Simon Baron-Cohen

Post Reply New Topic

Simon Baron Cohen is a Banker of the first order!!
A simple comparison with Tony Attwood exposes Cohen to reality and NOT HIS DOGMA!! !
And as i have heard the opinions of others here on Cohen,i tend to agree with the general opinion there.
He is a self publicist buffoon!! !
I'll lay my hat with Attwood thanks.........

No? It would be unethical if they gave a diagnosis despite the person not meeting the criterion of "causes significant impairment". You shouldn't get a clinical diagnosis if you don't need support. You can identify as autistic if you like, but you don't need that piece of paper that essentially says "this person suffers from X disorder and requires support".

Medical professionals are there to identify people with disorders so they can treat them. They are not there to bring like-minded people together for happy fun times.

The OP suggested that "Simon Baron--Cohen is prejudiced against Asperger sufferers".
yellowtamarin i'm not sure whether you read my tirade?
But the main thrust of it was that CLASS is regarded in some circles as being the worlds leading centre for Aspergers when it is not.
I have personal experience of their "Clinical Services" and as i said they did not even follow their own guidelines.
They purport to follow stringent rules and them simply disregard them.
They are unethical alone in just that aspect.
Also,from my life's experience of the past 50yrs i KNOW how much my personality "causes significant impairment" in ALL the areas listed and it is FAR MORE than "significant"! !
THAT is the issue.
Just a quick glance at the myriad of threads on here concerning how appallingly some people have been treated by "professionals" shows that it's not always a good idea to take verbatim what they say especially when the opposite is backed up by personal experience.

As far as folk wanting a referral when they have no "significant impairment".
They shouldn't even get past their GP lol!!

I was referred 10yrs ago after having a meltdown,losing a job and a partner.
I have recently had another massive meltdown and lost my job and wife (am over it) and can't go and sign on because of the anxiety i have.
Had to change GP blabla.
So it does not "causes significant impairment" to me?.........

As Autism is a lifelong condition it is unethical to withhold a diagnosis if the person fits the criteria. The person could be coping now, but a change in circumstances could make the person not cope in the future.

The Autistic community should play a greater role, however in identifying fellow autistics.

Exactly, "if the person fits the criteria". One of the criteria in DSM-IV is that it causes significant impairment, so the person had to fit that. If they didn't fit it at that time, they could go back and get their diagnosis when they did, if the situation changed. I'm not familiar with the DSM-V so I don't know if that has changed. I would be surprised.

As for the second paragraph, I assume you are part of the autistic community? Do you have any thoughts on how to do that? Are you working on it? "Be the change you want to see in the world"

I would like to do that. I think the first thing I will need to do is study the techniques and methods used to identify people on the autism spectrum, and see if they can be replicated by people on the autism spectrum.

It's been almost 20 years since I was diagnosed, so I barely remember any of the tests done. I think collecting reports by people who were diagnosed more recently could be helpful first step.

Have you met his loony cousin?

Last edited by Aniihya on 08 Feb 2015, 1:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Cousin, actually. But, yeah. I have wondered if Sacha was Simon's first case study. Haha.

I've just been watching the Horizon episode that was on tv the other night, via iPlayer - "Living with Autism", although apparently its from 2014 (bbc co uk/programmes/b0404861).

I was so incensed by Simon Baron-Cohen's turn in it I felt compelled enough to sign up to post.

When they got to the part about measuring autistic traits e.g. the AQ50, he said:
"It's about the clinician looking at how much these traits are interfering with your everyday functioning ... if they're doing fine, irrespective of their score, they don't need the diagnosis, so - so you withhold the diagnosis"

What sort of a mealy-mouthed thing is this to say?? Either someone meets the criteria, or they don't. What basis is there to arbitrarily deny diagnosis because the person is deemed as 'doing fine' - like I have seen commented elsewhere, a person would only be seeking a clinical diagnosis because of difficulties affecting their life.

I speak from personal experience seeking a diagnosis, and what also alarmed me is how similar my psychiatrist sounded, when we discussed the outcome and how a diagnosis is made/discounted, to the manner in which Baron-Cohen spoke. It appears a 'disingenuousity' amongst psychiatrists surrounding this subject has begun to arise. I noted an article was published in the Guardian about this a little while back.
theguardian com /science/blog/2015/jul/16/autism-doesnt-have-to-be-viewed-as-a-disability-or-disorder


Clearly, from his comments in Horizon his statements on C4 News were his plain and clear thinking. But not only that, in the programme he lies, he said (of the AQ50 test):
"You can measure autistic traits, just like any metric, like a ruler, where you know, if you was down here, at 0, or up here at 50, you'd be either low, or high, or just average ... Most people in the population are scoring right in the middle, so that's the population average, or the mean"

From my understanding, control groups in studies showed an average of 16.4, infact his very own study (!), and that initially a score of 26 was used to screen possible candidates, but later revised upwards to 32. That is not "right in the middle" for the general population. That's right in the middle for a possible cut-off point

It seems like he is trying to down-play it, to an issue of a person being "within a spectrum", of some sort of woolly, aribritary badge of identity. But yet, perhaps he and others like him should consider it might be those that - for most extents and purposes - are getting by, are masking their difficuties most effectively, and are 'doing fine', are suffering the most.

Welcome to the MAD world of AS Support lol!! !! !
Please feel free to message me if you feel the forum does not appeal to you.
I have first hand experience from Prof Cohen and his "Opinion" lol!! !
And the Forum IS biased in "some" direction too.
I seem to be the kind of folk who wants folk to get back into society to work and enjoy life.
Others just MOAN!! !! !!

"The criteria" state that you don't just need to have various traits, but that those traits cause significant impairments. To be perfectly honest, SB-C kinda has a point. Obviously you'd need to judge things on a case by case basis, I haven't seen the case he made those comments in relation to.

I agree, the main use of a diagnosis in society is to identify someone who needs help. This is why the diagnosis requires a person to have significant impairment as part of the diagnostic criteria. If someone has some autistic traits but is not significantly impaired then they don't meet the criteria and can't get a diagnosis. There's nothing wrong with that person saying 'I have some autistic traits', because they do, but a diagnosis is there to identify someone who needs support and if you have no significant impairment then why would you need support?

I do get that some folk feel that autism shouldn't be called an impairment but be called perhaps a difference instead However, personally I have a diagnosis because I need it in order to live my everyday life. Without some level of support I cannot manage. It worries me that if lots of people with no impairment get diagnosed then how would the authorities know who needed help? Having ASD is not just a difference for me - it's difficult and makes my life really hard. For me ASD is an impairment, it describes the nature of my difficulties with the social blindness, the need for routines and inflexible plans and my noise sensitivities. As a label it helps me enormously to get the help I need just to get by.

What is a "significant impairment?"

Has job--this means not impaired significantly?

Well, for the state/government, this is all they really care about--whether or not you can hold a job so the state doesn't have to support you with money that comes from taxes.

But, many Aspies do in fact aspire to having more than just a job--such as having a real life relationship. But the state/government doesn't care about that.

[quote

Autism is more than "impairments". Myself and many other people feel trivialised or worse by people who lump all of autism under "impairments".[/quote]
.[/quote]





I concur, vehemently

If it was as simplistic as that the diagnostic materials would say so. In reality it will simply be a judgement call from the professional doing the diagnosis.

This is one of the main problems with on-line tests....there are two things an online test can't tell you; if you are significantly impaired and (more importantly) what you don't have, as what you don't have also plays a part in diagnosis. Many conditions overlap and again it it up to the diagnosing professional to consider a range of possible issues, whereas the average person on the street who takes an on-line test is far more focussed on a single issue.

An on-line test will tell you your arm is injured because it hurts when you poke it. A professional doctor will tell you your finger is injured as it hurts when you poke anywhere.

I agree, I have held down jobs - I just can't do it in the long term - things always end up going wrong. Plus, although work is really important there is still lots more to life than work, especially having a real life relationship. The inability to do that I would certainly regard as a significant impairment.




Autism is more than impairment but, for me certainly, it would be false to think that impairment is not a significant part of it, the bigger part of it in fact. I don't think it trivialises our unusual neurology or the many things we are really good at to say this. In this thread though, I feel that we're talking specifically about diagnosis, which is something we give to people who need help, because they are impaired in some way compared to the majority of people. So, getting back to Baron-Cohen, it seems reasonable to me for him not to give a diagnosis, which implies significant impairment, to someone who doesn't meet that criteria.