Empathy, reality or illusion?

Post Reply New Topic

This is my third topic and probably my last topic.
And most people I think/ I hope know why ...
--------------------------------------------
My other topics:
consciousness
http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt203158.html
What females really want
http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt203138.html
(which is highly be criticized by people who don't know what they're talking about, and are going off-topic)
(I'm not going to answer anything on that topic)
---------------------------------------------
rule:
If you do not agree with me, tell me why.
Instead of making stupid 'jokes'. Criticize in a fair way.
If you do think aspies have a lack of empathy tell me why you think that!
---------------------------------------------
This topic is about empathy in autism, asperger syndrome and other minorities.
I hope people will read it carefully because probably they will miss the point of it.
I hope I can put everything very clear because I have a light form of dyselxia.

Post 1: what the topic is about
Post 2: what is empathy, different defenitions
Post 3: Lack of supportive evidence to conclude that people on the autistic spectrum have a lack of empathy
Post 4: evidence against the lack of empathy in AS
Post 5: Examples of not a lack in empathy between aspue-aspie relationships/friendships

Last edited by paxfilosoof on 10 Jul 2012, 2:42 pm, edited 7 times in total.

A. Different definitions of empathy

Simon Baron-Cohen (2003): Empathy is about spontaneously and naturally tuning into the other person's thoughts and feelings, whatever these might be [...]There are two major elements to empathy. The first is the cognitive component: Understanding the others feelings and the ability to take their perspective [...] the second element to empathy is the affective component. This is an observer's appropriate emotional response to another person's emotional state.

Frans de Waal: "The capacity to (a) be affected by and share the emotional state of another, (b) assess the reasons for the other's state, and (c) identify with the other, adopting his or her perspective. This definition extends beyond what exists in many animals, but the term "empathy" … applies even if only criterion (a) is met."

D. M. Berger: "The capacity to know emotionally what another is experiencing from within the frame of reference of that other person, the capacity to sample the feelings of another or to put one's self in another's shoes."[8]

Jean Decety: "A sense of similarity in feelings experienced by the self and the other, without confusion between the two individuals."


I think you've got the idea what 'empathy' is, or not?

B. Lack of supportive evidence to conclude that people on the autistic spectrum have a lack of empathy.

The research of empathy is studied in a very biased way.
First their is an autistic racism in research, why research is made to 'fool' autistic people.
(without researching it in a fairly way)
Second their is a problem in 'empathy' which lead researchers really think their is a lack of empathy in autistic people.

C. evidence against the lack of emapthy in autism

I think "lack of empathy", from the point of NTs, is because they cannot understand our way of expressing emotions, and we cannot understand their. In order to express empathy, there is a need to understand emotions, and to express emotions in compatible ways. Differences in nonverbal communication forms the core in AS, which is why we are perceived to "lack emparthy".


[1] http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v4 ... 9033a.html
I think I'll take the term normocentrism as a starting point. An interesting idea to give this a name, but this term clouds the readers from what for me is the underlying issue. The underlying issue in my view is that every individual has the tendency to experience his/her own way of feeling, seeing, hearing, and experiencing the world as being valid. This makes it a small step to view one?s own experience of life as the only one, or as the majority one. This also makes it hard to understand other ways to experience life, other ways of thinking, feeling, dealing with situations, etc. etc.
If we were to start from the term normocentrism, Mottron uses this to differentiate between autistic and non-autistic people. If the term is truly intended to only point at this distinction, it should be neurotypical centrism. Make the term fit the limited distinction between autistic and neurotypical people.

And here is why I say so. Within Mensa I have a few friends who are also autistic. We have our own set of nonverbal communications, our own set of social "rules" and we have even tested them in a wider context. The most interesting observations happened when there was a large group of autistic people with only a couple of neurotypical people. In this setting the autistic way of communicating was used by almost everyone, and those who did not "speak" our social interaction were left out. This of course meant the most hardcore neurotypical people. They were unable to join conversations, they were unable to get any contact whatsoever, and in the end some of them just left the conference. If we apply the term normocentrism, in this setting it would mean that the autistic way of communicating was the norm and those who have not mastered the autistic way of interacting were socially inapt.
I have also been to several meetings for aspergers, in that setting it is easy for all of us to join conversations, to engage in social contact, etc. etc. because we all speak the same social language.

It is merely that the neurotypical population far outnumbers the autistic population which causes the neurotypical ways of social conduct prevails. It is this outnumbering that is the root cause for every problem that is experienced by people that fall outside the ways of doing and being of the majority. Be it autistic, be it extremely intelligent, be it a more complex worldview, be it left handiness, be it sexual orientation, it doesn't matter how an individual differs. To differ means there's a gap both sides have to overcome.

To apply this on the individual level: Every person has a certain way of interacting with others that is natural for that individual. Also each person has a certain range with whom she/he can interact. Of course the range varies from person to person. But if the natural ways of communicating between two people are far enough apart, having a huge range can still mean the two of them have trouble communicating, or are even unable to communicate. Both will interpret the reactions and behavior of the other in ways that is comprehensible to themselves. And this is by definition limited, and does not always include the way the one giving the reaction will interpret it.
If the natural way of being between individuals differs only slightly, communication is much more fluent. This is so simple and obvious that hardly anyone seems to realize this to be at the root of communication between people. Communication difficulties as well as success depend on the differences between the natural ways and the range both can reach.
Just to make the most obvious point so far: if the group is autistic, the differences are small, and thus even a small range is more than sufficient. The same goes if the group is neurotypical, or extremely intelligent, intuitive, non-verbal or any way of being that anyone can think of.

The mistake made by the majority is that they impose their way of communicating upon others. Their values, their ideals, their ways of communication, everything gets imposed upon the minority. And those who do not fit the profile set by the majority get labeled as being defective. And from the viewpoint that to differ is to be defective, this is correct.
Viewed from science to differ means just that, to differ. But since the neurotypical way of being has the tendency to give emotional value to everything, the neurotypical way of being has difficulties using objective language and thought. And thus it sees defects. And defects usually require a fix.
It is the view of me and my fellow Aspergers that this is a shortcoming in the neurotypical way of being. Some Aspergers view this shortcoming with the same judgmental normocentrism that many of neurotypical people view the autistic way of being.

Another basic flaw in how autism is being described and tested has to do with the concept of empathy. This concept is viewed from the perspective of the neurotypical way of being, with all of its neurotypical centric applications.
When we let go of neurotypical centric and any other kind of centric view the result would be the following: The range of being an individual can communicate with also entails a range of being with which this individual can empathize with. This range is usually limited to what the individual trying to understand how another might feel, would feel himself in the situation the other is in. This of course has the basic flaw that the variation of ways to experience a situation is much larger than the range of feelings any single individual will experience within that situation.
The solution is to try to understand the way the other individual?s way of being works, and to do this in the terms the other uses, letting go of all your own experiences for that situation.
For the neurotypical way of being this is almost impossible. The neurotypical way of being starts out with how it itself would feel in any situation and then ascribe those feelings to others. This works for all other neurotypical individuals and this is a successful strategy in those situations. However, this strategy utterly fails when trying to empathize with someone outside the neurotypical range, for example an autistic person.
For most autistic individuals, their range does not include the neurotypical way of experiencing life. And since the autistic way is a minority, autistic people have to work very hard on increasing their range to reach the neurotypical way of experiencing life. On the other hand, neurotypical centrism states that it is perfectly healthy that the range of neurotypical individuals does not include the autistic way of experiencing life.
For autistic people, the capability to process large amounts of raw data is a solution most high intelligent autistic people adopt. They collect an almost insane amount of data on the neurotypical way of being and after a decade or two of study they can enter some simple neurotypical social settings.
After this long study, the range of people who have traveled this path is much larger, even though it might still not include the neurotypical way of being. The interesting thing is that neurotypical centrism keeps saying that autistic individuals can?t empathize with people very well. While the neurotypical scientists only mean that the neurotypical way of being is not within the range of the autistic people who are tested.

Some other information:
[2] http://www.amazon.com/Field-Guide-Earth ... B004EPYUV2
[3] http://ianology.wordpress.com/2011/05/3 ... re-shapes/
[4] http://ianology.wordpress.com/2011/06/2 ... mon-needs/

[5]On Measurement
The empathy test

Here’s a report on some “research” that “measures” the amount of empathy people have:

Looking at their test questions, it becomes immediately clear that the test is a composite of several different things. All together, these things are labeled “empathy” and the implication is that the more of it you have, the better. Before I get into why this does not qualify as research, I’ll elaborate about their test.

Here are four of the questions from the empathy test:
I can easily tell if someone wants to enter a conversation.
I can pick up if someone says one thing but means another.
I am quick to spot when someone is feeling awkward or uncomfortable.
I can sense if I’m intruding, even if the other person doesn’t tell me.

These four questions apparently measure the ability to read what someone else is thinking or feeling, or what their motivation is. Now, here is a set of different questions, which are apparently designed to measure the extent to which a person internalizes the emotions of others:
I tend to get emotionally involved with a friend’s problems.
It upsets me to see an animal in pain.

While there may be some correlation (people who can read others’ feelings may tend to internalize the others’ emotions), the two things are different, and people could have one without the other. The first is a skill that is mainly under conscious control, while the second is a behavior pattern that is less voluntary.

Another set of questions measures knowledge of the local culture:
I find it hard to know what to do in a social situation. (Anyone visiting a foreign culture might experience this.)
I find it difficult to judge if something is rude or polite.

Another set of questions measures the relative value placed on the protection of other people’s feelings compared to other virtues:
If someone asked me if I liked their haircut, I would reply truthfully even if I didn’t like it. (exposes whether honesty or protection of feelings is more important.)
In a conversation, I tend to focus on my own thoughts rather than on what the other person is thinking. (exposes whether clarity or connection/reputation is more important – possibly)
I am able to make decisions without being influenced by other people’s feelings.
If I see a stranger in a group, I think that it is up to them to make an effort to join in. (There are reasons other than lack of empathy that a person may believe this.)

Another set of questions measures the similarity of ones style of thought with another’s style of thought:
I find it difficult to explain things to others.
I find it easy to put myself in someone else’s shoes.
Why the empathy test does not constitute measurement

Some of the five specific categories that I identified above might be ways to measure something. But in order for a measure to be scientifically valid, it has to be a measure of something that exists, not something that is created by the test. It cannot simply be a measure of the length of the ruler used to measure.

The specific problem with the empathy test is that it combines several related kinds of qualitative people-skills, creates a numerical ranking system, labels the composite rank as the word “empathy”, and then circularly declares that empathy exists scientifically because now we can measure it.
The general problem of measurement

In every subject area that I’ve gotten deeply involved in, I run into variants of this same issue, where the measurement is confused with the thing. The saying “the map is not the territory” is another way of looking at it.
The notion of intelligence has become synonymous (in some people’s vocabulary) with the ability to score high points on the tests devised to measure intelligence. Notice the circularity there? The IQ test, the empathy test, and some others, such as emotional IQ, all are aimed to define the very thing that they measure. And then they imply goals to parents and educators, who then aim to game the tests, as if the act of finding ways to score higher on the test makes a person more intelligent, empathic or whatever.
Other human composite traits like personality types and neurotypes (autism for example) can be circular when used as the basis for “proving” other things. For example there have been news reports claiming links between autism and behaviors similar to those used as diagnostic criteria for autism. (How amazing!) Studies with this circularity include this, this, this, and this.
The economic measures of GNP and GDP are measures of something – but it is easier to understand what the formulas are than to understand the thing being measured. The general consensus is that increasing those numbers is good for the economy. But what if people are starving and the GDP is going up? The economy is still in bad condition based on actual events, even while it is doing great based on a made up ranking system. I tried to capture the twisted nature of economic policy in this parable. This news article captures the irony of how bad things are “good” for the economy.
The field of urban development and transport is fraught with non-concepts like mobility, sprawl, and quality of life. People invent measures for these things, then try to enact policies that affect the measures or that are in service of the ephemeral concepts. A common argument is that we need urban rail because it promotes compact development and fewer miles traveled. Perhaps it does, but those are intermediate goals, or proxy goals, not the end goals. If the urban rail decreases travel at the expense of increased total fuel costs, has it accomplished anything? In this report I devised a system for planning based on human goals.

From these examples, it seems likely to me that policy and research on just about any topic – education, industry, public safety, or health – is probably just as twisted up in the problems of measurement as it is in these areas where I have studied it to some depth. Perhaps this is part of the general propensity of humans to believe that a state of durable, physical existence is conferred upon that which has been socially constructed, as I have argued in this book. Or perhaps belief in measures is manufactured to create false objectivity in cases where the measure corresponds with some personal stake.

[5] http://ianology.wordpress.com/2011/03/3 ... asurement/



Simon baron-cohen research:
http://autismblogsdirectory.blogspot.be ... achel.html

If you read carefully you understand why it's biased.



Any questions? I'll try to answer them.

Examples why autistic people do not have a lack of empathy

Every person have a natural way of communication, nonverbal communication and other differences.

I've met some people with asperger syndrome and I can talk naturally against them, empathise, etc.
In my own relationship with a aspie girlfriend we have enormous empathy for each other.

I've seen many people who are diagnosed with asperger who have an asperger girlfriend/boyfriend, it's not a minority.

If you ask now this question: "I've met aspie people who I hate?"
This is a normal, neurotypicals can hate other 'neurotpicals' too.
We only meet some aspies in our whole life, and we don't have muc luck to meet someone similar.

But what do you think if you were in a class of 20 aspies?

Tony attwood:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-Uqm74g2ew

Last edited by paxfilosoof on 12 Jul 2012, 3:26 am, edited 3 times in total.

I don't think we lack empathy it is that we come off looking that way because we tend to not know when to express our emotions.I do care about others it is just I have difficulty expressing empathetic emotions.When I do manage to express thelm they sometimes get out of control leaving me emotionally vulnerable to being bullied.

My belief is yes, in general they usually have a lack of empathy as the norm. Now saying that, that doesn't mean that all aspies are like that. I'm sure different aspies feel different levels of empathy. I'm sure that some aspies might not even have an empathy problem though I'm sure that would be rare in most cases.

I mean, I do feel empathy for a person, just usually not as much as the average person and sometimes I show it in different ways than the average person.

I think certain people with AS or autism have lacking empathy. I have HFA and extremely low empathy, very poor theory of mind skills, etc.

However it would be incorrect to say "all people with Asperger's/autism/whatever have low empathy." We all have a different set of symptoms.

Read what I said ...

of course, certain neurotypicals have a lack of empathy too.
but do you think we have a bigger chance of a lack of empathy?

read what I said carefully...

source: http://www.cog.psy.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/p ... ogers(2007)_JAutismDevDisord.pdf

cognitive empathy/theory of mind= dependend of which person you are empathising with

so it's obvious that aspies have more problems with this. (less aspies)

A chimp can empathise easier with an other chimp than with a bonobo for example

Last edited by paxfilosoof on 10 Jul 2012, 4:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Okay then maybe lack of empathy on a neurotypical level or not acting the same way a neurotypical would in a situation that called for empathy. I do feel empathy for people, I just usually don't feel it the same way as my friends do. They're what you would call "feelers", they can almost feel your pain. I'm more of a thinker.

I did read your original post carefully. In fact, your post is quite long - much longer than most posts on WP - and I only read it in its entirety because I read extremely fast (I can even read two lines at once if I want). I imagine most people would see its size and move on to another thread, or they would just read the first post, or something like that.

In it, you make no reference whatsoever at people with AS having "a bigger chance" of a lack of empathy, but rather say "do you think aspies lack empathy?" and similar claims, which, to me at least, imply that -all- people with AS lack empathy, because there are no words (adjectives, etc.) inserted to give the feeling that you mean that people with AS have a "bigger chance" of a lack of empathy, rather than the total population of people with AS lacking empathy. It's a matter of clarity - especially considering your audience, a bunch of people with AS and autism, who are more likely to take what you say literally.

I mean no offense - indeed, I like receiving constructive criticism, so I'm going to give you some right now - your writing style comes across as quite condescending. It's also the opposite of concise. You're not writing an academic paper, you're writing on a forum. While your writing seems fine to me - you cite evidence to support your claims, etc. - forums generally are not places where people like to read very long posts such as yours, which were prepared beforehand (unless you can type with inhuman speed, considering the timestamps on your posts). Long posts are not uncommon, but yours was very long, and I'm sure very time consuming to write - when you could have included less information, had more people read what you had to say, saved some time and effort on your part, and you could have still used that information if needed at some later point in the thread.

I really don't intend to cause any offense with this. I just feel like I should point out a few of these things. You say you're leaving WP, and I wish that were not the case.

To answer your question:



Yes, I definitely think people with autism and AS have a bigger chance of a lack of empathy. I just wanted to say that some people with autism and AS may not have problems with empathy.

Wow, long. That spanned several posts, and I found it a bit hard to follow.

But from what I understand of your argument, I agree with you. In fact, I said much the same in this post. We don't lack empathy, we have a different communication style, and this causes difficulty relating. In fact, even delayed ToM can be explained by this theory - oral deaf kids, and to a lesser extent deaf of hearing have delayed ToM related to the severity of their delay in communication skills. (Deaf of Deaf have no such issues.) Similarly, blind kids have delayed ToM.

What do autistics, deaf and blind all have in common? They communicate differently from most in either verbal, nonverbal or both modalities. The only exception are Deaf of Deaf, who grow up with parents who perceive the world similarly to them. (The logical conclusion should be that autistics with autistic parents should show less severe or no delay in ToM development, but still struggle at relating to NTs. This has not been studied - in fact AS parents and their children haven't been studied much at all.)

I'm not going to argue with the data. For me up till a few months go I had not experienced it. Once I did I have three times and still have not figured how to deal with it yet.