The cognitive theories of autism

Post Reply New Topic

Good day folks,

After shooting a PM to AceofPens, I've been thinking about some of the various cognitive theories that attempt to explain autism, and my take on them.

Extreme male brain theory
There are two brain “types”: an empathizing, female brain (which, on average, more women would have) and a systemizing, male brain (which, on average, more men would have). Most autistic people trend towards the male brain.
Like it
*A solid explanation for why more males are diagnosed than females
*Fits the stereotypical impression of a boy with autism very well.
Leave it
*Diagnosis numbers between the sexes may not equal prevalence
*Doesn't explain anything regarding sensory processing or executive function deficits
*The entire assumption might be heavily reliant on gender bias

Weak central coherence
The theory of Weak Central Coherence was created by Uta Frith in 1989; Joliffe and Baron-Cohen in 1999, and it deals with explaining the difficulty that people with ASD have in including information in a single coherent and general “everything”, focusing their attention on small details (fragmented processing).
Like it
*Explains why people with autism see the trees and miss the forest
*Accommodates savant strengths and restricted interests
*Would drive someone to be detail oriented
Leave it
*Sensory processing??

Executive functions
The theory of executive dysfunction was created by Pennington and Ozonoff, 1996; Russell, 1997, and others, and it is the explanatory theory of the second symptom criteria (B) of the DSM-5, and it tries to explain the restricted and stereotyped patterns of behaviour, interests and activities of people with ASD.
Like it
*Weakness in any one of the three executive functions could make socialising difficult
*Difficulties common in those on the spectrum
*A weakness in flexible thinking could account both for trouble socializing (what are others thinking??) and rather narrow interests (central coherence theory anyone?)
*Could explain sensory problems, brain doesn't know what to pay attention to
Leave it
*Very similar to ADHD in terms of criteria
*Would imply very high co-occurrence rates of ADD and ASD

Theory of mind
The theory of mind was created by Simon Baron-Cohen, Alan Leslie and Uta Frith in 1985 and is the explanatory theory of the first symptom criteria (A) of the DSM-5 and it tries to explain the persistent deficits in communication and social interaction in various contexts with people with ASD.
Like it
*If you don't know what someone's thinking then it's going to be hard to socialise, right?
Leave it
*Apparently lack of empathy is not universal
*Sensory issues? I can't find any.
*Doesn't describe anything related to poor memory, either

Which of these theories is most accurate? Leave your opinions below. Do you have another theory that I did not mention (yet)? Also share that.

Thanks for reading,

I subscribe most to the “executive functioning” take on autism/Asperger’s.

Executive Functions and Weak Central Coherence would be my closest 'base' of sorts.
If only someone could twist or blend either, and both into the same thing.

Gained Number Post Count (1).
Lose Time (n).

Lose more time here - Updates at least once a week.

The executive functioning model best fits my condition, as I understand it.

Baron-Cohen sounds persuasive and has been a particularly active self-promoter, however many in the science community are critical of his theory-lead approach to research, where theory unduly dominates his methodology and conclusions.

The Extreme Male Brain is a good example of this scientific bias. Baron-Cohen claims as proof the fact that he measured this supposed fact and claims the resulting data as evidence of this theory. BUT. (It's a big but). Baron-Cohen invented the scale himself. It's not an independent, well validated scale that scientists have adopted as a measure, it's Baron Cohen overly-dominating his own theory-led research. The scales are unproven as robust and that they actually measure what he claims they measure. He created them based on an unproven idea of his own, so the results cannot be the "proof" he claims. You get these tautologies in very career pushing scientists who very actively seek to promote themselves. Essentially it is to be catalogued under "methodological error".

Weak Central Coherence theory has often failed attempts by independent scientists to replicate the original findings. This is rarely mentioned by the main adherents and promoters of the theory, and they seem unscientific in their failure to acknowledge it.

Theory of Mind is again affected by core scientific weaknesses in Baron-Cohen's methodological approaches to his pet theories, he makes up his mind on an idea then designs research to confirm his opinion, then he largely ignores the failures of replication by others.

Executive function issues aren't a theory, IMO, they are part of a range of symptoms that AS people report and which are verified by a wide number of qualified observers. The factors which relieve or aggravate executive function have also been well studied and observed by more scientifically robust scientists than Baron-Cohen.

Baron-Cohen is a great self publicist, and likes to present his findings as fact, though science doesn't work as a set of independent facts. It's a process, a highly collaborative one, where no one scientist can pronounce his or her work so adamantly with the credibility such outliers claim for it.

Those theories are not mutually exclusive

No, they aren't. That doesn't elevate them to robust validity, of course.

I want to provide a simplistic example of what is termed "theory-led research", which time precluded in my last post here.

Imagine that I wanted to test the theory (heaven forbid) that my family were superior in their number of accomplished skills compared to other families. To prove this, I design a scale, which is based on measuring all the things that they have particular skill and expertise in. I then use it on other families, and wonder of wonders (not!) my scale "proves" my theory, my family show up with the top scores (of course). But the findings are nonsense, they are just a pet theory of mine, for which there is no good evidence at all, other than the findings on my theory-led scale which purports to measure what it cannot measure and does not measure. It does measure the investigator's bias, though, and SBC has been rebuked in scientific commentary for that on a large number of occasions.

He has acknowledged lately that things are perhaps not always as he formerly (and so adamantly) claimed however,
though not as robustly as someone like me would hope. Still, it's a kind of progress in that overall record of his.

I would guess that which of these theories is correct would vary from person to person. For myself, I favor the executive dysfunction theory.

I have long felt that most of my social difficulties are caused primarily by my difficulties with multi-tasking and task switching. For example, I can't do normal eye contact rhythms due to difficulty multitasking between visual stimuli (of any kind) and the content of a conversation. For this same reason, I have difficulty paying attention to body language while talking or listening. I also have trouble with unfocused chit chat in a group of people because my mind needs either someone or something to focus on.

Years ago I wondered if I might have ADHD, but then, upon reading up on ADHD, I realized that I couldn't possibly have ADHD. If anything, my attention issues are the opposite of the "inattention" aspect of ADHD. Whereas inattentive ADHD people have difficulty focusing, I have difficulty NOT focusing.

My "executive functioning" issues are at the crux of my "behaviors."

It's open to debate whether EDys is a cause or an effect. I firmly favour the second view.

For myself I don't experience EDys as a continuous severe challenge, it varies greatly according to external events causing stress, anxiety which if intensified or persistent flick me into a bout of pronounced EDys, which resolves if I get enough rest, peace, quiet and solitude to restore more equanimity.

In extreme circumstances the outbreaks of ED can really impact on me. Often this involves some form of grief and loss that is deeply felt and experienced.

I feel like the Intense World renders askew my Executive Function. I can't disagree with that, based upon personal experience.

But I also feel I have an inherent dysfunction in Executive Function.

I believe autism manifests itself in various ways; all the above theories could be applicable, I believe.

I've met a few aspies who had no executive function problems whatsoever. In fact they had better executive function than neurotypicals. Most of these individuals still had the same social difficulties.

Yes, I have met them too, and my son-in-law, the professor, is one of them. He structures his life very rigidly to increase his productivity and has a very pronounced ability for sustained focus on whatever his daily goal is. I admire and envy his very strong capacity to do that. Wish he could infect me with it.

He too has considerable challenges with social interaction, though he is fine with one way lecturing and presentations.