Bring up the word autism and you'll hear a great many theories. Simon Baron-Cohen, the man who I believe has singlehandedly done more damage to the perception of autistics than any other human being (though there are arguably a number of people vying for that title), has a number of theories regarding autism.
His most famous is the "Theory of Mind," based on the results from the now-famous "Sally-Anne" test. The Sally-Anne test, where 61 children (20 autistic, 14 Down's Syndrome and 27 neuro-typical) were shown two dolls, is an example of bad "science." Sally has a basket in front of her, while Anne has a box. The Sally doll, presumably made to move by an adult, which further complicates the test, puts a marble into her basket and leaves the room. While she is gone, Anne takes the marble from Sally's basket and places it in the box. When Sally returns, the child is asked, "Where will Sally look for the marble?" Only 20 percent of the autistic children were able to correctly answer the question -- Sally will look in her basket.
From the test results Simon Baron-Cohen concluded "that the core problem in autism is the inability to think about other people or one's own thoughts" according to the blog, holah.co.uk. Except that his test did not take into consideration the challenges many autistic children have in sequencing, language problems, misunderstandings of prepositions, the level of anxiety or stress levels of the autistic participants at the time of testing. Nor did it take into account literal thinking, something many autists have, all of which made the test and the questions asked that much more challenging.
My 10-year-old autistic daughter, Emma, when asked what her doll's name is, will reply, "Doll" or "Girl." This is just one example of Emma's literal mind at work. She is not wrong -- her doll is a doll and yes, the doll is a representation of a girl. If I say to Emma while she is in the shower, "Em, wash the soap off," she will take the bar of soap and hold it under the water, even though what I meant was she should wash the soap off her body -- she understood my request literally. Was she wrong? No. To draw some other conclusion from her answers would be. When the child, during the Sally-Anne test, was asked, "Where will Sally look for her marble?" a literal-minded thinker, who also has trouble with prepositions would have difficulty arriving at the "correct" answer.
Simon Baron-Cohen based his theory, which is taken by many as proven fact, on the assumption that the autistic participants understood the question. He then set about publicizing his theory, which inadvertently or not is used by many in the neuromajority to justify the abuse and mistreatment of the very people whom he categorizes as lacking empathy. Does anyone else see a problem here?
When Emma was diagnosed I came upon the "Theory of Mind" paper early in my research. At the time I thought this explained why, when any of us were upset, Emma seemed oblivious. But as I continued along the road of educating myself, coupled with observing my daughter, I began to question his theory. I read about autistics who avoided looking in people's eyes because it was too intense. One autist described it as akin to seeing into a person's soul. Others talked about how they could sense immediately upon entering a room the various occupants' emotional state and became so overwhelmed they would seek refuge in a corner, try to leave or would stim as a way to counter the intensity of what they were experiencing.
There are times when Emma will, with outstretched arm, put her hand out in front of her face like a shield. Often it is done when she's very happy and having a good time. I believe it is in response to the intensity of feelings, either hers or others or both. Or as Jessy Park, Clara Claiborne Park's autistic daughter, was quoted as saying, "It's too good."
Simon Baron-Cohen is doing damage with a theory that was based on just 20 autistic participants. His most recent book, Zero Degrees of Empathy, includes autistics along with psychopaths and people with borderline personality disorder as examples of groups who lack empathy, which will further the suffering of autistics. Even though in one interview he explains, "Their low empathy doesn't lead them to commit acts of cruelty any more than anyone else in the population, but it does often lead them to feel socially isolated, with the added risk of depression." Which begs the question: Why include them then? This statement adds to the ingrained misperception that autists lack empathy and will possibly serve to further their "risk of depression." For a man claiming autists lack empathy, he is bizarrely unaware of his own in publicizing a theory based on a questionable test using less than two dozen autistics.
For those who would like to read an opposing theory and one that seems much more in keeping with what I see demonstrated by not only my daughter but the many autistics I know, read this interview with the neuroscientist Dr. Henry Markram.
Emma with outstretched arm, shielding her eyes
Ariane Zurcher's Blog is Emma's Hope Book.
For more by Ariane Zurcher, click here.
For more on autism, click here.
Follow Ariane Zurcher on Twitter: www.twitter.com/EmmasHopeBook
Finally, as will be evident for those who visit our website at www.autismresearchcentre.com, ToM work is just a tiny part of what we investigate as scientists, and as open-minded researchers, we are testing many other aspects of cognition in autism, including sensory processing and non-social perception, to try to understand if ToM difficulties are primary or secondary and to understand the biological basis of autism.
And all of this research is conducted with an overarching aim, which is to help understand and support people with this special condition of autism.
Some discussants seem to think my book 'Zero Degrees of Empathy' is suggesting people with autism are cruel. This sadly again reflects they haven't read the book since that book isn't about autism and only deals with autism in passing. Where it does mention autism, it argues the opposite! that people with autism are NOT cruel.
To reiterate, the book is not about autism but is about how humans can lose their empathy, and the book suggests that people with autism and psychopaths are mirror opposites in arguing that people with autism have difficulties with 'cognitive empathy' (or ToM) but have intact 'affective empathy' (e.g., they are upset to hear about others who are suffering) whilst psychopaths have intact cognitive empathy (hence being able to deceive others so convincingly) but lack affective empathy (being uncaring towards their victims).
It is sad that some people in the autism community see the ToM work as destructive when the aim behind it is to identify the areas of difficulty (for special educational reasons) and then design teaching materials that might be helpful (such as the Mindreading DVD www.jkp.com/mindreading) or the Teaching Children with Autism to Mindread (Wiley, 1997) or The Transporters animation (www.thetransporters.com).
Some discussants ask why did the original ToM experiment use dolls, not people? My response is that later experiments checked the results hold even when real people are used instead of dolls. Some discussants ask why build a theory (about impaired ToM) on one experiment? My response to this is that over the subsequent 25 years since the original experiment was published, there have been literally hundreds of studies broadly confirming there is a ToM deficit in autism.
Some discussants cite adults with autism who can pass ToM tests as evidence that the theory is incorrect. My response to this is to remind people that many of these ToM tests can only be used appropriately with someone who is around 4 years old chronologically, or with an equivalent 'mental age' of a 4 year old. Many people with autism (especially those with average or above average IQ) do eventually learn to pass ToM tests, but years later than a typical child would. So we are rarely seeing a total ToM deficit, but rather 'degrees' of ToM difficulties. This was the key point in my 1995 book Mindblindness which may not have been read by some of the discussants in this forum, since it reviewed (at that time) 10 years of relevant evidence.
Cohen sets what may appear a simple test but in fact is quite complex in reality for as I would term 'rogue' elements. Why use a doll and a girl ? Why not two girls ? Why not two boys considering the gender ratio ? Why a box and a basket ?
It's overcomplicated for no apparent reason ... and as you say you prevent this to children with a known language and communication disorder. That kind of complicates matters.
As far as Zero Degrees of Empathy ... why would you name a book about children with a disability and then make a comparison to psycopaths.
There's the lack of empathy ... language has effects.
A book of her poems sits on my bedside table. I read them every night before I drop off to sleep. They are a beautiful expression of a beautiful human being. Amy gives me hope that one day these theories that objectify, theories that treat the participants as no more than specimens that fascinate, will no longer be taught in schools. They will no longer be taken as a given. They will be seen for the absurdity that they are; the thoughts and ideas of a group of people who lack the imagination to see anything more.
Also:
Autism: The Eusocial Hominid Hypothesis
ASDs (autism spectrum disorders) are hypothesized as one of many adaptive human cognitive variations that have been maintained in modern populations via multiple genetic and epigenetic mechanisms. Introgression from "archaic" hominids (adapted for less demanding social environments) is conjectured as the source of initial intraspecific heterogeneity because strict inclusive fitness does not adequately model the evolution of distinct, copy-number sensitive phenotypes within a freely reproducing population.
Evidence is given of divergent encephalization and brain organization in the Neanderthal (including a ~1520 cc cranial capacity, larger than that of modern humans) to explain the origin of the autism subgroup characterized by abnormal brain growth.
Autism and immune dysfunction are frequently comorbid. This supports an admixture model in light of the recent discovery that MHC alleles (genes linked to immune function, mate selection, neuronal "pruning," etc.) found in most modern human populations come from "archaic" hominids.
Mitochondrial dysfunction, differential fetal androgen exposure, lung abnormalities, and hypomethylation/CNV due to hybridization are also presented as evidence.
https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B3dPqM3qgNSiY3p5TmFRMjhSekdyaV8wWUw0MTZiUQ
A short video introduction: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jk_85vNaSMA
The full 2-hour video presentation: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6-6Naz-C0M
I have always maintained that Baron-Cohen ideas would not stand up in a Political Science 101 class simply because the idea of theory of mind is so lacking.
Also why do many otherwise sweet kids on the spectrum laugh inappropriately at funerals (a commonly reported stressor for their parents) if they don't have a few deficits in this area? I'd be happy to hear an alternative explanation for this behaviour.
It would be interesting to see Baron-Cohen defend himself. And yes, I believe it's unfair to place him in the same category as Bettleheim or, in my view, the Jenny McCarthy crowd who talk loudly and publicly about their 'damaged' children without no thought to how their children might actually feel about this.
But an alternative explanation of funereal nervousness: at funerals, people almost invariably say things that are logically inconsistent with things they have said on the same topics while the decedent was alive. Also, it is a large social gathering with unknown rules to start with, making the discomfort-with-inconsistencies come to the forefront as well as being magnified. Autistics without theater training will no doubt be at a loss as to how to act. Perhaps they will laugh nervously to let off steam if they know they are not allowed to for example knock themselves in the head or "elope."
About ToM: Lauie noted that even though her autistic son "understands the implications of Baron-Cohen's theory, he still gets tripped up by his common assumption that others share the information his brain has." I believe she is saying that although her son is a smart young man, he doesn't understand what others are thinking.
Well, a lot of us don't understand what is in the mind of others. But that's not even the experiment that SBC- and others- did. What they did was a particular set of sequences that autistics have well known difficulties with. To generalize this as "Theory of Mind" is grand in the extreme.
Autism is a neurological disability, and autistic people will test differently that neurotypicals in certain ways, on average. But going from "testing differently" to ToM is a leap in thought that is characteristic of poor experimental design, in general and poor external validity in specific.