the dehumanizing theories of Baron Cohen (theory of mind...)

Post Reply New Topic

I think Simon Baron-Cohen has done more than any researcher in recent times to dehumanize and pathologize autistics. He claims autistics are evolutionarily inferior – that “theory of mind” (ToM) is core to being human and has evolved to make us superior to animals, but autistics lack it. NTs have ToM deficits in relation to autistics and to anyone who is significantly different or unfamiliar (minority groups, etc.). Unfortunately, human beings are naturally less knowledgeable about and more likely to distrust/be fearful of those who are unfamiliar or different.

And autistic people are NOT “deficient” in relation to NTs in terms of empathy. Empathy is feeling for someone, separete from the ability to understand anothers’ thoughts, feelings, and intentions; questionnaire, experimental, and neurological research proves this. When autistic people understand another person’s perspective, we are just as empathic, sensitive, caring – we are proven to have more distress for others’ distress actually (Bird…Frith, 2010). We have difficulties with understanding NTs’ perspective such that from their perspective we appear to SHOW less empathy.

The “extreme male brain” theory is also deeply offensive. Autism goes against much of the correlations with testosterone and male stereotypes, and girls are extremely underdiagnosed, at least among children and teens. Almost 200 autistic people have participated so far in the survey that I posted here on WP (not all of those 200 or so are from here, of course). I think this in large part because most respondents have been adults, and autism is often appears much subtler in girls and they are much more likely to go unrecognized to NTs for longer because of various factors, but are much more likely to get diagnosed (self-diagnosis and/or formally) by adulthood (such as having an autistic kid and noticing similarities).

Anyway, Baron-Cohen has made so many presumptions without good evidence, against autistic people – just like the deficit-based medical model that wants to “prevent” and cure people who are different. Similarly, his fetal autism studies could lead to prenatal testings and the option to abort fetuses that might be autistic.

What do you think?

I mostly agree with you. Simon Baron Cohen has never been my favorite Autism specialist. But he does have some valid points. We do lack in TOM, which makes us less empathetic. The more empathy you have, the better you are at understanding and reading other peoples emotions. But this is not to say that we don't have empathy. I do agree with his theory that people with AS have a extremely low EQ, while having a very high SQ. Although I do not like his phrase "the extreme male brain".

Actually it's the opposite, empathy relates to understanding another's emotions/feelings. Feeling for someone is more to do with sympathy. Baron-Cohen has never said those on the spectrum lack sympathy, quite the opposite. I imagine he would agree with the second part quoted above, but replace "empathic" with "sympathetic".


I don't find this offensive at all. Females do appear to be underdiagnosed, with AS in particular (if it is a specrum disorder, why is the male/female autism ratio 4:1, and AS is 9:1?). However that doesn't mean that the ratios are actually even. The EMB theory refers to systemising and empathising, and doesn't refer to any other gender stereotypes. The hypothesis is that fT differences may affect development in terms of systemising and empathising, and this seems to be supported by research. Can you cite research that goes against this? I'd be interested to read it.

Can you link to your study? I'm interested in what you are researching.

Cheers
yt

I, too, find the assumption that Aspies are somehow subhuman, deeply offensive. Especially considering that many of our problems being understood by the general public stem from their intellectual inability to comprehend how we differ from them, even when it is explained to them. Also considering the value that our gifted Aspies have in many fields of science where they can out-think most NTs in the same field.

It's true that people with severe Autism can't function in society without lots of help and support - but the focus should be on getting them the help and support they need, and finding ways to communicate with the Autistic people we haven't yet been able to reach, and teach them the skills they need to communicate with us and to help them find their niche in society where they can be happy and useful.

I don't think it helps that AS might be removed as a DX and lumped in with Autism in general. I can see the arguments for it, but the spectrum is so wide that its like labelling people who like competitive sports and grouping them with mass murderers (who might be the logical extreme of wanting to compete with humans) - I don't mean that example to cause offence to Autistics (or sportsmen) but I am trying to illustrate how it is not useful to use one label for something that can vary so widely, especially since the general public are prone to pidgeonhole everyone with that label and by default associate us with the most extreme examples. There are millions of Aspies who contribute a lot to society who would be adversely affected by this and would make many Aspies hide what they are which is the exact opposite of what we need to happen in society.

AS is a form of Autism, but I actually think it shouldn't be seen as a disability. Take 100 random Aspies and let them compete with 100 random NTs in anything intellectual and they'd beat the pants off them - that's not what I call a disability nor subhuman. It causes us great problems with relationships and limits what jobs we can be successful in, but being NT limits most of them from doing jobs they lack the intellect for, and our social blindness to me seems comparable to their apparent blindness to be able to understand our differences even when they are explained to them. I don't mean all NTs but this is why many of us have been shunned by people we meet or who we tell about our DX, because they are unable to comprehend that not everyone is the same as them, socially or mentally.

I wish we could get Richard Dawkins involved somehow. I'm sure he would be able to explain how the mechanism behind Autism must have been beneficial to human evolution or else it would have been removed long ago from the gene pool. Humanity's ability to have 1% of their offspring to have specially focussed intellectual abilities is probably a driving force behind critical inventions right back to the Wheel and domesticating Horses, Cats and Dogs, things which would never occur to prehistoric NTs. Like anything, too much of a good thing becomes problematic, so maybe 1% *of Aspies* lean so far that way that they are unable to function, and this is the result that people think of when you say "Autism". If there was once two tribes of humanity and one tribe lost the genes that make ASD possible, that tribe was unable to compete and thus survive when the other tribe started inventing things like the wheel, cavalry, hunting dogs, etc.

I'm still getting up to speed with all this, but I've read a theory that advanced social interaction and increased numbers of mirror neurons giving NTs an almost telepathic ability to empathise without needing to be told what others are feeling, is perhaps the most recent evolutionary development that has enabled humans to work in huge organised societies. Certainly in social settings this gives NTs an advantage over Aspies. But its a tradeoff between that and intellect, and we only have such a successful society because we have this mix of both types. Some people are more gifted than others, and there are NTs who are very intellectual, but this isn't typical of NTs yet it IS typical of Aspies.

One of the first things I read was that Autism and Schizophrenia are mutually exclusive. It now seems that both are caused by differences in the same genes - as if the "social interaction/telepathic empathy" mechanism above was dialled unusually high or low. Again it must have evolutionary merit to have about 1% of people who have it dialled "low" and sacrifice social mirroring for improved logic and reasoning skills, but too low and you get severe Autism. Similarly for 1% of people to have it dialled a litte "high" and be especially intuitive and quick to see motives and make emotional assumptions, but too high and you get paranoia and see things that aren't there - typical of Schizophrenia. As humanity has evolved, the "default" setting for the 99% who are NT has crept up or down gradually, depending on how successful the 1% Aspies and 1% Schizoids (the term for "mild" Schizophrenia) are at not just passing on their own genes but how much they add to the success of society as a whole. In fact since both Autism and Schizophrenia may both be inherited *in the same families* I now believe that it's actually the same mechanism, and what is inherited is actually how random the variation in the "social" dial is.

Concluding my ramblings, I think its important for the public to better understand us and not have ASD be dumbed down to the point of inaccuracy. We do have emotions, we do empathise once someone's feelings are verbalised, we're not a "throwback" to prehumans (we typically have high IQs) and we're the natural outcome of something that has given us an evolutionary advantage and gotten humanity to where it is today.

Empathy is being able to put yourself in someone elses shoes. Empathy is knowing a persons feelings and intentions. Sympathy is feeling for someone else whether or not you really know whats going on with someone. And its possible to have one but not the other.



I personally dont find the statement offensive. Politically incorrect yes. I dont think its politically correct to gender stereotype brain types. If Cohen stated his theory by saying that autistics tend to have a dominant systematizing brain but left out the gender part then a lot less people would take offense.

Making it about "political correctness" (and misusing the phrase in the first place) misses the point that it is an inaccurate description. He cherry picked a few traits, stereotyped them as extremely male based on cultural assumptions, and defined autism as "extreme male brain." I believe his research was taken apart rather thoroughly and scientifically in Cordelia Fine's Delusions of Gender.

I do not see what is offensive about the extreme male brain theory either. It makes sense to me.

How does it make sense?

This is a big part of the problem with the theory. Much like his "zero empathy" categorization of autism, it adopts terminology that is sloppy and unclear in scope and definition and creates room for confusion.

What does "extremely male" mean? What of his usage that requires him to define women - autistic and neurotypical - as having extremely male brains? What use does this categorization serve? How is it accurate? Would you describe autistic men as being "extremely male?"

Your still taking offense on the usage of extreme male brain. What if he never stated anything about gender and said autistics are "extreme systemizing" brain, then what? I do agree that he is stereotyping and labeling. The point of his findings was to say that autistics generally have high systematization and low empathy. Remember empathy is not the same as sympathy. Empathy is the ability to know what someones thinking and feelings which links into theory of mind. And a large part of what makes us autistic is that we have low empathy skills. Not necessarily low sympathy skills. So the question really is, are autistics extreme systematizers? As for the labeling, he probably shouldn't have outright labeled female brain/male brain.

He should've named it "systematizing brain" or something. "Male" makes no sense.

Regarding empathy: When you talk about empathy and autism, it's important to draw a distinction between "I can read what other people are feeling," and, "I care about what other people are feeling."

Autistic people have a hard time determining what other people are feeling. However, we care just as much as NTs do once we have figured it out. (Evidently more, in some studies; do you have the link to that, Minutiaman?)

If you can easily read what other people are feeling, but do not care, then that is sociopathy. If you cannot read what people are feeling, but once you understand you do care, then you are probably autistic.

It is possible for an autistic person to be so bad at understanding other people that they do not understand that other people have an independent existence--that is, they lack even a basic theory of mind. But I feel that is probably extremely rare. Doing the mental juggling necessary to look at two perspectives at the same time can be difficult (for example, to figure out that someone else knows something you don't, has an opinion you don't have, or feels something you wouldn't feel in their perspective). But this is a cognitive trait, not a matter of empathy--once these folks understand that another person is feeling something, they will care just as much as an NT does.

It is of course possible for an autistic person to also be a sociopath. In that case you would have someone who neither understood other people nor cared about them.

Its all a matter of application.

Instead of viewing lower functioning aspies as extra work and a cost to families and the economy, turn it around and set them up as future tax payers just like most NT's kids become.

Good little production units yes

Even the least able member of a village will have something worthwhile to contribute if properly directed. Shame on you SBCohen

It is your masters lack of vision or willingness to integrate aspie sensibilities, which is more the issue to the state

That person would have a remarkably weak career as a sociopath, being unable to skillfully manipulate others to cover his or her nastiness and wreak havoc. He'd have to be an evil genius with the engineering skills to bring down armaggedon to overcome his social skills deficits.

I don't wish abortion on autistic fetuses, but some parents are capable of rejecting an autistic child and reacting abusively to autistic behaviors. My mother probably shouldn't have had an autistic child, she's still in denial and she ensured I was miserable as a child and drove me to self-harm, suicide attempts, clinical depression, and such a deep isolation I developed psychotic symptoms. I wouldn't wish my upbringing on anybody. So maybe in some cases it would be better to terminate the pregnancy.

On the flip side, more inclusive and supportive descriptions of autistic personalities would erode some of the stigma that drove her into deep denial. So it would be great if Baron Cohen could talk about theory of mind without advocating eugenics. For me, having theory of mind explained to me in a book did wonders for my awareness of others, so however biological the deficit may be I do believe the concept is useful and teachable, at least to a degree. It may never be intuitive to me, but I'm not in the dark the way I was before I read about it.

Ok i never understood the TOM.Is it because i have no TOM(that i didn't understand it)?
Also another question.There is a behavior called 'patronizing'.Some people patronize me,like they treat me as if i am stupid or a child.I get it and i understand that.In that situation who has TOM?Me and not the others?

Please don't tell me what I am thinking or feeling. You're reading between the lines to find something that isn't there.



I don't recall saying anything about sympathy and empathy, so I do not know why you reiterated that point.

If he'd said extreme systemizing then he wouldn't be carrying the baggage that comes with cultural gender stereotypes, and wouldn't find himself making the contradictory statement that some NT women have "male" brains because they're good with systemizing.

I think I've come across people who have read his works. At least what this person spit out sounded exactly like what Simon Said. Indeed, this person emphasized that people with AS were not quite as human as "the rest of us".

There is a study that was published in the Journal of Developmental Disabilities on Nov 8 2007 called "Dissociation of Cognitive and Emotional Empathy in Adults with Asperger Syndrome Using the Multifaceted Empathy Test (MET).

The authors define empathy as "a multidimensional construct consisting of cognitive (inferring mental ) and emotional (empathic concern) components." (Which could be rephrased to say: it consists of "empathy" and "sympathy") The results of the study demonstrated that if given "prompts" (an emotion word--e.g. "sad") along with a picture that conveyed a certain emotional experience, people with AS demonstrated the same level of empathy (cognitive empathy--not just sympathy) as NT controls.

The results of this study suggest to me that it might not be that people with ASDs are deficient in the empathy component of theory of mind per se, but that information is processed differently and that perhaps people with ASDs have problems with processing specific kinds of information (such as visual cues that contain nonverbal communication) or with processing complex information (i.e. the ability to combine visual cues with context, past knowledge and verbal cues).

In order to come up with theories about what another person thinks or feels, you have to have some idea of how they think--NTs have at least some of the same kinds of difficulties with forming theories about autistic or aspie minds that autistic/aspie people have with forming theories about NT minds. In the case of NTs it's easy to say that they can't understand because they think differently and experience the world differently than people on the spectrum. For example: an NT may not understand the feelings or thoughts of a person with an ASD because they cannot imagine having difficulty with emotional regulation, or with integrating sensory input, or with processing language or complex information. I haven't come across any convincing evidence that the same cause (different thinking/experience) does not apply--at least sometimes, to some degree--to people on the autism spectrum when they cannot figure out the feelings and thoughts of NTs.

Theory of mind requires the ability to process to process complex information--to take in information of various kinds, combine it with information one already has stored as knowledge, to organize it, and to initiate an appropriate response (empathic behaviors). If a person has trouble with processing a certain type of information (i.e. visual, auditory, etc.), or is delayed in processing information from multiple sensory pathways (there are studies demonstrating that kids with autism experience a delay in processing information from multiple sensory pathways) this will affect their theory of mind. If a person cannot process complex information very well overall because of working memory and executive functioning issues, then one will have problems when it comes to empathy. If, for some people with ASDs, their problems with theory of mind stem primarily from problems with information processing and/or executive functioning deficits, then can it really be said that they have a primary deficit in empathy? Wouldn't the problems with empathy actually be a secondary problem that are caused by other cognitive issues?