Board index › General Discussion › General Autism Discussion

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

Page 3 of 9 [ 140 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 9  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

aghogday
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Nov 2010
Age: 64
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,919

17 Jul 2011, 11:50 pm

MrXxx wrote:
Mdyar wrote:
Back to the basics Mr.Xxx

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

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

With this "impairement" 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 abilty 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?


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.


Everything we experience is filtered through our minds, so the emotions and feelings related to empathy are only as real as an individual can make them, depending on who they are, what they experience. From what I see the biggest evolutionary advantage of empathy is related to taking care of children and the instinct to nuture a child. Hormone levels change for men when they are taking care of children to allow them to become more nurturing and less aggressive; testosterone decreases and oxytocin levels rise. That much can be measured through blood tests and urinalysis.

Some are able to socially bond with others easier than others, but I think that science agrees that people do it because it feels good to do it. And the neurochemical pinning beneath that are as about as complex as it gets. I'll never understand what it feels like to strongly empathize with others, but I think it's a part of life that some of us naturally experience more than others, as a result of inherent and environmental factors.

I don't know why but I've never experienced a feeling associated with empathy when seeing other people suffer somewhere else on TV, but put the commercial on with the suffering animals, and it hurts so bad I can't hardly stand to watch it. I ask myself does this make me a bad person. Maybe when I was middle school and my only friend was my dog could have something to do with it; I don't know, but I do know that when my wife sees human suffering on TV, whether it is real or not she get's emotional over it, in her feelings of empathy for what is going on. She tells me it hurts her heart. That's the way the abused animal commercials affect me.

My sister has Aspergers and it effects her in the same way. I like the amygdala theory, but I wonder how much of it is environmental and how much of it is genetic. She got the same social isolation in school that I did, but hers lasted longer than mine did.

Not only does my wife experience that emotional empathy of suffering for humans she sees on TV, but she also experiences the vicarious emotional empathy of joy when her favorite TV character does something good. I can't say I've ever felt that, but I distantly remember having more of the ability when I was young; it is obvious it feels very good to her, and I am missing out on good and bad feelings, I don't have the ability to experience. I understand from a cognitive perspective that the humans are sad and happy on TV, but I can't vicariously put myself in their shoes.

I have always felt many different feelings when I was around different people and had similar feelings when I see people on TV, but I can't really explain them or label them, maybe that's somekind of empathy I don't understand for myself due to alexithymia, but I guess it must be related to empathy or somekind of emotion; whatever the feeling is my brain is creating in response to the sensory experience.



aghogday
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Nov 2010
Age: 64
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,919

18 Jul 2011, 12:37 am

Mdyar wrote:
MrXxx wrote:
Mdyar wrote:
Back to the basics Mr.Xxx

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

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

With this "impairement" 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 abilty 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?


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.


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. :P


Most of my life my idea of communication was listening and not talking. Input was king. I developed problems with vision and input was no longer king so I had to start verbally monologuing just to keep my sanity. It's no good to for a visual thinker to get vision problems. I hardly talk at all now, just type.

I was always the quiet one unable to come up with two or three sentences. I had a friend that verbally monologued for 30 minutes at a time in seamless paragraphs; there is no doubt in my mind that he had Aspergers, but my issue was with Autism and lack of ability to verbalize my thoughts, or talk at all when I was a young child.

I guess that is why I can "empathize" with the individual that often presents a you tube video after a long monologue. But it is definitely cognitive empathy.

Perhaps the most fascinating thing I find about human nature; there is nothing we can do about it in many cases; basically were trapped with the deck of cards we get. We often discuss how NT's don't give us the respect we deserve, and while in this case while I don't think anyone is intentionally making fun of anyone, just presenting evidence for the discussion, in what most might not catch as a comment directed at any particular individual, I wonder if my TOM is working or if it is not in determining this.

I'm not so sure that the ability to emotionally feel empathy is necessarily directly related to TOM, and perhaps TOM is something we can develop on an analytical basis, at a later date than others.

In fact I'm sure of it; I specifically remember filling a classmates shoe full of sand, not trying to bully but just thinking it would be a funny joke, not realizing it wouldn't be funny if someone did it to me. With his reaction that started my long journey of determining on a trial and error basis what to do and what not to do. It goes on. Most get it figured out young and never have to think about it again.

As I get older I feel myself losing grasp on what I once understood as TOM. It's easier to fool people into thinking you are normal if you don't talk much, just smile, and nod your head. Bartender might be a good job for a person with Autism if one could mix the drinks with a keyboard. I worked at a Bowling Center, handing out shoes; listening to monologues both NT and non-NT was no problem. Funny how we adapt in life. I never used to talk about myself, not even to my wife, not even to myself, there was an unending amount of visual input as long as I had good sight.



nemorosa
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Aug 2010
Age: 53
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,121
Location: Amongst the leaves.

18 Jul 2011, 6:25 am

I'm somewhat late to this thread and much of what I would have said has been said already but reading through all this made my think over my behaviour and I think that a lot of the difficulty for me personally regarding understanding others and reading their emotional state is down to the fact that I simply don't care. It sounds very selfish and self-centred when I write it down but it simply never occurs to me to think about what others may be thinking or feeling, focused solely as I am on what I'm thinking and feeling and keeping up with my incessant internal dialogue. The external world is something of an irritation and distraction.

So it is not that I can't imagine what others think or feel but that I don't automatically apply myself to this, which is what I suspect the majority of 'normal' people do; being externally focused they cannot help but apply themselves like this, it's like breathing or blinking.

With regards to empathy, when I do notice and sense what other people feel then I find the sensation unbearable. Most strong displays of emotion in others give me that sick feeling in my stomach; that feeling of fear and adrenaline.



memesplice
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Feb 2010
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,072

18 Jul 2011, 6:41 am

I am thinking of inviting Baron Cohen and the Cambridge team here ( online at WP) to debate their theories directly with us. I don't want to derail this thread because it it a valuable thread. I am going to start another thread which you may like to contribute to. The purpose of the thread is to compose an Email that will be challenging enough to get their attention and respond to.

I wonder how many researchers will have had their subject matter turn around and begin to debate their approach, methodology and conclusions with such intense scrutiny. :)

Hopefully see you over there.

Meme



Janissy
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 May 2009
Age: 58
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,450
Location: x

18 Jul 2011, 7:39 am

MrXxx wrote:

What I'm really asking is whether NT's really posses any more empathy than we do. Unless you believe in human psychic abilities (and I don't happen to), nobody can read minds. Nobody can really feel anything someone else feels, or know we do unless the other person expresses their feelings somehow.


I agree. There is no such thing as psychic power. The best anybody can do is make an educated guess. The education that precedes this guess is years of observing one's own reactions and feelings and comparing them to others's reactions (and guessing about feelings) and being either right or wrong. The closer two people are in wiring, the more accurately they will be able to predict somebody else's reactions by comparing them both to their own and to a catalogue of reactions they don't have but have seen fairly frequently. The wiring difference between AS and NT is apparently large enough that inaccurate predictions are inevitable because NT people do not have a catalogue of responses to compare to nor can they make accurate predictions from their own wiring.

Quote:
Is it really true that when NT's say things like, "I can empathize," that they really can, or have they just been conditioned and/or trained to say so?


I think it is neither. When somebody says "I can empathize" they literally think they have made a very accurate educated guess. If an NT says this to another NT, they will be correct reasonably often (definately more often than random chance) because their own wiring and catalogue of frequently observed responses gives a large database. It isn't conditioning or training. It is a deeply held belief that happens to be wrong most of the time (all the time?) when interacting with non-NT people. I purposely didn't say "AS" because it's also wrong with other people who are not NT but also not AS. The person who re-checks that the stove is turned off twice doesn't actually empathize with somebody who has OCD even if she thinks she does, for example.

Quote:
The reason I'm asking these questions isn't because I don't want to accept that I might have a reduced ability most people come to naturally. The reason I'm asking is because I have MANY times heard NT's say these things to ME, and my children about thoughts and feelings they could not POSSIBLY understand, because they have never been through it, and many of their actions and words have proven they don't really "get it" at all.


I don't think it's a reduced ability to empathize. I think it's a wiring difference that makes accurate AS-NT cross-predictions less likely. But since so few people are AS, the NT person in the exchange wrongly assumes they have made an accurate prediction, because if they made it about somebody who was NT, they would probably be right (although not always).

Quote:
I've heard this kind of thing so many times from NT's that nowadays, more often than not, I know what they're telling me isn't really true at all.


It isn't true but that doesn't make it a lie. It makes them wrong. They think they have made an accurate prediction and they haven't. But they don't know they haven't.

Quote:
"I hear you! I get what you're saying! I totally understand...." when followed by actions so many times that belies their words, proving they DON'T really understand at all, has led me to the following questions:

Do we really lack empathy any more than NT"'s or are we just more honest about when we don't understand other's feelings?


So why would people say these things if they are wrong? It's because they believe them. So why do they believe them?

1)Because if they said these things to another NT person, they would be correct fairly often. Not always, but enough times to build up conviction that they can make accurate predictions.


2)The NT drive to connect with others is so intense that it will create a sense of "getting it" based on scant data.


Quote:
Are we REALLY any less capable of Theory of Mind, or are we just less willing to say we understand other's points of view when we really don't?


The people who say they understand your point of view....and don't....honestly think they do. So they aren't being dishonest. They are just driven by a need for connection (to you, in this case) that creates an "I get this" feeling in the absence of data. Since the 500 people they said that to before you responded with "I feel understood" verbiage (because they did feel understood) a positive feedback loop was created. They will feel that loop fopr a while even if you aren't participating in it. They just think you are. I am guessing that your Theory of Mind works just fine with your AS children- because you share wiring and so can use your own feelings as a guide and because you have been correct about them many times and so built up a catalogue. It isn't lack of Theory of Mind. It's being in a tiny, tiny neurological minority.



Quote:
Maybe NT's are just better at fooling themselves
yes. The intense need for making a conection drives that.
Quote:
And are willing to say whatever it takes to stroke people.
Yes. Although I think that it is more often innaccuracy than stroking.
Quote:
Maybe (in general) they're more willing to lie about what they really think.
Again, yes. But it isn't a lie if what you really think just happens to be wrong.


All in all, I think that NT and AS are wired differently enough that cross-predictions are often innaccurate. The NT person wrongly thinks they have made an accurate prediction and wrongly says "I understand". The AS person wrongly thinks the NT person is aware of this innaccuracy and is lying about understanding.



Janissy
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 May 2009
Age: 58
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,450
Location: x

18 Jul 2011, 8:07 am

MrXxx wrote:
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?
.


I think it's conjecture (anything but conjecture would be literally psychic) but it draws from a database of past conjectures that turned out to be either right or wrong. This is where real time (and partly subconscious) body language comes into play. Observing the other person's body language during the exchange allows for feedback about whether the conjecture is right or not. And the conjecture can be rapidly altered to fit the body language feedback from the other person. If this happens fast enough, neither person will be aware that it happened and it will feel like one person gets it and the other person feels understood, when what actually happened is that a conjecture was altered to fit the body language feedback so rapidly that it feels like immediate "getting it".

All of this falls apart when an NT person talks to an AS person. The NT person is using different body language code and incorrectly reading the AS person's body language as though it were NT and rapidly altering the initially incorrect conjecture with incorrect body language reading until the final conjectue is so wrong that the AS person is boggled by its innaccuracy. But the NT person is unaware they are innaccurate.

The initial conjecture comes from a database of experience. How correct or incorrect it is depends on shared experiences and points of view. Then that initial conjecture gets rapidly altered based on body language feedback. Without body language, there is nothing but shared experience and neurology to go by (such as on a forum). Shared experience and neurology profoundly affect accuracy. You can see it right here. Thousands of AS people can suddenly make accurate predictions based on shared experience because here is a place where there actually is shared experience. And the handful of NT people like myself make innaccurate predictions. But I keep trying. Eventually, I may build up a database.



Janissy
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 May 2009
Age: 58
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,450
Location: x

18 Jul 2011, 8:12 am

memesplice wrote:
I am thinking of inviting Baron Cohen and the Cambridge team here ( online at WP) to debate their theories directly with us. I don't want to derail this thread because it it a valuable thread. I am going to start another thread which you may like to contribute to. The purpose of the thread is to compose an Email that will be challenging enough to get their attention and respond to.

I wonder how many researchers will have had their subject matter turn around and begin to debate their approach, methodology and conclusions with such intense scrutiny. :)

Hopefully see you over there.

Meme


That would be very exciting. That sort of dialogue/debate would be invaluable, possibly even groundbreaking.

I have often wondered if researchers ever lurk here to see their theories debated. If I were a reseacrher I sure would. WrongPlanet is so large now that it comes up in Google when various theories are discussed.



memesplice
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Feb 2010
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,072

18 Jul 2011, 8:23 am

They published in the Financial Times. We have right to reply via that medium, if we feel we have been misrepresented. This might be damaging to their credibility. Thye would prefer the debate here, not there.

I have a NT friend who works with the PPC on certain issues and knows about this stuff.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/6b3fd4c8-6570 ... z1SSlOJhtB

A humorous version is here , it is to get us thinking ( Please do not send it anyone)

http://www.wrongplanet.net/postp3844367.html#3844367



YellowBanana
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Feb 2011
Age: 51
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,032
Location: mostly, in my head.

18 Jul 2011, 8:40 am

For me it's not that I can't imagine what others think or feel, but that I'm usually so focused on trying to maintain my part in the interaction that there is no space in left in my brain to be processing their reactions, feelings and thoughts at the same time - there is just so much going on in my head in terms of listening and processing their speech and formatting my response and trying to get the words to exit my mouth. So unless someone specifically tells me what they are thinking and feeling, I am unlikely to connect the dots and respond appropriately.

I can often figure it out some time later, during one of my many replays of the interaction it will suddenly hit me how they were feeling ... but this might be later that day, later that week, later that month, later that year ... and usually well past the point of any relevance.

It's not that I don't care, or am insensitive, but it might come across that way at the time.

It's the same if someone is visibly upset, for example. I can see that they are upset - they are crying. It's not that I don't notice - but I can't always react appropriately.

But my response is all internal thought, the thread of which might be something similar to this: "Oh, they're crying. That means they must be upset. I don't know why they're upset. Should I ask them or am I expected know? I can't ask in case I am expected to know. Don't be silly, they're upset, you should do something, it's not nice to be upset. I don't like it when people make a fuss when I am upset, so I won't do anything. But what if they want someone to ask ... " By this time, someone else has usually asked the person what the matter is or gone up and given them a hug or something so then I'm processing what I should do in light of the new information .... Eventually, I will usually give up and walk away.

But it's not out of lack of care or concern for that person.

A few months ago a friend (yes, I have a couple!) was clearly upset and she walked right up to me tears streaming down her face. I figured that since she knows I would struggle to process this, and to talk in anyway, that any reaction would be good because she probably just wanted to be with someone wouldn't ask loads of questions. So after a few seconds delay while I process this and she just stood there crying and patiently waiting, I managed to get out the words "Walk or sit?". She chose sit, so we found the nearest bench and sat on it. Then I waited for her next move. She started talking about stuff that was clearly not related to why she was upset (because it wasn't the kind of stuff that someone would be upset about). Afterwards, she thanked me for being so understanding and told me that apparently I was the only person around at the time that would've understood that sometimes people don't want to talk about stuff.

Don't know what relevance that has. It just seemed connected to this thread, somehow.


_________________
Female. Dx ASD in 2011 @ Age 38. Also Dx BPD


memesplice
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Feb 2010
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,072

18 Jul 2011, 9:07 am

That is very lucid YB, and I think it is a very strong theme in the argument from us that we don't lack empathy, we have a different kind of empathy one which is ( to an extent) a product of different processes and skills.

There was a guy years back called Grief , coincidental name for a counsellor, I think in his book he typified empathy into four types, one type I remember was objective empathy, the kind you need to stand back with to help people in suffering. That seems to be what you have got a lot of, even if unintentionally.



Tressillian
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 10 May 2011
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 61

18 Jul 2011, 9:31 am

A phrase that I use to try to explain is this:

NTs care more about "How" you say something rather than "What" you say. Aspies care more about "What" you say and very little about the "How".



This difference in what is important can cause a lot of communication problems. It's still baffling to me that people will accept anything you say as long as you say it the right way.



YellowBanana
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Feb 2011
Age: 51
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,032
Location: mostly, in my head.

18 Jul 2011, 10:10 am

memesplice wrote:
That is very lucid YB, and I think it is a very strong theme in the argument from us that we don't lack empathy, we have a different kind of empathy one which is ( to an extent) a product of different processes and skills.

There was a guy years back called Grief , coincidental name for a counsellor, I think in his book he typified empathy into four types, one type I remember was objective empathy, the kind you need to stand back with to help people in suffering. That seems to be what you have got a lot of, even if unintentionally.


Hurrah! I have some kind of empathy :cheers:

I think it's interesting that empathy can be divided into different types. I wonder if there are types that those of us on the spectrum excel at as a group, or if we are all extremely different in the types we have.

Maybe the common definition of empathy incorporates all types and if you don't exhibit them all naturally you are considered not empathetic even though you may actually naturally have a lot of one type...

I mean, there are folk on this board that clearly get overwhelmed by the emotions of others because they feel them at the same time which is entirely different than the way I react. But they may equally end up with being unable to respond appropriately because they are so overwhelmed ... whereas I find it difficult to respond appropriately because of the time it takes to process the thoughts and make the response exit my mouth.

Maybe to be considered truly empathetic you need to have a balance of types of empathy and to be able to process the input quickly: that feeling the way they feel and then the ability to step back a bit to process how to react, but to be able to do the processing quickly enough to respond appropriately ...

If that is the case, that sounds very difficult. No wonder some of us struggle with it.

Tressillian wrote:
A phrase that I use to try to explain is this:

NTs care more about "How" you say something rather than "What" you say. Aspies care more about "What" you say and very little about the "How".



This difference in what is important can cause a lot of communication problems. It's still baffling to me that people will accept anything you say as long as you say it the right way.



This is very true - it's also baffling to me how things I say are so easily misinterpreted if I don't say them the "right" way - with the correct stress or intonation or facial expression or body language or whatever. For example, take the phrase, Can I help you? I've been playing with this phrase and seeing how people react to it for a while now. The asterisked words below are examples of where to place the stress.

1. *Can* I help you? - I think people interpret this as: I'm not sure if I'm able to help you, what do you think? Often they think about it for a bit, then refuse my help because they don't think I know what to do ...

2. Can *I* help you? - I think people interpret this as: Do you want me (specifically, rather than someone else) to help you? If it's someone who likes me, the answer is usually yes. If it's someone who doesn't like me, the answer is usually no.

3. Can I *help* you? - I think people interpret this as: You aren't managing, let me do it. They think that I'm implying that they can't do whatever they're doing, or that I'm impatient and want it done quicker, and they usually get defensive and say "no thanks"

4. Can I help *you*? - This is usually intepreted as "Can I help you (rather than that person over there who also needs help)?" Like no 2. the response tends to depend on whether the person I'm making the offer to likes me or not.

And then of course there's the version with no stress that sounds monotonic and seems to represent a lack of enthusiasm to people and they don't like this because they think you're only offering because you feel you have to ...

And that's just word stress ... add in the question intonation or lack of it ... and any body language that you may or may not add (either conciously or subconciously) and you have another whole set of interpretations.

To me it is simple: If someone asks me "Can I help you?" regardless of the stress or body language or intonation the question means "Can I help you?". If I need help, I say yes. If I don't need help I say "No thanks, I don't need any help at the moment". If I stop to think about the body language, intonation etc etc I get entirely stuck and cannot respond because there is too much to process.

The point is, with all those variables to consider every time you speak to someone it's no wonder those of us for whom "the whole package" does not come naturally struggle and get exhausted by interacting with others once we become aware of what "the whole package" encompasses. I think in many ways, I'd like to go back to being a teenager when I was still oblivious to the things I was missing in communication and just got on with it. I think it was only when I started at University that I began to realise there was a whole lot more to communication than just what you said.


_________________
Female. Dx ASD in 2011 @ Age 38. Also Dx BPD


Mdyar
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 May 2009
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,516

18 Jul 2011, 10:26 am

aghogday wrote:
Mdyar wrote:
MrXxx wrote:
Mdyar wrote:
Back to the basics Mr.Xxx

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

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

With this "impairement" 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 abilty 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?


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.


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. :P


Most of my life my idea of communication was listening and not talking. Input was king. I developed problems with vision and input was no longer king so I had to start verbally monologuing just to keep my sanity. It's no good to for a visual thinker to get vision problems. I hardly talk at all now, just type.

I was always the quiet one unable to come up with two or three sentences. I had a friend that verbally monologued for 30 minutes at a time in seamless paragraphs; there is no doubt in my mind that he had Aspergers, but my issue was with Autism and lack of ability to verbalize my thoughts, or talk at all when I was a young child.

I guess that is why I can "empathize" with the individual that often presents a you tube video after a long monologue. But it is definitely cognitive empathy.

Perhaps the most fascinating thing I find about human nature; there is nothing we can do about it in many cases; basically were trapped with the deck of cards we get. We often discuss how NT's don't give us the respect we deserve, and while in this case while I don't think anyone is intentionally making fun of anyone, just presenting evidence for the discussion, in what most might not catch as a comment directed at any particular individual, I wonder if my TOM is working or if it is not in determining this.

I'm not so sure that the ability to emotionally feel empathy is necessarily directly related to TOM, and perhaps TOM is something we can develop on an analytical basis, at a later date than others.

In fact I'm sure of it; I specifically remember filling a classmates shoe full of sand, not trying to bully but just thinking it would be a funny joke, not realizing it wouldn't be funny if someone did it to me. With his reaction that started my long journey of determining on a trial and error basis what to do and what not to do. It goes on. Most get it figured out young and never have to think about it again.

As I get older I feel myself losing grasp on what I once understood as TOM. It's easier to fool people into thinking you are normal if you don't talk much, just smile, and nod your head. Bartender might be a good job for a person with Autism if one could mix the drinks with a keyboard. I worked at a Bowling Center, handing out shoes; listening to monologues both NT and non-NT was no problem. Funny how we adapt in life. I never used to talk about myself, not even to my wife, not even to myself, there was an unending amount of visual input as long as I had good sight.

O.K. I wasn't making fun of the video and these problems. I was teasing Mr.Xxx a little because I see the drive or momentum to where it's being directed/diverted. I don't make fun of people as this is a cardinal sin to bring someone down from their dignity, just my personal ethics here.

The video is "evidence" of the kind of impairments that researchers key in on here and this case "ToM." I do get Mr. Xxx's angle, but my point is that what this textbook phenomena is pointing to is "real." There is evidence of impaired imaginations in these one way communications. These textbook explanations explain this in some but not all people on the spectrum.

I'd assume Mr. Xxx was probably unaware of this?

The video is interesting : [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WAfWfsop1e0[/youtube]



Joe90
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Feb 2010
Gender: Female
Posts: 26,492
Location: UK

18 Jul 2011, 10:31 am

Is this an example of ''theory of mind''?
It was pouring down with rain, and I was at my vollunteer job sitting at the till. Another worker came down the stairs to put some more clothes out on the rails and she looked at me and said, ''not very nice, is it?'' And I knew she was talking about the weather, so I said, ''no, it's very miserable out there.'' It took me less than one second to figure out what she meant, even though she never done anything to hint that she was talking about the weather, like looking out of the window or anything. I just knew. I could have said, ''what isn't very nice?'' but I needn't, because I knew she was talking about the weather. It was like instinct. Is that the sort of thing what theory of mind is?


_________________
Female


YellowBanana
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Feb 2011
Age: 51
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,032
Location: mostly, in my head.

18 Jul 2011, 11:05 am

Joe90 wrote:
Is this an example of ''theory of mind''?
It was pouring down with rain, and I was at my vollunteer job sitting at the till. Another worker came down the stairs to put some more clothes out on the rails and she looked at me and said, ''not very nice, is it?'' And I knew she was talking about the weather, so I said, ''no, it's very miserable out there.'' It took me less than one second to figure out what she meant, even though she never done anything to hint that she was talking about the weather, like looking out of the window or anything. I just knew. I could have said, ''what isn't very nice?'' but I needn't, because I knew she was talking about the weather. It was like instinct. Is that the sort of thing what theory of mind is?


I'm not sure - probably, yes. But it also could be because weather is standard small talk stuff ...

When that kind of thing happens for me, there is usually a few seconds delay before I respond because there are several things that she could be referring to (the clothes she's carrying, the rails she's going to put them on, whatever was upstairs, the job in general, the weather etc) so I have to process all them and decide which is the most likely. Sometimes I guess incorrectly because the other person either just stares at me or says "No, I meant ...." (in this case, I'd probably have chosen the clothes and said "which isn't very nice?"! !). Other times, if there are too many options, I'll get stuck and end up asking "What?" or not responding at all.


_________________
Female. Dx ASD in 2011 @ Age 38. Also Dx BPD


BassMan_720
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 5 Nov 2010
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 288
Location: UK

18 Jul 2011, 11:45 am

Janissy wrote:
All of this falls apart when an NT person talks to an AS person. The NT person is using different body language code and incorrectly reading the AS person's body language as though it were NT and rapidly altering the initially incorrect conjecture with incorrect body language reading until the final conjectue is so wrong that the AS person is boggled by its innaccuracy. But the NT person is unaware they are innaccurate.

The initial conjecture comes from a database of experience. How correct or incorrect it is depends on shared experiences and points of view. Then that initial conjecture gets rapidly altered based on body language feedback. Without body language, there is nothing but shared experience and neurology to go by (such as on a forum). Shared experience and neurology profoundly affect accuracy. You can see it right here. Thousands of AS people can suddenly make accurate predictions based on shared experience because here is a place where there actually is shared experience. And the handful of NT people like myself make innaccurate predictions. But I keep trying. Eventually, I may build up a database.


I know we are all different but this does not hold true in my case and I know from threads on hear that there is at least a proportion of people that post here that have a similar experience to me. For me, it is not a case of recognising familiar reactions or building up a database of signals. I can understand body language theory. I have read the books and built up my database of signals; not that I needed to. When quizzed, I tend to score well above average. However, in real time and in the real world, I do not see the body language to be able to interpret it. Even very exaggerated and patently obvious gestures can go unnoticed. When I recall the situation, minutes or even hours later, I may realise what I had missed and I do feel like a fool. It is too late then to react to the message. I am not good at picking up non-verbal communication at the best of times but I get worse the busier or more complex the situation.

I certainly think that my reasoning conscious brain is overloaded because my subconscious brain cannot help share the load and filter out the unimportant stuff as it would do in an NT person. I may miss secondary cues because my reasoning brain, on its own, is not so good at multi-tasking.