Dysfunctional frontal lobe activity during inhibitory tasks in individuals with childhood trauma: An event-related potential study
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5842757/
I've wondered to some extent if low-latent inhibition (LLI) is a byproduct of feeling isolated or neglected from early on, which can reaffirm trust in the wrong kinds of people; as most life experience you've learned to shun away from people out of little shared interest, as LLI traits could appear to connect dots to seemingly disparate situations, and the amount of information someone could process and go through will seem very "alien" to most people, that every conversation will seem less satisfying than slamming ones own head against a brick wall.
I tend to think modern society has trauma bonded with tribalistic identity, where people latch onto cults of personality so to differ blame from having avoided situational awareness, and having thrown themselves prostrate before greed and materialistic--egoic--identity, society is in a perpetual state of external gratification, whereas someone with LLI will have turned more inward focus to the exclusion of frustration with mundane and ephemeral circle-jerks with the illusion of progress (that society is largely a pile of steaming waste that panders to social conformity and being agreeable; so if you have somehow managed to realize you've been screwed over in society, the powers that be will believe you must "let it happen" gracefully while they continue to conform and take advantage of the privileges that doing such a thing entails.)
**************************
When discussing Low-Latent Inhibitions: supposedly some have termed different genetics as factoring in, such as 'Hunter Gatherer' traits which have more MAO inhibitor genetics ("Warrior Genes") which could cause higher cortical arousal (though this could be wrong as they also refer to MAO-A as the "psychopath gene" which suggest the opposite though I'm pretty sure inhibited hormone breakdown doesn't prevent emotional response entirely.) I tend to think this is more epigenetic in nature, so if someone no longer had to adapt such traits and came from more agrarian genetics, their behavior might be more recalcitrant and not develop anxiety related to survival as it was more about waiting for the crops to grow.
A household that might be "normal" though not particularly nurturing (or perhaps such that the conditions of their upbringing was where they in-turn became the "adult" in a child's body) could cause someone to distrust caregiver reliability and thus authority figures in general, and perhaps in order to cope would not befriend people if they were not given validation, or were invalidated due to various intergenerational behavior traits (such as the Great-Great Grandfather chasing their son off the farm with a bullwhip when they weren't yet an adult, which instills a mistrust into the succeeding generations) and various coping mechanisms (such as blunting emotional affect--thus developing more schizoid behavior traits--could develop as a way to cope with perceived trauma situations.)
I've believed it's possible that people develop more 'Thinker' MBTI temperaments as a result of environment, as a way to cope with unreliable caregiver situations, but I suspect a higher proportion of aspie traits are really just this LLI behavior developed from emotional trauma (such as a parent not responding to a kid crying in a crib, or locking them in a closet so that they can continue staring at themselves in a makeup mirror for hours on end.) What is perceived as a proliferation of aspie traits could just be a result of modern society encroaching on what would have been very different development trajectories, had society not developed an insular system that compels external gratification.
It is true that certain people who are qualitatively different from their environment would be perceived as mistrustful; often those with PTSD could also appear skittish and then become perceived as a threat because of how they might shift gaze across the room and appear "on guard" with their posture. Similarly, situations can develop even when a person never actually engaged in something like frontline combat, but where they believed that their lives could still be at threat as a target and just this "walking on eggshells" environment alone contributes to developing anxiety as a result. Even if such a person is entirely a victim or at the mercy of circumstances, people routinely are used as scapegoats for a war or situation in which they merely believed they should go along with assisting; and thus become the outsider in a society that quickly projects their own guilt and shame for not being able to change the situation. Similarly, someone like Joan of Arc was used as a tool by a monarchy that chose to take advantage of a power vacuum and was exploited and left at the mercy of a kangaroo court, and she was such an outsider that few came to her defense, and neither did many decide to even document the account.
A big issue is lack of trust or a feeling of being ostracized, which could create recidivistic tendencies (to develop anxiety) if certain situations might arise to exacerbate it. It's a bit why some of the greatest musicians often rebel against the establishment, or why some of the most gifted people rebel against the school system because it was out of step with who they are as individuals and what they understood intuitively about the subject matter. Often it's believed that the more sensitive people are to the environment the more attuned they are to realizing the futility in bothering with changing the "status quo," and it's similar to when someone is sufficiently outside the norms that they then cease to have any effect anyway because people are more distracted by primacy effect to their sensibilities and reward system.
Perhaps similarly it could be compared to Maslow's 'Hierarchy of Needs,' where he noted that the most creative types often bypassed more emotional requirements (as they turn to creative endeavors in their place.) This may be akin to when people from neglected environments turn to business ventures (Steve Jobs, Jeff Bezos, and perhaps to some extent Elon Musk) had absent biological fathers which some have suggested was an "advantage" with their business enterprise.
To some extent being introverted and having somewhat rare temperaments can seem to isolate even with those that are thought to be more similar, and the more divergent aspects of personality can often create a negative feedback loop. Part of coping with emotions is in overcoming the sense of invalidation (such as realizing it's not wrong to believe in your own opinions about the world and how it functions even when the majority of people in society may likely go along with consensus beliefs; because surely if history has told us anything, consensus quite often is VERY WRONG,) much as feeling compelled to have to force yourself into a mold that is completely at odds with the need to not be deindividuated (a slave to capitalism and debt-slave to an establishment.) Even more so is not feeling compelled to perpetuate a system or an inherently unethical system that is designed to subjugate rather than resolve the issues a society knows is wrong fundamentally.
Perhaps it's the realization that what motivates people is the need to identify with motivations that are not antithetical to "goals," and too often society creates the illusion of "progress" which more generally are ego-driven. All the mansions from the gilded age hardly survived for more than a decade and yet were propped up on a system that only rewards those who exploit the attrition of labor and material resources while subjugating those who follow after the carrot on a stick and ultimately get "stuck" with it.
The only true solace is in realizing society probably won't ensure a system doesn't disenfranchise people when too often the fear of being alienated and a pariah are akin to the shunning of a lone wolf or creating a scapegoat to project upon a confirmation bias of group tribalism.