teachers, parents, and gestalt processors may enter through different doors, but we keep encountering pieces of the same problem. That does not mean every claim made about gestalt language processing has been proven, nor that frameworks such as NLA should be exempt from empirical scrutiny. It means something more foundational: evidence does not begin only when somebody designs an intervention study. It begins with noticing, describing, listening, comparing, and asking what changes because this knowledge exists. Cathy and I kept arriving back there. The evidence is distributed amongst us. The harder question may be who has been taught to recognise it.
The AutSide is a reader-supported publication. To support my work, consider becoming a paid subscriber.



This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit autside.substack.com/subscribe