Simon Baron-Cohen's claims dismembered (thank goodness)

Post Reply New Topic

The article is at: http://www.disabilityandrepresentation. ... pathology/

And all I can say is hurrah to that.

I think the topic dearer to my heart than any in regard to autism is the recognition and understanding of the stigmatisation process promulgated by prejudiced and self-proclaimed "experts" whose sweeping statements have the unfortunate impact of limiting the lives, experiences and aspirations of the autistic community as a whole; "othering" impacts on - in one way or another - everyone single one of us.

Eh, I don't mind Cohen's claims. He backs them up with studies and logical arguments.

Yep, zero empathy here. It doesn't mean I don't care though.

Thanks for the link to this excellent post!

The boundary of normal society is always designed such that any potentially uncomfortable conclusions with respect to behaviour of the majority can't be true by design.

Teasing and name calling are considered part of the normal "socialisation" process. Around 7 years ago, when I was looking for a school for our son, we heard statements along the following lines from teachers:

With respect to the role of school: Children need to learn the rules of society, so that they are well prepared for the workplace, and can become productive employees.

With respect to playground activities: Interference by teachers in the interactions between children should be minimal, as it is only natural for the kids to learn how to establish a social hierarchy.

I don't want to claim that these attitudes are dominant in all countries and communities, but they do exist and persist.

From my perspective it is also concerning to see to what extent primary school children are primed to perceive their country's culture as "normal", and to talk about differences to other cultures based on value judgements made within the framework of the local culture.

Children are encouraged to learn and master persuasive writing before being taught basic critical thinking skills and before learning about the scientific method.

Anything related to "normal" has political strings attached.

On the topic of education and the workings of society Simon Baron-Cohen could learn a lot from Noam Chomsky https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVqMAlgAnlo, but that would not stroke his ego.

Last edited by jbw on 29 Sep 2014, 6:04 am, edited 1 time in total.

It is as if the human race has some kind of divine, supernatural origin, and that that exceptionality is exemplified in the mediocre behaviors of the average men. Deviating from the norm is seen as a form of paganism, and the deviants must be imposed (figuratively) the stigma of the Christ, if they don't want to see themselves ostracized from the earthly heaven. Logic is relative, and the truth must say that the deviant has to concede his identity to whatever is currently the consensus, for the status quo to keep its aura of divinity. But it hasn't come to the mind of the caretaker of the norm, that it's those who don't know what they are, that are keeping the potential of humanity from flourishing, and that it's the people who accept themselves as they are, who can enable Heaven on Earth.

(I hope this doesn't sound too cheesy )

Last edited by Tomatoes on 29 Sep 2014, 5:29 am, edited 2 times in total.

Disability is not inability. And Autism is a spectrum . Not getting that is the main problem with SBC's statement.

Cohen-Rottenberg's response to Baran-Cohen's book is great. Blaming autistic people for others' treatment of them is just wrong. The snowflake example is extremely touching and brings back my own memories of being ridiculed for my interests.

My own theory: Neurotypicals are much more ego driven than we are. They don't understand that people can be interested in things other than themselves. And when someone doesn't play the ego game, they don't know how to deal with it.

A very insightful article

Baron-Cohen seems to take it entirely for granted that Michael is at fault, and that it was quite natural that the other children would reject him because of his as-yet-undiagnosed disability. He gives not the slightest nod to the idea that perhaps Michael didn?t play with the other children because they themselves were unempathetic ? because they would not tolerate his confusion and stress, because they rejected him based on his difference, because they shut him out from every birthday party, and because they didn?t want him on their teams.

I liked this response on the site:

Girls and boys, come out to play,
But shoo the neighbours? kid away.
He?s awkward, shy and very smart:
That?s proof enough he has no heart.
The grownups say: ?No empathy?
And schedule him for therapy.
They hope that all the high-cost fuss
Will make him like empathic Us.
Then he?ll do all the things we do,
And be Quite Normal, through and through.
WE are empathic ? think of that! ?
Right now, we?re torturing a cat.

I am so glad the article has been meaningful to others too.

What also stood out for me was the way the writer noted how SBC trivialised the group's name-calling of the autistic boy as "teasing". Teasing in that kind of context is a minimiser's term for hostile, aggressive, isolating, unacceptable behaviour between aggressors and their chosen victim - as I see it.

Fun fact: my 5th grade Literacy teacher demanded that we provide statistics for on-demand writing and told us, in those words, "Just make them up. It's not like anyone cares."

Simon Baron-Cohen's basic assertion about Autism and Empathy is that people with an Autism Spectrum Condition have deficits in cognitive empathy - the ability to read other people's emotional states through non-verbal cues. I think this is a pretty uncontroversial claim. I don't see him blaming anyone for anything in the passage quoted.

I think it's worth noting that Baron-Cohen has emphasised the positive elements of ASC's. There is a talk by him on youtube about the link between Autism and scientific talent, for example.

Last edited by Xanzotire on 29 Sep 2014, 10:48 am, edited 1 time in total.

I wish I found that encouraging (and it is nice to know, not that three years of hanging around here hasn't already shown me, that it's not just me).

I don't.

It is the same thing that has been said, and gone almost totally unheard, over and over and over again.

We can keep trying, I guess, but I have a hard time seeing any grounds to be encouraged when it's just another high-verbal autistic speaking into what amounts to a well.

What we need, sorry to say, is a fistful of highly credentialed NT "experts" to rewrite the literature on our behalf. That's the only thing anyone is going to listen to...

...and even that, while it might help with mental health professionals and educators, isn't going to do much about the garden variety a**holes in the neighborhood.

From his book:

"Even as a child he found social situations confusing and stressful. He didn?t play with other children in the playground, was never invited to their birthday parties, was not picked to be on their team. He avoided the playground by going to the bottom of the playing field at primary school ? alone ? and counting blades of grass. In the winter when it snowed, he became obsessed with the structure of snowflakes, wanting to understand why each one was different. Other children in his class couldn?t understand what he was talking about because in their eyes all snowflakes looked the same. Although the teacher had told all the class that every snowflake is unique, it seemed that he was the only person in the class who could actually see the small individual differences in the snowflakes. The other children in the class teased him, calling him ?snowflake brain.? "(Baron-Cohen 2011, 97-98 )

I haven't read his book, but taking this passage by itself, it seems that Baron-Cohen is aware of the behaviour of autistic people, but not the cause of their behaviour. He seems to assume that Michael is not playing with the others because he doesn't want to. But if Michael's experience was anything like mine he was responding to the rejection of his peers by going into his own world.

Despite my support of Simon Baron-Cohen's leadership at the University of Cambridge Autism Research Centre, I have generally no presumption of authority between him and Rachel Cohen-Rottenberg. It is remarkable, however, that he operates one of the leading autism-research facilities in the world, while she describes herself as a "writer and a graduate student passionate about disability rights and disability justice." Yes, we are all aware of how passion determines accurate knowledge instead of the plodding hum-drum of academic research.

Baron-Cohen publishes his findings and, having done so, releases them to the world of criticism apparently welcoming the arguments of others whereas Cohen-Rottenberg publishes her opinions, and having done so, retains the weird right "to edit or delete any comments" that are made at her web site. Sometime in the last two years, she has "disabled" the comments about this topic. Hm.

Cohen-Rottenberg describes Baron-Cohen's "descriptions of [research subject] Michael?s childhood do not illustrate Michael?s lack of empathy, but the lack of empathy of the children around him." But, isn't the whole idea of research about autism-spectrum disorders limited to the disorders themselves and those who have one or more of them? Yes, I know that the experiential dynamics of Michael's disorders include generally the provocations and other behaviors of his classmates, but Baron-Cohen's research wasn't about them. Furthermore, as Cohen-Rottenberg described, "...Michael?s lack of empathy is that he didn?t play with other children, wasn?t asked to their parties, and was the proverbial last kid picked for the team[,]" and that Baron-Cohen "gives not the slightest nod to the idea that perhaps Michael didn?t play with the other children because they themselves were unempathetic ? because they would not tolerate his confusion and stress, because they rejected him based on his difference, because they shut him out from every birthday party, and because they didn?t want him on their teams." Is it possible that Baron-Cohen restricted his consideration of external stimuli because his research simply wasn't about doing so regardless of how much such a study ought to be performed by someone, anyone, just not, unfortunately, in this particularly study?

Cohen-Rottenberg is correct that the "kinds of accusations" that she attributes to Baron-Cohen "are a form of victim-blaming that have no place in a civilized society." Too bad that she calls for "respectful debate" on her own web site, but describes a single reference by Baron-Cohen that is focused on the empathy of those individuals with ASDs as "a form of victim-blaming" with little evidence except her own "passionate" sense of morality.

Where does he assume this? In fact the passage quoted mentions rejections by others, that he "was never invited to their birthday parties, was not picked to be on their team." The passage quoted doesn't seem to say anything about the causes of Michael's behaviour other than that he found social situations stressful, I don't think it's a very good basis for evaluating the book or the claims made therein.

As an aside, apparently Baron-Cohen himself has previously written a response to this person's claims:

http://autismblogsdirectory.blogspot.co ... achel.html

True . . . one passage is not enough to make a judgement.



Gosh talk about two completely different ways of approaching a subject. Cohen-Rottenberg views the whole picture, while Baron-Cohen takes a purely scientific approach, which I think is limiting. When he says that the behaviour of the other children is not relevant because they were not being studied, it makes me wonder how relevant his study is. Does he not think our environment and interactions with people are relevant to our behaviour?

With regard to empathy, I think it is a mistake to confuse a lack of reading cues with a lack of caring. Autistic people may be slow to catch on, but can be very emotionally affected when we do. He may try to clarify this with his little chart comparing psychopaths and autistics, but most people won't get the distinction and it leaves us looking uncaring and possibly dangerous.