The cognitive theories of autism
19 Nov 2018, 3:48 pm
When lay people read research papers, they tend to overlook the important fact that language is never neutral. Language is always framed in a certain way, and it always has consequences. The consequences for AS people who are targeted and infantilised as perpetual children by shonky research claims is dehumanisation.
20 Nov 2018, 8:11 pm
B19 wrote:
Baron-Cohen sounds persuasive and has been a particularly active self-promoter, however many in the science community are critical of his theory-lead approach to research, where theory unduly dominates his methodology and conclusions.
The Extreme Male Brain is a good example of this scientific bias. Baron-Cohen claims as proof the fact that he measured this supposed fact and claims the resulting data as evidence of this theory. BUT. (It's a big but). Baron-Cohen invented the scale himself. It's not an independent, well validated scale that scientists have adopted as a measure, it's Baron Cohen overly-dominating his own theory-led research. The scales are unproven as robust and that they actually measure what he claims they measure. He created them based on an unproven idea of his own, so the results cannot be the "proof" he claims. You get these tautologies in very career pushing scientists who very actively seek to promote themselves. Essentially it is to be catalogued under "methodological error".
Weak Central Coherence theory has often failed attempts by independent scientists to replicate the original findings. This is rarely mentioned by the main adherents and promoters of the theory, and they seem unscientific in their failure to acknowledge it.
Theory of Mind is again affected by core scientific weaknesses in Baron-Cohen's methodological approaches to his pet theories, he makes up his mind on an idea then designs research to confirm his opinion, then he largely ignores the failures of replication by others.
Executive function issues aren't a theory, IMO, they are part of a range of symptoms that AS people report and which are verified by a wide number of qualified observers. The factors which relieve or aggravate executive function have also been well studied and observed by more scientifically robust scientists than Baron-Cohen.
Baron-Cohen is a great self publicist, and likes to present his findings as fact, though science doesn't work as a set of independent facts. It's a process, a highly collaborative one, where no one scientist can pronounce his or her work so adamantly with the credibility such outliers claim for it.
The Extreme Male Brain is a good example of this scientific bias. Baron-Cohen claims as proof the fact that he measured this supposed fact and claims the resulting data as evidence of this theory. BUT. (It's a big but). Baron-Cohen invented the scale himself. It's not an independent, well validated scale that scientists have adopted as a measure, it's Baron Cohen overly-dominating his own theory-led research. The scales are unproven as robust and that they actually measure what he claims they measure. He created them based on an unproven idea of his own, so the results cannot be the "proof" he claims. You get these tautologies in very career pushing scientists who very actively seek to promote themselves. Essentially it is to be catalogued under "methodological error".
Weak Central Coherence theory has often failed attempts by independent scientists to replicate the original findings. This is rarely mentioned by the main adherents and promoters of the theory, and they seem unscientific in their failure to acknowledge it.
Theory of Mind is again affected by core scientific weaknesses in Baron-Cohen's methodological approaches to his pet theories, he makes up his mind on an idea then designs research to confirm his opinion, then he largely ignores the failures of replication by others.
Executive function issues aren't a theory, IMO, they are part of a range of symptoms that AS people report and which are verified by a wide number of qualified observers. The factors which relieve or aggravate executive function have also been well studied and observed by more scientifically robust scientists than Baron-Cohen.
Baron-Cohen is a great self publicist, and likes to present his findings as fact, though science doesn't work as a set of independent facts. It's a process, a highly collaborative one, where no one scientist can pronounce his or her work so adamantly with the credibility such outliers claim for it.
Yeah, when you read Baron-Cohen's theories, it sounds like he does a lot of fitting. Not the best way to do research at all. If your results can't be replicated then they really aren't very reliable.*
Also, what bothers me is that nearly all autism (and other developmental condition research, for that matter) is focused on children. I am not sure how well you can extrapolate findings in children to those reported in adults. The fact that diagnostic criteria are so handwavy and have changed so much over time doesn't help at all.
The Extreme Male Brain theory is total garbage if you ask me.
*in theory. I have read the supplemental information of many chemistry papers and tried to copy their procedures. It doesn't always work even when I follow it every step of the way. Sometimes a little piece of key information is left out and I have to figure it out for myself.
_________________
~Glflegolas, B.Sc.
The Colourblind Country Chemist & Tropical Tracker
Myers-Briggs personality: The Commander
Asperger's Quiz: 79/111, both neurodiverse and neurotypical traits present. AQ score: 23 Raads-r score: here
20 Nov 2018, 10:16 pm
RetroGamer87 wrote:
I've met a few aspies who had no executive function problems whatsoever. In fact they had better executive function than neurotypicals. Most of these individuals still had the same social difficulties.
I'm like this. I fit more into weak central coherence + sensory issues + extreme emotional empathy. I think the extreme emotional empathy is the source of weak central coherence. Others' emotions are so distracting I can't focus on anything else and then have a narrow focus, get startled by sensory stimuli, and generally can't follow what's going on socially. I excel at planning, making order, tracking progress, follow through. So much so I'm annoying to others and again socially awkward.
21 Nov 2018, 5:18 pm
Like you mentioned in your thread about special interests, it's probably a case of taking different routes to the same destination, or genes and symptoms in this case. I don't agree with the cause-based approach to redefining autism, though. Here you're taking on a very difficult position, trying to pinpoint an underlying cause that must be applicable to the current criteria (given no alternative definition) while also maintaining that the criteria is too broad/vague. As the definition stands now, no autism trait is totally universal, so any theory will have some credibility (as you've shown, some theories work perfectly well if a person doesn't have sensory issues). And you probably could find at least some examples of aspies whose traits can be explained by one or the other theory, if we had the sudden ability to see through the problem to its roots. I think the most acceptable explanation right now is that there are different causes of autism (based on the current criteria). So I think we have to come at this problem from a behavioral standpoint before we tackle the genetic/neurological debate. In other words, the easiest (though perhaps not the best) solution, in my opinion, would be to narrow the definition of autism first and work to find the underlying cause based on a cohesive demographic. Otherwise, it's rather unlikely that we'll find a specific cause that applies to all aspies. Like you said, the criteria is too handwavy to be truly useful, in this context as well as any other.
_________________
I have not the kind affections of a pigeon. - Ralph Waldo Emerson
21 Nov 2018, 5:23 pm
Yes. Autism is a profoundly heterogenous, rather than homogenous, condition. The failure of researchers and theorists to start from that understanding, biases most of the their theorising and conclusions. They are addicted to the search for one size fits/explains all answers, despite manifest evidence that this is a thoroughly wrong-headed approach.
CockneyRebel
Veteran
Joined: 17 Jul 2004
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 117,104
Location: In my little Olympic World of peace and love
22 Nov 2018, 10:06 am
B19 wrote:
Yes. Autism is a profoundly heterogenous, rather than homogenous, condition. The failure of researchers and theorists to start from that understanding, biases most of the their theorising and conclusions. They are addicted to the search for one size fits/explains all answers, despite manifest evidence that this is a thoroughly wrong-headed approach.
And that is precisely why I created this thread in the first place.
_________________
~Glflegolas, B.Sc.
The Colourblind Country Chemist & Tropical Tracker
Myers-Briggs personality: The Commander
Asperger's Quiz: 79/111, both neurodiverse and neurotypical traits present. AQ score: 23 Raads-r score: here
22 Nov 2018, 7:00 pm
AceofPens wrote:
Like you mentioned in your thread about special interests, it's probably a case of taking different routes to the same destination, or genes and symptoms in this case. I don't agree with the cause-based approach to redefining autism, though. Here you're taking on a very difficult position, trying to pinpoint an underlying cause that must be applicable to the current criteria (given no alternative definition) while also maintaining that the criteria is too broad/vague. As the definition stands now, no autism trait is totally universal, so any theory will have some credibility (as you've shown, some theories work perfectly well if a person doesn't have sensory issues). And you probably could find at least some examples of aspies whose traits can be explained by one or the other theory, if we had the sudden ability to see through the problem to its roots. I think the most acceptable explanation right now is that there are different causes of autism (based on the current criteria). So I think we have to come at this problem from a behavioral standpoint before we tackle the genetic/neurological debate. In other words, the easiest (though perhaps not the best) solution, in my opinion, would be to narrow the definition of autism first and work to find the underlying cause based on a cohesive demographic. Otherwise, it's rather unlikely that we'll find a specific cause that applies to all aspies. Like you said, the criteria is too handwavy to be truly useful, in this context as well as any other.
Chemists are said to have all the solutions, but I regret to tell you, I don't have the solution to this problem...
Here are the best theories that I can come up with off the top of my head. In order to try to make this somewhat more applicable, I'll use the DSM criteria for social communication disorder, which are much narrower.
DSM-V wrote:
1. Deficits in using communication for social purposes, such as greeting and sharing information, in a manner that is appropriate for social context.
2. Impairment in the ability to change communication to match context or the needs of the listener, such as speaking differently in a classroom than on a playground, talking differently to a child than to an adult, and avoiding use of overly formal language.
3. Difficulties following rules for conversation and storytelling, such as taking turns in conversation, rephrasing when misunderstood, and knowing how to use verbal and nonverbal signals to regulate interaction.
4. Difficulties understanding what is not explicitly stated (e.g., making inferences) and nonliteral or ambiguous meaning of language (e.g., idioms, humor, metaphors, multiple meanings that depend on the context for interpretation.)
2. Impairment in the ability to change communication to match context or the needs of the listener, such as speaking differently in a classroom than on a playground, talking differently to a child than to an adult, and avoiding use of overly formal language.
3. Difficulties following rules for conversation and storytelling, such as taking turns in conversation, rephrasing when misunderstood, and knowing how to use verbal and nonverbal signals to regulate interaction.
4. Difficulties understanding what is not explicitly stated (e.g., making inferences) and nonliteral or ambiguous meaning of language (e.g., idioms, humor, metaphors, multiple meanings that depend on the context for interpretation.)
NOTE: The theories I propose are not mutually exclusive.
Sensory processing sensitivity
Here, I propose that most of the difficulties mentioned above are caused by over or undersensitive senses. There is quite a lot of information coming at you quite quickly, and, if your senses are much more sensitive than usual, you might get so overwhelmed that you don't know what to do. If your senses are undersensitive, then you'll miss critical details because you simply didn't notice them.
Slow processing speed
Here, the problem lies, not with the understanding of social rules, or even with oversensitive senses. According to this theory, the problem lies in being able to think quickly enough. By the time that you actually understand what's going on, the interaction has moved past that point.
Weak working memory
Closely tied to my processing speed theory, here, the problem lies with being able to deal with the information once it comes in. If your working memory is poor, you might forget the information that came at you, causing you to make inappropriate conclusions because of a lack of information. (Personally, I believe that the weak working memory/slow processing speed is responsible in my case)
Nonverbal learning disorder
If this is the case, then anything nonverbal (i.e. body language) is something that completely eludes you, but you'll likely have great abilities in the verbal arena.
That's all I can think of right now. Do you have any alternate theories?
_________________
~Glflegolas, B.Sc.
The Colourblind Country Chemist & Tropical Tracker
Myers-Briggs personality: The Commander
Asperger's Quiz: 79/111, both neurodiverse and neurotypical traits present. AQ score: 23 Raads-r score: here
22 Nov 2018, 7:34 pm
I'm not a fan of the extreme male brain theory, because I think calling it a "male brain" is gender stereotyping. Besides, many autistics are hyper-empathetic. I see myself as a combination of empathizing and systemizing.
The other one I'm not a fan of is theory of mind. Many autistic people have difficulties with theory of mind, but it doesn't explain all autistic traits. And I've always had some theory of mind. I am capable of understanding other people, but I just have trouble putting my social knowledge into practice.
I don't know if there's one theory that can explain all autistic traits. But I think the main factors are troubles reading social cues, and being easily overwhelmed by the sensory world and our own emotions.
23 Nov 2018, 8:51 am
Glflegolas wrote:
AceofPens wrote:
Like you mentioned in your thread about special interests, it's probably a case of taking different routes to the same destination, or genes and symptoms in this case. I don't agree with the cause-based approach to redefining autism, though. Here you're taking on a very difficult position, trying to pinpoint an underlying cause that must be applicable to the current criteria (given no alternative definition) while also maintaining that the criteria is too broad/vague. As the definition stands now, no autism trait is totally universal, so any theory will have some credibility (as you've shown, some theories work perfectly well if a person doesn't have sensory issues). And you probably could find at least some examples of aspies whose traits can be explained by one or the other theory, if we had the sudden ability to see through the problem to its roots. I think the most acceptable explanation right now is that there are different causes of autism (based on the current criteria). So I think we have to come at this problem from a behavioral standpoint before we tackle the genetic/neurological debate. In other words, the easiest (though perhaps not the best) solution, in my opinion, would be to narrow the definition of autism first and work to find the underlying cause based on a cohesive demographic. Otherwise, it's rather unlikely that we'll find a specific cause that applies to all aspies. Like you said, the criteria is too handwavy to be truly useful, in this context as well as any other.
Chemists are said to have all the solutions, but I regret to tell you, I don't have the solution to this problem...
Here are the best theories that I can come up with off the top of my head. In order to try to make this somewhat more applicable, I'll use the DSM criteria for social communication disorder, which are much narrower.
DSM-V wrote:
1. Deficits in using communication for social purposes, such as greeting and sharing information, in a manner that is appropriate for social context.
2. Impairment in the ability to change communication to match context or the needs of the listener, such as speaking differently in a classroom than on a playground, talking differently to a child than to an adult, and avoiding use of overly formal language.
3. Difficulties following rules for conversation and storytelling, such as taking turns in conversation, rephrasing when misunderstood, and knowing how to use verbal and nonverbal signals to regulate interaction.
4. Difficulties understanding what is not explicitly stated (e.g., making inferences) and nonliteral or ambiguous meaning of language (e.g., idioms, humor, metaphors, multiple meanings that depend on the context for interpretation.)
2. Impairment in the ability to change communication to match context or the needs of the listener, such as speaking differently in a classroom than on a playground, talking differently to a child than to an adult, and avoiding use of overly formal language.
3. Difficulties following rules for conversation and storytelling, such as taking turns in conversation, rephrasing when misunderstood, and knowing how to use verbal and nonverbal signals to regulate interaction.
4. Difficulties understanding what is not explicitly stated (e.g., making inferences) and nonliteral or ambiguous meaning of language (e.g., idioms, humor, metaphors, multiple meanings that depend on the context for interpretation.)
NOTE: The theories I propose are not mutually exclusive.
Sensory processing sensitivity
Here, I propose that most of the difficulties mentioned above are caused by over or undersensitive senses. There is quite a lot of information coming at you quite quickly, and, if your senses are much more sensitive than usual, you might get so overwhelmed that you don't know what to do. If your senses are undersensitive, then you'll miss critical details because you simply didn't notice them.
Slow processing speed
Here, the problem lies, not with the understanding of social rules, or even with oversensitive senses. According to this theory, the problem lies in being able to think quickly enough. By the time that you actually understand what's going on, the interaction has moved past that point.
Weak working memory
Closely tied to my processing speed theory, here, the problem lies with being able to deal with the information once it comes in. If your working memory is poor, you might forget the information that came at you, causing you to make inappropriate conclusions because of a lack of information. (Personally, I believe that the weak working memory/slow processing speed is responsible in my case)
Nonverbal learning disorder
If this is the case, then anything nonverbal (i.e. body language) is something that completely eludes you, but you'll likely have great abilities in the verbal arena.
That's all I can think of right now. Do you have any alternate theories?
3 out for 4 fits my case:
Sensory processing isn't just about the intensity or low tolerance. Quantity is accounted for, which makes more sense to me. I can afford intensity or lack of thereof, but that doesn't make me less vulnerable from subtle effects of too much or too little sensory intake.
My slow processing speed is related at the above in terms of sensing 'too many'.
So does weak working memory... It's my weakest area in executive functions, and related at the above.
NVLD... I might as well have or be the opposite or the inverse of it. Nonverbal strengths, better visuals, good spatials, etc... But also weak verbal aptitude in general. I can go linear or lateral, as long as it doesn't involve usage of verbal language or concept of words itself. I'm a PIQ>VIQ aspie.
My own theory is posted somewhere, and it's more or less the mix of the three that applies to my case.
NLVD excludes plenty of autistic profiles. Particularly most of the classic 'high functioning autism' profiles. Classic 'aspergian' profiles overlaps a lot with NVLD.
And for all I know, the nonverbal language issue could be on a different domain in terms of different concepts that has something to do with knowing contexts and rendering contexts meaningless, or might be something to do with internal and external orientations and upbringing instead of nonverbal weakness.
OR, body language eluded because, well, either not enough processing resources to receive and process, or nothing recieved to process, or did recieved but no translations to come up with no matter the processing resources spent because said received body language could be contradictory or cannot recall context -- which all latter three is likely my case.
_________________
Gained Number Post Count (1).
Lose Time (n).
Lose more time here - Updates at least once a week.
24 Nov 2018, 10:40 am
Glflegolas wrote:
Chemists are said to have all the solutions, but I regret to tell you, I don't have the solution to this problem...
Here are the best theories that I can come up with off the top of my head. In order to try to make this somewhat more applicable, I'll use the DSM criteria for social communication disorder, which are much narrower.
NOTE: The theories I propose are not mutually exclusive.
Sensory processing sensitivity
Here, I propose that most of the difficulties mentioned above are caused by over or undersensitive senses. There is quite a lot of information coming at you quite quickly, and, if your senses are much more sensitive than usual, you might get so overwhelmed that you don't know what to do. If your senses are undersensitive, then you'll miss critical details because you simply didn't notice them.
Slow processing speed
Here, the problem lies, not with the understanding of social rules, or even with oversensitive senses. According to this theory, the problem lies in being able to think quickly enough. By the time that you actually understand what's going on, the interaction has moved past that point.
Weak working memory
Closely tied to my processing speed theory, here, the problem lies with being able to deal with the information once it comes in. If your working memory is poor, you might forget the information that came at you, causing you to make inappropriate conclusions because of a lack of information. (Personally, I believe that the weak working memory/slow processing speed is responsible in my case)
Nonverbal learning disorder
If this is the case, then anything nonverbal (i.e. body language) is something that completely eludes you, but you'll likely have great abilities in the verbal arena.
That's all I can think of right now. Do you have any alternate theories?
Here are the best theories that I can come up with off the top of my head. In order to try to make this somewhat more applicable, I'll use the DSM criteria for social communication disorder, which are much narrower.
DSM-V wrote:
1. Deficits in using communication for social purposes, such as greeting and sharing information, in a manner that is appropriate for social context.
2. Impairment in the ability to change communication to match context or the needs of the listener, such as speaking differently in a classroom than on a playground, talking differently to a child than to an adult, and avoiding use of overly formal language.
3. Difficulties following rules for conversation and storytelling, such as taking turns in conversation, rephrasing when misunderstood, and knowing how to use verbal and nonverbal signals to regulate interaction.
4. Difficulties understanding what is not explicitly stated (e.g., making inferences) and nonliteral or ambiguous meaning of language (e.g., idioms, humor, metaphors, multiple meanings that depend on the context for interpretation.)
2. Impairment in the ability to change communication to match context or the needs of the listener, such as speaking differently in a classroom than on a playground, talking differently to a child than to an adult, and avoiding use of overly formal language.
3. Difficulties following rules for conversation and storytelling, such as taking turns in conversation, rephrasing when misunderstood, and knowing how to use verbal and nonverbal signals to regulate interaction.
4. Difficulties understanding what is not explicitly stated (e.g., making inferences) and nonliteral or ambiguous meaning of language (e.g., idioms, humor, metaphors, multiple meanings that depend on the context for interpretation.)
NOTE: The theories I propose are not mutually exclusive.
Sensory processing sensitivity
Here, I propose that most of the difficulties mentioned above are caused by over or undersensitive senses. There is quite a lot of information coming at you quite quickly, and, if your senses are much more sensitive than usual, you might get so overwhelmed that you don't know what to do. If your senses are undersensitive, then you'll miss critical details because you simply didn't notice them.
Slow processing speed
Here, the problem lies, not with the understanding of social rules, or even with oversensitive senses. According to this theory, the problem lies in being able to think quickly enough. By the time that you actually understand what's going on, the interaction has moved past that point.
Weak working memory
Closely tied to my processing speed theory, here, the problem lies with being able to deal with the information once it comes in. If your working memory is poor, you might forget the information that came at you, causing you to make inappropriate conclusions because of a lack of information. (Personally, I believe that the weak working memory/slow processing speed is responsible in my case)
Nonverbal learning disorder
If this is the case, then anything nonverbal (i.e. body language) is something that completely eludes you, but you'll likely have great abilities in the verbal arena.
That's all I can think of right now. Do you have any alternate theories?
You've covered most of the bases, as far as I can tell. Right hemisphere brain damage is the only other thing I can think of that can cause the above traits, although I can't imagine that such a case would often be overlooked in favor of a developmental diagnosis. Most of the causes of brain damage are hard to miss - although I have seen people who believed that their autism-like issues were related to head trauma early in life that went untreated.
I have a nonverbal learning disorder, and I think that it's likely responsible for many of my issues. I'm curious why my doctors considered it distinct from autism at all, as I was diagnosed with both at the same time. There is so much overlap that it hardly seems worthwhile to diagnose both.
(On a somewhat tangential note: you're a chemist? That's awesome. Also, A+ for wordplay.)
_________________
I have not the kind affections of a pigeon. - Ralph Waldo Emerson
Last edited by AceofPens on 24 Nov 2018, 10:54 am, edited 1 time in total.
| Similar Topics | |
|---|---|
| Having Autism |
19 Dec 2024, 12:00 pm |
| Teenager with Autism and OCD |
16 Dec 2024, 12:26 pm |
| PTSD or autism |
03 Nov 2024, 5:13 pm |
| Autism and Fatigue? |
10 Dec 2024, 9:10 am |
