Interesting article on Salon.com

Post Reply New Topic

We might have autism backwards: What ?broken mirror? and ?broken mentalizing? theories could have wrong. The dominant autism theories -- assuming a lack of or diminished social sensitivity -- need to be re-examined. Gregory Hickok

Excerpted from "The Myth of Mirror Neurons: The Real Neuroscience of Communication and Cognition"

To be an autistic child means, with variable degrees of severity, to be incapable to establish meaningful social communications and bonds, to establish visual contact with the world of others, to share attention with the others, to be incapable to imitate others? behavior or to understand others? intentions, emotions, and sensations. ?Vittorio Gallese, 2006

Autism spectrum disorders are complex and highly variable with a poorly understood cause. There is a very large literature and much debate on possible genetic and environmental causes and an equally large literature attempting to sharpen the diagnosis, identify diagnostic markers, differentiate subtypes of the spectrum, and characterize the source of the variability among affected individuals. Many questions remain unanswered. What causes autism? Why is the incidence increasing? Is it one or many disorders? Why are males more likely to be affected? Are there effective treatments? One could write an entire book on the ins and outs of autism and indeed several such books already exist.

Here my focus is more circumscribed. I restrict the discussion to the behavioral symptoms of autism and (neuro)cognitive models for explaining those symptoms. I highlight two of the most influential hypotheses, the broken mirror theory and the broken mentalizing theory (or broken theory of mind theory?I use the terms interchangeably). Further, I have no intention of providing a thorough review of the host of experiments that have investigated the range of abilities and disabilities in autism or even provide much depth in my discussion of the cognitive theories themselves. Please consult any of the many primary sources for a broader view.

For the full article please follow the link below.

http://www.salon.com/2014/09/01/we_migh ... ave_wrong/

A good assessment of the range and problems in diagnosing ASD accurately. ASDs might just be the observable deficits or impairments that have come to describe them regardless of the apparent multitude of causes. It will be interesting to see how Hickok's ideas get discussed among professionals and their writings.

Just read this myself--it's about time some of those notions were somewhat disproved. I never had problems with "mirroring" or "theory of mind" exercises, but I know I'm on the spectrum.

It was nice to see a more scientific discussion of "intense world theory." I remember wondering about that in my undergraduate Sensation and Perception course (without actually calling it that, of course), but never asked too much about it because it seemed counterintuitive at the time.

I do have a lot of problems reading peoples intentions or motives. So now that makes me not autistic? damm. What is my new label?

The definitions have always discussed hyper and hypo. The problem has been the psychs have often chosen to to ignore the hyper and most people at Wrong Planet don't have or chosen to ignore (in reaction to their hyper sensitivities being ignored?) hypo sensitivities. Autism is both, often at the same time.
While it is great that hyper problems are finally being recognized it should not be at the cost of ignoring or excluding hypo sensitivities.

I do really like him partially debunking the notion that how I was at 3 should be the deciding criteria if I am autistic today.