You don’t see much research on high-functioning autists or autistic adults, since women don’t feel any nurturing instinct toward them and women hold the purse strings, but it produces more interesting findings than research on retarded children:
To accurately predict agent behavior, participants needed to dynamically track the agent’s beliefs (true or false) about an experimental context that varied over time and use that information to infer the agent’s intentions from their actions. ASD participants were specifically impaired at using their estimates of agent belief to learn agent intentions, though their ability to track agent belief was intact and their reasoning about belief and intentions was rational.
So even if you add IQ, autistic people are still unable (or IMO naturally disinclined) to predict another person’s intentions based on what they know of that person’s experiences. This suggests to me that autistic people have an extremely binary concept of where intentions come from that’s more subtle and developed in neurotypicals. I.e. Contra the categorical approach to mens rea, a normal person can conceive of someone being “a little guilty”, although I suspect they often pretend not to understand in order to advocate self-serving narratives.
For example, I expect both Bruce Charlton and Vox Day understand that normies share some guilt for the state of things, but not as much as elites, but they’re both pretending not to understand this for self-serving narratives. Charlton is pretending normies are 100% guilty so he can feel good about masturbating out in the woods, and Vox is pretending normies are 100% innocent so he can jerk them off for a few more Q merch sales.
Actually, that’s a good example of autism because their motivations are a lot more mixed than I just said. There’s an extent to which they’re trying to do the right thing and just lack good information.