Opinions on Simon Baron-Cohen's response to critics

Page 3 of 4 [ 59 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

guywithAS
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 23 Apr 2011
Age: 53
Gender: Male
Posts: 285

12 Sep 2011, 6:32 am

Verdandi wrote:
It's amazing that SBC is just now talking about the need to do research with autistic women and girls, after two decades (at least) of doing research with primarily or only boys. He says it's a flaw in the system but somehow avoids mentioning how much he participated in that system.


true. he also writes in his empathy book something like "there hasn't been time to follow improvement on the autism spectrum due to the cost". which is incredibly disappointing and where my real interest lies. who cares about analyzing how much of a social loser someone is now? i want to see what they can become!

but you have to admire him -- he's the only high profile guy out there really engaging with the community like this and he's digging into key areas to try to figure them out. overall i'm a SBC fan, even if some of his work has flaws big enough i could drive a truck through them



Moog
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Feb 2010
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 17,671
Location: Untied Kingdom

12 Sep 2011, 6:52 am

Never mind.


_________________
Not currently a moderator


serenity
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Feb 2007
Age: 45
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,377
Location: Invisibly here

12 Sep 2011, 7:50 am

Thanks for your opinions everyone. I guess this is one of those subjects where there is still much to sorted and ideas and opinions differ greatly. I still am in agreement with SBC in that autistic people have issues with affective empathy, but perhaps have an excess of sympathy. I've witnessed this to be true in my life as well as other family members on the spectrum. I don't take it personally, because I don't view it as it means that I am less than, but just different in the way that I process the world around me. I've always known this. Being diagnosed and being aware that I have issues with being able to infer how another person might be feeling or thinking has made a difference in close relationships. People used to think that I was purposely ignoring their needs, or even being self centered, but now give me the benefit of the doubt that I may just not be aware of all this emotional information. They tell me verbally and I respond with great concern and care, as most will and do with autism. I think explaining to parents of ASD kids that their child cares very much about others, but shows it differently, as well as needs the whole POV that seems to come naturally for non-ASD people spelled out for them will help them understand their child.

Also, I think there is some confusion in this thread about what empathy is vs sympathy. Empathy is the ability to understand another's POV, and feelings. Understanding doesn't equate caring about. It just means having the ability to know about how others feel by nonverbal communication. Sympathy is more about wanting to or fix , or help. I know that I have little need to know about how others feel and discuss feelings, but I am fast to action to help. I will give generously of my time and resources to help others. I never mind doing so, especially for the underdog.



Ettina
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,971

12 Sep 2011, 2:35 pm

Quote:
So in the case of the ball in the box the autistic child (Anne) doesn't think Sally could have hidden the ball in Sally's box because she doesn't consider Sally in the scenario. Anne is focused on the ball and where she put it (in her basket).


No, Anne is not the autistic kid. The autistic kid is an onlooker who witnesses Anne moving the ball and doesn't realize that Sally (who was absent) will not know what the autistic kid knows.

Here's the set-up:

Kid comes in.

Adult takes out two dolls and introduces them as Sally and Anne.

Sally has a ball, and she puts it in the basket.

Sally leaves the room.

Anne takes the ball out of the basket and puts it in the box.

Sally comes back and wants to find ball.

Kid is asked whether Sally will look for the ball in the box or the basket.

If Kid is NT and over 4 years old, Kid says Sally will look in the basket. If Kid is under 3 or autistic, Kid will say Sally is going to look in the box. (High functioning autistics often pass this test at 8-9 years old or so, however.)



Callista
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Feb 2006
Age: 41
Gender: Female
Posts: 10,775
Location: Ohio, USA

12 Sep 2011, 2:39 pm

The theory of mind test takes a lot of mental juggling of language, though. And autistics often suck at language--even Aspies have problems with figurative and between-the-lines meanings. That confounding variable makes me doubt the results of such language-heavy theory of mind tests.


_________________
Reports from a Resident Alien:
http://chaoticidealism.livejournal.com

Autism Memorial:
http://autism-memorial.livejournal.com


zen_mistress
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Jun 2007
Age: 46
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,033

12 Sep 2011, 3:05 pm

cyberdad wrote:
Fragmented wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
Simon Baron Cohen's theory of mind has a few flaws

The problem is some children with Autism can learn readily, prioritizes behavior, and don’t always take an egocentric perspective in relation to not understanding the following scenario;
– Child asked to observe Sally & Anne
– Sally puts her ball in the basket
– Sally then leaves the room
– Ann moves the ball to her box
– When Sally returns, where will she look for the
ball.

According to Baron Cohen, autistic kids are delayed up to 7 years of age to learn to search for the ball in Ann's box. I observed my daughter figure this one out by 2.5 years old.


I still don't get the above scenario. If you leave, you assume that your ball will still be where you left it, when it's not, you check elsewhere. What does it have to do with ToM? Do NTs naturally assume that because they leave someone alone with their possessions that they will move it and thus check the box immediately or what? So confusing.


Simon baron Cohen refers to this as "mind blindness" where autistic people (in his theory) don't understand the mental states of others. So in the case of the ball in the box the autistic child (Anne) doesn't think Sally could have hidden the ball in Sally's box because she doesn't consider Sally in the scenario. Anne is focused on the ball and where she put it (in her basket).

Although my daughter is autistic she figured this trick out early (around 2.5) so I am not convinced the theory can be generalized to all autistic people.


I took this test at the age of 30, and got the wrong answer. Perhaps it is just a test of poor maths skills. :P


_________________
"Caravan is the name of my history, and my life an extraordinary adventure."
~ Amin Maalouf

Taking a break.


srriv345
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Jul 2006
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 523

12 Sep 2011, 6:49 pm

Here is an excellent article debunking the "theory of mind" nonsense. One of the authors' points is the same as that made here--the fact that not all autistic people fail ToM tests would seem to suggest that ToM "deficits" are not in fact a "core deficit" of autism. Additionally, people with other disabilities that affect language comprehension also struggle on ToM tests frequently. I really recommend the article.



guywithAS
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 23 Apr 2011
Age: 53
Gender: Male
Posts: 285

12 Sep 2011, 7:04 pm

srriv345 wrote:
Here is an excellent article debunking the "theory of mind" nonsense. One of the authors' points is the same as that made here--the fact that not all autistic people fail ToM tests would seem to suggest that ToM "deficits" are not in fact a "core deficit" of autism. Additionally, people with other disabilities that affect language comprehension also struggle on ToM tests frequently. I really recommend the article.


theory of mind is a scalable concept and it is accurate. it means more or less do you "have the backstory" on things that go on. do you understand what they are thinking about while they are thinking it. this is something acquired with experience. for example, you will have theory of mind of your family members, unless you are quite autistic and don't pay any attention to facial expressions. you won't have theory of mind about me since you don't know me.

NT's don't have theory of mind about each other except at a basic level. but they acquire it and use slices of info to produce an image of theory of mind. eg i am a man and he is a man so i know something. i am a man who is 25 and he is a man who is 18 so i know how that feels too. he is in school and i was in school. when you combine enough of these slices you end up with theory of mind -- an understanding about hte person -- without having to communicate it.



Fragmented
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 25 Jun 2011
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 144
Location: Somewhere Sunny

12 Sep 2011, 9:49 pm

cyberdad wrote:
Simon baron Cohen refers to this as "mind blindness" where autistic people (in his theory) don't understand the mental states of others. So in the case of the ball in the box the autistic child (Anne) doesn't think Sally could have hidden the ball in Sally's box because she doesn't consider Sally in the scenario. Anne is focused on the ball and where she put it (in her basket).

Although my daughter is autistic she figured this trick out early (around 2.5) so I am not convinced the theory can be generalized to all autistic people.


This still makes no sense. Just because there's a person doesn't mean they're going to hide the ball, what kind of horrid person hides your stuff when you leave the room? I think we should be worried about Sally and her apparent lack of respect for other people's belongings.

Seriously, I appreciate that this scenario and the explanation probably makes sense and I'm just being thick, but come on, where's the logic in this?


_________________
Someone who's only willing to give you a penny for your thoughts isn't worth your time.

Aspie Score: 170 of 200
NT Score: 37 of 200


cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 34,284

12 Sep 2011, 11:51 pm

Fragmented wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
Simon baron Cohen refers to this as "mind blindness" where autistic people (in his theory) don't understand the mental states of others. So in the case of the ball in the box the autistic child (Anne) doesn't think Sally could have hidden the ball in Sally's box because she doesn't consider Sally in the scenario. Anne is focused on the ball and where she put it (in her basket).

Although my daughter is autistic she figured this trick out early (around 2.5) so I am not convinced the theory can be generalized to all autistic people.


This still makes no sense. Just because there's a person doesn't mean they're going to hide the ball, what kind of horrid person hides your stuff when you leave the room? I think we should be worried about Sally and her apparent lack of respect for other people's belongings.

Seriously, I appreciate that this scenario and the explanation probably makes sense and I'm just being thick, but come on, where's the logic in this?


The very fact you are questioning the logic underlines the flaw in the theory. Here's my take and may not go down well with everyone on this forum.

Simon Baron Cohen, Tony Attwood and others are researchers who have an academic interest in autism. They neither personally know an autistic person or have children or family with autism so their research is based on the snapshot view of autistic people in laboratories, clinics or schools. This is in contrast to parents of autistic kids who observe their children 24 hours a day 7 days a week.

Their enthusiasm for their research is not in question, (I have no doubt they are passionate about their work) however they have created generalist theories based on clinical observation and observe patterns that may be familial but have some fundamental flaws. In the case of "mind blindness" the irony of the example uses a autistic girl yet the data was normed largely on cohorts that were 4:1 boys. This of course means gender specific patterns in relation to so called "mind blindness is biased toward boys. This is my take anyway since my daughter doesn't fit the current DSMIV diagnosis for autism based on item 3.



cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 34,284

12 Sep 2011, 11:54 pm

Fragmented wrote:
This still makes no sense. Just because there's a person doesn't mean they're going to hide the ball, what kind of horrid person hides your stuff when you leave the room? I think we should be worried about Sally and her apparent lack of respect for other people's belongings.


Sorry I just re-read your question and now realise what you were surprised about.

I think it was a test conducted in a lab under controlled conditions. Anne and Sally were test subjects. But I agree it's an artificial scenario but used to illustrate specific response behavior.



Fragmented
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 25 Jun 2011
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 144
Location: Somewhere Sunny

13 Sep 2011, 12:53 am

Cyberdad: I hate to correct you, but Tony Attwood's sister in law is autistic, he references her in a few scenarios in one of his new books. I do agree however that they are getting a slightly incorrect view of autistics in general. Especially Simon Baron-Cohen, the things I've read from him kind of piss me off, I don't like how frequently he implies that autistics are sociopaths, or close to it. It's really upsetting.

Right, I get that it's a lab test, but it's the fact that to NOT be autistic or whatever, you have to realize that other people are trying to steal your stuff. Seems more like an example of paranoia or something. I don't know, I'm going to have to read about that because it sounds like the stupidest test ever conducted.

The problem with clinical research is, as you say, they're basing their information on corrupted data. I forget what it's called, or if it has a name, but there is a principle in research that you cannot observe something without inherently changing the thing that you're observing. Thus they fail on that principle alone. Tony Attwood especially, I read things I totally agree with, and then I find passages where it seems clear he based an imaginary Aspie's reaction to certain situations on the idea that we're self centered and emotionally distant. We may in fact be both of those things in some way, but I don't believe that you can apply those two behaviors in their more extreme forms to ALL situations.

I paraphrase but: "An AS man is on his way to an interview and meets another man in the elevator. The first man says hello and asks if he's there for an interview. AS man realizes he hasn't combed his hair, and then proceeds to ignore the question and ask if the man has a comb he could borrow." And somehow that's an example of AS people being self-centered or something. He's trying hard I'm sure, but it takes an Aspie to know an Aspie, and until there are autistic researchers, there shall be misinformation from and for the NT masses.


_________________
Someone who's only willing to give you a penny for your thoughts isn't worth your time.

Aspie Score: 170 of 200
NT Score: 37 of 200


cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 34,284

13 Sep 2011, 1:06 am

Fragmented wrote:
Cyberdad: I hate to correct you, but Tony Attwood's sister in law is autistic, he references her in a few scenarios in one of his new books.

I do agree however that they are getting a slightly incorrect view of autistics in general. Especially Simon Baron-Cohen, the things I've read from him kind of piss me off, I don't like how frequently he implies that autistics are sociopaths, or close to it. It's really upsetting.

Right, I get that it's a lab test, but it's the fact that to NOT be autistic or whatever, you have to realize that other people are trying to steal your stuff. Seems more like an example of paranoia or something. I don't know, I'm going to have to read about that because it sounds like the stupidest test ever conducted.


Ok, I guess he knows one. However as it's his sister in law (and not a direct relative) so I still question how well he knows her? Also if it's his sister in law perhaps it was serendipitous his brother married an autistic girl perhaps after he had already chosen his specific career path and underway with his research.

Fragmented wrote:
The problem with clinical research is, as you say, they're basing their information on corrupted data. I forget what it's called, or if it has a name, but there is a principle in research that you cannot observe something without inherently changing the thing that you're observing. Thus they fail on that principle alone. Tony Attwood especially, I read things I totally agree with, and then I find passages where it seems clear he based an imaginary Aspie's reaction to certain situations on the idea that we're self centered and emotionally distant. We may in fact be both of those things in some way, but I don't believe that you can apply those two behaviors in their more extreme forms to ALL situations.


Agreed

Fragmented wrote:
I paraphrase but: "An AS man is on his way to an interview and meets another man in the elevator. The first man says hello and asks if he's there for an interview. AS man realizes he hasn't combed his hair, and then proceeds to ignore the question and ask if the man has a comb he could borrow." And somehow that's an example of AS people being self-centered or something. He's trying hard I'm sure, but it takes an Aspie to know an Aspie, and until there are autistic researchers, there shall be misinformation from and for the NT masses.


Good point.



serenity
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Feb 2007
Age: 45
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,377
Location: Invisibly here

13 Sep 2011, 7:52 am

Fragmented wrote:
Cyberdad: I hate to correct you, but Tony Attwood's sister in law is autistic, he references her in a few scenarios in one of his new books. I do agree however that they are getting a slightly incorrect view of autistics in general. Especially Simon Baron-Cohen, the things I've read from him kind of piss me off, I don't like how frequently he implies that autistics are sociopaths, or close to it. It's really upsetting.

Right, I get that it's a lab test, but it's the fact that to NOT be autistic or whatever, you have to realize that other people are trying to steal your stuff. Seems more like an example of paranoia or something. I don't know, I'm going to have to read about that because it sounds like the stupidest test ever conducted.

The problem with clinical research is, as you say, they're basing their information on corrupted data. I forget what it's called, or if it has a name, but there is a principle in research that you cannot observe something without inherently changing the thing that you're observing. Thus they fail on that principle alone. Tony Attwood especially, I read things I totally agree with, and then I find passages where it seems clear he based an imaginary Aspie's reaction to certain situations on the idea that we're self centered and emotionally distant. We may in fact be both of those things in some way, but I don't believe that you can apply those two behaviors in their more extreme forms to ALL situations.

I paraphrase but: "An AS man is on his way to an interview and meets another man in the elevator. The first man says hello and asks if he's there for an interview. AS man realizes he hasn't combed his hair, and then proceeds to ignore the question and ask if the man has a comb he could borrow." And somehow that's an example of AS people being self-centered or something. He's trying hard I'm sure, but it takes an Aspie to know an Aspie, and until there are autistic researchers, there shall be misinformation from and for the NT masses.


The test isn't designed to find out what you, as a person knows from seeing the skit. It is designed to see how much you understand that other people have thoughts and feelings and might know something that you yourself don't know. Sally has a marble in her basket (maybe something equivalent to having something in your purse, like a pair of sunglasses). If you were to leave the room and leave your purse unattended and a friend came along and took your sunglasses where would you look for them when you returned? Remember, you were not in the room when your friend took the sunglasses. As far as you know, they are still in your purse where you left them, so you'd look in your purse. That's the correct answer. Sally will look for her marble in her basket, because she does not know that Ann moved it. They move it to 3rd person to make it a bit trickier, but a typical kid (without any other delays or disorders) would always say that Sally will look in the basket, because they understand that Sally was not in the room when Ann took it, so therefore cannot posses that knowledge. It's not the end all be all in ToM, but it is just one test. You don't get, nor not get a diagnosis by failing or passing this ONE test. I'm 32, so I can pass it, but as a child, I doubt that I would have.

As far as your next skit in the elevator, that would be horrible manners. You always return a hello to someone in that sort of scenario, and most definitely before asking them for something. When you ignore a hello to an NT it's like ignoring their being, them. To insult them, then ask for a favor from them would be rude. I understand that at times we are on a track of thoughts that are one way and hello's aren't ever at the top of my list of things to do, but as I said to NTs that would be like ignoring them.



Fragmented
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 25 Jun 2011
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 144
Location: Somewhere Sunny

13 Sep 2011, 6:30 pm

serenity wrote:
The test isn't designed to find out what you, as a person knows from seeing the skit. It is designed to see how much you understand that other people have thoughts and feelings and might know something that you yourself don't know. Sally has a marble in her basket (maybe something equivalent to having something in your purse, like a pair of sunglasses). If you were to leave the room and leave your purse unattended and a friend came along and took your sunglasses where would you look for them when you returned? Remember, you were not in the room when your friend took the sunglasses. As far as you know, they are still in your purse where you left them, so you'd look in your purse. That's the correct answer. Sally will look for her marble in her basket, because she does not know that Ann moved it. They move it to 3rd person to make it a bit trickier, but a typical kid (without any other delays or disorders) would always say that Sally will look in the basket, because they understand that Sally was not in the room when Ann took it, so therefore cannot posses that knowledge. It's not the end all be all in ToM, but it is just one test. You don't get, nor not get a diagnosis by failing or passing this ONE test. I'm 32, so I can pass it, but as a child, I doubt that I would have.


Oooooohhhh! Okay, that makes sense then. Yeah, then nevermind my confusion. I still don't think it's a very good test.

Quote:
As far as your next skit in the elevator, that would be horrible manners. You always return a hello to someone in that sort of scenario, and most definitely before asking them for something. When you ignore a hello to an NT it's like ignoring their being, them. To insult them, then ask for a favor from them would be rude. I understand that at times we are on a track of thoughts that are one way and hello's aren't ever at the top of my list of things to do, but as I said to NTs that would be like ignoring them.


No, it wasn't a real scenario, Tony Attwood wrote it to make a point, and I was saying that the scenario seems like a lame example, and one that I don't think is a good example of an Asperger behavior.


_________________
Someone who's only willing to give you a penny for your thoughts isn't worth your time.

Aspie Score: 170 of 200
NT Score: 37 of 200


cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 34,284

13 Sep 2011, 11:47 pm

serenity wrote:
The test isn't designed to find out what you, as a person knows from seeing the skit. It is designed to see how much you understand that other people have thoughts and feelings and might know something that you yourself don't know. Sally has a marble in her basket (maybe something equivalent to having something in your purse, like a pair of sunglasses). If you were to leave the room and leave your purse unattended and a friend came along and took your sunglasses where would you look for them when you returned? Remember, you were not in the room when your friend took the sunglasses. As far as you know, they are still in your purse where you left them, so you'd look in your purse. That's the correct answer. Sally will look for her marble in her basket, because she does not know that Ann moved it. They move it to 3rd person to make it a bit trickier, but a typical kid (without any other delays or disorders) would always say that Sally will look in the basket, because they understand that Sally was not in the room when Ann took it, so therefore cannot posses that knowledge. It's not the end all be all in ToM, but it is just one test. You don't get, nor not get a diagnosis by failing or passing this ONE test. I'm 32, so I can pass it, but as a child, I doubt that I would have. .


One puzzling aspect is that a NT child would look in the basket but technically wouldn't the autistic child check the basket as well given that's where the marble was left? why would they check the box in the first place.