Why do they say we have no empathy?

Post Reply New Topic

People used to assume I was unfeeling or unsympathetic because I did not react quickly and emotionally to their tale of woe. Though I might've actually be feeling badly/empathizing with what I heard, I struggled with how I should express it! Many of the usual NT verbal inanities sound horrid to me. Thankfully, I have at least progressed to "oh my", "that's too bad" or "I'm so sorry you're going through that."

Empathy is subjective.
If you have a cat and a dog, and put them together, the cat cannot empathize with the dog... nor can the dog empathize with the cat.
If you put two cats together, they empathize quite well. Same with two dogs.
It's the same with the AS/NT difference. We don't empathize with them very well, nor they with us. However, I think Aspergians can empathize with each other just as well as NT's can with their kind.

-The Bookkeeper

I agree. The problem from an NT's point of view is that we tend not to be good at conveying empathy in ways that are considered socially appropriate - but that doesn't mean that the intent isn't there.

If anything, I think we have a heightened awareness of other people's suffering. It just doesn't appear that way to someone who isn't familiar with autistic spectrum disorders.

Another Aspie friend of mine said the same thing. He compared us to Vulcans: stronger emotions, but stronger emotional control.

-TB

It's because they hate us, and they want to condescend us to the point that we squirm so much, that we have meltdowns, just like what Charlie does to Raymond in the movie, Rain Man.

i do not agree with that definition. i have not seen that definition. it is easy to KNOW what they think and feel if they tell you. it is another thing to FEEL what they feel.

definitions found on the internet are just summary traits, and if you want to learn more, you have to pay for material or have a good doctor who likes to talk to you.

my psychiatrist (the best one (actually the only one as i had 3 psychologists after her)) told me about it when i was 12 and she said it is when someone acquires similar feelings to another person just by being with them (or seeing them).

the simplest example is laughter. apparently, even if the subject matter of the joke is not entirely understood by the empathic listener, they feel a compulsion to laugh along with who they see laughing.
it is an infection of "affect" that seems to influence another persons mind like a strong magnetic force that pulls them into the same sensation.

like an emotional coalescence.

another simple example is when someone sees someone else getting hurt. even if it is a non life threatening thing.
like if someone sees another person who cuts their finger, they wince because it is like they are drawn into that sensation magnetically by "empathy".

she described me as being emotionally analogous to a substance that is not effected by magnetism.

like it is impossible for the fabric of a piece of chalk to sense a magnetic field surrounding it.

whatever. i wrote many times before about this so i will not elaborate further as i think this thread will die and sink into the sediments, and be discovered one day in the distant future by "archiveologists" (i am only semi serious but i am sick of talking about it because i participated in several others long gone posts with many words).

It would not surprise me at all to find out you are right, CockneyRebel. I'm sure this has a part in it anyway.

-TB

Hey, that's good! (writing it down)

My son was diagnosed with AS three years ago at age 5. More recently I too was diagnosed, at age 46.

I rejected my son's diagnosis for most of the last three years due to the descriptions of the diagnostic criteria that were presented to us by the professionals that we consulted. One of the more obvious flaws in the diagnostic criteria, as presented, was the content related to empathy.

After I began reading about AS individuals diagnosed as adults, their experiences resonated with me. And so too did my son's diagnosis... Now, however, I realized that it was not the diagnosis that was faulty. But one of the diagnostic criteria was flawed due to problems with statistical conclusion validity, external validity, experimental design, and experimenter bias in the studies behind the "lack of empathy" myth.

Since one of my longer-running perseverations is research design (since my PhD program in the late 80s - early 90s), I began reading the scientific literature on AS shortly after my diagnosis. To put it bluntly, I was astounded to see such a lack of rigor in the studies pertaining to Theory of Mind (ToM) and autism. (The ToM research is what is cited as the basis for the "lack of empathy" conclusion.)

I am in the process of writing a more comprehensive critique of the ToM-autism body of research. But, here is a brief summary.

Based on the results of the studies related to ToM, we know that AS folks generally do not perform as well at ToM tasks that are designed for non-autists, and that the younger the autist, the more likely s/he will perform poorly. From these results, the researchers themselves (to varying degrees), professionals in the field (to a much greater degree, on average), and many of the psuedo-experts (who form autism organizations, develop autism websites, write books, etc.) conclude falsely that autists in general (including people with AS) lack empathy. This conclusion is pure nonsense. But, unfortunately, this false belief has become a significant stigma for many people with AS. (Ironically, the ability to develop false beliefs is considered to be a characteristic of "proper" ToM development... I kid thee not. But, I should return to the main topic...)

Here are just a few of the more significant problems with this conclusion and the body of research upon which it is based:

(1) Just because one does poorly at ToM tasks designed for non-autists does not mean that autists lack empathy. There are thousands of possible reasons why someone might not perform well on a paricular ToM task. For example, in the case of a person with AS, we might not perform well on a ToM task designed for non-autists simply because we tend to focus on details rather than the overall Gestalt (i.e., as in the "weak coherence" theory). As a consequence, we may not pick up on all of the necessary cues to perform this particular ToM task. But, like anyone else, we can learn what information is required to perform the task, as evidenced by the fact that many adults with AS perform quite well on ToM tasks designed for non autists. This implies that we can also learn to be empathic with respect to the feelings, thoughts, emotions, etc. of non-autists.

(2) The design of the experiments were also flawed due to the bias of the researchers who assume incorrectly that there is only one theoretically correct type of mind--that which is arbitrarily labeled NT, but for which no rigorous definition exists.

Though no rigorous definition of this theoretically "correct," purportedly NT mind exists, the experimenters decided arbitrarily that ToM tests that worked in prior experiments (which, of course, used non-autists as subjects) should be applied to ToM experiments of autists. Well what kind of sense does that make?

At best, this "majority-centric" view results in biased results due to the false assumption that the that the only type of ToM that is relevant is the type that enables you to determine the thoughts, feelings, emotions, etc. of non-autists. However, in this context, how likely do you think it is that non-autists would perform well in tests of their ability to empath the thoughts, feelings, emotions, etc. of a group of autists? I bet they would perform quite poorly. And if I am right, does this therefore imply that non-autists also lack ToM? Or would it instead imply that my experimental design was flawed due to the lack of rigor in my definition of what a "mind" is and the bias that I allowed to creep into my experiment as a result of assuming that the only "correct" mind is a mind that works like mine?

Let's take this one step further to see the magnitude of flaws inherent to the ToM-autism studies. Even if we assume that the non-autist mind is the theoretically correct mind type, which non-autist mind are we even talking about? Is it the non-autist who is on the depression spectrum? The non-autist who is on the anxiety spectrum? (There are other spectrum disorders out there...) Is it the non-autist who has the most representative types and levels of mental disorders within the set of all non-autists? That is, the truly average non-autist? Or is it the small minority of extremely well-adjusted, completely disorder free, high IQ, non-autists? (Let's hope it is not the latter, as that would be a bit too Nazi-like for me...)

And, as an aside, in defining this theoretically correct mind type, must we also require that the mind we are theorizing about be capable of demonstrating the mean level of ability to develop false beliefs?

(3) The researchers also falsely assume that ToM abilities are somehow an instinctual characteristic of the non-autist. That is, all non-autists are presumed to be born to "empath," but others apparently may not be. Well that's total nonsense. Even in non-autists, the development of ToM takes significant social and other experience gathered over many years. Not even the non-autists are born to "empath."

Now, one could argue that I am overly concerned with semantics here, and that the researchers are simply saying that non-autists demonstrate ToM capabilities at an earlier age than autists. But, that is also a false conclusion because the research only shows that non-autists are better at ToM tasks designed for non-autists. But, do you think those same young non-autist children would also perform better at ToM tasks designed for autists? I doubt it.

The bottom line is that the results of the ToM studies performed to date imply only that autists (including those of us with AS) do not perform as well as non-autists in ToM tasks designed for non-autists. Furthermore, we tend to do better at these tasks over time. Or, in plain English, these scientific results tell us the following (and nothing more) with respect to people with AS :

"People with AS see the world differently than people who don't have AS. As a result it takes them longer to learn how to read the thoughts, feelings, and emotions of non-AS people. Furthermore, depending on their social and other experiences gathered over time, some AS individuals will be relatively better than others at reading the thoughts, feelings, and emotions of non-autists."

Given the above, the real question in my mind at this point is:

Why on earth do we allow the "lack of empathy" myth persist? And what can we do to diminish the stigma that it has produced?

*applause* Bravo, No_Exit!

I am captivated by the logic of your post.

I wasn't quite sure how my critique would be received. So it feels good to get the positive feedback! Thank you.

I don't want to offend the researchers who conducted the ToM-autism research because their findings are still important and useful, in the proper context. Hopefully they have learned to take the criticisms that come with publishing their research. I did, though as a person with AS, I'm not supposed to be good at dealing with criticism.

It also occurred to me that some AS people, or perhaps parents of AS people, may actually like the "lack of empathy" characterization as it could make it easier to justify reclusive tendencies. But, I find that I can still do both, just not at the same time.

All kidding aside, empathy and reclusion appear to me to be two different manifestations of the same neurological phenomena--a hypersensitivity to stimuli that, when kept in check, is great for empathy but when allowed to build, leads to a desire to run, scream, or hide.

In lieu of saying 'lacks empathy,' I think a more accurate description is 'has an unusually high degree of difficulty conceptuallizing the thoughts and feelings of others.' That at least sounds even remotely personally true to me, not just some vague jargon that gets used as a checklist catch-phrase phenomenon.

I like it. The only suggestion I'd make is to say, "varying degrees of difficulty conceptualizing the thoughts and feelings of others." The reason I say that is because I think it can vary tremendously depending on the situation.

For example, some people verbally communicate more clearly (less clearly), which I find helps tremendously (makes it much harder).

The context or environment can help or hurt too. In a situation that I am comfortable or experienced with, such as work, relating to kids or the experience of being a parent, or one of my perservations, I have a much better shot at interpreting someone else's mind state. But if you put me in a situation I'm not experienced in, say a PTA meeting, or not comfortable in, a coctail party where I don't know anyone, then I have much more trouble.

Some people rely more on nonverbal communication which I often find harder to interpret (particularly women's nonverbal cues).

Some people carry more "emotional baggage" and/or disorders of their own, which complicates things quite a bit.

Sometimes a person's mood, stress, or other issues affect their ability to communicate clearly and can alter their nonverbal cues.

And then, some people don't actually appear to understand their own emotions... yet seem to expect me to act empathetically any way. That can be quite challenging.

I find that is true in my case. I also find NTs are terrible at empathizing.


The strange thing is, Vulcans have the capability to feel true empathy, and actually know what the other is feeling and thinking. It's just they don't embrace it, partly due to a virus that can be transmitted...

What would happen if we set a test up to measure Aspie empathy, then got an NT to try it?

Last edited by Magneto on 20 Jun 2009, 12:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.

That is truly ironic. I have found the same thing. I also read somewhere (can't recall where) a theory that NTs only appear slightly better (than AS people) at empathizing with other NTs because their similar brain wiring gives them a slightly better, but still mostly random, chance of selecting the right response. In other words, if you compare the intersection of all experiences that NT1 and NT2 have to choose from in attempting to empathize with one another, that intersection will be slightly larger than the intersection of all of AS1's and NT1's (or AS1's and NT2's) experiences. So, NT1 and NT2 will appear better at empathy, but only because their interection of prior experiences is larger. Innate ability is not the issue, if this theory is correct. Back to my original point, if you reverse the experiment and instead compare AS1 and AS2 versus NT1, I would bet the results would reverse.

[quote="TheBookKeeper]Another Aspie friend of mine said the same thing. He compared us to Vulcans: stronger emotions, but stronger emotional control.[/quote]
The strange thing is, Vulcans have the capability to feel true empathy, and actually know what the other is feeling and thinking. It's just they don't embrace it, partly due to a virus that can be transmitted....[/quote]

Funny that you mention that. I was reading a book that advises the NT partner in an "interplanetary relationship" not to get highly emotional with their AS partner" because the AS partner may also react with the same level of emotional intensity (e.g., the virus is caught, at least for the duration of that disagreement), which will only make the problem worse. The ironic thing is that the disagreement was portrayed as occurring because the AS partner purportedly has a deficit wrt empathy, which gave rise to the disagreement. But, nowhere was it pointed out that becoming highly emotional in the middle of a disagreement is extremely dysfunctional. It's as though there was no recollection on the part of the author that there are a number of behavioral approaches/techniques/philosophies designed to help NT's overcome this dysfunctional behavior so that they can get along with one another better.

What would happen if we set a test up to measure Aspie empathy, then got an NT to try it? [/quote] It wouldn't be pretty...

I think this is a "math-thing", as No_Exit was saying before.
We simply don't use the same counting-system, that's why we don't relate to each others, we don't get the same answers.

Allso I think it has a lot to do with feelings, when a NT is trying to have us emphasise to their feelings, they want us to somehow be as sad as we can feel on their behalf, and then move them more and more towards happiness again by cheering them up somehow. We try (more or less) to analyze the situation and find a logical solution, so when we present our answer, it's not what they want, they just want to live out their emotions.