Masking: The Unfalsifiable Escape Hatch
By now social media information cascades mean we’ve all heard it: “If I look typical, I’m masking, I’m high functioning”.
Now, sometimes that’s true; this can be a real and exhausting experience. People really do suppress traits to get through education, work, or a social situation.
But “masking” has also become an explanatory veto, a way to shut down any observation that doesn’t fit the story, immunising any claim from scrutiny. Used this way, it’s an unfalsifiable escape hatch: no matter what you see, the claim stands.
This is a problem for honesty, for services, and especially for science.
The Unfalsifiable Loop
Let’s start with a common and deeply flawed line of reasoning that has emerged in online discourse:
“I am neurodivergent. The fact that I keep quitting jobs proves I have a functional impairment. Any evidence to the contrary, like my ability to get those jobs in the first place, or succeed in other areas, is just proof of how well I can mask; you don’t know my struggle.”
This is a closed loop where every outcome confirms the initial premise. If the person appears to be struggling, it’s proof of their impairment. If they appear to be succeeding, it’s proof of their masking, which is also seen as a symptom of their impairment.
This logic makes the claim unfalsifiable. There is no piece of evidence that could ever disprove it. When a claim cannot be disproven, it ceases to be a testable assertion and becomes a matter of faith. That’s fine for personal identity, but it’s a disaster for building reliable systems of support and scientific understanding.
“Functioning”
A core part of the problem is a misunderstanding of the word “functioning.” In a clinical or support context, functioning is operational, not ontological.
- Ontological claims are about the nature of being (e.g., “I am autistic”).
- Operational descriptions are about performance in a specific context (e.g., “This person is struggling to meet deadlines at work”).
“Functioning” is an outcome-based term describing realised performance in context. Importantly, it does not assign a cause, whether neurobiological, psychological, or social. It simply describes what is happening. It is highly subjective to the context, to your context and the observer.
When “functioning” becomes whatever an individual declares it to be, the concept collapses further. It shifts from a testable property (in context) to a status you award yourself. Add “I’m masking” to the mix, and the claim is now insulated from any and all counter-evidence. It’s a rhetorical checkmate.
“Masking”
Many behaviours labelled as “masking” or “camouflaging” overlap significantly with ordinary impression management; the kind everyone does. The instruments used to measure it, like the Camouflaging Autistic Traits Questionnaire (CAT-Q), are self-report, non-specific, and correlate highly with general anxiety and depression. This suggests they aren’t carving out a distinct autistic like behaviour but are instead capturing broader psychological distress. Just because it’s said to occur in Autism and ADHD doesn’t make it exclusive. It is precisely this lack of scientific specificity that allows ‘masking’ to be elevated from a clinical observation into a powerful rhetorical tool.
Get SkywalkerTT’s stories in your inbox
Join Medium for free to get updates from this writer.
Masking may be a real experience for some, but it can’t be used to override all disconfirming evidence. For a claim to be meaningful, it must, at some level, admit the possibility of being wrong, especially under psychiatric constructs, nearly all of which lack meaningful biomarkers.
What we’re seeing in the interpretation of “masking” is an epistemic double standard. The logic creates a one-way mirror where the user’s own mind is afforded unique privileges that are denied to everyone else.
Subjective self-assessment is treated as infallible. Any external evidence that contradicts this internal “truth, such as success in a career, social ease, or a lack of diagnosis, is instantly nullified by the unfalsifiable shield of ‘masking’; the claim is immune to scrutiny.
Equally, though, external observation is also treated as infallible. “I declare you neurotypical.” The possibility that the other person might also be masking their own struggles, anxieties, or neurodivergence is completely disregarded. Their internal state is considered irrelevant and transparent. Your reality is subject to my scrutiny.
This is not a good-faith attempt to understand reality. It’s a move to control it. It is transformed into a rhetorical weapon.
It allows an individual to:
- Self-Anoint: Grant themselves a desirable, non-falsifiable identity.
- Define the “Other”: Simultaneously create and define an opposing group (“neurotypicals”) without their consent or input.
- Claim Special Insight: Position themselves as the only one with true knowledge, able to see through their own “mask” while defining others by their external appearance.
Science
The impact on research into such disorders is catastrophic. For science to work, study cohorts must be well-defined. Psychiatric disorders are already lacking in construct and discriminant validity, yet if our categories are further muddied by deeper levels of unfalsifiability, how can we conduct meaningful research into causal factors? How can we target interventions on an ever-moving target?
Biomarker studies and clinical trials become virtually useless if the group of “autistic” or “ADHD” individuals is contaminated with people who have simply adopted the label. Any potential signal is further lost in the noise.
As long as support is contingent on a diagnosis, and “high-functioning” combined with “masking” is allowed as an unfalsifiable identity move, we will keep incentivising embellished difficulty and wrecking the signal for any meaningful biological or clinical work. If we define cohorts by self-designation (“I am X, therefore I’m in the X group”) and allow “masking” to neutralise any mismatch with behaviour, we poison research. The undermining factors in such constructs that already exist are further compounded:
- Biomarker studies: get saturated with heterogeneous cases whose only common feature is a descriptive label. Signal shrinks, noise grows.
- Outcome studies: narratives rather than mechanisms; effects fall apart on replication. You may increase inter-rater reliability at the expense of discriminant validity.
- Measurement drift: tools designed to elicit one construct start picking up something else (general distress, social anxiety, identity salience).
The Systemic Effect
This isn’t just a matter of online semantics. The misuse of masking as an unfalsifiable concept has severe real-world consequences.
- Diagnosis Led Support: Many support systems are only accessible with a formal diagnosis. This creates a perverse incentive for embellishment. When support is allocated based on identification of impairment amplified by unfalsifiable claims, resources flow to the loudest and most rhetorically skilled self-advocates, not necessarily to those with the highest, most acute, or most complex needs.
- Responsibility/Accountability: It subtly shifts agency from the individual to the label. Instead of “I am struggling with this task,” it can become “My ADHD prevents me from doing this.” That’s a convenient narrative, but it empties out the space for personal responsibility and reciprocity, the ordinary give-and-take of engaging with supports, trying adjustments, and acknowledging when things improve. Compassion need not erase agency.
