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

Post Reply New Topic

I would love to answer you but when I post B19 tells me not to, but when you post she doesn't seem to have an issue. So I can only assume that her confirmation bias isn't just toward SBC but extends to members on this forum also and those who say things she doesn't agree with are not allowed to question her or post their opinions but those who say things she does agree with are allowed to "bicker" and bring all the "unpleasantness" they want.

Disagreement is ok, when conducted in a reasonable manner; flaming is against the rules, as are personal attacks.

You seem to me to be trying to steer this thread of mine in a way that threatens to derail it. That would be a pity, as it is an important issue, and the perspective covered in the OP is one that has not much featured on WP before.

The perspective you take has been already been covered innumerable times on WP before and again recently. I would like the focus in this thread to be on a discussion of from this fresher perspective, which is why I signalled that in the OP.

You have the option of starting another thread about TOM from your perspective!

Other dissidents:

https://autismandempathyblog.wordpress. ... re-review/

Let me tell you a story. Once there was a woman driving down the road. All the cars were coming at her head on. Soon a police car pulled her over. The police asked her why she was driving on the wrong side of the road, to which she replied "Everyone ELSE was driving on the wrong side of the road!". You are acting like that woman.

*coughnowonderyouaresuchafanofSBCyouactjustlikehimcough*

I am not sure why ToM is such a juggernaut in the field of autism. I imagine everyone has varying degrees of empathy and ToM. It seems to be being used as a way to segregate people. What difference does it make how aware one is of others as long as you are compliant and respectful of civil behaviour? The placing of ToM as some sort of indicator of humanity is a red herring and, I think, is often used as a tool to "other" people who are not as socially savvy. The importance of social compliance in our culture is overbearing.

Here is something that's actually been known for awhile: an impairment of theory of mind is NOT a distinguishing characteristic of autism. Deaf people also score poorly on theory of mind tests, that was explicitly mentioned in my decade old psychology book, as well as countless other groups. So there is really no reason it should be the juggernaut in the field.

There is no reason in the sense you mean, Ganadox, and I think the same as you in that. However there are reasons for the intensive promotion of certain theories about ASD generally, or at least that seems the unquestionable political truth to me. Baron-Cohen was/is extremely annoyed that the APA refused to include his theories in DSM criteria, (and has said so on different occasions over the years, garnering more headlines) though even they had issues with his bold claims being poorly grounded and his insistent habit of stating them as facts prematurely.

This article, from PubMed, is an unusually thoughtful contribution in that it comes from a diagnostic practitioner, and her perspective is rarely seen from that quarter. What you see (she submits) through the lens of rigid diagnostic criteria may be a function of the criteria you apply, and if the critieria is faulty, too big, too small, too narrow, or too (something), poorly based or (dare I say it reductionist) - then by blindly applying it, you may see only the projection of the criteria, and not see the natural variation that exists in the ASD population. She is pointing out that the confining paradigm of diagnostic criteria can result in missed diagnosis. I think she makes some valid points, and these points are not much acknowledged nor discussed by the diagnostic community generally:


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3425890/

Specifically addressed to issues with the "reading the eyes" theory, yet another dissident writes:

https://ballastexistenz.wordpress.com/2 ... yre-doing/

It's the most comprehensive and perceptive critique I have ever come across. If you are suffering from "link fatigue" (even I do sometimes) and want only "the goods, in one clear package", this is the link I would recommend above all the others.

I think SBC should stop trying to redefine autism to fit his theory and instead just create his own disorder. I can't remember if I'm correct in this or not, but doesn't he have a tendency to undiagnosis people? That would certain create bias in support of his theories if only the people who already fit his theories are regarded as autistic for his tests.



What I'm getting from this article is that all those people mentioned clearly have the same thing, it's just manifesting in slightly different ways, but because the things the diagnostic criteria focuses on they are all getting different diagnosises.



I have to say when trying to gauge emotion, I do look at the eyes a bit, but it's the LAST place I look. Body language is the easiest to read, but the mouth is still easier to read (and much more comfortable to look at) than the eyes. Eyes are too intense yet too subtle. I agree the article is great.

Last edited by Ganondox on 04 Jun 2016, 7:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I seem to recall reading somewhere something that implied SBC thought diagnosis no longer applied to some people, though this may be wrong recall on my part.

.........

There is another factor that hasn't come up in this thread (nor any other so far as I am aware) concerning SBC: his main doctoral supervisor was Uta Frith, I think, and Frith wanted others to add ballast to her own ideas. This raises the issue of how compromised the objectivity of both supervisor and doctoral candidate may have been. The relationship between UF and SBC seems perhaps much too close for comfort and confidence (at least to me).

This academic considers that if some of the SBC research was submitted as a paper to journals now, it would be rejected by most editors of scientific journals:
http://deevybee.blogspot.co.nz/2011/05/ ... ostic.html

This critique is brilliant. It's also a lesson in critical thinking and a fascinating overview of possibilities of how different people think, feel, and perceive.

Thank you for that feedback, it's a little masterpiece alright!

I didn't realize the answers for the test was based on NT consensus rather than what the actor was intending to portray, that's an obvious red flag for terrible study design.

You and nearly everyone didn't realise that Ganadox, because it's never cited and generally made known. As the writer of the link puts it:


"The test assumes that the most common answer given by nonautistic people is the right one.
This assumption basically makes the test a circular argument: Nonautistic people are better at reading emotions than autistic people, because we have created a test where the correct answers were created by looking at the answers of nonautistic people, thereby ensuring that nonautistic people are far more likely to get the right answer. And then when autistic people give different answers than nonautistic people, it’s used to prove that we don’t understand what’s going on in the photographs. Can you see how completely circular the reasoning is there?"

And as soon as you are given this missing piece of information, of course you can see it, it sticks out like the proverbial sore toe as a very shonky research design. It really saddens me when SBC supporters take those ad hominem potshots like "you disagree with his research because that's just your confirmation bias!" without any knowledge, consideration or understanding of the quintessential factors of bias in the research design itself.

Most of this discussion has been about Simon Baron Cohen, since he's the most prominent public advocate of the autism as lack of Tom, but Uta Frith is just as strong a supporter, teaching the idea and passing it on to her various students. This is probably why the idea is so widespread: those that Frith teaches it to teach it others in turn, so that most researchers and therapists absorb the idea as part of their training and give it more weight because of it's academic origins.

One of the problems with the idea, though, is it's circular and, to a large extent, unfalsifiable. From the essay linked in the OP:


Or, to put it more simply, since autistics lack Theory of Mind, anything they say or do to demonstrate otherwise can be dismissed because they lack Theory of Mind. There is literally nothing an autistic person can do to disprove the notion.

More recent research has also thrown up some additional problems:


From Cognition and behavior: Changing test erases autism deficit (url to citing link banned by bot).

Some things to note:
1. 3 out of 23 autistic kids passed the Sally-Ann test, so if we accept that failing the test is evidence for a lack of ToM, that lack is not universal.
2. The autistic kids were older than the control group of NT four year olds, suggesting that developing ToM is at best delayed in autistics, not entirely absent.
3. 17 of 23 autistic kids passed the Dot-Midge test, showing they can use ToM when they want to. This adds support to the autism as lack of Social Motivation theory rather than the autism as lack of Theory of Mind theory.

This is hardly conclusive, but does suggest that the situation is bit more complicated than a simple (and simplistic) idea that autism is defined by a lack of ToM.