Abstract
The non-autistic majority often judges people on the autism spectrum through the prism of numerous stereotypes, prejudices, cognitive biases, or, generally speaking, non-rational beliefs. This causes problems in autistic people's everyday lives, as they often feel stigmatized, marginalized, and they internalize deficit-laden narratives about themselves. Unfortunately, experts, including health or law professionals, are not entirely immune to these non-rational beliefs, which affect their decision-making processes. This primarily happens when a mix of background knowledge, overconfidence, and haste co-occur. The resulting decisions may impact autistic people, e.g., by determining eligibility for the state's therapeutical and financial support. This paper shows how simplified reasoning and inference may influence experts' (medical examiners or court expert witnesses) decision-making processes concerning autistic people. It also proposes particular clues and strategies that could help experts cope with this risk and avoid making biased decisions.