Uta Frith's comment
06 Apr 2014, 12:45 pm
littlebee wrote:
Apple_in_my_Eye wrote:
As long as there isn't a physical test then academics can draw the line wherever they want, on a whim. If you do some research on Frith then you'll find that she would undiagnose most of the people on this board (and prides herself on her numerous undiagnoses). Had a friend once? Undiagnosis for you! She thinks that Rain Man is upper limit of "high functioning."
So, she says what she says because she believes that even most diagnosed cases of ASD are mistakes.
She, Baron-Cohen and the rest diasagree with each other because there is no way to tell which of them is actually correct. They might even disagree for no other reason than academic competitiveness.
So, she says what she says because she believes that even most diagnosed cases of ASD are mistakes.
She, Baron-Cohen and the rest diasagree with each other because there is no way to tell which of them is actually correct. They might even disagree for no other reason than academic competitiveness.
Right...as you say. "academics can draw the line wherever they want, on a whim..."
I watched this video the other day and have been thinking about it ever since, as it was so elusively off, but difficult to put the finger on exactly how. She seems like a nice person, though I don't know if it came down to it I would respect her, hiding behind her oh so warm and pleasant mask of professionalism--I see her as cut off herself--and it seems she made a special interest out of one aspect---lack of empathy and then honed in from that direction, perhaps selecting certain children to test based on her own bias. Not creative thinking, imo. Her lack of understanding really stood out to me, but.people including many autistic eat that stuff and other stuff about autism like pablum. whatever explanation appeals to their mentality,
I may be missing something but I don't remember she saying autistics don't have empathy. On the contrary. She said that lack of 'mentalizing' (thinking with other people's minds) is what differentiates autism from the neurotypical world.
06 Apr 2014, 12:50 pm
hurtloam wrote:
What if naturally the population in general has a high percentage of autistic people of vary degrees of autism?
If it doesn't impair, it shouldn't be diagnosed. Also autism shouldn't be a catch-all explanation for other impairments people face, e.g. mental illness. And I'm skeptical that many people fit the criteria. Even mildly. I think people have a tendency to exaggerate their traits, or think they are autistic-like.
hurtloam wrote:
What if there is not a high number of mis-diagnosis and the number is accurate?
I doubt this because of how uneven the diagnoses are. Boys being greatly more diagnosed, and I would expect that middle/upper-class people are more diagnosed than other economic groups. Under-diagnosis is one reason, but I think over-diagnosis is most likely another. However you could be right, what if it is accurate? But it seems unrealistic.
hurtloam wrote:
What difference does it make?
The difference is I think is that it brings the whole concept of autism into question. Autism should remain what it is - a term for those who have developmental disabilities that share similar traits. Not a label for anyone who shares superficial traits, and others with mental health issues.
neilson_wheels wrote:
Have a another look from about 40 minutes onwards where she begins to try and explain why there seems to be a surge in the numbers.
She's explaining the surge but she isn't saying over-diagnosis is not happening at all. (Click)
Quote:
There is the possibility of "over-diagnosis" she believes – criteria for diagnosing autism are subtle.
---
Last edited by Acedia on 06 Apr 2014, 4:44 pm, edited 2 times in total.
neilson_wheels
Veteran
Joined: 11 Mar 2013
Age: 55
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,404
Location: London, Capital of the Un-United Kingdom
06 Apr 2014, 12:51 pm
Hello Littlebee, personally I don't see anything negative or condescending in the sliding top box experiment or her description of the results. I think the emphasis here was on Average Brain Type people feeling the need to emulate the adult while the autistics did not see the need and got on with the job.
As OJani said above Uta Frith completely denies the common misinformation that autistics do not have the potential for empathy. I think this is a regular point of confusion between the clinical definition and the common definition of empathy.
This programme was not aimed at those with autism as a special interest, as in everyone here, if it helps a few more ABT people to understand autism just a little bit better then it is a good thing.
Acedia, I agree with your points in the post above, as far as I know Uta Frith has been based in the UK since 1968, I'm also in the UK and don't feel there is such a massive surge in diagnoses here than seen in other countries. The increase seen here can mostly be attributed to her, her peers and her students work to understand and publicise the condition.
06 Apr 2014, 1:17 pm
neilson_wheels wrote:
Hello Littlebee, personally I don't see anything negative or condescending in the sliding top box experiment or her description of the results. I think the emphasis here was on Average Brain Type people feeling the need to emulate the adult while the autistics did not see the need and got on with the job.
As OJani said above Uta Frith completely denies the common misinformation that autistics do not have the potential for empathy. I think this is a regular point of confusion between the clinical definition and the common definition of empathy.
This programme was not aimed at those with autism as a special interest, as in everyone here, if it helps a few more ABT people to understand autism just a little bit better then it is a good thing.
As OJani said above Uta Frith completely denies the common misinformation that autistics do not have the potential for empathy. I think this is a regular point of confusion between the clinical definition and the common definition of empathy.
This programme was not aimed at those with autism as a special interest, as in everyone here, if it helps a few more ABT people to understand autism just a little bit better then it is a good thing.
You make a good point, but maybe have missed some of the gist of my message, and I don't have time to write more now. Basically re seeing her experiment as negative or condescending, I don't see that either and am not sure where you got that from. I just find her interpretations to be in a limited box. The experiment itself was interesting, I suppose, but of what functional value I am not exactly sure.
Edited to add a missing paragraph of yours in my original quote and also to add that what irks me is the impression she is giving to the public.
Ojani wrote:
Quote:
I may be missing something but I don't remember she saying autistics don't have empathy. On the contrary. She said that lack of 'mentalizing' (thinking with other people's minds) is what differentiates autism from the neurotypical world.
Good point, and thanks, but I think this is kind of what she was implying by that or at least the conclusion that would be drawn by many...a limited theory of mind thing....
daydreamer84
Veteran
Joined: 8 Jul 2009
Age: 40
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,001
Location: My own little world
06 Apr 2014, 1:46 pm
Acedia wrote:
Some good quotes from this article:
About self-diagnosis and overdiganosis:
"She also, in an intriguing postscript, talks about self-diagnosis; some people inaccurately diagnose themselves as autistic when they would be better described as having a particular personality type. There is the possibility of "over-diagnosis" she believes – criteria for diagnosing autism are subtle."
About autistic people not having empathy:
"Empathy is a huge subject and comes in different forms – it can be a contagion: you watch someone in pain, you flinch. Many autistic people have this ability. But theory of mind is more subtle…"
I know this is OT but I think it's an important point in general. About autism being a disorder vs difference:
"a counter-movement by well-meaning advocates saying high-functioning autistic people are not impaired, merely different. They say, 'Don't study us as if we have a deficit or impairment; we are, in many ways, superior.' " The words "deficit" and "normal" are disliked. "What is normal is a hugely complicated question in terms of psychiatry," Frith goes on: "The downside is if you pursue this thinking, there will be no extra help for autistic people."
06 Apr 2014, 2:13 pm
littlebee wrote:
The video really kind of fascinating and I intend to watch it again, but one thing that bothered me was the experiment about opening the sliding lid on the box where she did the tapping first and then slid the box open and non autistic children mimicked the tapping before they slid the box open but autistic children just directly slid the box open. I though her interpretation was way off the wall. Maybe they were just smarter:-) ...at least in some way.
In a primitive tribal situation where people are struggling to survive and really on the day to day edge of doing so, you might want people like that and the other kind of people who did the tapping first, too. The problem is she is too focused on her specialty and thinking inside that particular box but expecting to get special credence for it because she is a professional. it is kind of almost in the line of a hoax. That irks me as her thinking is so mundane and encourages mundane thinking. She does demonstrate that certain people have different kinds of brains than other people, but so what?
In a primitive tribal situation where people are struggling to survive and really on the day to day edge of doing so, you might want people like that and the other kind of people who did the tapping first, too. The problem is she is too focused on her specialty and thinking inside that particular box but expecting to get special credence for it because she is a professional. it is kind of almost in the line of a hoax. That irks me as her thinking is so mundane and encourages mundane thinking. She does demonstrate that certain people have different kinds of brains than other people, but so what?
We know people have different kinds of brains.
The experiments were meant to find out in what way autistic brains are different from normal brains.
That is the functional value. Understanding how autistic brains are different can help autistic people.
These experiments are fascinating and in no way encourage mundane thinking.
littlebee wrote:
The problem is she is too focused on her specialty and thinking inside that particular box but expecting to get special credence for it because she is a professional. it is kind of almost in the line of a hoax.
This is just wrong.
06 Apr 2014, 3:06 pm
I thought that generally the documentary was really interesting, but I also thought that a lot of it did contradict itself.
I am not diagnosed but do think strongly that I have Asperger's and need to talk to my parents, do take anything I say lightly because I'm not sure where I fit on the spectrum.
_________________
"insert any Doctor Who quote here ..................."
Your Aspie score: 155 of 200
Your neurotypical (non-autistic) score: 37 of 200
You are very likely an Aspie
06 Apr 2014, 3:47 pm
littlebee wrote:
Ojani wrote:
Good point, and thanks, but I think this is kind of what she was implying by that or at least the conclusion that would be drawn by many...a limited theory of mind thing....
Quote:
I may be missing something but I don't remember she saying autistics don't have empathy. On the contrary. She said that lack of 'mentalizing' (thinking with other people's minds) is what differentiates autism from the neurotypical world.
Good point, and thanks, but I think this is kind of what she was implying by that or at least the conclusion that would be drawn by many...a limited theory of mind thing....
Actually, there are two kinds of empathy - according to the most accepted theories:
- Affective Empathy - having the ability to feel and mirror what other people might feel by reading subtle signs of metacommunication, works primarily instinctively.
- Cognitive Empathy - having the ability to feel what other people might feel by knowing the situation and what goes on in other people's minds. This latter is more connected with ToM. Autistics often develop the concept of empathy at an older age because of a weaker affective empathy but some argue that a very strong affective empathy can cause issues too by sending too strong signals to the autistic brain. Generally, in autism a relatively intact cognitive empathy is paired up with an often weak affective empathy.
This film did not deal with this distinction, I think primarily because of the assumed knowledge level of the public it intended to address, secondly because of volume limit.
06 Apr 2014, 4:12 pm
Marybird wrote:
littlebee wrote:
The video really kind of fascinating and I intend to watch it again, but one thing that bothered me was the experiment about opening the sliding lid on the box where she did the tapping first and then slid the box open and non autistic children mimicked the tapping before they slid the box open but autistic children just directly slid the box open. I though her interpretation was way off the wall. Maybe they were just smarter:-) ...at least in some way.
In a primitive tribal situation where people are struggling to survive and really on the day to day edge of doing so, you might want people like that and the other kind of people who did the tapping first, too. The problem is she is too focused on her specialty and thinking inside that particular box but expecting to get special credence for it because she is a professional. it is kind of almost in the line of a hoax. That irks me as her thinking is so mundane and encourages mundane thinking. She does demonstrate that certain people have different kinds of brains than other people, but so what?
In a primitive tribal situation where people are struggling to survive and really on the day to day edge of doing so, you might want people like that and the other kind of people who did the tapping first, too. The problem is she is too focused on her specialty and thinking inside that particular box but expecting to get special credence for it because she is a professional. it is kind of almost in the line of a hoax. That irks me as her thinking is so mundane and encourages mundane thinking. She does demonstrate that certain people have different kinds of brains than other people, but so what?
We know people have different kinds of brains.
Agreed..
The experiments were meant to find out in what way autistic brains are different from normal brains.
Agreed, though it is questionable if she really found out how, at least from what I saw there.
That is the functional value. Understanding how autistic brains are different can help autistic people.
Agreed that it could help autistic people, so some limited functional value there, but it could also harm them.
These experiments are fascinating and in no way encourage mundane thinking.
Fascinating to me, or at least interesting. What IS fascinating is how she puts the material together, how much non-info is in there coming to an extremely generalized conclusion, even if it is intended for the general public. She does seem to demonstrate something or other, but I see flaws in the way she draws these conclusions.
littlebee wrote:
The problem is she is too focused on her specialty and thinking inside that particular box but expecting to get special credence for it because she is a professional. it is kind of almost in the line of a hoax.
This is just wrong.
According to your own thinking, which you, of course, think is more on the mark than mine. It is admittedly a subjective call and open to discussion, and I did phrase it a tad black and white but imo you are no authority on this anymore than you think I am. So you do not think she is too focused on her specialty and thinking inside that particular box? It is your prerogative to not think this, but I assume any kind of professional expects to get some kind of special credence or a bit more credence because he is a professional. And you do not think psychologists interpret data according to various biases, subscribe to false beliefs, all the while thinking/feeling they are true, and then feed these beliefs to others, albeit sincerely, and this can influence trends and tendencies in social thinking? Everybody knows psychologists often do this, as well as many other kinds of professionals. Of course this general principle does not necessarily indicate she is doing it, but I think she is, though obviously very well meaning.
Again, that these people's brains are different in some way, definitely agreed. My own is, also.
06 Apr 2014, 5:07 pm
littlebee wrote:
littlebee wrote:
The problem is she is too focused on her specialty and thinking inside that particular box but expecting to get special credence for it because she is a professional. it is kind of almost in the line of a hoax.
This is just wrong.
[b]According to your own thinking, which you, of course, think is more on the mark than mine. It is admittedly a subjective call and open to discussion, and I did phrase it a tad black and white but imo you are no authority on this anymore than you think I am.
I do not think you are an authority on this.
06 Apr 2014, 5:36 pm
Marybird wrote:
littlebee wrote:
littlebee wrote:
The problem is she is too focused on her specialty and thinking inside that particular box but expecting to get special credence for it because she is a professional. it is kind of almost in the line of a hoax.
This is just wrong.
[b]According to your own thinking, which you, of course, think is more on the mark than mine. It is admittedly a subjective call and open to discussion, and I did phrase it a tad black and white but imo you are no authority on this anymore than you think I am.
I do not think you are an authority on this.
"imo you are no authority on this anymore than you think I am ."
That you also think I am no authority was obviously intended to be implied by this wording in this context...(or so I thought:-) as obviously you do not think I am an authority...
06 Apr 2014, 6:57 pm
littlebee wrote:
The video really kind of fascinating and I intend to watch it again, but one thing that bothered me was the experiment about opening the sliding lid on the box where she did the tapping first and then slid the box open and non autistic children mimicked the tapping before they slid the box open but autistic children just directly slid the box open. I though her interpretation was way off the wall. Maybe they were just smarter:-) ...at least in some way.
It bothered me too. I do think this experiment is holds an important clue to something but they are looking at it backwards. It reminds me of how when I was in school, sometimes I did things my own way and did very well, but the teacher would take points off because I didn't do the work exactly the way they expected it to be done (because I didn't needlessly "tap the box"). It is the same thing in many jobs, the employee is expected to do things a certain way simply because they are told to do so, even if it doesn't make any sense, and even if there is obviously a more efficient way to do things.
To me that kind of mimicry is not a sign of having higher social intelligence. I see it as more of an indication of why society is so screwed up. Many systems in western culture are fundamentally built on this idea of mimicry and following the leader. It suppresses innovation and individuality. And if children simply imitate the behavior of adults in this manner, without question, dysfunctional patterns of behavior continue to pass on from one generation to the next.
daydreamer84
Veteran
Joined: 8 Jul 2009
Age: 40
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,001
Location: My own little world
06 Apr 2014, 10:28 pm
hurtloam wrote:
What if there is not a high number of mis-diagnosis and the number is accurate?
Acedia wrote:
I doubt this because of how uneven the diagnoses are. Boys being greatly more diagnosed, and I would expect that middle/upper-class people are more diagnosed than other economic groups. Under-diagnosis is one reason, but I think over-diagnosis is most likely another. However you could be right, what if it is accurate? But it seems unrealistic.
I think there are real biological differences between boys and girls that effect autism rates. Maybe girls are somewhat underdiagnosed but I don't think the true rate would be close to even. Here's an article that discusses recent research suggesting girls need more Copy Number Variations and Sequence number variations ,structural genetic mutations, than boys to produce the same autistic symptoms, the same degree of autism.
LINK
Then just earlier today I found a study on pubmed by Francesca Happe and others that looks at data from the two biggest twin studies in the world that examined twins with ASD and controls and using just the dizigotic twins she took one twin (the proband) who scored in the 90th or 95th percentile of the population on autistic traits and then measured autistic traits in his/her twin (sibling). Siblings of girls (of both sexes) showed many more autistic traits than the siblings of boys (of both sexes). This could be evidence that it takes more etiological factors (genetic or environmental) to produce a gal with a autism than a dude with the same degree of autism. LINK
None of this is conclusive but this my viewpoint, that girls are less likely to have autism because of biological, genetic differences , to put it simply. I'm not sure about the current estimates of ASD prevalence but I don't think ASD is as under-diagnosed in girls as some people think.I agree with you about it probably being under-diagnosed in low SES communities that lack services and agree that there's probably a certain amount of misdiagnosis. How far off the current estimate is, I have no idea.
07 Apr 2014, 12:28 am
dianthus wrote:
littlebee wrote:
The video really kind of fascinating and I intend to watch it again, but one thing that bothered me was the experiment about opening the sliding lid on the box where she did the tapping first and then slid the box open and non autistic children mimicked the tapping before they slid the box open but autistic children just directly slid the box open. I though her interpretation was way off the wall. Maybe they were just smarter:-) ...at least in some way.
It bothered me too. I do think this experiment is holds an important clue to something but they are looking at it backwards. It reminds me of how when I was in school, sometimes I did things my own way and did very well, but the teacher would take points off because I didn't do the work exactly the way they expected it to be done (because I didn't needlessly "tap the box"). It is the same thing in many jobs, the employee is expected to do things a certain way simply because they are told to do so, even if it doesn't make any sense, and even if there is obviously a more efficient way to do things.
To me that kind of mimicry is not a sign of having higher social intelligence. I see it as more of an indication of why society is so screwed up. Many systems in western culture are fundamentally built on this idea of mimicry and following the leader. It suppresses innovation and individuality. And if children simply imitate the behavior of adults in this manner, without question, dysfunctional patterns of behavior continue to pass on from one generation to the next.
I agree with what you are saying, but I don't understand why the interpretation bothered you.
Dr. Hamilton interpreted it by stating the obvious.
She said that she believed the non autistic children copied everything the adults did including silly actions like finger tapping, that don't contribute to the goal, because they wanted to be like the adult and do everything the adult does.
She said the autistic children were more selective in doing something that gets the goal but didn't want to copy all the extra, unnecessary things.
(imo I think they were also being literal and doing what they were asked without reading anything else into it).
Neither Dr. Hamilton nor Ute Frith made any kind of a value judgment on this.
All that was communicated was that autistics had a different way of thinking and perceiving. It was a brilliant experiment.
daydreamer84
Veteran
Joined: 8 Jul 2009
Age: 40
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,001
Location: My own little world
07 Apr 2014, 12:51 am
^
I agree (with Marybird). The experiment was done because it had long been known that autistic kids have trouble with imitation but precisely what type of imitation or whether they have difficulty imitating everything was unknown. Some people with autism are good at other kinds of mimicry. The results of the experiment suggest that autistic kids specifically don't imitate unnecessary actions for social purposes but they can imitate goal directed behaviour. This is a useful advancement in knowledge, IMO.
