the old empathy question/Baren Cohen

Post Reply New Topic

That was the sally-anne test.

In the test there was a marble a box and a basket.

It was like a play with a doll called sally and a doll called anne.

In the play, sally and anne were in the same room and they could see that marble was in the box.

Sally then went out of the room and anne moved the marble from the box to the basket.

Anne then entered the room.

The particpants (children with autism) were then asked the following questions?

Where is the marble? (in the basket)
Where will sally think the marble is? (in the box)

This is called a first-order false belief task and involves understanding that an individual can have a false-belief about reality and requires the participant to put themselves in the place of another, i.e to understand that someone can have beliefs different from there own.

Children with autism generally fail this task, though adults with HFA or Asperger's generally pass. The current thinking is that different parts of the brain are used for people with autism compared to NTs (SBC has done some functional MRI experiments which show that we use different parts of our brains for assessing anothers feelings/thoughts compared to other NTs).

BTW I am very early in my studies so the gists of stuff I write here is right though some of the details could be wrong.

Well, I'm not a pro like you are, but I'd say that older people (teens and adults and older kids) would pass because they're using their logic.

I remember when I was 3 yrs old the preschool teacher tried to teach us left and right, and I actually did it all backwards because, since she was facing us, her left was my right. That shows that I at least knew that other people had other points of view (although maybe I thought that she couldn't think, since I didn't even consider that she might be doing everything backwards so we'd see it the right way).

How much of what other people feel is honest emotion, and how much of it is little more than socially acceptable noises at socially "appropriate" times? How many people are honestly sad when they hear of someone they don't even know dead or missing on the news? Hardly any? And yet, everyone will put on a sad face and say what a shame it is. People will also put on a sad face and say what a shame it is when someone they know dies, even if they hated them... even if they just viewed them as a pain in the ass... even if they're glad the person's dead because they stand to inherit some of the dead person's money. Why? Socially, it's expected... and people tend to think poorly of those who don't measure up to social expectation.

Other emotions are the same way. How many people are honestly happy when an acquaintance has something good happen to them, and how many people really couldn't care less, but are just trying to be polite for form's sake? (They know that a big happy "Well, that's great!" is what's expected of them, so that's what they do.)

How many people wax poetic about love, when they're mainly just hoping they don't have to spend the rest of their lives alone now and can finally stop feeling like some sort of loser because they normally don't have anybody? (Or when they don't love the person at all, but are mainly just saying that in hopes that the other person will "put out" in response?)

I've always had the sneaking suspicion that the reason why it is difficult to connect emotionally with most people is because there's nothing within them to connect to. From all I can tell, the overwhelming majority of these grand emotional displays people put on are just a sham, so does it even matter?

So to hell with emotionally connecting to them. Instead, I've gradually learned to make the socially appropriate gibberings at the socially appropriate times, so that I may successfully pass as a monkey to the other monkeys.

Please dont insult the monkeys...they would have never voted for GW Bush.

Look what happens if you dont model the exceptable behavior(grief,anger)at the death of a child or spouse...you are assumed to be the murderer....I have been wondering how well an aspie would do should they be in this position...possible suspect....I think it would mean the death penalty....even those who might have "doubts" would probably think...."maybe they didnt do it,but getting rid of one more "freak" wont be to much of a social loss...scarey

Actually I think your on to something there.. Ive often thought the same thing.

It seems to me they fake things more in their normal daily interactions than we do trying to keep up.

I dont think NTs are any more sensitive or socially apt than we are.. theyre just better liers and being a good "emotional actor" is the norm.

Id take an auspies honesty over that any day.

Empathy, same as compassion, even ethimologically. Sympathy, affection, attachment, love. Different shadings. There is a gradual individuation of the object of your feelings. In love there may be sexual attraction wich is governed by different laws. In sexual love, physical beauty of course weighs a lot and can obfuscate the value of character.
There is a relationship between the quantity of DNA in common and empathy. You can harm or kill a spider, a bug, a snake, a fish. When you come to mammals, apes and humans it becomes more difficult to harm, or also not to give help if clearly needed. And among humans, as a rule, you are more inclined to give help, even some times to sacrifice your life for the another creature if he (or her) is your blood relative ("blood is not water" they say in my country to mean this). A mother very often is ready to give her life for her child.
There is clearly an evolutionary logic in all this. You must not harm your cospecific, and, being reproduction, the continuation of life, essential, children, and especially your own children are privileged in your feelings.