NY Times: People with autism fear stigma after Newtown

Post Reply New Topic

YES I think I should try this! A cane! And I am old enough it would look 'logical' <grin>

Spocks Daughter

What 'works' is what I hope I see more of in WP generally
pleased to be here, thanks Alex

Who? And what specifically did anyone say along these lines? If anyone said anything like this, he/she should be called out on it & asked to explain. When Joe Scarborough of MSNBC made some comments like this after the Aurora, Colo., movie theater shootings last summer, he was quickly called out & had to dial back his words.

I don't spend much time watching 24-hour news channels, so perhaps I'm missing something. But the stories i've come across with regard to Adam Lanza & Asperger syndrome have all been careful not to insinuate that AS is the reason behind his act of mass murder or that ASD predisposes a person to violence or criminality.

[quote="maisey"][quote="asdmommie"]Has anyone else noticed that of the 4 teachers killed, one was a teacher getting her masters in spec ed, one was a substitute teacher assigned that was special education, and a behavioral therapist? Makes me sad to think this is not a coincidence:(
/quote]


I have been considering if this was not the same school and esp the same physologist ( 20 year career retireing next yr) of Adams own early years? Hello

Again a lot of assuming! But from the first it just seemed to me he was 'acting out' in the directions he had felt flustration. It looked pretty plain to me.

I can not imagion he wanted to kill little kids! The little ones were just 'there' or maybe identified as 'himself' out of some sort of transference......from the age he started to experience life in public.


The following is is not meant as crude. I am a from a farming background and feel very close to animals.

Here in England we have foxes that raid chicken houses. It has taken me a long time to understand why the English feel about foxes like Americans feel about Wolves.

The locals feel they kill for fun and hate foxes because they damage many chickens in a hen house and not just get one to haul away and eat. (they also outsmart most fences etc)

Eventually someone explained to me they go into a frenze once among the sleeping chickens, who in turn make no small point of being 'rather anxious' about a fox in their midst. The Fox silences as many chickens as his own emotional rage needs before finishing his goal of in his case securing one chicken for food to stay alive.

I am sensitive but perhaps not empathic to be really honest. And I just wanted to say Adam might have been after those special Ed Teachers. The little ones (?) were just there and screaming or viewed as himself in retrospect.

Then of course his own being finially finished with his long dark struggle. I suspect was premeditated ....which I agree a dominately ASPIE would likely not have done.

It is Adam I am careing about and everyone like him. I think I understand 'breaking'.

Spock Daughter

I'm relaying information by the leading experts on ASDs. Saying we have empathy is perpetuating inaccurate factual information.

From a recent paper by Lorna Wing and others (who defined Asperger's as we know it today as a diagnosable condition; she brought it to the West):

"They say this Asperger's disfunction causes "lack of empathy", and its genetic, .... someone should run some test on the Dad."

When I see comments like that. I cringe.

Well, she's partly right (lack of empathy and genetic), but it'd be of no point to test the father, because Asperger's has little relevance regarding the case insofar as a reason for it, and the father has no more chance than anyone else in becoming a violent offender, no matter AS or not (this is what she'd be alluding to, him possibly doing something like his son).

I'm sure she doesn't know what empathy* actually means, much like most people.

*Which really should be something those with an ASD should educate others on if they want to clear up what the supposed lack of empathy actually means, rather than thinking it equates to things it doesn't, and going with that and saying we have it [in its incorrect form]

The term is "lacks." That does not mean empathy is entirely missing. (If that is what she meant, she was wrong.) A great deal of experts now agree that we can and many, if not most of us, do possess empathy.

EDIT:

You may want to read up more.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/asp ... heory-mind



I have the utmost respect for Lorna Wing. I have read Autism and Asperger's Syndrome. Neither she nor Uta Frith however, nor any other single person or group define Asperger Syndrome or Autism.

DSM-IV itself doesn't even contain the word empathy in the criteria for Asperger Syndrome. Rather than "Lacks empathy" the criteria reads, " lack of social or emotional reciprocity."

There is a reason for that. The reason is simple. They realized that what looks like a lack of empathy may in fact not be a lack of empathy at all, but a lack of understanding other's circumstances due to misread or totally missed cues (body language, vocal inflections etc. or even misunderstood written words).

Thus, the criteria were intentionally changed to reflect this new awareness, that quite possibly people with AS really can and do empathize but have not yet been able to collect enough accurate information to do so.

Another reason for this misconception, is flawed testing and/or flawed application of testing mechanisms. Ever heard of the Sally-Anne test?

http://www.asperger-advice.com/sally-and-anne.html

The test, if taken at face value, is flawed because the results as explained on that web page don't take into account why the aspie chose the box.

I had my son (who is an aspie), look at it, and he said, "She'll look in the box." But when I asked him why he said the box, he quickly explained, "Because she left in the basket, and she could see the ball isn't there." He pictured a laundry basket, that one can see into, so his answer was perfectly logical and had nothing whatever to do with lack of empathy! In fact, his answer demonstrated that he exercises empathy very well.

If you think about that carefully, what really happens with that test is that the testers themselves are not exercising empathy, because they're not bothering to see things from the aspie's perspective.

Ironic no?

Last edited by MrXxx on 18 Dec 2012, 5:08 pm, edited 3 times in total.

Yes, I too am definitely tempted to start making choices to appear more disabled-- and therefore pitiable and harmless-- than I really am.

The idea of soliciting peoples' pity when really I can get by very well on my own and need only to be accpeted for who I am sickens me. I see it as dispicable, akin to collecting disability when I have a perfectly able body and need only shut up and be obsequeous in order to hold on to at least a menial job.

But-- I will do whatever I have to to protect myself and my family from harm (ETA: short of actually harming anyone else). I will never be able to appear normal-- the stress load is simply too high. Quiet and withdrawn is about the best I can manage.

Of course I guess dragging four kids around is seen as a disability in its own right in this country, so perhaps I shouldn't be concerned as that any my big slightly stupid puppy smile might be enough to ease fears.

That's saying the same thing as what I posted. Once a person with an ASD understands what the person is feeling, they then can respond like anyone else; this is called sympathy, not empathy (though some do call it "affective empathy"). Empathy is the ability to feel and understand the emotions of someone else without it actually being communicated across in an overt way (dictionary definition). Compassion and empathy aren't the same either (nor are compassion and sympathy, but I admit they're related).

-Simon Baron-Cohen also provides actual physiological studies that show a lack of empathy in those with ASDs in his latest book

-Lorna Wing did define Asperger's as it's written today; she even named it

-Hans noted it

-Why the lack of empathy isn't written in the DSM-IV-TR, I don't know; though the symptoms listed, such as marked deficits in reading multiple nonverbal cues and a lack of social and emotional reciprocity would lead to displaying a lack of empathy (if you can't read someone you won't show empathy)

Definition:



Granted, this is mainly semantics, as we're agreeing that people with ASDs can respond like anyone else when they know what the other person is feeling.

No. It's called empathy.

Empathy is being able to put oneself into other people's shoes. To see from their perspective, then imagine what that person feels due to that perspective.

Did you not bother to read the title of the article? It is all about autistics possessing empathy.

It is in complete disagreement with what you've been saying.

Hi Alex. Would it be helpful to do a special episode of Autism Talk TV to address concerns people may have about this topic? I would recommend including positive autistic and asperger's contributions to society like Temple Grandin.

You didn't read it properly.

What I posted:



What you posted:



That's saying the exact same thing. The only difference is that the former uses the term sympathy to describe it, whereas the latter used what is called "affective empathy" (which is splitting empathy into two parts).

Both are saying that people with ASDs lack the ability (or reduced) to read all of the nonverbal cues that define someone's emotional state when it's not verbally and/or overtly explained to the individual with the ASD. This is called empathy by the Merriam definition of empathy, which I posted. Once this is done, the person then shows appropriate sympathy or "affective empathy".

You're caught up on how the latter is using the term "empathy" when compared to the former; the latter is describing empathy to be synonymous with the former's definition, which they call sympathy. They use empathy to describe the ability to read someone's emotional state without them explaining it to you, whereas the latter, which you posted, is equating empathy to the ability to show compassion once it's shown, which is mostly incorrect by definitions of empathy I've read.

Empathy is only partly putting yourself in another's shoes (see the Merriam Webster definition I posted); you first need to understand what shoes actually are before you can put them on. Once it's described to you, you can then put them on.

Do you understand now?

Of note, the definition of empathy that Cohen, Wing, Gillberg, Hans, Gould and others use, are all in agreement with each other, which is counter to the single study you posted. They're all speaking of the same thing though.

I agree. A lot of times there are misconceptions about groups and as I am someone who is part of many different minorities, I grew up hearing cruel comments about many of them. Many people didn't recognize that I was from one of the minorities they were voicing their misconceptions about, so I found it very enlightening to ask them: well, you don't see me like that, do you? They'd always say "no" and look at me strangely, wondering why I asked such a question. I'd then ask them if they saw other traits of this group in me. They'd keep saying "no" and then I'd let them know that I'm one of these people too. They'd be surprised. Then, if I knew that they were from a group that is stereotyped as being one way or another, I'd ask them if they considered themselves to be true to those stereotypes. I never had anyone say anything other than "no" to any such questions. That sort of presentation would often allow people to see that their misconceptions about other groups are just as wrong as others' misconceptions about groups they belong to. Showing it from both sides is especially helpful.

Empathy is just one area where we're greatly misunderstood, but as long as someone doesn't show themselves as threatening to us, we can often use these misunderstandings as openings to help educate people. After all, we make misconceptions about things sometimes ourselves and often, no one knows they're making such a mistake until someone opens a friendly dialogue and helps us to see it from another perspective.

Yes, and that is empathy. Not sympathy. Read the definition yourself. I did.




This is the statement I'm refuting, as are many, many experts at this very moment all over the web.

You seem very hung up on splitting hairs and hanging every point you make on a few experts. As I said, I respect the work of all that you mentioned, but they alone are not the omniscient gods of Asperger Syndrome, or ASD's. They may have pioneered the field, but that doesn't make them right about everything. Christopher Columbus pioneered trade between Europe and America, but don't forget he thought he was in India. He was a pioneer, but he was eventually found to be wrong too, and that's why the western continents are no longer called India.

The article I quoted IS speaking of empathy just as you defined it.

Yes, we do need to be able to understand another's perspective before we can have empathy for them, and we have to have it before we can affect it. I am talking about cognitive empathy, AND affective empathy. We can have both, and many of us do.

Empathy may be more difficult for us to display in ways that the "experts" can read at first. But a lot of why they can't read it, is because they're expecting us to show them we have it, but they aren't using it themselves with regard to us (see my details about the Sally-Anne test). It's very common for professionals to assume we don't have it, and never bother to ask enough questions about our thinking to realize it is there.

Take my son's explanation of why he said Sally will look for the ball in the box. He said it specifically because he had put himself in her shoes, and believed she could see that the basket was empty.

"Lack" and "absence of" are not the same thing at all. If I have a half glass of milk we can say the glass lacks milk, because it isn't full. Lack can mean "deficient," but it doesn't have to mean total absence. That's why the term is used, and the criteria do not say "absence of social reciprocity."

Time and again it's been shown that in the past much of the testing that was done didn't take Asperger thinking into account, so a lot of what appeared to be a lack of empathy was actually a lack of the "experts" understanding of how we really think. When questioned about how and why we come up with the answers we do about others, something very interesting happens. The experts begin to understand there is a logic behind the thinking that led to the answer, that makes perfect sense once the researcher understands it.

In other words, it is being discovered over and over by those willing to listen to autistics themselves, that the real problem lay with them misunderstanding our thinking, not in an absence of empathy (cognitive or affective).

I know what empathy is. I've been studying AS for twelve years now. I am not describing sympathy. Neither is the article I quoted.

Last edited by MrXxx on 18 Dec 2012, 10:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.

All I've read have shown that cognitive empathy is what's affected rather than affective empathy (all studies). Affective empathy being used synonymously to sympathy by Wing and et alii.

The article you posted is speaking of after the fact, i.e., once you know how someone is feeling. What it speaks of leading up to that, which it admits is lacking, is what they call cognitive empathy, where you can't read body language and other cues that show how someone is feeling.



Italic is cognitive empathy
bold is affective empathy

Cognitive empathy is the ability to perceive what another person is thinking.

Affective empathy is the ability to sense what another person is emotionally experiencing.

The difference is in whether it's the thoughts of the person, or the emotions of the person we are "reading."

Yeah. I got that.

So what the article is saying is that once we can interpret the social cues, and develop cognitive empathy, we will then be able to demonstrate affective empathy.

It's not saying that once we know how they are feeling we'll know the rest. It's saying once we have cognitive empathy (what they're thinking), we'll be able to suss out affective empathy (what they're feeling).

The author is saying we can have both.

Your original statement which started this whole debate is that we don't have it at all. And that, as a blanket statement, simply is not true.



You've flatly stated we don't have it. Just because we may have to go through a different process to experience it than non autistics, doesn't mean we don't have it.

This is the part I think you're missing. Nobody is born with empathy. We all have to learn how to develop it and use it. Non Autistics simply learn to do it differently than we do.

It's not a matter of "not possessing it" or "possessing it" really at all. It's a matter of differences in how it's developed and processed.