The Truth (?) behind TOM and lack of empathy...

Post Reply New Topic

I can be passive aggressive without meaning to. It's not determined by neurology whether someone can be passive-aggressive.

What interests me is the question, is it possible to truly lack empathy throughout one's life and what impact would that have one one's life? Really think about what it means. Would it mean someone would be like a sociopath or could it mean that someone lacks empathy, like lacking it is a form of disability, but can find other ways to compensate for it? It doesn't automatically mean someone who lacks empathy is doomed to be evil and psychopathic, always taking advantage of others and doing terrible things to them, does it?

Last edited by ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo on 17 Jul 2011, 7:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.

There is a difference between cognitive and emotional empathy. While emotional empathy is the ability to put one's self in the others shoes and vicariosly imagine what they are feeling. The brain simulates it.

Here is a link to an interesting article that suggests those with cognitive empathy understand the feelings of another as well as those with Mirror-touch Synesthesia associated with extreme emotional empathy, where they can actually feel touch on their arm when they see someone elses arm being touched.


http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn12084-extreme-empathy-leaves-people-really-touched.html

from the comments section of the article:



The relationship I find interesting is that of the strong link of alexithymia (not being able to cognitively understand one's own emotions, or having reduced emotion) and Aspergers, I understand it is estimated at over an 80% association.

The article stated that those without the strong ability to vicariously feel what others are feeling had as much cognitive ability to understand others as those with the extreme ability to feel empathy.

I think one can develop a cognitive understanding of empathy by observing others and determining it based on standard physical reactions, given enough time, but some have a harder time in figuring it out than others.

I think a lack of emotional empathy, too much emotional empathy, and the inability to cognitively understand empathy could all present problems depending on the individual and may be different among people not only depending on their genetic makeup, but life circumstances also.

My understanding is that the mirror neurons are what allow the brain to simulate what another person is feeling. When we watch baseball on TV, the same motor activity areas of the brain activate as if we were actually playing baseball. It is thought that overactive mirror neurons enhance the ability and underactive mirror neurons reduce the ability.

I've seen research that suggests that the mirror neuron system in autistic people is broke and not broke, so it may be a difficulty in understanding and/or feeling emotion in general that has a relationship to low empathy scores among some autistic people.

I've seen other research that suggests that sections of the brain that communicate emotion don't work as well in autistic people as they do in others; I don't think they know though, if it is caused by a genetic and/or developmental structural difference or related to neuroplasticity and an environmental/social cause.

Last edited by aghogday on 17 Jul 2011, 8:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Exactly. That's exactly what I'm saying is how researchers look at it. The argument I'm making here though, is that perhaps nobody really has or develops empathy via instinct. I'm questioning whether what's really going on is learned verbal responses that convey the idea that they have. Responses that aren't entirely honest.

But like I also said a few posts up, I don't think that is the case all the time, and wonder if it isn't true of a lot of the people we find ourselves exposed to because "users and abusers" tend to gravitate toward us because they think we're easy to take advantage of, even if we aren't.

I have Alexithymia to a degree. I have problems understanding what I am feeling, even when I am physically uncomfortable but I am getting better at figuring out my relationship to feelings and discomfort.

Agreed, but the only difference I've ever seen, that I can prove to myself actually exists, is in description only. Words that attempt to describe it (emotional empathy that is).

What I'm questioning here is whether emotional empathy really exists at all. Does it really exist, and if so, what's the mechanism that makes it possible?



Right....

HOW?



Well the link points to a forum, not an article. Not that I mean to split hairs, but pretty much all forums, including this one, are all filled with opinions and conjecture.

I will say I've seen and read quite a bit about "mirroring neurons" but even the most authoritative articles and documentaries I've seen are filled with even more conjecture. I've seen many researchers postulate on what they do, what the purpose of them is, and how they work, but not one has ever said (that I've read or heard), "This is what is." They have said rather, "This is what we think might be happening." in other words it's all theorizing, and nothing about it has been proven.

The bottom line is, I've never seen anything that fully explains what "emotional empathy" really is in concrete language, or anything about how it works, for certain.

So my questions stand. Is it even real? Or, is is possible that all empathy is, in reality, cognitive empathy derived from logically thinking about what one knows about the other person?

I can tell you this for a certainty:

MANY people have attempted to guess at how I feel about certain things, or in certain situations. Very few, other than those that have known me for a very long time, have EVER been right.

And I think there is a more than obvious explanation for this. I don't display as much emotion as most people do. I don't think most Aspies do. That makes it hard to read us. On the other hand, we aren't that good at "reading" other people's emotions either. But what are we really trying to read anyway? Is it really the emotions themselves, or is it the audible and visible clues to our emotions?

If it is the audible and visual (tone of voice, facial expressions and body language), then how is processing all that NOT cognitive?

I think it is. And, I think that a lot more people are just as lousy at it as we are, but have learned to fake it. They are better at faking it because they don't have as much of a problem with saying things that deep inside they know aren't true. Like, "I get what you're saying," or "I understand how you feel," when they really don't.

Like I said, I'm NOT saying all NT's are like that. But I am saying I think we are exposed to more of them that are like that than even a typical NT is. Whatever the case, I think our real problem is in that we don't LIKE faking things we know aren't true, and often refuse to. I do think most NT's don't have as much of a problem with it.

Think about it. Who came up with "Fake it 'til you make it?" Do you think it was an NT or an Autistic?

I don't know for sure, but my money's on "NT."

The bottom line is I'm beginning to think we may be having these "non-empathic" and "lack of TOM" labels slapped on us, not because we're necessarily any worse than anyone else at either, but more because we may be more honest about it than others. I think we're more uncomfortable faking things, and so don't do it so much, and therefore our lacking is more obvious. Those that fake it, even though they're really no better at it that us, don't get the label because they're hiding that lack, so nobody sees it.

That's my theory for the moment. But I'm not saying it's right either. Just something to seriously think about for a while.

OHHH MAN!

This just occurred to me:

That last post I made? I've got a real life experience that supports the idea!

I have had Asperger Syndrome all of my life. It took almost five years to get a diagnosis because nobody would take me seriously when I told them I thought I might have it.

Guess why?

Because I had learned to fake everything so well!! !!


The fact is though, it was ALL a front. None of it was the real me. As soon as I took off the mask and quite hiding who I really was, I was diagnosed.

If I could fool them all, how many others are fooling them? How many others really aren't any better at all this stuff than we are, and are just really good at hiding how bad they are? I've got to wonder if they all quit putting on airs, would they all be suddenly qualified as Autistics?

Sorry, I don't mean to monologue, but I'm on some kind of roll.

Consider someone who's really good at faking empathy by accurately mirroring what someone else says about how they feel, but in their own words.

Can a psychiatric professional really tell if they're faking it if they're really good at faking it? Or would he/she just assume they really do possess empathy?

How many people can really tell the difference?

How do we know whether people generally are good at it, or if most are really just faking it, and just know how to appear as if they really can experience it?

What if there is no difference? What if we're all faking it, and it's only those of us who won't fake it, or will fake it, but admit that it's fake that are called "Autistic?"

I just secretly didn't care.

Back to the basics Mr.Xxx

I agree there seems to be some "pseudo science" with mirror neurons. I've seen two different 'legit' models with autism. (Incomplete science is probably a better descriptor.)

ASD can mean the inability to read body language. Though to meet the criteria you don't have to impaired with this part.

With this "impairment" you couldn't process the non verbal or feel the emotion of the 'other'. It would be impossible in real time-- it's that simple.

As you, I've met people that read me well via the non- verbal and others couldn't tell you a thing. It is incumbent upon "skill" and the requisite is "the ability to read body language and the associated or developed skill to connect the dots. The emotion flows when the dots are connected.

I think it is that simple... thoughts?

Last edited by Mdyar on 17 Jul 2011, 10:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Oops, I put the wrong link in, it was the link to the link. Here is the right one I edited the other post for correction also.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn12084-extreme-empathy-leaves-people-really-touched.html

Yes, I agree that science is not exactly sure how mirror neurons work, but they seem to have a fairly good idea.

While emotional empathy is a simulation in the brain it is the same kind of emotion that one would experience as generated by the brain if they were in a similar situation. In general men aren't as emotional as women, and score lower in empathy, generally, than women, so they understand empathy closer to the way many people with Autism experience it, externally by visual and auditory cues, rather than with strong emotional feelings.

If a person that experiences emotional empathy hates a person, they are not likely to experience the same emotional empathy as they would if they liked the person so they fake it the best they can when social interaction requires it.

It is hard for a human to kill another human under normal circumstances, many people in combat would be killed rather than kill because of the empathy. They train them to desensitize the empathy response by combat training on violent video games. So, neuroplasticity is involved in this, I think, also.

Regarding your last post, I don't think many autistic people can help the fact that they don't get the same emotional empathy response as others, but I don't think it applies to all Autistic people.

I genuinely cared about people whether or not I had the emotional feeling of empathy or not, but I doubt people could see it, because at best I tried to create some kind appropriate emotional response; I doubt I got it right.

You might ask how I understand whether or not other people experience emotional empathy or not, I can tell with the verbal and visual cues, possibly better than some, because it is the detail that I have had to focus on my entire life to understand social interaction.

I can see it in the eyes; people can get good at expressions and verbal tone in faking it, but changes in the eyes are affected by the neurochemical influence of emotion; It can be faked too I suppose if someone has a good enough imagination to quickly think of something else for the emotion, but it is obvious to me that the person is experiencing emotion; the eyes become more dilated and glossy with differences in lacrimation.

And yes, I agree there are probably are a good percentage of the population that would have been diagnosed with some form of ASD, before they learned how to fake normal well enough to get by. I think that many people with little emotion, must learn to socially interact cognitively if they desire to engage in social interaction.

Research has already determined that about 30 percent of the population has some traits of Autism; without learned cognitive ability to engage in social interaction without the motivating emotional factors, it would probably be much higher.

I doubt the world is nearly as "NT" as people think it is. Traits of ASD's could be higher, if people did not have the ability to eventually learn social interaction in a cognitive way.

Another interesting link about mirror neurons and oxytocin:

https://sfari.org/in-brief/-/asset_publisher/Jb6r/content/cognition-and-behavior-oxytocin-improves-sensitivity-to-social-cues?redirect=%2Fin-brief

I think much of this can be influenced by environment, as well as many of the other traits we see as autistic. I think the genes we see associated with autism are probably spread out through most of the population; some people get more than others.

Funny thing is, I've been thinking about the same question recently. When researchers formulate these "theories", do they bother to even interview the people in question that are being studied?

My own thoughts go along these lines: People with AS are said to lack empathy because they cannot always relate to the way NTs think about and act in the world. But is it not equally true that NTs seem to be congenitally incapable of relating to people with AS? Why is it not posited that they lack empathy because they are not willing or able to empathize with people with AS?

I personally think that I am a lot more empathetic than the average person. I have always been someone who is open minded and interested in understanding the full diversity of human experience. Most of the NTs I know are not nearly as interested in this as I am. If anything, they tend to stereotype people into rigid categories, and accuse anyone who is not doing perfectly in life of some kind of moral failing. Is this really empathy? I think the difference between the way I see the world and the way most NTs see the world is that I tend to deeply consider my beliefs from as many angles as possible, so that I truly understand it, whereas the average NT just has an intuitive conception of things that is sometimes correct but sometimes horribly off the mark.

I will concede that this may be a somewhat recent development. When I was a child, I felt completely and utterly lost in the world. Is this so surprising, given that my mind works so differently from most people? The supposed "empathy" that NTs have is merely a result of the experience of their own mind, which tends not to be so different from other NTs.

I know from my experience in the past, that most NTs will either ignore or actively denigrate and spit upon those with AS or some other neurocognitive difference. They weren't interested in why I was different. Is this our new definition of empathy? Where was the NT version of empathy for me? I've seldom experienced it.

I honestly believe that it is high time that neurodiverse people begin to actively push back against the pathologization of our condition. If we don't stand up and speak out about who and what we truly are, we're going to be defined by other people who don't have our best interests at heart. This isn't to say that we shouldn't try to get along in this world as best we can, and seek help if needed to get there. And if we expect to others to accommodate and respect us, we're going to have to do the same for them when we are able. But such blatant nonsense as this needs to be actively and vociferously resisted. Otherwise, we can expect to be permanently marginalized into a caste of dehumanized misfits. The lesson of history is that things rarely change for the better without some sort active opposition. We may find that viewing our struggle within the same milieu as the struggles of minorities, women, and LGBT individuals will illuminate the mostly likely path to normalization in society.

Actually, the core of what I'm debating, though body language and the ability to read it is related, is the concept of TOM and lack of, or reduce capacity for empathy. True, in order to experience empathy one does need some skills in reading body language, but that isn't really the issue I'm talking about. Not at its core anyway.

Theory of Mind is about the ability to view perspectives other than one's own. Autistics, it is thought, lack Theory of Mind, which leads also to the inability, or at least reduced ability to empathize with others. This is apart from the ability to read body language. True, it could be said that the inability to read body language also stems from reduced or lack of TOM, but I don't think that's the case.

Reading body language can be learned like reading codes can be learned. Body language actually is a code of sorts, but it's usually a subconscious code. We all hardly ever think about what our facial expression are, or posture. I would not argue at all that Autistics do tend to ignore body language unless they've been trained to consciously process it. The thing is though, that's all input processing. Processing something we observe with our eyes. Processing sensory input is something far different from processing conjectured ideas about what others might be thinking.

That process requires virtually stepping outside one's own perspective, and imagining what's going on in someone elses head. Body language may be able to help determine what someone else is really thinking apart from what they're actually saying, but what you see in terms of body language doesn't require anywhere near as much imagination as putting together a picture of how someone else experiences life.

That is far more of a TOM process. It isn't really necessary to be able to read body language in order to identify with someone elses emotions. Empathizing isn't necessarily about feeling the same feelings as others feel. That's sympathy. Empathy is about identifying with an emotion you DON'T share with the other person, even though you don't feel the same yourself. I think we've become confused as to the specific meanings unfortunately due to some unusual fictional accounts of beings known as "empaths" who feel things that others feel. I think the only reason they were called "Empaths" instead of "Sympaths" is because the first rolls off the tongue easier. I think this is most unfortunate because it helped confuse the original meanings of both words.

It has also, unfortunately led to a lot of confusion and disagreement within the Autistic community.

The thing is, when Simon Baron-Cohen described his theory, I believe when he referred to empathy, he meant it in it's purest dictionary meaning. Not as "feeling" others emotions, but as having the ability to identify with them, especially when we don't feel the same. This makes sense, if you consider what TOM is all about. A reduced or missing ability to step out of ones own perspective, and into someone elses.

In other words, I think he was talking not about actually being able to experience others emotions, but the ability to imagine WHY they would feel that way, by putting oneself into their shoes.

It's from THERE, that I begin to ask, "Can anybody really do that?"

Can anyone really see things from anyone elses perspective to the extent that they really understand how someone else feels (differently from themselves)? Or is it really all just a matter of complete conjecture, made up, and something nobody can really be certain of? Is everyone just pretending they understand how others see and feel things, and just using all the right words (and body language) to convince everyone (including themselves) that they really do get it?

AND, if that is the case, that pretty much everyone is really just faking this empathy thing, what happens to those who either won't fake it, or do fake it, but freely admit that it's all just guess work?

What I'm really asking is simple. Is it possible that those of us who either won't fake it, or admit that it is all just a ruse, tend to get labeled "Autistic," and those that fake it well, and either have fooled themselves into thinking it's all for real, or are just not willing to admit that it's all an act, are not labeled?

I agree with the body language thing. I do think that is very real. None of this is an attempt to question the reality of AS or Autism. I do think they are very real disabilities. I'm just beginning to question the validity of TOM and empathy theories now. Not completely convinced either way though. Just thinking.

I don't think we should underrate our abilities for cognitive empathy. When one has to consciously pay more focus to social interaction, they are likely to notice things that others don't. I see this as a potential advantage, if someone takes the time to do it and exposes themselves to enough people to learn it.

I doubt think that issues with social interaction are nearly confined to the ASD population. We have a superficial society; it doesn't take a neurocognitive difference to get treated poorly. An individual can be spit on if they don't have the right brand of shoes. That's nothing new though it's a normal primate tendency to find somekind of normalcy in life; but society makes perfection a goal that is the opposite from what might be considered normal. Everything becomes a difference when the ideal is perfection.

Actually, in many ways some people with Autism might be the lucky ones, to be able to step outside the requirements of society, at least on a personal level. Social Cluelessness might be the better social condition these days than full social awareness.

Our society and culture is so complex now, I don't think that anyone even has a handle on it anymore, no matter their social intelligence. As far as I can see it has a mind of it's own, as compared to the way things were a few decades ago.

If we didn't have an ASD, there would always be other factors; we might not be happy unless we had a $500,000 house, or a top job in a corporation.

The organization of our society has become what I see as a pathology now, everyone is subject to it though, how they perceive it, and how they react to it. We truly could be the lucky ones in many ways. I think overall it is probably harder than it has been in the past to live in society for a person with an ASD. But, I didn't see it as a bad thing in my life, just another challenge in the struggles in life that I saw all around me.

However those that have the severely debilitating aspects of Autism, never even have the opportunity to get close enough to taste much of anything of society; they need whatever assistance society has to offer them to assist in survival.

In my case and following OP’s definitions. I can sympathise very strongly, but I have difficulty with Empathy. While I can accept how somebody feels, I often do not understand how somebody feels, unless they tell me.

BN1111 mentioned that little part of the brain , the Amygdala. I concur with the theory put forward by Salonfilosoof in the thread - Asperger's Syndrome and the left Amygdala. A description of the Amigdala is given in Wiki Article "Amygdala", There are lots of scientific articles available through the web relating to this subject.

The Amygdala has lots of connections in the brain, dealing with such things response to fear and memory. It helps to deal with reaction to fear in the subconscious part of the brain before the conscious/reasoning part of the brain his time to think. So you would run away from Freddie Kruger without having to reason about it. One explanation of Aspergers is that the amygdala is not as efficient in allowing unconscious processing of events and signals therefore placing reliance much more strongly on the conscious part of the brain to reason through everything. We have to rely on our main processor without having an unconscious co-processor to do the hard work.
This would explain a lot about Aspergers Syndrome, why AS people suffer from sensory overload, why they have difficulty understanding non-verbal communication in real time, why many complain of not being able to stop thinking, etc.

I would put my own difficulty with empathy purely down to not being able to read those subtle hidden messages in real time that are so important to the interactions between NT people and therefore not understanding how others feel. I will not pick up that somebody is feeling a certain way because they tilted their head or touched their hair. I can understand the theory of body language but I can just not process the signals in real time. Possibly because the concious part of my brain is busy reasoning through other messages and it can't multitask well without the help of my unconscious co-processor.

A lack of empathy in people with Aspergers has been linked to a lack of theory of mind. I feel strongly that this is a red herring. From my perspective I have no problem with putting myself in the shoes of others and sympathising, provided that I am properly informed about the complete situation.

Ooops!

Got called away between putting together my reply above and pressing the submit button. Sorry if several of my points were addressed in earlier posts.

What a popular and interesting thread.

Well, Mr. Xxx, there isn't a metric to determine this via a scientific instrument as whether non-autistics know exactly what it is "like" in another perspective. It's all subjective.

If someone told me "yes, I can do it" how could we or a research scientist ' know for sure' as in a statistical double blind trial?

There are those with severe ToM on the board who fail the Sally Anne test as written, and those who passed it at a normal age. I think with impairments in imagination, aka ToM, this would make it difficult.

I know a few here who cannot make out the intentions of another via "imagination" due to this lack. Think about someone who is near 40 and monologues people and actually thought they should be "interested" in 'the subject' because "I'm interested."

Would said individual/s then have this impairement?

If you say no I have a you tube video ready for my next post.