How Intimacy Forms Along the Non-Autistic Pathway

Series V, Article 2: How Intimacy Forms Along the Non-Autistic Pathway

The non-autistic developmental pathway has been described across this series as an oscillation: a continuous back-and-forth between going out into the world and curving back to integrate what came back, between the forward movement of assimilation and the integrating movement of accommodation. That oscillation drives trust, autonomy, identity formation, and every other developmental achievement the pathway is oriented toward. It also drives intimacy. And understanding how it does requires understanding what the oscillation is actually built from at its core: the continuous, embodied, largely automatic reception of social and emotional information from the people around it (Craig, 2009; Critchley et al., 2004; Decety & Jackson, 2004; Gallese, 2009; Niedenthal, 2007).

Body empathy, MacMillan's term for this reception, is not simply the capacity to notice that another person is having an experience. It is the capacity to register that experience in one's own body, in real time and below the level of conscious awareness, in a way that makes the distinction between one's own emotional state and another person's genuinely porous at the edges (Craig, 2009; Critchley et al., 2004; Lamm et al., 2007; Singer et al., 2004). That porousness is what makes the non-autistic nervous system so well suited to the intimacy process. And it is also what makes the specific vulnerabilities of the non-autistic pathway in intimacy so particular.

The Mechanism of Disclosure

The research on intimacy as an interpersonal process, developed through the work of Reis and Shaver and extended by Laurenceau and colleagues, establishes intimacy as built from three movements: one person discloses something genuine about themselves, the other discloses in return, and the first person feels genuinely received by the response (Laurenceau et al., 1998; Reis & Shaver, 1988). What makes this a process of intimacy rather than simply an exchange of information is the third movement: the experience of being received. Not agreed with, not evaluated, not advised, but genuinely received. The sense that what was offered landed in the other person as something that mattered, was taken seriously, and was held with care (Laurenceau et al., 1998; Reis & Gable, 2015; Reis et al., 2017).

Social penetration theory, developed by Altman and Taylor, adds another dimension: intimacy is not only about the quality of disclosure but its depth (Altman & Taylor, 1973). Relationships move from surface-level exchange toward genuine closeness as the disclosures become progressively more revealing, more personal, and more vulnerable. This is not a linear process and it is not a deliberate strategy. It is what happens when two people trust each other enough to offer more of themselves, and when that offering is consistently met with the genuine reception that makes the next offering feel safe (Altman & Taylor, 1973; Laurenceau et al., 1998).

For the non-autistic nervous system, this process is not entirely voluntary. Body empathy means that the emotional states of the people nearby arrive continuously and without effort. Many non-autistic people in a conversation with someone they are close to ar already, before any deliberate self-disclosure, registering something of that person's experience in their own body. They are orienting toward the other, feeling for the shape of what is present between them, and adjusting in real time. The intimacy mechanism is not something they turn on. It is something that runs (Craig, 2009; Decety & Jackson, 2004; Gallese, 2009; Niedenthal, 2007).

What the Non-Autistic Person Is Actually Offering

When a non-autistic person shares something personal, something of their inner experience, their self-reflection, their uncertainty, their joy, their difficulty, they are not primarily providing information. They are extending an intimacy bid (Laurenceau et al., 1998; Reis & Shaver, 1988). The disclosure is an offering of the self, a gesture toward genuine knowing, a way of saying: here is something of what it is like to be me. The implicit question in the offering is not what do you think about this, but do you receive me? (Reis & Gable, 2015; Reis et al., 2017).

The reception they need in response is specific. It is not a solution to the problem described. It is not an evaluation of whether their experience is reasonable. It is the felt sense that what they offered landed: that the other person was genuinely present to what was shared, was moved by it in some way, and held it with the care the disclosure invited (Laurenceau et al., 1998; Reis & Gable, 2015; Reis et al., 2017). That felt sense, when it arrives, is itself the intimacy. The closer one is known, the more the disclosures that are met with genuine reception become the substance of the relationship itself: the accumulated experience of having been genuinely seen by this particular person, in these particular moments, over time (Altman & Taylor, 1973; Laurenceau et al., 1998; Reis & Shaver, 1988).

This is why many non-autistics’ needs for reciprocal sharing, for the continuous exchange of inner experience, is not a social preference or a personality trait. It is a structural feature of how the intimacy mechanism runs. The oscillation that drives all non-autistic development requires something to move against. In the domain of intimacy, what it moves against is the genuine presence of another person's inner world. The self-disclosure that flows toward the other and the reception that flows back are the same oscillation that has been running since infancy, now organized around the question of mutual knowing (Erikson, 1968; Laurenceau et al., 1998; Reis & Shaver, 1988).

There is something worth naming precisely here, because it matters for what happens when this process meets a different intimacy system. When non-autistic people share their self-reflections, the ideas and experiences they have developed through the continuous social mirroring that builds the non-autistic self-concept, they are sharing something deeply personal about how they have come to understand themselves. Those reflections are built from the outside-in formation that identity depends on: they carry the traces of how the social world has been received and integrated. To share them is to offer the product of that formation, which is to say, something of the self's own history of being known. What the non-autistic person is extending, in other words, is not merely a thought. It is an invitation into the process through which they became who they are (Erikson, 1968; Laurenceau et al., 1998; Reis et al., 2017).

The High Body Empathetic's Intimacy Challenge

Within the range of people whose development follows the non-autistic pathway, the high body empathetic, in MacMillan's theoretical framework, faces a specific and particular intimacy challenge. The nervous system that is exceptionally oriented toward others' experience, that registers another person's emotional states with unusual vividness and immediacy, is in some respects ideally designed for the intimacy process: it receives disclosures deeply, responds with genuine attunement, and creates in the other person the felt sense of being genuinely held (Craig, 2009; Critchley et al., 2004; Decety & Jackson, 2004; Lamm et al., 2007; Singer et al., 2004).

But genuine intimacy, as the opening post in this series established, requires two distinct selves. Contact, not merger (Erikson, 1968; Kegan, 1982). And for the high body empathetic, the very quality that makes them so capable of genuine reception creates a structural risk at the other end of the intimacy process: the self that is receiving so fully may find it difficult to maintain its own ground while doing so (Kegan, 1982; Reis & Shaver, 1988).

When the high body empathetic person is in genuine intimacy with another, the boundary between their own emotional experience and the other person's may become difficult to hold. The accommodation that runs strongly in this nervous system, the readiness to reorganize around what is present in the other person, can tip the intimacy process past genuine contact and into something closer to absorption (Craig, 2009; Kegan, 1982; Lamm et al., 2007). The self knows the other's experience vividly, deeply, and empathically. But the other's experience begins to fill the relational space in a way that makes the high body empathetic's own experience progressively harder to locate.

This is not a failure of intimacy. It is intimacy's particular challenge for this nervous system: staying grounded in one's own experience while remaining genuinely open to another's, bringing oneself into genuine contact rather than dissolving the self in the encounter (Erikson, 1968; Kegan, 1982). The developmental work for the high body empathetic in the domain of intimacy is the assimilative work described in the identity series: building the capacity to remain in one's own shoes, to stay present to one's own inner experience as a distinct thing, even in the presence of another person whose experience the nervous system is already fully inhabiting.

What the Non-Autistic Pathway Needs

What the non-autistic pathway needs in order for genuine intimacy to form is what the oscillation has always needed: a genuine exchange in which both movements complete. The self extends toward the other through disclosure, and the other receives it in a way that makes the extending feel worthwhile and safe. The other extends in return, and the self receives that extension genuinely. The back-and-forth accumulates over time into the experience of being known, and of knowing (Altman & Taylor, 1973; Laurenceau et al., 1998; Reis & Shaver, 1988).

For this to happen, the non-autistic person needs a partner who can receive their disclosures as the intimacy bids they are rather than as information to be processed or problems to be solved. They need the felt sense that their inner world matters to the person they are trying to be close to, that what they share has genuine impact, that the other person is actually present to them rather than managing them from a comfortable distance (Laurenceau et al., 1998; Reis & Gable, 2015; Reis et al., 2017).

And they need the conditions that allow the oscillation itself to remain calibrated: relationships and environments that provide neurotype-matched reciprocal disclosure, so that the intimacy the primary relationship can provide is received in a context of genuine relational fullness rather than deprivation (Crompton, Hallett, et al., 2020; Crompton, Sharp, et al., 2020; Sala et al., 2020).

What they need most, in the end, is what the intimacy process itself describes: to extend themselves genuinely, to be genuinely received, and to find in that reception the confirmation that the self they brought into contact was the self that was there to be known (Laurenceau et al., 1998; Reis & Shaver, 1988).

The autistic pathway approaches this same destination through a different structure entirely. What it needs from the intimacy process, and what it offers in return, is genuinely different from what the non-autistic pathway describes. That is where the next post turns.

Next in this series: How Intimacy Forms Along the Autistic Pathway, what autistic people want and are capable of in close relationship, the different channels through which autistic intimacy builds, and why same-neurotype connection so often produces the experience of finally being understood.


THE SERIES:

Article 1: What Intimacy Actually Is
Article 2: How Intimacy Forms Along the Non-Autistic Pathway
Article 3: How Intimacy Forms Along the Autistic Pathway
Article 4: Physical Intimacy, Sensory Experience and the Body
Article 5: When Two Intimacy Systems Meet
Article 6: Toward Mutual Intelligibility


References

Altman, I., & Taylor, D. A. (1973). Social penetration: The development of interpersonal relationships. Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Craig, A. D. (2009). How do you feel—now? The anterior insula and human awareness. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 10(1), 59–70. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn2555

Critchley, H. D., Wiens, S., Rotshtein, P., Öhman, A., & Dolan, R. J. (2004). Neural systems supporting interoceptive awareness. Nature Neuroscience, 7(2), 189–195. https://doi.org/10.1038/nn1176

Crompton, C. J., Hallett, S., Ropar, D., Flynn, E. G., & Fletcher-Watson, S. (2020). “I never realised everybody felt as happy as I do when I am around autistic people”: A thematic analysis of autistic adults’ relationships with autistic and neurotypical friends and family. Autism, 24(6), 1438–1448. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362361320908976

Crompton, C. J., Sharp, M., Axbey, H., Fletcher-Watson, S., Flynn, E. G., & Ropar, D. (2020). Neurotype-matching, but not being autistic, influences self and observer ratings of interpersonal rapport. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, Article 586171. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.586171

Decety, J., & Jackson, P. L. (2004). The functional architecture of human empathy. Behavioral and Cognitive Neuroscience Reviews, 3(2), 71–100. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534582304267187

Erikson, E. H. (1968). Identity: Youth and crisis. W. W. Norton.

Gallese, V. (2009). Mirror neurons, embodied simulation, and the neural basis of social identification. Psychoanalytic Dialogues, 19(5), 519–536. https://doi.org/10.1080/10481880903231910

Kegan, R. (1982). The evolving self: Problem and process in human development. Harvard University Press.

Lamm, C., Batson, C. D., & Decety, J. (2007). The neural substrate of human empathy: Effects of perspective-taking and cognitive appraisal. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 19(1), 42–58. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.2007.19.1.42

Laurenceau, J.-P., Barrett, L. F., & Pietromonaco, P. R. (1998). Intimacy as an interpersonal process: The importance of self-disclosure, partner disclosure, and perceived partner responsiveness in interpersonal exchanges. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(5), 1238–1251. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.74.5.1238

Niedenthal, P. M. (2007). Embodying emotion. Science, 316(5827), 1002–1005. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1136930

Reis, H. T., & Gable, S. L. (2015). Responsiveness. Current Opinion in Psychology, 1, 67–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2015.01.001

Reis, H. T., Lemay, E. P., Jr., & Finkenauer, C. (2017). Toward understanding understanding: The importance of feeling understood in relationships. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 11(3), Article e12308. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12308

Reis, H. T., & Shaver, P. (1988). Intimacy as an interpersonal process. In S. Duck, D. F. Hay, S. E. Hobfoll, W. Ickes, & B. M. Montgomery (Eds.), Handbook of personal relationships: Theory, research and interventions (pp. 367–389). Wiley.

Sala, G., Hooley, M., & Stokes, M. A. (2020). Romantic intimacy in autism: A qualitative analysis. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 50, 4133–4147. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-020-04377-x

Singer, T., Seymour, B., O’Doherty, J. P., Kaube, H., Dolan, R. J., & Frith, C. D. (2004). Empathy for pain involves the affective but not sensory components of pain. Science, 303(5661), 1157–1162. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1093535