A Theory of Mind? Or A Theory of War....

Post Reply New Topic

I suppose it's OK to tentatively suggest a theory without much evidence, but I don't see anything tentative in the things he says, he seems to just defend his assertions as vigorously as he can, and that always makes me suspicious. I think the danger is that there are a lot of people who swallow the teachings of such gurus without question, and I'd prefer it if he showed more humility in the expression of his ideas, and admitted that he could be wrong.

You are completely off point in people's criticism of him. If anything, SBC was the guy who mainstreamed the idea that autism isn't actually a disability, but a difference because sexism. The reason people dislike like him is because he is extremely reductionist, which is toxic if you don't fit his reduced model (as far as I know most people on the autism spectrum don't), and leads to countless circular reason that makes it much harder for science to advance beyond his theories. The other thing is he is definitely NOT just doing his job as scientist, he also publishes pop science books, most infamously Zero Degrees of Empathy/The Science of Evil. I know an actual sociopath, and he actually lacks empathy, and OH BOY DID HE NOT TAKE KINDLY THAT SUMMARY OF EVIL. I wouldn't say that person is evil at all (though if the stories he tells are true he was to some degree in the past), and he fits SBC's description of autism in that book better than anyone I know who is actually on the spectrum (it's important to note SBC did not accept the distinction between cognitive and emotional empathy until AFTER he wrote that book, in that book he had his own ridiculous explanation for why autistic people act different from sociopaths). Really sociopath is the more natural conclusion for extreme male brain than autism.

That's just mainly an ad hominem attack, pejorative buzzwords thrown around in lieu of an argument. A lot of science is coming up with theories, dismissing them and moving on to something that is better, it's just the process.

Hi B19.
I have a question about the article linked in the OP, why does the author refer so much to a separation of body and mind, what's the significance?

...you clearly did not understand a word I said. You're lack of understanding does not dismiss the criticism.

The term usually refers to the Cartesian idea that body and mind are separate, which is called 'dualism' and I assume the writer was referring to how dualism can warp and/or influence methodology and findings. This explains more about that:

Mind and Body Dualism: Methodological Implications
Dualism also laid the groundwork for positivism which means a logical thought based upon empirical, i.e., unbiased, impersonal and unsympathetic observation and measurement. By making objective realm the only legitimate domain of enquiry, Descartes advocated a complete and exact natural science through the analytic method. This method involved the breaking up of a problem into pieces and rearranging them in a logical order. Under the spell of the “scientific revolution” that positivism brought in, disciplines like physics, chemistry and astronomy not only flourished but also came to define exact science The success of the scientific method reinforced Descartes’ philosophy and methodology further and contributed to the dogma of scientism (Klein and Lyytinen, 1985)-the belief that scientific method was the only legitimate path to knowledge. This is an issue because disciplines under social sciences do not lend themselves to scientific method without running the risk of incomplete and at times distorted understanding of their subject matter-human beings. The field of medicine, by adhering rigidly to scientific method, mislaid its subject matter and gave up its moral responsibility toward the real health concerns of human beings.


Sorry I can't cite the author of that excerpt for now, though it is from my Pub-Med files

Cartesian means Rene Descartes, 17th century French Philosopher. The guy who came up with "I think, therefore I am."

There are times when the mind and the body are separate. This is especially so, within a subjective, personal context, when I exhibit "muscle memory." In these instances, making use of the conscious mind will, inevitably, be counterproductive.

This is how I learned how to type. If I "thought" about learning how to type, I would have never learned to type.

Last edited by kraftiekortie on 02 Jun 2016, 5:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.

His companion asked Descartes if he would like some bread. Descartes said, "I think not," and, poof, he disappeared.

I like that!

More ad homimen arguments. When you actually say something maybe I'll respond appropriately

Please don't disrupt my thread with this bickering which contributes nothing to the topic but unpleasantness.

I read the content in the link and I went into my mute mode thinking about it.
Thought provoking

Do you even know what ad homimen means? You aren't using it correctly. YOU are the one avoiding the discussion. Sorry, but I can't respond to you saying nothing that has nothing to do with what I said. I used no buzzwords, just because you don't understand what a word means doesn't mean it's a buzzword. If you actually understood what I said, you wouldn't have said "A lot of science is coming up with theories, dismissing them and moving on to something that is better, it's just the process." because that is EXACTLY where I criticized him on, he DOESN'T dismiss his theories and move onto something that is better!

It makes no sense to me why anyone would use a mind in the eyes test to assess theory of mind in anyone unaccustomed to, or very uncomfortable with, eye contact. I can't see people's eyes to make contact, so I doubly don't get it. If you rarely or never look into someone's eyes, how can you learn to read them? Or does SBC suppose this to be an innate skill?

Elsewhere in the thread, people mentioned committing evil acts as a result of a lack of empathy. It seems to me that if you commit an act that someone sees as evil, but you know not what you do, then the act would be amoral, rather than evil. To me, an evil act implies a person who understands the effects of that act and still chooses to do it anyway.

Evil intentions have more to do with anger, malice, or lack of ethics. I think that a person, or even an AI, would need a certain level of cognitive empathy to truly understand ethics. They might not need the emotion of empathy to behave ethically though, as long as negative emotions do not motivate them either.

The building blocks of SBC's EQ/SQ theory make sense to me, even if I don't agree with every question SBC uses to measure these traits. It's hard for me to be both empathizing and systemizing in the same moment. A system of determining how people feel in various situations implies some cognitive empathy, but it's hard to both analyze and feel strong emotions. I feel like I'm switching gears so to speak. At any given moment, I can't fully empathize if I'm analyzing, and vise versa. Anyone else notice this?

It would be so cool if I could always make the choice for myself: Do I analyze or do I stop and feel, or just be?

Thank you for that contribution.

Particularly for bringing to attention the important conflicting variable of impaired visual perception. I would flunk the Eyes test on that basis alone - though that factor would escape the detection of the reductionist focus. You would not know from meeting me for the first time in a form of one to one encounter - experimental or not - how visually impaired I am.

The interplay of impaired vision with the other powerful conflicting variable of alexithymia - even in the absence of all other methodological shortcomings and circularity of theory - may have a very distorting effect on the validity of findings of the eye test in themselves.

Here is a concise summary of the actual research design, including its weaknesses:

https://quizlet.com/12346589/baron-cohe ... ash-cards/

However there is an important piece of information missing from it: the Sally-Anne test was designed to be used on children, the Eyes test was later developed as a separate "tool" designed for use on adults according to the speculations of the same (limited) theory.

Also, AFIK, no consideration was afforded to the effect of learning over time which is another potentially important variable, the possibility that IF there are cognitive deficits of this kind in childhood, they don't remain at a stable level of intensity over the whole life course, the possibility that people do better as they learn to apply meaning more accurately with experience and practice over decades was ignored.