Simon Baron-Cohen's Autism and Aspergers The Facts

Post Reply New Topic

i've just finished reading Simon Baron-Cohen's book "Autism and Aspergers: The Facts" and thought there was a lot in there worth discussing. I wanted to get an overview of the facts and theories that are out there at the moment. Overall it was quite informative but I did have a few criticisms of it.

Description of Aspergers: I did not recognise myself in this book, it is only a small book so doesn't go into too much detail and only presents two profiles, one for classical autism, the other for aspergers. For the later it present a very difficult child, anti social (as in not having any interest in people rather than the more negative sense), disruptive (think one example given is throwing a globe through a closed window for being out of date). I know this would describe many with aspergers, but I know that it doesn't describe everyone, some are gentle, extremely interested in people (just not good at socialising) and too passive to cause disruption. I thought it was interesting that Baron-Cohen and Tony Atwood are both experts in this field but their books are so different, if I had come across this book before I was diagnosed I would not have related to it, where as Tony Attwood's book was packed full of experiences I related to. Makes me worry that diagnosis may be pretty subjective and down to a clinicians personal idea of what aspergers is. It may just be down to the slimness of the book, but I think it really could throw people off the trail.

Doesn't present debates: It does present a range of theories but there were some things I was surprised it didn't explain were debated. Like whether delayed speech is a factor for or against, the difference between DSM and ICD definitions, the now (resolved for now) debate over whether HFA and AS are the same thing, I know this book is a little out of date but am sure these debates were around a few years ago.

Empathy His theory suggests that autism is caused by increased capacity to systemise with a decreased capacity to empathise. He splits empathy into cognitive ability to recognise others emotions, and affective ability to respond appropriately. From my own experience, reading this and similar forums, the Tony Atwood book, I know this does miss out another crucial element, the basic emotional feeling of empathy i.e ability to care which some with aspergers feel deeply (I have even read one paper that suggests that people with AS may have more of this dimension of empathy at the expense of cognitive empathy and it is the imbalance that causes problems). I understand that problems with empathy are a big part of AS I just think this book lacks that nuance, and again presents this uncaring AS stereotype (which may apply to many but not all).

The "extreme male brain" theory I was skeptical about this theory, I think my social science background makes me wary of biological determinism and gender, but it actually makes a lot of sense. Though I have no idea why he calls it the extreme male brain theory, it is not really much of a departure from the systemising/empathising model, not even all males with AS fit into his extreme male brain category so it seems like a needlessly controversial name that must alienate some women and maybe even put some off diagnosis. There is a bit early in the book that explains it quite well, Autism Quotients have a normal distribution (bell curve), the mean average for men and women is slightly different, but this means at the extremes of the bell curve the ratio is much more extreme, as aspergers is found at the extremes of the normal distribution the ration of men to women is so high. So just as the average height of men and women is fairly close, at the extremes of the bell curve you will find a lot more 6 foot men than 6 foot women. But we wouldn't think of tall women as having 'extreme male height' and I don't think we should think of men or women as having extreme male brains as it is a tendency not a rule. But I did like the idea of thinking of AS in purely statistical terms, we are just on the tail ends of a normal distribution.

Broad Autism Phenotype This isn't a criticism just something I found interesting. That relatives of diagnosed are likely to have higher Autism Quotient than average. Makes me realise it really is a spectrum with a somewhat arbitrary cut off, and that even if someone's symptoms aren't severe enough to be diagnosed it doesn't mean there isn't the same underlying cause. Or maybe there is no underlying cause at all maybe it is just a statistically uncommon collection of traits that cause problems when they come together.

Would be interested to hear what other people think about this book and whether my criticisms are valid or not.

I too have a lot of concerns about Baron-Cohen who seems to me to regard himself (more than others in the field) as "the" expert on autism. He doesn't critique his own assumptions very well and spreads his version of the facts with a "research proves" tag. Research often doesn't...

I think his work on the relatively high incidence of science and engineering professions in fathers of autists is interesting, and quite possibly valid. But a lot of his stuff seems to be career building, getting his name up there in lights - and he has succeeded in that, he is a very good self-publicist.

Attwood, in starkest contrast to Baron-Cohens' scientism approach, takes a humanist approach. For him, ASD people aren't just freaks to be used as research subjects, they are people, real people with feelings, souls, needs, just like the rest of the human race. If it hadn't been for him, I wouldn't have connected the dots when I did, so I feel quite a debt of gratitude to Attwood. He also helped me accept the reality of ASD when I was still in shock..

explanation of scientism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism

and a definition of "scientific imperialism" - which perhaps fits Baron-Cohen quite well (IMO) at times:

"In modern parlance, however, scientific imperialism refers to situations in which critics perceive science to act imperiously. Philosopher of science John Dupré described it (in his 2006 paper Against Scientific Imperialism) as "the tendency to push a good scientific idea far beyond the domain in which it was originally introduced, and often far beyond the domain in which it can provide much illumination." He also wrote that "devotees of these approaches are inclined to claim that they are in possession not just of one useful perspective on human behavior, but of the key that will open doors to the understanding of ever wider areas of human behavior."

I'm under the impression SBC is an expert on "autism", meaning just his very warped notion of autism that very few autistic people actually fall under.

sorry I didn't see there were replies. But yes concern is definitely the word I would use, the fact the book I read was called 'Autism and Asperger's: the facts' and yet I came away with such a different impression from the Tony Atwood book (which I think most aspies tend to rate highly) is a bit worrying, if this was the first book on the subject I had read I would not have pursued it any further.

The whole book gives an impression that is is giving a range of theories but it is really pushing his own (there is a chart in there where each theory has ticks against the autistic behaviours it can explain, he thinks his theory can explain it all). I have don't like the sound of his other work 'zero degrees of empathy' and 'the science of evil' (same book I believe), read a few comments about it which suggest it doesn't treat personality disorders in a sensitive way and again misunderstands empathy. I am going to read more of his work though to see if my concerns are valid.

I agree the diagnosis is sometimes subjective. One out of four clinicians I met diagnosed me with a PD, even after seeing a previous Asperger's diagnosis. The ex's therapist even 'diagnosed' me with NPD after I went to one session.
Once I read 'Look me in the Eye', I knew for sure I'm an Aspie like John.

Is Simon Baron-Cohen on the spectrum?

I question his claim of him being an 'expert' on autism...
Dr Temple Grandin and Sean Barron are experts on autism... they are on the spectrum and know first hand, not from the viewpoints of NT's and their interpretation of ASD from the mind frame of NT's point of reference...


I talked to a vietnam vet the other day... His family has lived in California since before Cali became a state... Although americans call him a mexican and even racial slurs to describe him... when this vet goes to Mexico, mexicans DO NOT consider this vet to be a mexican, but an american...

So then how can an american call this guy a mexican when mexicans do not consider this vet to be mexican in the first place?

So then, a NT who has no first hand 'EXPERIENCE' of ASD is not more knowledgeable than me or many others on the spectrum who know first hand... people like him and others before him, would have people like me put in asylums and the such... because they in fact, do not really understand us ASD's but explain us from their frame of reference...

When will more of us stand up and represent us, the real experts, who walk this daily... not do 6 years of university and fed information of theories from self professing experts in the autism field?? while they're patting themselves on the back on the latest and greatest theories, this crap affects us negatively or impares us in society, ect...

i can go on and on about this...

I'm a bit worried after reading all these doubts about Baron-Cohen as I was just diagnosed by his CLASS clinic in Cambridgeshire. I hope that they diagnosed me correctly but after hearing this, I'm not so sure. I thought his clinic was the best in the world as that's what the local news etc keeps saying but who knows?

As Mandy Rice-Davies famously said, "they would say that, wouldn't they.."

Chances are on your side that the diagnosis is valid. They may be better at overall diagnosis that research, just from experience.

I cared about the famine in Somalia in 2011. I tried to look up some news articles and summarize online.

We just may not have that much interest in party chit chat, hanging out, and other informal social things for which we are judged much too harshly. Also, I think I might get my social fill quicker than the average person, and so be it.

I remember reading about a social reformer from the 1880s and someone commented with acceptance that he mainly seems to care about people in large numbers. I found this both kind of humorous and it kind of resonated with me.

*About Somalia, it did get some international attention and international aid. And it got lucky and got rains at the right time and did not face yet another year of drought. And comparing it to the Ethiopia drought in 1985, many of the areas then helped, stayed helped, and these were new areas which needed to be helped. And I'd also compare it to the Texas Gulf Coast, and if we need help from a hurricane every twenty-five years, that does not seem too far unreasonable.