Uta Frith's comment

Post Reply New Topic

Marybird, maybe you are approaching from a question about why he saw it the way he did, but it seems to me you are approaching more from a fixed conclusion. Also, you and I have a way different idea about what is brilliant. I have heard you use this word before to describe something I did not think was briliant at all, and this made a big impression upon me at the time.

I think that experiment was clever, but highly flawed, (and actually Firth did make a value judgement in the way she fit this material into the general content of the video). First of all, I am skeptical that all of the autistic children who were tested did not do the tapping part. I will have to watch it again, but as I recall the implication was that they all did, and also, I believe too many subtle cues such as voice tone, body tension and gross and subtle motor movements could influence the response, as well as the selection of participants for the test..Psychology is a soft science (meaning pliable and flexible), and the person doing the measuring can greatly influence the measurement results. My interest, social science, is a soft science, too, but I consciously take it into account that it is a soft science. She apparently seems to be oblivious to this and is presenting the conclusions she has drawn as being objective, and the way she is framing this material and fitting it in with other material is creating a picture, but I don't believe in that picture, and also, as previously mentioned, I question the functional value. I think it is very limited, That is really going to help autistic children? How, exactly?

Re another experiment, the Sally Ann one, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sally%E2%80%93Anne_test, I would not place that much credence, as some autistic children pass this test, and many more obviously do at a different age. However, though I have not yet looked at this video a second time, the way she presents this material to the general public in that video suggests that all autistic people always do this. Again, she is framing this material into a picture in a way which imo is not smart. It irks me. In the beginning when I first saw the video I really liked her, as she comes across as warm, friendly and kind of impartial, but then I saw through it---was not even trying to--just suddenly saw the picture entirely differently and didn't really like her anymore. I saw her entirely differently. I get the sense that she is well meaning, but I think she has duped herself into believing in a false picture. That in itself would not be enough to make me dislike her, but it is the way she is giving this picture to other people. She should look at herself and her own brain function and try to factor that into the equation. I know that is hard to do, though. I do find the video of value from the perspective of potential material to enquire into. It is practically a gold mine, and I am really grateful to the person who started this thread.

dianthus wrote:
I would be interested in the use of the word backwards. if we look at this in terms of time, we can approach from an entirely different perspective which opens the door into a great big perceptual universe.

I would also like to note that one part of the video that really stuck in my mind was when the autistic women was saying that when she had a plan and was in charge, so directing other people (my paraphrase) she knew exactly what to to do. That was very interesting. This also can be related to time in that thought stretches things out and offers various possibilities, but an direct action is obviously more concise, and sometimes a concise action can save your life (whereas in other instances what is required is a well thought-out plan:-)

I think it's a mistake to believe autistic people, always, do not have "theory of mind." Clearly, many of them do!

@littlebee: You still haven't given enough reason why you didn't like this film and Uta Frith, IMHO, although you've written a lot. Such videos never go into too much detail, as many stated here. This isn't a scientific paper either, sometimes statements (including implied ones) are a bit overgeneralized, which I think is inevitable, and acceptable, as long as they convey a fair view of the subject. The general look of the film may have bothered those reasoning being on the spectrum means a difference rather than a disability. There are hints in the film, if I recall well, that for some it may be true. However, the vast majority, those who are further on the spectrum, experience too much of the impairing side of their ASD. They are treated respectfuly in the film, IMO.

I agree with you daydreamer, I have posted before about this, however I think the disparity is made a bit bigger because boys get diagnosed more. And thank you for the papers, really interesting.

---

Last edited by Acedia on 07 Apr 2014, 12:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Hi. Your other message impressed me as very smart, not because of the info in it about empathy, though that was very knowledgeable, but something else, and this message confirms it. Yes, I did not give enough of a reason why I dislike her. That is very smart to pinpoint, as the answer could be helpful in understanding something (or other:-) or even for helping myself understand that I do not really understand something. Unfortunately I do not have time to go into this now, but in short I dislike her because imo she is harming other people by this simplistic approach to autism, and by other people, I mean people in general. Of course then I have to explain this. She does not understand how to play things backward and forward, only forward. This would be fine, or at least okay, if not really fine, as it would not affect other people's thinking so much, though it could factor in, but her being in a professional position, it has more of a chance to affect the thinking of other people, not that this video probably even did...it is maybe exaggerated to us because we are looking at it here.. This is all about how context affects the perception of time and other brain functions. I will write more when I get a chance. For instance the tapping on the box was in the context of the experiment she was making, but why should a child put material into that context? Obviously if he does not do so he is not going to get along with other people who are all doing so, but these are the same people who build nuclear bombs and are destroying the planet. Now I am sounding as if I am against so-called nt's, but it is not even about that.

And re the point you keep making that the video was generalized I think it is a good point, but you can only go so far with that, though I may respond more to this when I get a chance.

It was not Dr. Hamilton's interpretation that bothered me, it was Dr. Frith's. She segues into the experiment after Sarah is talking about how she imitates other people:



First off it irks me is that Frith seems to be equating "success" with "masking autism" and that she links it to having the ability to imitate social behavior (whether it is done through conscious study, or intuitively). I question the meaning of success in this context, not just in relation to Sarah specifically but for autistic people in general. Is success primarily about mimicking the behavior of other people? And I would say that "success" is a strong value judgment.

Sarah is successful at public speaking, and when she explains why, it does not sound like it is based in being able to study and imitate social behavior. It actually sounds more like the opposite, like it is something of a reprieve from having to do that, because she is in charge of the situation. Her imitative skills surely help her to get through all the other social activities that are connected to such engagements (some of which might be like "tapping the box" as they are not probably not vitally necessary to the task at hand). But I think the real measure of her success is in using her own innate talents and abilities, NOT imitating social behavior or "masking her autism."

It also sounds like Sarah does not consider herself particularly successful at imitating people, but it is just something she has to do to get by. She says her failure rate is high, and it is stressful for her. Then Frith says that imitation might be the key to Sarah's success. The juxtaposition of those comments struck me as very odd. Anyway it is strikingly clear that these two women have different ideas about what it means to be successful.

Putting all of this in context, when Frith points to the results of the experiment, she is contrasting Sarah's "success" with the lack of mimicry in autistic children. She says this kind of imitative behavior "might be crucial to the way most of us bond with each other and fit into the social world" and I would generally agree with this. But I don't think the way most people bond with each other and fit into the social world is necessarily the model we should all aspire to.

I am skeptical of the experiment for the same reasons, and also of the other experiments (Sally/Anne, the moving triangles, and the thief/sweets).



I had the same impression of her, but before viewing this video, from listening to some of her lectures. I think her work is important, but maybe she is a bit too insulated in her own ideas. And it bothers me that she fixates on her theories about "mentalizing" and the social aspects of autism and seems to ignore sensory issues.



Well basically...I am getting tired now so I may not be phrasing this the best way...but rather than simply testing children for whether or not they imitate pointless behaviors, they would do well to study how and why people model pointless behaviors for other people to imitate in the first place.

Of course the box-tapping gesture is just a silly thing made up for the experiment, but it is a really succinct analogy for a lot of different kinds of social behavior.

some comments inserted in bold....

I agree her work is important. It offers an interesting perspective and some useful data points.

However, I sense that the work of these "experts" focuses on a particular aspect of autism (the area that is their "claim to fame") and ignores other parts. As an example, you mentioned that Frith ignores sensory issues. From my perspective, she also does not delve deeply enough into deficits in Complex Information Processing <click>.

IMO, the experts seem to suffer from the "blind men and the elephant" parable.

I wondered about this myself (which is why I occasionally question the validity of my own diagnosis). As I was diagnosed during a low point in my life. Pretty much, my life fluctuates between "really low" low points and some "not so low" low points. So, it could be argued that I needed some help at the time at the time of diagnosis.

I suspect that if I saw the psychologist during one of those "not so low" low points, I may not have been diagnosed, even though I have a lot of autistic traits.



This makes sense for those who struggle all the time (and do not fluctuate, as I describe above). I imagine this fluctuation can be attributed to temporarily finding ways to cope with the traits (and knowing how to avoid things that will "push" you over the edge).

My view: she foucuses on and studies theories cognitive deficits (or differences) in ASD but she does not ever claim that these theories account for all of the deficits and differences that exist in ASD. Most scientists have a particular focus, some study genetics or prenatal problems that could contribute to ASD, some study sensory processing in ASD etc. and some study various aspects of cognition. Currently there is no theory that accounts for everything going on in ASD, we're not there yet. It doesn't mean there's no point studying particular aspects. She also studies weak central coherence, although she discusses how it can either be a weakness or a strength (strong detail focus).
Rocket123- Your image reminded me of detail focus and weak central coherence.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AbD9-Ff93OU[/youtube]

*grrr* It's not posting the video but if you copy and paste the link (w/o the youtube tags) into a new window you can view the video.

[Mod. edit: Please note - YouTube video embedding will not work when the URL starts with "https" (this is also true for image embedding).
The URL has been edited from "https" to "http" so that the video is now embedded in the post]

daydreamer - This makes sense. So...when Dr. Frith talks about diagnosis (and who is autistic and who is not), what criteria is she basing this on? Whether they conform to her theory of what constitutes autism?

No, I think she's basing that on the diagnostic criteria for the disorder , not cognitive theories. She says"over-diagnosis is possible because the criteria for autism are subtle" and she talks about how self-diagnosis can be wrong because the symptoms and traits of ASD (based on diagnostic criteria, I think) exist on a continuum in the general population.

@Mod- Thank you!

I think wrong self-diagnosis can happen because people without autism who write about autism try to relate it to something they can understand. Does that make sense?

Like when autistic people rock back and forth, NTs assume they are doing it because they are anxious, this is because they can relate to that, even if the rocking that people with autism do is mechanical and sustained, and doesn't even look like the subtle rocking people do when sad or anxious.

Many people on here post things like they think they might flap, but then go on to describe normal physical expressions of emotions. People confuse their interests and hobbies with the narrow and circumscribed interests people with autism have. And people confuse the normal sensory annoyances they have, like the hatred of certain sounds, with the sustained sensory problems that people with autism have.

I think this is how misdiagnosis and wrong self-diagnosis can happen. It's a misapprehension of the condition. In a sense it's NTs trying to understand, but missing the mark. It's why a lot people find autism hard to understand, as they can't relate to it, but they try to. It's also why autism is related to things people can understand, like Asperger Syndrome with nerds and geeks.

And of course the social feature of autism. Relating social awkwardness and shyness to autism, because of misunderstanding, than accepting that people with autism have no natural sense for socializing. As you can see from the documentary people with autism are not just shy. But their social difficulties are obvious.

---

Last edited by Acedia on 08 Apr 2014, 5:01 pm, edited 2 times in total.

I was wondering about that too. It is unlikely in any experiment that the results would be so clearly divided. I realize what is shown in the video is just a brief summary or sample, but I would find it more believable if they give a percentage such as "87% of autistic children did not do the tapping." Instead it is implied that it is 100%. It makes me wonder if they are redrawing the boundaries of what autism is or how it presents as they go along to fit a certain result.



She was one of the first to recognize that autism is a neurological disorder, and dispensed with the now outdated psychoanalytical ideas that autism was caused by poor parenting.



I guess it's always a question of what kind of research there is funding for. The public generally sees autism as a problem it wants to solve or fix and that is what gets the funding. So the research is aimed at finding out what is different about autistic people, and how it can be identified more clearly and diagnosed earlier. The basic assumption is that society functions well enough for everyone else and people with autism or other disorders or disabilities simply don't fit because there is something different about them. But maybe the social world doesn't function as well for neurotypicals as it is believed. Maybe people who have profound differences are revealing something about the deeper nature of society.

Personally what I took away from that experiment, is that if imitating blatantly pointless behaviors is a sign of typical social development, there is something deeply disturbing and creepy about the way humans learn to be social. But I really find it incredible that not one child, NT or autistic, commented on how unnecessary it was to tap the box. I would expect at least some of the children to point out how silly it was. Another reason why I suspect this study is flawed in some way.

And I wish they had probed deeper to find out what the children thought about the tapping, and whether they would change the behavior in alternate scenarios. It is fine to theorize about what it means that some children tap and some don't, but unless they find a way to demonstrate the underlying motivations, it is just speculation.

Yes, I think you're right, that makes sense.