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

Page 7 of 9 [ 140 posts ] Go to page Previous 1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 Next

Previous topic | Next topic

aghogday
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Nov 2010
Age: 64
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,908

19 Jul 2011, 2:25 pm

MrXxx wrote:

Finally, in SBC's own words:

Quote:

By theory of mind we mean being able to infer the full range of mental states (beliefs, desires, intentions, imagination, emotions, etc.) that cause action. In brief, having a theory of mind is to be able to reflect on the contents of one’s own and other’s minds.

No mention at all as to the accuracy of conclusions drawn from said inferences.

So the question is:

How useful is it really if there is no requirement for accuracy?

More importantly, what is the REAL reason behind the "apparent" lack of it in Autistics?

Isn't it possible that the reason we don't display it is because we don't see any value in it? Of what value is any mental effort to which I cannot attribute accuracy? I'm not actually asking for answers to these questions. I can already come up with many of them. The point I'm driving at is aimed more closely at the concept that Autistics lack the capacity for TOM.

I no longer think this is true. I think it's far more likely that we object to using it, because we know it's not accurate. Because we know every idea and thought we come up with as to how others think, is derived from within our own minds.

Now! Now here's where the relationship between TOM and reading body language come into play!

Mydar posted several pages back:

Mdyar wrote:

Back to the basics Mr.Xxx

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

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

With this "impairment" 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 ability 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?

Now, while I don't agree it is "that simple," I do agree reading body language comes into play here. Body language communicates quite a bit. If you can't, or don't use it, you're missing a large part of a conversation.

"NT's" use body language in conjunction with the verbal in order to paint a complete mental "picture" of what people are saying to them. Body language can betray lies, or confirm truths. I said "can," not "does."

The question I ask about this though, is the same as the questions I have about empathy and TOM.

In Autistics, is it really an inability, or reduced ability to use them that explains the fact that researchers don't see it, OR, is it CHOICE (conscious or subconscious) that we don't use it, because WE don't perceive the value in it?

Somehow I think it's may be both, depending on the Autistic being observed. The reason I think this is because a great MANY high funcioning Autistics LEARN to do this (empathize, TOM and reading body language.)

CLEARLY we're not unable to do it, else we couldn't learn them, so the question then begs, "Why don't we see it in them at typical ages?"

Reduced ability is but ONE explanation for this. But, there are others that could explain this apparent lack just as well.

1) None of them can be relied upon fully well so we choose not to use them.

2) We remain aware that others do have their own interpretations of experiences, but what matters to us more, is our own, BECAUSE it is the only interpretation of which we can be 100% certain. Figuring out what others might be thinking, is to us, just guess work.

I could come up with some other explanations, but the point is simple. There MAY be others.

For researchers to simply assume that if they can't see it, it isn't there, seems to me to be an incomplete processing of the evidence.

I've asked my own kids, who are all diagnosed on the Spectrum, to talk to me about the Sally/Anne test. I got Three different answers:

1) She'll look in the basket (my eleven year old)

Because that's where she put it so that's the first place she'll look.

2) She'll look in the box (my thirteen year old)

Because it's a basket (a basket ball basket) so the ball would fall through it, and she can't see it, so the only place left is the box.

3) She'll look in the basked, unless Anne does that to her all the time, but she'll look in the box eventually, because it isn't in the basket. (my fourteen year old)

Can you see how important it is to have some understanding of WHY they gave the answers they did? Doesn't that understanding change the entire conclusion one would draw? It's easy to simply hear an answer and assume it's because of either a lack of understanding TOM, or a developed understanding, but if you ask WHY they gave the answers they did, everything changes.

Now I have to tell you that all three of them have had some training in TOM in school, but the funny part is, all of that training was approached with the presumption that they all lacked Theory of Mind. Not once did their therapist ever ask them why they gave the answers they did during their training. She actually showed us exactly what she did with them during training.

One good example was a photograph she showed them, of a woman in a store, looking over her shoulder, with her hand in her purse. They were supposed to tell her what was going on in the picture. To make this easier to follow, I'll tell you the "correct" answer. The woman was shop lifting.

When my kids looked at it, they all said, "She's shopping." When pressed for more detail they all shrugged and said, "She's shopping."

The therapist showed us the photo (this was before telling us the answer), and I couldn't come up with an answer at all. "She's shopping" just seemed too ridiculously obvious so I didn't bother saying it, because I knew that wasn't what she was looking for. I knew there was some supposedly "hidden meaning" buried in the details.

When she explained how she had to describe all the expressions, the body language etc. to reach the shoplifting conclusion, I stopped her and asked one question.

"How about this? She's just left home, where she has an abusive husband, who doesn't like her leaving without his permission. She's looking over her shoulder, scared that he might walk in and catch her. She's got her hand in her purse, because she's got a cell phone ready to call the police if she needs to."

"Yeah, I guess i can see how you got that," she said.

I asked her if she ever bothered to ask them why they had given the answer they did, and although she had, and they had explained why ("Shes in a store. That's why people go to stores."), she simply went on with explaining that they were "missing obvious cues."

Were they? Or were they subconsciously or consciously choosing not to delve any deeper because there were just too many variables, and no "correct" answer in their minds?

I am now very heavily leaning toward it not being a reduced ability at all, but more a matter of there being too many variables. I think this perception that high functioning Autistics lack TOM might be incorrect, and that the same things they see in us that lead to this conclusion are more likely due to our need for things to make clear sense.

Couldn't this seeming lack of ability to practice TOM just as easily be explained by our incessant need for order? Isn't it true that we're always looking for "the" right answer?

With TOM, body language and empathy, there IS no one right answer!

Thoughts?

When details are important a detail oriented mind is advantageous for answers, and when the big picture is important a big picture type mind is advantageous for answers. There's much more involved in it than that. There are sensory issues, issues of short term working memory, executive functioning and many other factors that no one may be aware of.

The chemicals in the brain that enhance short term working memory and executive memory are affected by motivating factors. If I am motivated to pay attention to every detail on the animation of the house and the shape, I am more likely to understand it better than if I'm not fully engaged and focused.

For example the brain age game by nintendo, I played. wasn't focused and got an age of an 80 year old. I got focused, engaged, and had the age of a twenty year old about three tries later. The difference was motivation and focus, not potential ability.

In school I was more engaged and focused on class than people. Later in life, I worked at a Bowling Center and people became my main focus. My social intelligence, eventually sky rocketed, because I had to gain it to keep the job.

Kids that don't interact as much with kids as other kids, aren't going to do as well with these Sally Anne tests because they don't have the practical experience to understand the variables at play.

In addition, regarding the purse incident. If a young male youth never thought much about a purse or the contigencies of carrying a purse in a mall and someone stealing it, I'm not sure why their first impression of the lady holding her purse and looking back while shopping, wouldn't invoke an answer that the lady is shopping at the store.

I think much of this is colored by experience and preconceived notion, along with issues that may have some kind of biological undercurrents like short term working memory and executive function. But, even that could be influenced by the many factors in our cultural environments and neuroplasticity.

These are factors that I think might influence theory of mind. Now regarding the accuracy of theory of mind; no it's not accurate, but in reality those that are the best at it, do the best in social situations because they can figure them out, say the proper things, and get the cooperative effort needed to survive as a human being in the world. As a race, we are social animals and require that cooperative effort and understanding to survive.

In society today, we don't always need the same level of cooperative effort that we have needed in our historical past for survival. Technological advancements have replaced many of the requirements for survival that in previous history was dependent on human cooperation.

This affects neuroplasticity; we are our experience and if our experience doesn't include as strong as a requirement for social interaction, we're not going to be as good at it. We might not have to concern ourselves as much with figuring each other out if we don't need each other as much; human interaction is not as predictable (or as predictably engaging) as many of the alternate activities that we can focus our attention on.

I don't think there are too many kids though, consciously thinking about all of this, they are doing what is human nature, I think, taking the path that feels the best. At some point, though, they may find themselves in environmental circumstances where TOM is a requirement, so they learn, adapt and continue to thrive, or don't. The reasons they do and the reasons they don't are probably just as complex.

Mdyar
Veteran
Veteran

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

19 Jul 2011, 2:50 pm

Well, Mr. Xxx. there is still a missing componet in all this and it is what I believe makes spectrum folk have to think more . With a disturbance in "instinct" there is a 'widening' of perception when things dont 'line up in an NT world. I'm sure there is an awareness in undiagnosed autitisics that they are different and thus have to learn the rules intellectually rather then non verbally feel, or intuit the flow as NT's apparently do....it's all survival mode.

I believe the lack of interest in something is tantamount to inability. This doesn't equate to "inferior" any more than someone blind is "inferior."

This does amount to a measure of disability in a culture that values social networks and office garden environments that "value" personality over ethics or ability....Unfortunately.

One could rationalize away the blind mans deficit by saying " he is much more intelligent now because if he doesn't think he sinks."

I'm neutral here Mr.Xxx, in this post and just adding my perspective. I'm not autistic, but do have ADD and this causes a unique disturbance in different areas where you have to *compensate* or "sink."

btbnnyr
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 May 2011
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,359
Location: Lost Angleles Carmen Santiago

19 Jul 2011, 4:18 pm

I wonder if we are still thinking of ourselves too much through the NT perspective of us. What if we disregarded all of the research done by them about us? Let's do this from the ground up. We've got eyes and ears and brains to come up with this stuff ourselves.

First, what if we gave NTs a taste of their own medicine and defined them through our perspective? Do they have the ability to empathize? In other words, do they have the ability to empathize with US? Assume that we're the majority. If they can't empathize with us, then obviously, they appear to lack empathy from our perspective. They don't understand that it hurts for a person to tell white lies and move things out of order and change plans at the last minute and not be able to focus intensely on one thing for twelve hours a pop? These are our feelings. My feelings, if I try to avoid generalizing. If they don't understand these things, then they don't have our theory of mind, and they lack empathy with us. From their perspective, the same for us. It's just that there are so many more of them that they get to set the standards for everyone, and ever since we were defined and studied by them, we have allowed them to define and study us, as if their outside misinterpretations of us are somehow more valid than our own perspectives. Are our outside interpretations of them valid? No, but we can see that they are invalid and seek others to improve upon them, while they, having so many peers to agree with them at all times, do not have feedback that they might be wrong. I'd be happy to provide that feedback, whether someone asks or not. It seems to me that from our, or I will only say my, perspective, that everything that plethistic people say about autistic people can be said by autistic people back about plethistic people.

It's lunchtime, and I can't go into details right now, but I'll just use the example of rigid thinking.

Yep, I'm rigid about my routines, because deviation from routines hurts me. It creates mental and physical distress for me. Plethistic people (not to be used as a demeaning term, but just different from autistic) are extremely rigid about social conventions. Deviation from conventions hurts them, and for most of my life, it's been hard for me to understand why the heck that is. Only when I remembered how much deviation from routine hurts me do I realize how much deviation from social conventions hurts someone else. Different causes, same feelings. Make the connection between the causes and the feelings, and you start to understand a ToM different from your own. This is a rather simplistic example, but I think this is where the communication gap can be bridged. Plethistics have an easier time empathizing with plethistics. Same for autistics. The groups are just minds that think and feel more similarly to each other. Same stimulus, similar response for the similar brains. Same stimulus, different response for different brains.

But can plethistics and autistics empathize with each other? I think so. Why don't we just establish what feels good and bad for different people and realize that ABC causes pain for one person and XYZ for another person, and the pain each experiences feels much the same whether it's caused by ABC or XYZ? Same with joy. Then, I would understand why I should tell someone else a white lie to avoid upsetting them even if it costs me a little to do it, and someone else would understand why they should not change our joint plans at the last minute to avoid upsetting me even if it costs them a little to do it. Just call up the feelings. Everyone knows what those feelings are. Know what the different ToMs are, and apply them appropriately if one wants to be considerate of others. Most importantly, don't tell others that they are deficient and subhuman for not having your particular kind of ToM, whether that of your group or your individual own.

btbnnyr
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 May 2011
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,359
Location: Lost Angleles Carmen Santiago

19 Jul 2011, 4:43 pm

Let me ask y'all a question. This is mostly for people who were diagnosed as adults and thought of themselves as normal for much of their lives.

How did you feel about NTs and autistic people before you knew that you were autistic?

For me, I thought of myself as an oddball and different from most people, but I didn't have a negative view of the other normal people who were totally different from me, nor did I have a negative view of autistic people. I was fairly neutral about all parties.

I'm willing to bet this is not the case for NTs. Everywhere I go, especially online but sometimes offline, whenever is AS is mentioned, the worst slurs will come out and so many insults are applied to autistic people, especially Asperger's, as nasty horrible human beings. People with classic autism are regarded as having a horrible disease. Sometimes, people with AS are also regarded as having a horrible disease, but the horrible disease is also more their fault than for people with classic autism. It's absolutely ridiculous, isn't it?

Why the difference in reactions to people different from oneself for me vs. NTs? Because NTs prioritize people/groups/commonality far more than I do. I'm guessing that it makes them far more uncomfortable to be confronted with something different than it makes us. It seems like they have a preference for sameness.

As another example, I am not schizophrenic, and I don't know much about schizophrenia, but I have never been repulsed by schizophrenic people. No negative feelings about them. No stigma in my mind. What about in the minds of NTs in the same position?

aghogday
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Nov 2010
Age: 64
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,908

19 Jul 2011, 5:16 pm

btbnnyr wrote:

I don't see why people that don't have traits considered to be Autistic couldn't cognitively learn empathy for the things that make some autistic people uncomfortable that don't make some non-autistic people uncomfortable, if they had to do it, but from what I've seen some people often won't change this kind of behavior for the closest of friends that don't care for it.

Fortunately in regard to sensory issues like noise and discrimination issues because of issues related to what is seen as the impairments of Autism, we are protected by disability law when it's not abused.

As a whole, I the general population is losing much of their ability to feel empathy for others; even in the closest of circles. I mentioned it another post, but going to McDonalds the cashiers get yelled at frequently now if the order is not just perfect or a little bit late, even though it's got absolutely nothing to do with anything the cashier did. This kind of stuff didn't happen a few decades ago on a regular basis the way it does now.

People look at others as tools to what they want rather than people. Life, in general has become a dehumanizing experience for many in the general population. It certainly doesn't make it any easier for someone that is significantly different that could use cooperation from others to make life a little better.

Another thing, to consider, if the cashier happened to have Aspergers they might feel like it had something to do with the fact that they had Aspergers, but in a situation like this, I think people could care less who it is behind the register.

I think communication is important for other individuals to understand what bothers us when they don't have a clue what it is. It is reasonable to assume they could understand the more uncommon issues and empathize with us. They might change or they might roll their eyes and say whatever. But, there is little chance they will change if the issue isn't discussed.

However, when it comes to environments like the work environment, understanding what issues are reasonable to discuss to us vs. what's not considered reasonable by others because the majority of people see it as acceptable, can be dangerous if one wants to keep their job.

This too, isn't an issue just for people with Autism, there are these kind of hidden rules that all people must learn when they go into a new social environment; most groups have their own rules depending on whom the group comprises. We can figure this stuff out with experience, while it might be harder for us than some others, I think there are many others in the general population that struggle with it also, as what is seen as a normal part of human social interaction within groups.

As far as is the world going to become a more receptive place for people with Autism; I hate to be pessimistic but from my own observations I don't see it as a potentially more receptive place for many people either autistic or non-autistic, which means it will likely be more of a struggle for everyone to find a niche for a successful life. It's not unusual though, all animals have to meet the challenges presented to them as life grows harder: they adapt or perish.

MotownDangerPants
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 13 May 2010
Age: 41
Gender: Female
Posts: 955

19 Jul 2011, 5:34 pm

I agree with you. I don't think a lot of people empathize as much as they think they do.

They tell themselves they and do and believe it for their own emotionally based reasons, and because they have been conditioned to do so.

I decide whether a close friend or family member REALLY gets me based on what they DO, and not what they say, because IME, they will often tell you that they understand when they *definitely* don't.

I wish that people would judge me by the same standard. I don't know if they do, but, I prefer that my actions speak much louder than my words. I will tell a lot of people whatever they want to hear, and if I don't mean it, I won't follow through with it. But if I really have respect for a person or have a strong connection with them, I almost never say anything that I don't mean and I follow through with everything that I say.

Myself...I don't know. I relate to what you said, but, I'm not the most empathetic person around. It's not like I can't EVER see something from someone else's viewpoint. I can sympathize and empathize, and i can empathize VERY well, with people that I've never met or don't know very well...sometimes.

Other times, it *is* like I just don't have a ton of feelings...I can't empathize because I don't *have* the feelings that other people do, so I can feel FOR them (sympathize), but not with them. I feel this way most of the time, BUT when I can empathize I do it very well.

And I suppose psychiatry's current view on autistics and TOM is largely based on the Sally Anne Test. I don't think I would have ever failed this, but many people, mostly children, do.

btbnnyr
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 May 2011
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,359
Location: Lost Angleles Carmen Santiago

19 Jul 2011, 6:12 pm

aghogday wrote:

I think communication is important for other individuals to understand what bothers us when they don't have a clue what it is. It is reasonable to assume they could understand the more uncommon issues and empathize with us. They might change or they might roll their eyes and say whatever. But, there is little chance they will change if the issue isn't discussed.

Yeah, at this point, we haven't gotten anywhere near the faintest whiff of having people accommodate each other or making the world accommodating for all different kinds of people. In this thread, I feel like we're struggling just to set the record straight on this one issue that some people will use to demean other people if it is allowed to stand as the absolute truth. The notion of autistic people lacking empathy and being less human for doing so is very prevalent, but none of the believers - laypeople, clinicians, researchers - realize that the exact same thing could be said back about them from our perspective.

MotownDangerPants wrote:

Other times, it *is* like I just don't have a ton of feelings...I can't empathize because I don't *have* the feelings that other people do, so I can feel FOR them (sympathize), but not with them. I feel this way most of the time, BUT when I can empathize I do it very well.

Maybe the reason that you don't have a ton of feelings in response to the same stimuli that generate a ton of feelings for others is because your brain works differently from theirs and responds differently to different stimuli. It's natural that you shouldn't have those feelings. It's the same in reverse. Which stimuli generate the most feelings for you? If other people don't experience a lot of feelings in response to that stimuli, then they can't empathize with you either, at least not for that stimuli.

For instance, I feel horrible when I'm interrupted. Hyperfocus...Interruption...Meltdown. Other people can't empathize with me on that, because it's not a big deal for them to be interrupted. They just wonder what the heck is wrong with me.

Quote:

And I suppose psychiatry's current view on autistics and TOM is largely based on the Sally Anne Test. I don't think I would have ever failed this, but many people, mostly children, do.

I think this is very likely true, and it's also true that autistic children don't have NT ToM, but the researchers also need to consider what causes autistic children to fail this test. I think that autistic children fail this test, because they're only following the movement of the object through the boxes, and wherever the object ends up is where the object is right now. To them, the object is much more important than the people. They're probably ignoring the people and concentrating on the object. That's what I would have done as a child. The test is designed with the assumption that for everyone, people are more important than objects, and we should all think about people in preference to objects. But that's NT ToM. The autistic mind drives children to stare at the object and track its movements intensely with their eyes. You could probably move the object through a bunch of different boxes, and the children could probably tell you afterwards the order of the movements. They only care where the object ends up in the pictures or videos or whatever. They don't care about the people moving the objects and what the people are thinking or feeling. They take language literally, and they take pictures...uh...pictorially? No ToM involved. No thoughts or feelings involved. For autistic children, there's no conscious choice to care about people or objects. They just do what their minds naturally do. That's autistic ToM - look at objects!

I'm sure I would have failed the Sally-Anne test as a child. To this day, I still look at people's fingers when they point at something. Then, their faces. Finger, face, finger, face, finger, face...Until I remember that they are pointing at something for me to look at. It drives people stark raving mad. :twisted:

aghogday
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Nov 2010
Age: 64
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,908

19 Jul 2011, 6:16 pm

btbnnyr wrote:

As another example, I am not schizophrenic, and I don't know much about schizophrenia, but I have never been repulsed by schizophrenic people. No negative feelings about them. No stigma in my mind. What about in the minds of NTs in the same position?

I was also neutral in this, but for me, and as alluded to in another post where those that have experienced some kind of suffering in their life develop a level of empathy that others don't have, I think that might be part of it; I don't feel it anymore the way I used to, but the cognitive understanding is the same. I don't think all autistic people are immune from this, however; I cringe when I read someone making fun of another persons grammar or spelling here, whether or not they understand that not all people with Autism are brilliant.

It's a small minority though, that I see do this, and part of my cognitive understanding of empathy for the people that do it, is that whether or not I think it is fair, their preconceived notion is that people should have to spell correctly and use grammar appropriately if they want to be respected. They have a different opinion of the importance of it.

In society though, significant difference isn't all it takes to get this treatment, sometimes it is falling short of perfection. While perfection for some are the perfect clothes, smile, and weight; it is perfect spelling for others.

I have the same sense of justice when I hear people categorize all NT's as oppresive toward Autistic people, beyond what is considered as normal behavior in society. They were the same people they were before I found out that I had autism as they were after I found out. And, so was I.

My idea of Neurodiversity would be to accept others as they are and do the best we can to ignore what bothers us, if we can, even if we find it offensive, and discuss when appropriate to find common ground, if possible.

That's an ideology though derived from logic and not human nature/reality. We are still primates with similar competitive instincts; and just as with other social animals there is a pecking order for resources. Most everything we see in life is based on our basic human nature as an animal. However the ideologies and illusions are more visible at time than the reality of our animal nature.

Human nature is responsible for the us vs them mentality, it takes a great deal of cognitive effort to overcome it; I think that may be the positive attribute that shines brighter than any deficit in TOM that some Autuistic people might have. It's extremely unusual; odd, if you will.

MrXxx
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 May 2010
Age: 64
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,760
Location: New England

19 Jul 2011, 6:17 pm

Mdyar wrote:

I believe the lack of interest in something is tantamount to inability.

Wow. That hurts my head.

Unless what you mean by this is "this is how society" interprets lack of interest...

Actually maybe it doesn't matter. That statement, to me, is tantamount to equating whales with mice. Disinterest certainly does not equate to inability. However I do think it is misinterpreted as such, and that's my point.

"I don't want to," certainly has a very different meaning from "I cannot."

Quote:

This does amount to a measure of disability in a culture that values social networks and office garden environments that "value" personality over ethics or ability....Unfortunately.

While I would agree that non-Autistics view the way Autistics process things as a disability, and it may well be, I do think that perception is as much based on preconceptions as Autistic attitudes that "something is very wrong with this world." Clearly the reason it's called a disability is based on a comparison of numbers. The more people who do not think a certain way, the more likely they are to be labeled disabled.

The problem I have with this is that although Autism may very well be a disability, approaching every aspect of it as "something that is wrong with this person" implies that all aspects of Autism are "deficiencies." Using that approach fosters the idea that everything about Autism needs to be "fixed." This further perpetuates approaches in treatment that focus entirely on Autism's weaknesses, completely ignoring any strengths that may be present.

How many documentaries on Autism are there? I don't know, but there are a lot. Every one I've ever seen spends the majority of its time focused on Autism's lacks, and what time is spent on strengths is spent treating them as oddities and curiosities.

Quote:

One could rationalize away the blind mans deficit by saying " he is much more intelligent now because if he doesn't think he sinks."

I'll have to admit I'm finding it tough to be delicate about this comparison. This is apples and hedgehogs. Even a blind man must admit he cannot see with his eyes. That's undeniable. Autism is a far more complex, and ambiguous thing. No such simple comparative statement can be made about Autism. Not in general.

One might be able to pick one single subject with Autism and say, "Here, clearly, there exists a disability." But one may not be able to with another person with Autism. This is precisely why getting an accurate diagnosis is so difficult for so may of us.

It also depends on the doctor seen for it. Some feel if you can tie your shoes, climb a set of stairs, prepare a meal, maintain personal hygiene and basically take care of oneself in terms of basic needs, and hold a job for any length of time, one is not disabled, but IS Autistic.

I myself am diagnosed Autistic, but not considered disabled. Many others are as well.

I don't see that society itself agrees with you on this point.

Personally, and this is solely from my own mind and perspective, I DO believe all forms of Autism, throughout the entire spectrum IS a disability. But, I have my own ideas about WHY it is. I do not agree it is because of how we think. I do not agree that it is a deficiency. I believe quite strongly now that it is a DIFFERENCE. And that difference, along with societies lack of understanding of it (and our own lack of understanding of it as well), is what creates the perception of disability.

Think of it this way. Computer OS platforms, and how they are perceived by users is almost a perfect analogy.

Have you ever seen someone with years of experience with Windows computers sit down at a Mac for the first time? I have. It's comical!

I wrote this based on watching a fellow employee about fifteen years ago so some of the technology has changed:

"Oh, okay! So this is my desktop. And there, there is the task bar (actually it's called a dock). Okay, so I open this smiley faced thing (yup. That;s called the Finder), and there's my files. Oh! And there are the applications! Hey! This isn't so bad! Okay, there's Microsoft Word...

"Wait a second. Where's the menus? Oh, okay, they're at the top of the screen. Wait, I've got an email, whaaaaa? The menus change depending on which window is active?! Geez, that stupid. Okay, I guess I can deal with that... (Yeah, they do that to save screen space)

"Alright, back to Word. Oops. Misspelling. Okay, right click. Right click. Right click! RIGHT CLICK! What the? THIS MOUSE ONLY HAS ONE BUTTON! How the hell am I supposed to ge to my shortcut menus? You mean I've got to go up to the main menu for everything?! Screw that! Where's the preferences? I'm gonna fix that!" (actually, you could just hold down the control key and click. Does the same thing.)

Inside of an hour, this guy was so frustrated he was shouting, calling Macs the worst pieces of junk he'd ever seen, throwing the mouse etc. etc.

The thing is, there was nothing at all wrong with the Mac. He just wasn't used to how it worked. Yet he, and many other Windows users have insisted for decades that Macs are deficient.

They're not. I use both Windows and Macs, and now I'm learning Linux. Every one of them is completely different. Nothing works the same on any of the systems. But, Windows is the big boy in the market so if you look online you'll see a lot more denigration of Macs and Linux than you will see of Windows machines. Why, because that's what that's what the vast majority of computer users are used to. No other reason.

I contend that with many many high functioning Autistics, this is also why we are seen as deficient and disabled. Not because we are necessarily, but only because few people understand how to deal with us.

I can communicate quite well with the right people. Most people are surprised to learn I'm Autistic, and many don't even believe it until they really get to know me. Those that are able to deal well with me tell me they just view it as a difference. not as a disability.

Quote:

I'm neutral here Mr.Xxx, in this post and just adding my perspective. I'm not autistic, but do have ADD and this causes a unique disturbance in different areas where you have to *compensate* or "sink."

I'll take your word for that. BTW: I also have ADD. Imagine the complexities of both. :lol:

I can't even describe the immense amount of focus and concentration it's taken to keep up with this thread and keep my own thoughts straight. I'm not even so sure i did all that well.

_________________
I'm not likely to be around much longer. As before when I first signed up here years ago, I'm finding that after a long hiatus, and after only a few days back on here, I'm spending way too much time here again already. So I'm requesting my account be locked, banned or whatever. It's just time. Until then, well, I dunno...

btbnnyr
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 May 2011
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,359
Location: Lost Angleles Carmen Santiago

19 Jul 2011, 6:41 pm

It doesn't bother me if people call autism a disability or disorder or whatever as long as they don't demean autistic people just for being autistic and assign to us all a gigantic list of deficits without recognizing that all different kinds of people, including those in the large majority, would also come with such a gigantic list if judged by different standards. An absence of schizophrenia could be called "Sensory Deficiency Disorder" for anyone who doesn't see visions, hear voices, etc.

Even mild autism can be very disabling for a person in a world designed by and for non-autistic people. A lot of things are disabling for me, and my number one goal on any given day is to avoid sensory overload and brain shutdown caused by the excessive stimuli, and especially people, around me. On the whole autism spectrum, I may be mild and high-functioning, but there's still a huge gap in effort expended between me functioning in an NT world, such as working in a busy environment, vs. an NT functioning in an NT world doing the exact same thing. There's no stigma with disability for me. Disability isn't inferiority. It's just difficulty.

Mr Xxx wrote:

Personally, and this is solely from my own mind and perspective, I DO believe all forms of Autism, throughout the entire spectrum IS a disability. But, I have my own ideas about WHY it is. I do not agree it is because of how we think. I do not agree that it is a deficiency. I believe quite strongly now that it is a DIFFERENCE. And that difference, along with societies lack of understanding of it (and our own lack of understanding of it as well), is what creates the perception of disability.

MrXxx
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 May 2010
Age: 64
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,760
Location: New England

19 Jul 2011, 6:41 pm

btbnnyr wrote:

Let me ask y'all a question. This is mostly for people who were diagnosed as adults and thought of themselves as normal for much of their lives.

Oo! Oo! That would be me, except for the part about feeling "normal." Well, okay, I guess I did feel normal, but it didn't take long to feel different. I actually remember feeling there was something really wrong with the rest of the world.

Quote:

How did you feel about NTs and autistic people before you knew that you were autistic?

Though I never heard the term "NT" until about five years ago, once I did hear it, and looked it up, I remember thinking, "Oh! So there's a term for them!" :lol:

In all seriousness, I thought there was something wrong with them as a child. By the time I reached my Twenties, I realized there was something else going on.

Quote:

For me, I thought of myself as an oddball and different from most people, but I didn't have a negative view of the other normal people who were totally different from me, nor did I have a negative view of autistic people. I was fairly neutral about all parties.

That about sums it up for me too. Even though I thought there was something wrong with everyone around me, I also had an aunt, same age as me, with Downs Syndrome, so I had been taught all of my life to be kind and non judgmental.

Quote:

I'm willing to bet this is not the case for NTs. Everywhere I go, especially online but sometimes offline, whenever is AS is mentioned, the worst slurs will come out and so many insults are applied to autistic people, especially Asperger's, as nasty horrible human beings. People with classic autism are regarded as having a horrible disease. Sometimes, people with AS are also regarded as having a horrible disease, but the horrible disease is also more their fault than for people with classic autism. It's absolutely ridiculous, isn't it?

There are idiots in this world. Always have been, always will be. I know for a fact not all NT's are like that, and I think you do to, but it can sure seem that way if you spend a lot of time in the same places the idiots go. I don't. It's not worth my time. So I haven't seen that much of what you're describing on line. If I do see it, I get away from it as fast as possible. There is no point trying to save a fool who is bent on drowning in their own ignorance and stupidity.

Quote:

Why the difference in reactions to people different from oneself for me vs. NTs? Because NTs prioritize people/groups/commonality far more than I do. I'm guessing that it makes them far more uncomfortable to be confronted with something different than it makes us. It seems like they have a preference for sameness.

I dunno. I think maybe it's just easier to tolerate differences if you yourself are different. If you've never been called a ret*d, stupid dumb-ass, or any other derogatory terms, you wouldn't know what it's like to hear it all the time.

Hey! You wouldn't be able to "EMPATHIZE!" :lol:

Quote:

If you don't know much about it, you may not know this, that might explain a lot. Schizophrenia and Autism are historically related. They are very different disorders that share many of the same traits. In fact, in order to receive an Autistic diagnosis, they're supposed to rule out Schizophrenia first. The word Autism was first used in relation to Schizophrenia to describe the somewhat withdrawn state many of them display sometimes. It was originally called "Schizophrenic Autism."

And I always identified with them, as well as with Classic Autistics.

ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Jun 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,265

19 Jul 2011, 6:52 pm

aghogday wrote:

ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:

What about empathetic numbin? Is this what happens when people become disensitized to violence?

Yes, it is. Check out this post if you like. It presents a quote with 10 activities that desensitize us to empathy and 10 activities that increase empathy. The environment plays a big role in this.

Soldiers going into combat for the first time play violent video games to desensitize their natural human empathy response not to kill another human being. Without this training soldiers have been known to freeze and not be able to shoot the enemy when faced with the necessity in actual combat. It has resulted in the deaths of our soldiers.

The source listed below lists video games as one of the general activities that can reduce the amount of empathy we have.

http://www.wrongplanet.net/posts168510-start15.html

Another thought I had about empathy, in regard to the list of activities that strengthen it. The more activities one involves themselves in that isolates themselves from human contact the weaker the empathetic response becomes. For those of us that were fortunate enough to have the skills required to get good grades in school, that was a major source of reward to us. If we were not good students, and did not feel rewarded by our efforts, chances are we would have been more motivated to seek reward in other areas, such as social ones.

Some people manage both areas quite well. There are many more biological and environmental factors involved, but the mechanisms that work in strengthening empathy are related to actual interaction between humans. People do this less and less now, interacting with devices that separate them from the visual or verbal interaction that strengthens the human empathetic response. People are still capable of experiencing empathy through textual interaction both emotional and cognitive, but it wouldn't be as naturally strong as actual interaction, because that was the way we evolved to communicate.

I agree with environment playing a role in decreased empathy or desensitization, but video games? I've played them and to me they are just games. They do not represent living beings. Same with movies. People are on one side, media on the other.

Now, the attitudes of people in my immediate environment do impact my capacity for empathy. I am more likely to attempt understanding someone who is amicable to me, not hostile, and less likely to desire understanding the emotional complexity of hostile beings. When someone is mean I don't want to try to understand why they are mean, but if someone who is nice is having a problem, I will attempt to relate to the person and help them out.

If people are less culturally empathetic, the overall level of empathy in a population stands a good chance to decrease. It's like negative thoughts and feeling blue. It's said the blues are contagious. One negative person can put an entire room in a bad mood. Maybe it's the same with empathetic responses? The more empathy a population and it's leaders exhibit, the more empathy will abound in everyone.

The military is not known as a source of empathetic responses. Maybe this in itself is why soldiers are desensitized? It's due to peer pressure.

aghogday
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Nov 2010
Age: 64
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,908

19 Jul 2011, 6:58 pm

MrXxx wrote:

Mdyar wrote:

I believe the lack of interest in something is tantamount to inability.

Quote:

This does amount to a measure of disability in a culture that values social networks and office garden environments that "value" personality over ethics or ability....Unfortunately.

Quote:

One could rationalize away the blind mans deficit by saying " he is much more intelligent now because if he doesn't think he sinks."

Quote:

I'll take your word for that. BTW: I also have ADD. Imagine the complexities of both. :lol:

I can't even describe the immense amount of focus and concentration it's taken to keep up with this thread and keep my own thoughts straight. I'm not even so sure i did all that well.

I don't think that many people working side by side with a highly functioning autistic or person with Aspergers would ever consider them disabled unless the individual with Autism/Aspergers pointed it out, just odd, different; different is nicer than odd but it means basically the same thing.

However for those with Autism that cannot speak at all and need continuous support their entire life; society makes survival a possibility for them, not a hinderance. Most highly functioning Autistic people aren't considered to have a permanent disability for programs like SSI or SSDI, but there is no question of eligibility for those more severely impacted by debilitating communication issues.

I'm fairly certain you are already aware, but just for clarification, legally in the US, under the American's With Disabilities Act, all ASD's fit the legal definition of a disability that impairs an individual in a major area of functioning in life. But I understand from societies point of view they don't see you as disabled, just different.

A deaf person relies on many accommodations in life to have a normal life, but they do live full lives, although we commonly understand that they are disabled. I'm not sure how not having the ability to speak at all could be seen as another category from this, regardless if the person had Autism or another communication disorder. How could society change to allow these people to live full lives, without the support that is needed from society that they already receive, just to survive?

Verdandi
Veteran
Veteran

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

19 Jul 2011, 7:09 pm

aghogday wrote:

This is one of the reasons I dislike "high functioning" and "low functioning" labels. Most people labeled with the former are assumed to be able to take care of themselves and function to some extent, while most people labeled with the latter are assumed to be completely unable to take care of themselves or function, and neither is particularly true. You can't really encapsulate the full realities of someone's functioning into a single label. I'm considered high functioning (and have been told that I can't access services that would be a significant help to me) simply because I am able to dress myself, speak, and get myself to my appointments. This despite the fact that so many of demands and activities of daily living are definitely a challenge.

I do not have any argument with identifying severity or suggest that it is in any way irrelevant, I simply dislike these methods of categorizing that describe someone like myself in such a way as to suggest I am less disabled and more capable than I really am.

Verdandi
Veteran
Veteran

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

19 Jul 2011, 7:15 pm

btbnnyr wrote:

I didn't really get that NTs were different from me for a long time - and even when I acknowledged differences, I didn't get that there was any kind of major difference, even if I didn't understand most people - I didn't really have the understanding to realize I didn't have the understanding, if that makes sense?

As for autistic people, I actually got along fairly well with most of the autistics I've known - at least one of the people I got to know in high school turned out to be AS (diagnosed in his mid-30s), and I know I was able to interact with a nonverbal autistic child in ways that surprised his parents. It was apparently so unusual they asked me to watch him fairly regularly because he reacted to and interacted with me in ways he just didn't react to other people. At the time I didn't think there was any particular reason for it.

Quote:

Yeah, I've run into this. I can think of one forum where someone basically characterized people with AS as sociopathic.

Quote:

This is an impulse that I've never understood, and I have tried. I even made it something of a special interest for the past 3-4 years. I remember asking people and getting answers that didn't make sense.

And I mean, I'm not saying I never picked up any bigoted perspectives on my own, but when they were contradicted, I didn't hold onto them with a death grip like I've seen many others do.

ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Jun 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,265

19 Jul 2011, 7:22 pm

I admit gadgets like laptops and cellphones means more isolation, less face to face contact but does this affect my ability to empathize with others? I don't think it has. Isolation could, perhaps, help people develop an empathetic response by allowing them time to reflect on themselves, their lives, without stress. It has helped me. I know for a fact isolation has helped me achieve more balance in life. Of course I am not completely isolated, just more so than most. I doubt anyone can handle being completely isolated. Even if I were isolated out in the woods I would seek out birds and other innocuous animals just to feel less than utterly alone.

I feel more empathetic the less involved I am which sounds strange. The less involved I am, the less stress and I am able to connect with myself. There's nothing blocking it. Isolation isn't always a bad thing.

Page 7 of 9 [ 140 posts ] Go to page Previous 1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 Next

Jump to:

The Truth (?) behind TOM and lack of empathy... Post Reply New Topic

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