The Lancet: Does autism need a cure? bySimon Baron-Cohen

Post Reply New Topic

This came out a couple of weeks ago, but if anyone has already posted it I can't find it.

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lance ... xt?rss=yes

"But in a shocking section of the book she highlights how some moral philosophers, such as Martha Nussbaum, have argued that if a person lacks the capacity for relationships with other people, “such a life is not a life worthy of human dignity”. Barnbaum also quotes Tavistock Clinic psychiatrist Peter Hobson who argues “the autistic person is outside the moral community, biologically human but not a person in the moral sense”. That is because, for Hobson, to be a person assumes not just an ability to have what philosopher Martin Buber calls “I—It” relationships, but also “I—thou” relationships—the ability to relate to people as well as things."

Shocking is the word for it.

This sounds like a book that should be on my summer reading list. I'll have to look for it.

That is an interesting book review, Cuterebra. I think it is important to be aware of how easily people can slip into that sort of thinking about others-- the idea that "they don't feel things the same way as the rest of us," or "they're not fully human" has been used to justify a lot of horrible things. And that's a point the author of the book apparently makes:

(Just wanted to quote that part too, because it says better than I could some of what I was thinking about that part you quoted.)

I'm not sure I agree with the author's idea that autistics are "mental solipsists," at least not more than anyone else. I thought it was interesting that Baron-Cohen didn't seem to agree with that idea either.

I don't think this philosopher passed high school math.

Thank you, that's much more representative. I read it again and the rest sank in.

There is waaaaay more going on in the autism culture war than I had realized.

And I think I now understand a little better why it feels like I'm swimming through mud when I try to understand the whole theory of mind thing. What, is there some kind of human hive mind thing that the sheepish masses are a part of?

I've been told that one of the best books to help understand that is a book called "Mindblindness" by Simon Baron-Cohen. I haven't read the book yet myself, but it's on my to-read list. I disagree with a lot of what Dr. Baron-Cohen says, but if he can help me understand the concept of mindblindness and theory of mind better, I don't care whether I agree with him on causes or effects of autism because he will have filled in a mysterious piece of the puzzle for me. I sometimes wonder if I don't understand theory of mind properly because I'm too mindblind to understand it! LOL

So we either have no dignity, or no morals? Who the hell is writing this stuff? We need more spectrumite authors to drown BS this out.

FAIL.


I don't think the term 'moral' is accurate for what they are describing. There is a difference from being reclusive and being sub-human.

Somebody misquoted the Pythagorean theorem! That just made my day. Yay, typo?


But seriously... an inability to form relationships is not necessarily an inability to behave morally, unless you're telling me you only behave morally toward your friends.

Or unless someone believes we have a moral obligation to interact with others.

I've had someone tell me that I'm morally wrong for refusing to write for publication any more. (Stick with me on this, it's not really a side-track.) I quit because getting a book published was such a nightmare. The writing was fun, dealing with the publisher was okay, but I hadn't realized just how awful the publicity phase would be. Book signings are sensory nightmares. Being interviewed is stressful and seeing or reading the final result is worse because I've now learned that reporters will twist everything you say out of shape. And then on top of all that, my publisher decided to quit paying me my royalties, blaming it on 9/11 (despite the fact that they're in California and had no holdings in New York. I guess they heard other publishers who were in New York using that excuse and thought it sounded like a great reason to quit paying me.) So I ended up accusing them of breach of contract, getting all unsold copies of my book returned to me, and having all copyright returned to me. Then they reported full royalties (including stuff they hadn't paid me) to the IRS and royally screwed me.

This, on top of getting habitually screwed by magazine editors, made me decide I didn't want to be a freelance writer after all. But back to the original point, I have been accused (more than once!) of being immoral in "withholding my talents from the world" because "God gave you that talent of writing in order that you would use it to bring good into the world" and "you have no right to keep that from others." But screw that! I have a moral obligation to *myself* to keep myself sane and whole and the publishing industry was not contributing to that goal.

So maybe the philosopher has a similar line of thought (with or without God in it) that people have some kind of moral obligation to interact with other people and bring their "spark of humanity" (or whatever) to others. Maybe.

from the article:

It is not logical and it does not work. If I treated people the way I want them to treat me, they'd be offended. I've always thought the Golden Rule should be "Treat others as they would have you treat them."

I love the smell of snake oil, before lunch.

My mistake, the book review was from a year ago. The years all blur together in my head.

I guess it's me being naive again, but the fact that there are philosophers and psychiatrists could actually try to argue that people with autism aren't "persons" is just mindboggling. What century do they think this is, seriously?

How many major players are there in this autism culture war thing, anyway?

How many major players?

There's Autism Speaks (they're in it for money), people like my mother (they want to alleviate suffering and protect children, but are mistaken in ideology), people like us, the NT society and its institutions... I honestly don't know. It's complicated, and the pieces all blur together and interact with each other in complex ways. It's not a puzzle so much as a jumble of pick-up sticks. (Autism Speaks can't have more than one emblem, can it? Can we keep our pick-up sticks?) Very, very, very hard to pull one out without disturbing the whole pile.

I count at least four.

You do have a moral obligation to use the gifts God gave you to make the world a better place. That does not directly translate to having a moral obligation to keep publishing. You could blog. You could self-publish. You could ghostwrite. Etc. Etc. And that's assuming that's the only way you can help make the world a better place. You could do so many other things I can't count them all.

I can think of one situation in which I have a moral obligation to form a relationship with someone, and that is the situation where someone is lonely and in need of companionship, but unlikely to find any from anyone else. That is an obligation to the degree needed to keep them sane, until such time as a better friend can be found and you can leave without disturbing their psyche.

No, I don't. I am not a bad person if I decide to quiety enjoy my gifts alone.

I also knit and I'm not a bad person if I make myself pretty sweaters instead of knitting for charity. I am allowed to keep my gifts to myself.

As a Christian, I am still obliged to extend charity, but there is no rule that it has to come from my special gifts. I can give money or I can visit those in prison or whatever. I am not obligated to give any particular thing to other people, just to give in general.

If I am uncomfortable with publishing (in any form) and I do not enjoy knitting for other people there is no moral rule on this earth that says I have to share my arts with others.

The moral obligation to use your gifts is not one to be shrugged off lightly, however the problem is that it means everyone who is asking you to keep up the use of your gift are ignoring their moral responsibilty to ensure that you are happy, sane and well.

Thank you. That's a very reasonable and logical way to put it.