Board index › General Discussion › General Autism Discussion

Insensitivity to social reputation in autism. So how is it?

Page 4 of 4 [ 59 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4

Previous topic | Next topic

Do you care what people think of you?
I constantly try to please everyone (even at my own expense) 9%  9%  [ 6 ]
I'm preoccupied with thoughts of how others perceive me 14%  14%  [ 10 ]
I always have in mind how my actions will be perceived but it's just one component 13%  13%  [ 9 ]
Only if these are people who care about me (relatives, friends) or if I have a goal in mind 13%  13%  [ 9 ]
Human cognition is interesting 13%  13%  [ 9 ]
I don't think about it much 6%  6%  [ 4 ]
I don't think I do in casual social situations, more likely on the big picture 0%  0%  [ 0 ]
Here I am; if you don't like me, the worse for you 20%  20%  [ 14 ]
Why should I care what others think of me? 7%  7%  [ 5 ]
This question makes little to no sense 1%  1%  [ 1 ]
Other (please explain) 3%  3%  [ 2 ]
Total votes : 69

TheSunAlsoRises
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 Dec 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,039

14 Dec 2011, 4:47 pm

Tuttle wrote:
TheSunAlsoRises wrote:
http://www.eurekalert.org/jrnls/pnas_pdfs/pnas.201107038.pdf


Having read this paper quickly things I've noted:

1. They make no mention of socio-economic background or whether the individuals are employed. They matched age, sex, and IQ.

2. They made the standard incredibly frustrating mistake of misusing the word empathy from SBC's writing. They were using SBC's research and empathy quotient, which is based off of cognative empathy, then wrote (supporting it with EQ test results) "Might people with ASD be immune to observer effects simply because they have less empathy for others (less intrinsic motivation to help others)?"

3. The people with ASDs did overall give less. That's the reason they're able to paint this as negative at all.


I still don't see why "I make decisions based on the same criteria whether or not someone is watching me" is a negative thing. I'm quite confused by this.


The research is based on the belief that the average 'normal' person will give more money to a charity for children IF a second party is watching while donations are being solicited. Why ?

Shame. The average 'normal' person is suppose to feel ashamed in the presence of a second party watching them make a donation IF he or she plans to give a small donation. Out of shame(because of the presence of the second party), the average 'normal' person is suppose to give more money and in doing so increase their social reputation in the eyes of the solicitor and second party.

*solicitor: the one asking for donations
*second party: the person watching

So, the construct of the test depended upon how well a response could be elicited through shame and the outcome being assessed was awareness in increased social reputation in the eyes of a solicitor and second party by donating more money.


TheSunAlsoRises



Tuttle
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Mar 2006
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,088
Location: Massachusetts

14 Dec 2011, 4:54 pm

TheSunAlsoRises wrote:

The research is based on the belief that the average 'normal' person will give more money to a charity for children IF a second party is watching while donations are being solicited. Why ?

Shame. The average 'normal' person is suppose to feel ashamed in the presence of a second party watching them make a donation IF he or she plans to give a small donation. Out of shame(because of the presence of the second party), the average 'normal' person is suppose to give more money and in doing so increase their social reputation in the eyes of the solicitor and second party.

*solicitor: the one asking for donations
*second party: the person watching

So, the construct of the test depended upon how well a response could be elicited through shame and the outcome being assessed was awareness in increased social reputation in the eyes of a solicitor and second party by donating more money.


TheSunAlsoRises


I realize this, but I don't understand why people acting upon trying to increase their social reputation is supposed to be better than those who aren't taking that into account. Why is this a 'bad' thing for autistic people, why is it an impairment that is something 'wrong' with us?



Jediscraps
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Sep 2010
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 522

14 Dec 2011, 5:02 pm

That is interesting. I wonder if this sort of thing is used when going through grocery store line and they ask for money to be donated to some cause. Just the other day I thought it was odd that it is technically illegal for panhandlers to come up to someone and ask money in my city but they often ask for money in grocery stores if I buy something.
Also, I remember this group was selling cookies that looked liked breasts for breast cancer and I didn't buy anything and they called me something. I was with a woman and she didn't want to buy it either. I forget what they said but I guess I didn't respond as they wanted me to.
I have donated money before on my own accord, to something I thought about, but not usually with this.
I have given more to homeless people but now I am not so sure about that because this one time sometging happened and I felt like such a fool for giving the money.



TheSunAlsoRises
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 Dec 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,039

14 Dec 2011, 5:11 pm

Tuttle wrote:
TheSunAlsoRises wrote:

The research is based on the belief that the average 'normal' person will give more money to a charity for children IF a second party is watching while donations are being solicited. Why ?

Shame. The average 'normal' person is suppose to feel ashamed in the presence of a second party watching them make a donation IF he or she plans to give a small donation. Out of shame(because of the presence of the second party), the average 'normal' person is suppose to give more money and in doing so increase their social reputation in the eyes of the solicitor and second party.

*solicitor: the one asking for donations
*second party: the person watching

So, the construct of the test depended upon how well a response could be elicited through shame and the outcome being assessed was awareness in increased social reputation in the eyes of a solicitor and second party by donating more money.


TheSunAlsoRises


I realize this, but I don't understand why people acting upon trying to increase their social reputation is supposed to be better than those who aren't taking that into account. Why is this a 'bad' thing for autistic people, why is it an impairment that is something 'wrong' with us?


The testing and research being done is based upon neuro-typical behavioral models. Thus, Autistics are being compared to how the overwhelming majority of neuro-typicals would respond to a test(or situation). IF Autistics show a pattern of falling outside of neuro-typical standards than the outcomes are critiqued against what is considered the 'norm'.

It's the same problem seen in IQ tests as well.

The only way things of this nature change is IF more Autistics get involved in the process.

TheSunAlsoRises



Tuttle
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Mar 2006
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,088
Location: Massachusetts

14 Dec 2011, 5:17 pm

TheSunAlsoRises wrote:
The testing and research being done is based upon neuro-typical behavioral models. Thus, Autistics are being compared to how the overwhelming majority of neuro-typicals would respond to a test(or situation). IF Autistics show a pattern of falling outside of neuro-typical standards than the outcomes are critiqued against what is considered the 'norm'.

It's the same problem seen in IQ tests as well.

The only way things of this nature change is IF more Autistics get involved in the process.

TheSunAlsoRises


But the language isn't "there's a difference here", its "they're impaired". Comparing to the NT majority makes sense, but that doesn't make different automatically mean bad. There are plenty of things that are only minorities that are either positive or neutral, this one is being discussed as if its negative.

Neutral language I'd expect, but 'someone is impaired because they act differently than I do in a way that can be seen as positive', doesn't make sense to me.



TheSunAlsoRises
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 Dec 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,039

14 Dec 2011, 5:39 pm

Tuttle wrote:
TheSunAlsoRises wrote:
The testing and research being done is based upon neuro-typical behavioral models. Thus, Autistics are being compared to how the overwhelming majority of neuro-typicals would respond to a test(or situation). IF Autistics show a pattern of falling outside of neuro-typical standards than the outcomes are critiqued against what is considered the 'norm'.

It's the same problem seen in IQ tests as well.

The only way things of this nature change is IF more Autistics get involved in the process.

TheSunAlsoRises


But the language isn't "there's a difference here", its "they're impaired". Comparing to the NT majority makes sense, but that doesn't make different automatically mean bad. There are plenty of things that are only minorities that are either positive or neutral, this one is being discussed as if its negative.

Neutral language I'd expect, but 'someone is impaired because they act differently than I do in a way that can be seen as positive', doesn't make sense to me.



Anytime, there is a comparative study that deals with the social mind of Autistics, it is highly unlikely that there will be neutrality of language. In this particular case, connections were made between ToM and lack of empathy. These two issues are look upon as impairments in those with Autism.

This is 'why' the Autistic community needs more Autistic people involved in research and other endeavors.

TheSunAlsoRises



Verdandi
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Dec 2010
Age: 55
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,275
Location: University of California Sunnydale (fictional location - Real location Olympia, WA)

14 Dec 2011, 10:45 pm

Tuttle wrote:
Well, all of the language is about impairment; none of it is positive. And then they started questioning whether people with ASDs care as much about helping others (and saying that can't account for the differences), but as a whole its very autism is negative necessarily language.


That's how they always describe autistic differences - autistic logic is wrong, autism is negative. Autistic people care less about helping others, etc.

Quote:
(Note: I missed writing down in the last one - how they tried to not take economic status into account was giving everyone $45 at the beginning of it that they could give away and such. I'm thinking that's not enough control though.)


That doesn't take economic status into account. Give $45 to someone who makes $5,000 a month, and then give $45 to someone who makes $500 a month. Their perspective on the $45 will be very different.



CockneyRebel
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jul 2004
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 117,337
Location: In my little Olympic World of peace and love

14 Dec 2011, 11:54 pm

I've voted, here I am and if you don't like me than too bad for you. I care more about my uniqueness than I care about my social status or reputation. Social reputation is so NT.


_________________
The Family Enigma


mar00
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 May 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 603
Location: Germany

15 Dec 2011, 10:37 am

CockneyRebel wrote:
I've voted, here I am and if you don't like me than too bad for you. I care more about my uniqueness than I care about my social status or reputation. Social reputation is so NT.

I hope you don't mind me asking but when you were younger what would you say then?



Tuttle
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Mar 2006
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,088
Location: Massachusetts

15 Dec 2011, 1:29 pm

mar00 wrote:
CockneyRebel wrote:
I've voted, here I am and if you don't like me than too bad for you. I care more about my uniqueness than I care about my social status or reputation. Social reputation is so NT.

I hope you don't mind me asking but when you were younger what would you say then?


I'm not CockneyRebel but I can tell you that I would have. I solidly was asking how why people want to be normal when others were caring about popularity.



mar00
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 May 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 603
Location: Germany

15 Dec 2011, 2:13 pm

Tuttle wrote:
mar00 wrote:
CockneyRebel wrote:
I've voted, here I am and if you don't like me than too bad for you. I care more about my uniqueness than I care about my social status or reputation. Social reputation is so NT.

I hope you don't mind me asking but when you were younger what would you say then?


I'm not CockneyRebel but I can tell you that I would have. I solidly was asking how why people want to be normal when others were caring about popularity.

Well social reputation migh not nec. be tied with popularity.
For instance I would constantly preoccupy myself with what others might think but this was not a matter of being normal, rather that I would be a person that I think I am in other people's minds, if that makes sense.
And now recently I have come to realize that this is fundamentally impossible. It's probably not so much a matter of being liked as having a very high standarts for yourself, and having a clear idea of proper public behaviour.