Empathy and Autism - The Etiology of Farce

Post Reply New Topic

In autism diagnosis there is a prevailing theory that states that Autism is caused partly due to a lack of empathy. It is clear from casual observation on this board that this is a total load of hogwash.

Let us begin with what is Empathy. Empathy is the ability to understand another's perspective, sometimes. At other times it is apparently something very different. It is the ability to identify emotions in others but also to have the same emotions as those they are identifying with. Thus empathy is either being able to understand that a person may have seen someone else that you didn't - or - it is the ability to feel the emotions of another as their own through various visual cues and verbal communication and to make an appropriate response. The fact is though that it cannot be both. Here we come to our first dilemma: What does Empathy even mean? If we are to take the latter option then we must call the first option something else. The reverse is true.

Simply put understanding that a person may have seen a lake two miles away when you haven't been there yet and sharing emotions such as love with another person are different things. To say that they fall under the purview of the same thing is wrong. Why? Because it refers to two phenomena with more similar meanings to other concepts than each other. In fact it refers to three different phenomena in retrospect. Understanding another's emotions and feeling another's emotions are different too. And it doesn't even stop there because we have a name for understanding another's emotions: sympathy.

But let's take it straight from the horse's mouth:

Empathy is an ability with many different definitions. They cover a broad spectrum, ranging for other people that creates a desire to help them, experiencing emotions that match another person's emotions, knowing what the other person is thinking or feeling, to blurring the line between self and other
Hodges, S.D., & Klein, K.J. (2001). Regulating the costs of empathy: the price of being human. Journal of Socio-Economics.

Thus how can one judge us on the basis of a concept that we lack that has no one meaning? Many people seem to do it on the idea that if you believe something to be the same when it is in fact many different things then you can somehow imagine it to be singular when it isn't at all. I can understand groupings of similar stuff such as solids, numbers and nintendo consoles, yet as we have seen people can't even agree on the boundaries of what Empathy is. In fact Empathy cannot even be what is all of that contained in the above quote because these things already have a name: social skills. If one definition could be put to empathy it is feeling the same as other people about the same thing, an interesting paradigm, but at the same time it can refer to everything else related as required, like when somebody calls a crocodile a lizard, a chimpanzee a monkey and so forth.

Not that anyone considers the underlying properties of language when they create studies to prove whether we have empathy or not. Certainly the most obvious candidate for person who most uses empathy to explain us is Simon Baron-Cohen. I must point out right now that I have nothing personal against Simon Baron-Cohen. In fact what I like to call his pastoral work, his guides and handbooks to children on dealing with what they are are quite touching and useful. However, there are some problems with what he has said.

The main one is that apparently a lack of empathy is the root of evil: This is the empathy that is whatever it wants to be. Since I am not Hitler I'll have to excuse myself whilst I have an identity crisis. But maybe Godwin's law is a bit too evident here because you have an obsessive compulsion to use irrelevant jokes as somehow being the basis of a real argument: maybe I should just stick with Stalin. He did kill more Russians than Hitler after all. Howabout Kim Jong-Il or more interestingly let's try Mao Zedong, something a bit more controversial suits your taste? You see where I am getting at here? Now I am not going to doubt the veracity of arguments that certain historical figures were autistic because to be honest most of them are speculation trying to dress up as the truth, but I think that it would be a long stretch to say that Pinochet did what he did because he couldn't feel other's emotions. But what if a lack of empathy is the cause of many powerful psychoses? It is an argument that Simon Baron-Cohen has made and in particular attempted to define violence-related disorders and autism as two sides of the same coin, that being a lack of empathy. This would be fine but the fact is that since Simon Baron-Cohen has never been a psychopathologist or been involved in such research, then he doesn't have the reason to put forward a explanation including an area of medicine that he has never focused upon and furthermore it seems even erroneus given that some violent disorders often show a sense of heightened empathy of the kind Baron-Cohen recognises.

However, none of this compares to the final revelation that in scientific studies there is no reason to believe empathy is the cause. This is linked in particular to the theory of mind I have discussed earlier, partly because in the form most people tend to use empathy the two are right next door to eachother. As I have said the Theory of Mind hypothesis has been supported by flawed studies, but even more damning is that there is no consensus as to us having theory of mind deficit. Goals, intentions and mental states: challenges for theories of autism by Hamilton AFdC explains that as for empathy the only areas in which we could credibly lack ToM are complex features involving viewpoints whereas Baron-Cohen's studies explain that we are for the major part incapable of understanding another's intentions.

My own explanation is that there is a connected but distinct disorder but has been confused with our basic state in lieu of attempting to define us. It may also be due to the possibility that people who have been qualifiably diagnosed as autistic aren't actually autistic. A provocative possibility is that people who lack empathy have been diagnosed as being like us because there is somehow a confused similarity like if we were different rather than deficient the symptoms would appear similar. What we supposed was a visual cue or an appropriate response may vary in how it is expressed or be somehow learned rather than instinctual and so forth. But rather than digress further the fact is that the definiteness with which people cling to the empathy theory, a theory in dispute, is based more on faith rather than reason and it is a faith rooted deeply in unstable territory.

It's not completely false. Many autistic people struggle with theory of mind and empathy. If we didn't, then this site wouldn't even exist because we'd all be totally integrated members of the social world. The problem is that spectrumites tend to systemize empathy. Neurotypicals have more of an intuitive sense of empathy. As you correctly stated, empathy is the ability to mirror someone else's emotions and recognize the emotions and intentions of others (theory of mind). It is possible to have one aspect of the definition and not the other. For example, most social animals-such as dogs-are excellent at mirroring emotions. However, they are most likely not conscious of the emotions of others because they are not capable of verbal logic. That is where theory of mind comes into play, the other aspect of empathy. Spectrumites have problems with both aspects.

The most typical example of an impaired theory of mind is when an aspie monologues about his/her special interest, not bothering to acknowledge whether or not the listeners actually are interested. Another common example is when an aspie really wants to be friends with someone, but does not have the ability to tell that the other person is not interested. The most tragic example of impaired theory of mind is when an aspie kid gets bullied, and the kid is unable to understand that others are laughing at him, and not with him. These scenarios have all been taken from my personal life, and I'm positive that most, if not all, aspies have experienced at least something similar. The underlying issue in all these instances is a lack of social intuition, which is a direct product of empathy. This again goes back to the fact that spectrumites develop a systemized social code, while neurotypicals have more of an innate empathy. Obviously systemizing something as complex as human social relations takes time, so we end up making more mistakes than a neurotypical. As you can see, this has absolutely nothing to do with ruthless dictators. These powerful types are actually very socially gifted, otherwise they would've never made it into positions of power. They understand people very well and they are very socially intuitive, but they don't care about morality.

I know you don't particularly agree with Baron-Cohen, but I found this a helpful article to clear up the confusion: Science of Evil

Thank you for posting this. It is very well thought-out.

I agree that autism and psychopathy are definitely not the same thing and tha autistic people feel some sort of empathy.

I think the major difference between autism and psychopathy is that autistic people are instinctually honest and tend to have strong value systems. Notice on this site now many follow one or another religion. The psychopath doesn't care one way or the other about social norms or niceties.

Another difference is that many of us get along very wel lwith animals; we do not like watching a thing in pain. That, in my estimation, is a very basic form of empathy. In conrast, the psychopath usually starts out by torturing animals.

In my personal experience, most of the autistics I've known in real life are good people. They are honest and dependable even though they have a hard time understanding subtle emotion.

As for the misdiagnosis, I agree, that could very well be the case. I think many people who actually feel ohers' subtler emotions are labeled ASD because they are confused as to what these signals actually mean and have to reason them out if they can instead of coming to an instant realization. Instead, many are more inclined to feel what numbers or scientific concepts mean.

So you conflate moral values with religion? Many aspies are atheists, as are many scientists, and they seem to have an intact sense of morality.

Do not confuse Empathy with Sympathy.

'Sympathy' is the ability to observe another person's experience and resonate emotionally to their feelings. If you've experienced emotional pain yourself, its not difficult to experience compassion with someone else when they are visibly suffering.

'Empathy' is the innate ability to read others' body language and sense whether they are uncomfortable or upset by their subtle movements and facial expressions, even if they do not tell you how they feel. Empathy also involves the ability to tell when others are being honest with you, and to predict their potential future behavior based on their visible demeanor.

Both hard to do when one doesn't maintain consistent eye contact and is generally distracted by one's own personal interests.

People with autism can learn Empathy to a certain extent over time, but it does not come as naturally to us as it does to most others.

One of the childhood tests for Empathy involves seeing an object moved and hidden while another person is out of the room, and being able to sense where that person will look for the object when they return. If the child being tested expects the other person to automatically 'know' where the hidden object is when they return, it demonstrates that the child lacks the ability to put themselves in the other person's place and realize they CAN'T know where it is, because they were not present when it was moved. It demonstrates quite clearly that the child's thought processes are markedly askew from the social logic of the norm.

Frankly, its been my experience for years that even when I think I have a pretty good grasp of what others around me are thinking, I'm often missing VOLUMES of information that everybody else knows without even discussing it. It makes me vulnerable to being cheated, lied to and used as a scapegoat for a group even when I thought our interrelationships were pretty stable and positive, which has in turn, made me very jaded, cynical and suspicious.

I cannot point out often enough that its very easy for a high functioning autistic to fool themselves into believing that because they APPEAR so high functioning, that they're really pretty normal. You are never seeing yourself the way others see you. You are not one of them and they know it. The minute you start feeling cocky, like you're fitting in just fine, you're about to step on a banana peel.

Aha, I knew somebody woudl catch that. I was just thinking that was bad wording on my part.

I was using religion as an example of a strong moral system. I personally know athiests ASD people, and even though they don't believe in a particular religion they still have strong values. The biggest difference I've observed is that the ASD people I know are more likely to follow those values than just to give them lip-service.

That's not to say that the ASD person can't lie on occasion or transgress their own values, but they are more likely to feel guilt or the to rationalize why they have done so than the NTs I know.

You need a certain amount of empathy before you can experience sympathy. If you can't pick up on the emotions of someone, there's no way you can be concerned about how they feel. In addition, when you are concerned about how someone feels, it can be hard to display the concern like a neurotypical would: through nonverbal cues. This is why aspies tend to be really great practical helpers, because that's how we express that we care about someone. It makes more sense than trying to contort our faces into the appropriate expression.

I am not sure of this topic as using myself as an example I can understand human emotions but not respond in how others do at least sometimes but I don't tend to pay attention. Such as when someone suffers loss of life of someone they knew I find that an interesting circumstance of what to say. I can relate to being left out of things so therefore I have sympathy and understanding.. I think I do well with understand emotions by thinking about why they may manifest but it can be very difficult to in real-time do well with this. Their are those with more profound autism who it would appear do not much at all emotionally respond but this is different then not having empathy. If the world is understood differently and one related to it differently and is not programmed to respond by condition to certain circumstances as others seem to do in a streamlined fashion it just means externally it would appear empathy is not intact. Whereas the concept and how one relates to others could simply be different then the norm as one experienced their reality different then so called typical and thus while not ignored is simply understood differently and uniquely.

I prefer the intellectual aspects of human emotions then trying to ultimately construct and normalize a "simulation" if you will. That reminds me of Data from Star Trek. Of course I am not a machine but on the other hand I don't believe how I relate to and interpret human emotions is any less human and wrong then those who seem emotionally much more dynamic then my seeking simple intellectual understanding.

You're basically right. However, if you read the scientific literature for autism / AS you'll find that researchers are well aware of the different types of empathy and the fact that people with AS have impairment in only one type: cognitive empathy (the ability to understand the thoughts, perspectives, and motivations of others).

We have no difficulty with affective empathy (the ability to feel for others, compassion, love etc - what most people call empathy) or with empathic concern (sympathy) -- although these may be expressed in a different way due in part to a common co-morbidity called Alexithymia (~85% of people with ASD have it).

What do you mean by "a prevailing theory". For my understanding of "prevailing" there can be only one prevailing theory, so "there's a prevailing theory that states" doesn't make sense (it would have to be "the prevailing theory states").

Personally, I've never run across this theory (till now). I don't get the impression that it's at all common to think a lack of empathy causes autism. The idea that lack of empathy causing some of the other autistic traits I think I've seen, but that's not the same as saying autism is partly caused by lack of empathy. Maybe I'm nitpicking, but the statements seem genuinely different to me.

As for whether or not the theory is complete hogwash, I'd have to hear (read) about it from someone who proposes the theory, with some detail, in order to know whether I think it's hogwash, or something that might have some truth to it.

As for the different things "empathy" can me, any sound theory that talks about empathy will define what it means by empathy. You might not see that definition in what you read about it (if it's a one sentence summary, or media coverage), but it would still be part of the theory.

I've been worked with extensively by PHD's on thoughts, perspectives and motivations by others. I am not sure if you were replying to me.

And this is the crux of the problem with what you view of what I said. I said what empathy has a fluctuating meaning, so using a word without a concrete definition as for what we are is fatuous and this issue is magnified exponentially when you consider that this is a word used in psychological diagnostics! Also, the whole line of argument here is begging the question, or if you want a more understandable phrase, assuming the original point. You say that we lack this empathy because we are on this site. Have you not even realized that there could be a lot of reasons that people go on to forums like this one? Such as trying to talk with people who are like themselves? I said in this tract that apparently empathy can mean the lack of consideration for other agents. would someone come here if it were not to communicate with others, search meanings from others, learn from others? I would like to see your definition of empathy. I would also like you to take a look at the bottom of my original post and read that for all we know we are different, not deficient and everything I wrote beforehand makes that possibility as likely as any other.

Prevail, verb Prevailing being the present participle or the gerund
1.Prove more powerful than opposing forces; be victorious [the definition you spoke of]
- it is hard for logic to prevail over emotion


2.Be widespread in a particular area at a particular time; be current [the definition I spoke of]
- an atmosphere of crisis prevails


3.Persuade (someone) to do something
- she was prevailed upon to give an account of her work




Except the problem with that opinion is that it is nearly always wheeled out as the main cause of what we are, somehow


Please, do read. I don't want people to blindly believe in me. I could be talking a load of arse, as could anyone on here. As for some detail, I did write quite a bit for a post on this part of the forum. As for whether it matches up to standards expected of a critique? Yes, it does.


Yeah, but when you practice medicine you need concrete definitions for things. I don't think somebody would call themselves qualified at brain surgery if they could only half-guess at the different structures of the brain and Empathy as it is is even worse because it is sponging up definitions that it never referred to until ti began describing autism. It would be like someone calling the cerebullum the whole brain randomly.

Yes, but that is the big problem! They can't even bloody agree on whether we do lack it or not! Whilst these are neat definitions, the fact is that in practice it is a muddy quagmire and what you describe as cognitive and affective empathy may be written as such in the textbooks but outside the fact is that it's a grimy fusion of all sorts of things that refuses to stay put like the bait of a hyperactive angler.

I asked you what you mean by "a prevailing theory", not how the dictionary defines "prevail".

And, you can't have meant all 3 of those things by prevail.



Read what? You didn't link to anything.

What? I said I used the second definition or can't you read? :/
Prevailing is a form of prevail. I even put that in the definition at the bleeding top.



I said read about it as a general thing?