Brain representations of social thoughts predict autism

Post Reply New Topic

I don't think there's anything to be cautious about. Anyone who has studied psychology or a similar science exposing them to these types of studies knows most of the facts btbnnyr brought up.

I've always been of the belief that no one should be trusted simply because of a title (or degree) they hold. I apply that same standard to someone with an MD, PhD, etc... However, I also say caution isn't needed, because as it's already been brought up, this type of neuroscience research is new. It's interesting and that's all it should be to you. It shouldn't be a) "this will apply to every single situation" or shouldn't be b) "the study didn't involve enough participants", because yet again, one with knowledge of studies knows that a) this may not be the case; one also knows that b) previous studies (about all sorts of topics) have even involved a smaller number of participants. That's just how it works. Yes, as btbnnyr brought up, part of the research process is acknowledging the potential deficits in your research. The goal of publishing a study is to allow other researchers to duplicate your work. Some researchers may also state what they'll personally be studying in the future.

The only problem I have is with Just himself - in this video, he makes a comment about how if more research continues to show the same pattern, how psychiatrists wouldn't be necessary for diagnosis of autism. While I'm all for studies of the neurobiological basis of autism, considering that's something I'm studying in college, I just don't like that comment. Knowledge of brain differences in autistic versus neurotypical people should be used in combination with a professional's observations. He kind of compares the future results of studies to a blood test, but heck, researchers know about the brain differences of schizophrenics, but that doesn't take away from the fact that a trained professional still has to diagnose it.

"Yes, as btbnnyr brought up, part of the research process is acknowledging the potential deficits in your research." (Jezebel)

Yes, if only... it's a matter of choice whether you assume that they are routinely doing that well or not. In my research experience - perhaps different from yours - it doesn't happen consistently or very thoroughly when there are huge research funds on offer in an expanding area of research; 1 billion is a lot of money and the neuroscientists are competing fiercely for it; this is driving a lot of the sloppy and over-hyped claims. You see it your way, that's fine, though I don't happen to agree.

This is a very weird critique. More funding is somehow going to result in inferior research?
Could we insure top notch research by cutting all funding?
That neuroscientists are competing should not result in increases in bad science.

I don't see that these concerns stand against the slow process with multiple checks described earlier by btbnnyr:



Do you (B19) have a philosophical objection to the idea that there should ever be a useful test such as this? Or would it be OK, if such tests are proven and refined over time, to rely on one as a significant part of the diagnostic process?

What? You've got me confused... it seems as if you're talking about a different topic than I was.

I saw in some of the earlier posts that you had questions, critiques, and concerns relating to Just and how you saw flaws in his experiment (such as using "high functioning" autistic people only, which is how research on autism is commonly done - at least here), had 'researched' him (but have gotten some bad information from an article), said the study size was too small (which is why I pointed out that those experienced with research know the facts about size samples that btbnnyr brought up - how often these types of studies start out with smaller sized samples), and also seemed to imply that he didn't include the limitations of his study, yet he did; btbnnyr seemed to have explained most of your concerns to you, which is another reason why I was saying caution isn't necessary - the study seems pretty normal (that's not to say that it's perfect, but just that overall, general protocols seem to have been followed), so it's my belief that one should be no more cautious of this study than they would be of any other study reporting new findings.

I'm not sure how you're defining research experience. I can only speak for myself, but I've never heard of any study being published nor have I read one that doesn't also include a discussion and study limitations. In fact, with psychology and neuroscience being two of my majors, I've actually been taught that it's required; and generally speaking, they are both included. It's unlikely that a study will be published if it's incomplete. Now if your critique is that you don't feel that researchers are going in-depth enough in the discussion of study limitations, perhaps the same could be said with your research experience? For example, with any of your published articles/studies, I'm sure someone could say the same thing. (But even so, we're not talking about all neuroscience studies. This thread is about this particular study, so that's the topic most of us have stayed on.) The point is that you can find enough critiques if that's what you're looking for. There's a difference in being skeptical - which we all should be - and actually being critical. Being critical comes across as almost being judgmental or nitpicky (because after all, no study is perfect, so we shouldn't look for all of the flaws in it, especially when they're not really flaws), and sometimes gives across the feeling that someone feels they could've carried out the study better than the researcher did. I'm not saying that's what you're trying to do, but that that's how some of your posts may accidentally come across.


Yes, this is part of the reason I'm so confused.

Kate Button covers part of what gives me doubt. (The linked article). There are others, publishing in Nature and other journals, with related doubts. I share them.

This article reflects some of the concerns held from a more philosophical perspective. I was an undergraduate when critical thinking was a required paper, (a long time ago) in order to progress to postgraduate work in psychology. I was also very interested in research data analysis. My own particular area of interest was psychophysics in those years.

http://www.psychologicalscience.org/ind ... iring.html

Thanks for sharing this article. It's not a surprise (at least to me) that scientific research is subject to the same market forces that govern most other industries. Once the "nut is cracked", the funding for autism research will be redirected elsewhere. I cannot imagine it working any other way.