neobluex wrote:
bleh12345 wrote:
The OP is talking about the ability to put yourself in one's shoes. People do think we have no empathy, similar to psychopaths.
The refrigerator theory was not valid. It was bad science. You also can't validate anything based one one study. I never said it had anything to do with liking results. You are putting words in my mouth. If you are going to attempt to correct me, it would be nice if you didn't add words I never said or implied.
The OP has not made explicit his definition of empathy. I assume that he is talking about recognizing that others have mind, the most basic type of empathy. Psychopaths have good cognitive empathy, but no affective empathy. The oppossite of ASD. "No" is a "black and white" term for lack.
You're calling the regrigerator mother theory "bad science". It was a behavioral description in
1943, when autism was described for first time. Kanner was dealing with something completely unknown. Science has advanced and the theory was refuted. You can't validate science, because the validation method is not valid. You only can refute theories with new theories.
What "people" think is not correct, because they are not experts. And their beliefs are imposed by those who misinterpret the theories. People can't interpret correctly the papers because most of them are not qualified to do so.
What experts think is not correct if they haven't interpreted correcly the information. People have to accept what they say because of what I've just mentioned.
If scientist have personal conflicts with the new theories, that's another problem.
Einfari wrote:
I think the "lack of empathy" that experts relate to autism is correctly described as "lacking the ability to show empathy".
Agree. Experts can't describe what they don't see when they do not know if that existes. Plus, autistic people have described themselves as unempathic because thay do not recognize their own empathy (like you can't infer that you have eyes if you don't look yourself on a mirror). That's another problem.
There are many people who misinterpret not only studies, but the DSM criteria to diagnose autism. I assumed this is what the OP was talking about because he/she put experts in quotations. I inferred he was talking about "so-called" experts that have no business saying anything about autism. I then inferred that perhaps the OP is talking about people in his or her personal life since they didn't give any examples.
The only offensive stuff I ever see is when people try to describe a lack of empathy in autistic people as us being as*holes because we "have no empathy". This is just what I've seen and heard personally. This would imply that they think we don't have the ability to
"put ourselves in others' shoes", which we know is incorrect.
The OP said that people say "we don't recognize others have minds". This sounds like the ability to recognize perceptions and emotions outside of your own, which would not be cognitive empathy. Of course, the OP could correct me. Perhaps he/she did mean cognitive, in which case a lot of us do have problems with that.
In science, it's up to the person holding the hypothesis to present facts. You do not wait for someone else to refute you. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim, not on others to refute your claim.
Psychology is a realm of science. He used his "theory" to put forth an explanation behind why autistic (and schizophrenic) children ended up the way they did. His view was not scientific, so there was pretty much no reason it should have ever gained popularity as an explanation. You kept saying something about not being able to read or interpret studies, so I was inferring you meant that the OP simply misunderstood someone because of some sort of study.
You then were talking about how I can't invalidate a study simply because I don't like it when I mentioned the refrigerator mother belief. My point to you was there are dangerous ideas about autism, and they aren't scientific. I was explaining how it doesn't even matter if I like a conclusion or not. So, I pointed out a "theory" in which there was bad science, you said I can't disprove a study because I don't like it (which I never said), and I pointed out that you also can't validate an idea because of one study. By validate I mean validate your hypothesis based on crappy data/evidence.
There are plenty of people who still think we are essentially sociopaths or psychopaths, regardless of any science. These beliefs hold no truth, yet I have encountered them. I have no science to back this up. This is based on some encounters in my personal life and hearing this idea from a few people I know (I'm not friends with, I just know them). I know they aren't correct, and that seems to be the OP's point. People tout themselves as experts when they aren't. While they have no data on their side, it can still be frustrating to hear false ideas about autism.
So, I was responding to your comment because it really seemed (to me) like you were challenging his perception that some people do think we have no emotional (affective) empathy because he/she didn't read studies. This is why I mentioned the refrigerator mother example. It was an example of an idea or study that had no basis, and people didn't misinterpret it.
My very basic point is this: Yes, people do say we have no emotional empathy. No, these people probably aren't experts. If you hear this in your personal life, though, it can hurt your feelings because you know it's not true. I'm not aware of any experts that say we have no emotional empathy. This, I think, it why the OP said this: "experts". It pretty much means so-called (or self appointed) experts. WE know that they aren't really experts and their beliefs aren't valid, but it can still be emotionally hurtful to hear false information.
02 Jun 2014, 2:30 pm
