Simon Baron-Cohen - how neurotypical is he really?

Post Reply New Topic

I have wondered about Simon Baron-Cohen for some time now, and this fascination with him began with my observations that:

1) he appears to be obsessed with autism (you could certainly say, credibly, that this is his "special interest"
2) he gets ideas in his head and pursues them in a very black and white way
3) he gets overly-attached to his ideas and has often over-stated them
4) he asserts his "expert" status rather too emphatically for my academic comfort
5) he has written that without autistic brains, science would be greatly impaired
6) he has tried to "prove" this idea (why did it occur to him in the first place, the motivation may have been more personal than merely scientific interest)

In a 2002 paper, Simon Baron-Cohen wrote of those with AS, "In the social world, there is no great benefit to a precise eye for detail, but in the worlds of maths, computing, cataloging, music, linguistics, engineering, and science, such an eye for detail can lead to success rather than failure." Baron-Cohen argues that the genes for the typical Asperger's combination of abilities have operated throughout recent human evolution and have made remarkable contributions to human history. Is he describing his perception of himself?

For a long time I have mused that Baron-Cohen may be an example of what psychologists call "reaction formation". This is a term which originated with Sigmund Freud, and it is one of the defence mechanisms Freud identified - along with others like projection, displacement, sublimation et al. (Possibly this is the most true-to-life observation that Freud ever made, and the one that was most correct). Reaction formation is often driven by secret shame. A simple example is a homophobic politician who calls for punitive measures against gay people and then is himself found in bed with a rent boy; a family values politician is found to have had a string of affairs. Religious televangelists who preach against sin are found to be big time and longstanding sinners. We usually write this off as simple hypocrisy - do as I say, not as I do. But Freud thought there was more than that going on. These people used reaction formation to protect their own egos from threatening self-knowledge.

In the guises of "scientist" "academic" and "expert" Baron-Cohen has built a career on "them" - autistic people. He prognosticates as "not one of them". I am far from convinced that the distance between himself and autistics exists. His scientific objectivity has often seemed clouded, leading him to make bombastic statements well beyond the evidence (I would cite his theory of extreme male brain in particular).

Today I was fascinated to find an article about his sister, based on an interview with Simon Baron-Cohen:
http://www.thejc.com/comment-and-debate ... ster-suzie

It's very sad: she was "abnormal" and she was institutionalised. Baron-Cohen learned at a relatively young age that this is what happens to children who are different. One can only imagine the effect that may have had on him at deeper levels, if he suspected that he too was different in some way. It would have been very frightening.

There are thought to be links between what his sister had (Sturge-Weber Syndrome) and autism.
http://www.sturge-weber.org/medical-mat ... tions.html

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17765807

So I continue to wonder, though the picture in my mind has more detail now. Is Simon Baron-Cohen on the spectrum himself? QED - that remains to be demonstrated. Though there are some signs that this could be the case. To me, it would explain a great deal about him and his particular ambivalences about autism. And he has been ambivalent - at times flattering (the world desperately needs them) and at other times stigmatising (eg have no theory of mind).

His dogmatism is fairly unique amongst the big name academics who specialise in autism research. (Most do research on other topics as well). His singular focus and the other characteristics together with the information about his sister sharpens my ongoing curiosity about this issue...

A brief introduction to common defence mechanisms including reaction formation:

http://www.intropsych.com/ch11_personal ... nisms.html

Freud called the exaggerated compensation that can appear in Reaction Formation ‘overboarding’ as the person is going overboard in one direction to distract from and cover up something unwanted in the other direction, such as a person who fears war becoming a pacifist, convincing themselves that war is wrong (rather than the ‘cowardly’ position that war is scary).

Perhaps you are onto something. According to his own words, as a scientist, he must have a "dash of autism".

The question is simply where to draw the blurry grey line between typical and autistic.

Someone should point him to this thread and report back on the reaction.

That was somewhat interesting to read.

Thanks for your replies. I anticipated some strong views on this for and against. No against so far.

I continue to ponder his more bombastic statements. Some of his statements have been so lacking in scientific credibility - eg his claims that people with AS "only read science fiction" and "didn't like creative writing at school" that I wonder about their basis for him. (Lots of us read widely, loved creative writing and some of us became professional writers, others write excellent blogs). AS people "have no imagination" contradicts his claims about scientific ability and breakthroughs made by AS scientists... and creativity is a marked feature in some HFAs, in engineering, computing, art et al, all of which require imaginative talent. Alan Turing (whom I believe was on the spectrum) typified a profound gift for imagination, thinking beyond the square. These broadbased unfounded claims by SBC are what I mean by bombastic.

I don't know if he hated or loved creative writing at school, whether he only reads science fiction or is a general reader; but sometimes I wonder if what drives these bombastic statements is an effort (conscious or unconcious) to muddy any trail that might lead back to himself. It's an ongoing speculation and mystery! "Methinks he protests too much" as Shakespeare put it. QED...

I've had similar wonderings about Uta Frith and Lorna Wing.

Thanks for posting this fascinating topic, B19, it's all very plausible and insightful, particularly the theory of reaction formation. I must admit that I have sometimes wondered about Baron-Cohen and many other prominent academics and psychologists who are found of pronouncing about the characteristics of autism, seemingly unaware that they are presenting those same traits.

I've wondered about Simon Baron-Cohen myself in this way. There is just something about him that gives me that impression. If he isn't ASD himself, he must be BAP or a hair's breadth away from being diagnosable.

I too get an impression of "muddying the waters" almost like he's fascinated by autism but also reviled by seeing it in himself so says things that are "blanket statements" not so much to convince others but to convince himself that the spectrum does not apply to him.

I go back and forth myself on silly stuff like that: well, I hated reading as a kid; AS kids like to read to know about certain topics, or well, I was happy and hyper as a kid and AS kids are sad and depressed and detached from the world, so I can't have ASD. I don't mean either of these things are true as kids or anyone on the spectrum. I am just battling against my own imaginary stereotype of the condition which is probably the stereotype the general population might hold as well.

jbw:
The [autistic level of] certainty and confidence that SBC's theories offer is seductive from the perspective of the mainstream (neurotypical) culture that propagated by the education system, the media, and by the political establishment. The more SBC asserts himself in an attempt to eliminate doubt and ambiguities in relation to his theories, the more likely he is autistic

...
Yes, the media has a lot to answer in terms of publicising myth as expert fact, you see this particularly in the growing dependence in televised news on the "one second sound bite" as if that was representative of balance, insight, informed comment. And the idea of the one single go-to expert for comment - a role that SBC has wormed his way into by self-promoting activities in the UK - also throws balance out the door.

A footnote: However balance is more complicated than opposing points of view. That idea presupposes there are only ever TWO points of view on a topic, when in real life there may be many of relatively equal weight. Nevertheless, the reliance on the "single expert" is an irresponsible broacasting behaviour - especially when the single expert is a primarily a propagandist hiding under the cloak of objectivity (as I believe SBC is - he may yet change his ways in his more senior years, though I doubt it...)

Long ago I was taught by my Latin teacher (yes in those ancient days we actually learned Latin at school!) to ask Cicero's clarifying question when something seemed fishy somehow: Cui Bono? Who benefits? Applying this to SBC, who has most benefited from his work? I think he has. Not his target population of (other) ASD people..

From my view point and the facts presented so far:

1) SBC has had his neurology questioned.

2) SBC has been attacked for not disclosing his neurology.

Could Temple Grandin serve as a kind of Rosetta Stone for Simon Baron-Cohen and others like him? Because her profession is animal science (though she has a bachelor's degree in psychology) she wouldn't have the professional constraints of bias or conflicts of interest (something even U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker had to defend against after his controversial opinion in 2010 about the matter of California's Proposition 8 prohibition of same-sex marriage).

Despite that fact, she presents herself, and the complex ideas and studies of others to the public as convincingly as anyone and is accepted by her audiences as accurate and truthful. But, here's the catch: So does Baron-Cohen. In my opinion, they share much of the same black-and-white response to scientific objectivity. She does because she speaks as someone with ASDs. He does because he is a clinician and researcher whose obsession, both professional and personal, is ASDs.

I suspect that you are correct in your presumption of his spectrum status.