Email from WP to ARC request debate on WP with S.B Cohen.

Page 3 of 7 [ 103 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

ValentineWiggin
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 May 2011
Age: 35
Gender: Female
Posts: 4,907
Location: Beneath my cat's paw

29 Jul 2011, 6:03 am

Wondering how much research Cohen has done on the neurotypical's theory of mind when immersed in a world of people whose brains are wired differently. :roll:

TOM has always struck me as a perfect descriptor of Aspie-NT relationships and communication,
but irrational at best and offensive at worst to label the Autistic cognitively-deficient for reasons of no more substance than he is in the minority.


_________________
"Such is the Frailty
of the human Heart, that very few Men, who have no Property, have any Judgment of their own.
They talk and vote as they are directed by Some Man of Property, who has attached their Minds
to his Interest."


Artros
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jul 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 646
Location: The Netherlands

01 Aug 2011, 11:50 am

I find this to be a good idea. I know I would've found your opening e-mail hilarious, but I have to agree that it's probably not the tone we should take. We could always take the Shawshank Redemption approach: just send a letter every week until he finally responds.

As for the discussion itself, I think e-mail would be best. I'd think that if any researcher came here openly, he would simply be overwhelmed by various Aspies trying to tell their own story. E-mail should allow both him and us to have sufficient time to decide what exactly to say.

I do not know how much we will be able to get from it, though. Perhaps we could convince him that we are right about empathy, but I doubt it. Perhaps we could design some kind of experiment or a situational test which could help us do our own research. I must admit that I don't know a lot about the methodology generally used in psychology, but I could certainly do statistical analysis if it comes to that.



kBillingsley
Sea Gull
Sea Gull

User avatar

Joined: 22 Dec 2010
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 234

01 Aug 2011, 4:26 pm

You will need to make the letter give of the affect of having no affect at all. The Neurotypical community aware of us already has a standard perception of how we should behave, so in order to earn their attention, we will need to confirm their beliefs. They have already marked us as soulless robots, and want someone to confirm their standing ideas, preferably one of us. If we pretend to be what they are looking for, and then pull the rug out from under them when it is already too late for them to turn back, we will be able to effectively establish our point (that we are empathetic beings, and not heartless psychopaths) while meeting little resistance by virtue of the fact that they will not have prepared for us. It is called "bait and switch," and it works all of the time.



Artros
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jul 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 646
Location: The Netherlands

02 Aug 2011, 2:23 am

kBillingsley wrote:
You will need to make the letter give of the affect of having no affect at all. The Neurotypical community aware of us already has a standard perception of how we should behave, so in order to earn their attention, we will need to confirm their beliefs. They have already marked us as soulless robots, and want someone to confirm their standing ideas, preferably one of us. If we pretend to be what they are looking for, and then pull the rug out from under them when it is already too late for them to turn back, we will be able to effectively establish our point (that we are empathetic beings, and not heartless psychopaths) while meeting little resistance by virtue of the fact that they will not have prepared for us. It is called "bait and switch," and it works all of the time.


Problem is that no one will be watching, so even if we'd do that, nobody would really care. The real battle is in the scientific journals, and that's one we can't win on our own. Also, I would hate doing that. Do we really need to lower ourselves to foul play? As long as we just keep it to "we are interested in communicating with you" I'm sure they will come around at some point. At the very least, there are so many Aspies here that we can be useful to them as well.



memesplice
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Feb 2010
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,072

02 Aug 2011, 4:01 am

They have published in a number of newspapers . I think we have a legal right to reply. Being trashed in a newspaper and wider media is not something they would want. For example SBC is currently relying on the Guardian to sell his books. It is also a PR exercise for developing funding for existing and future projects. His book/articles are a condensation of work previously published in academic journals. The newspapers seem a good ground to target rather than journals due to accessibilty.

My problem is when journalists do sloppy cut and paste stuff like this



Quote:
Baron-Cohen has made a major contribution to our understanding of autism. Autistic people lack any comprehension that other people have feelings. They do not understand what empathy is.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2011/ap ... hen-review


( I can't help thinking maybe the journalists are baiting us for debate ?-)

I think academics might prefer to have this debate here and that it be kept friendly.



Artros
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jul 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 646
Location: The Netherlands

02 Aug 2011, 7:06 am

memesplice wrote:
They have published in a number of newspapers . I think we have a legal right to reply. Being trashed in a newspaper and wider media is not something they would want. For example SBC is currently relying on the Guardian to sell his books. It is also a PR exercise for developing funding for existing and future projects. His book/articles are a condensation of work previously published in academic journals. The newspapers seem a good ground to target rather than journals due to accessibilty.

My problem is when journalists do sloppy cut and paste stuff like this

Quote:
Baron-Cohen has made a major contribution to our understanding of autism. Autistic people lack any comprehension that other people have feelings. They do not understand what empathy is.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2011/ap ... hen-review


( I can't help thinking maybe the journalists are baiting us for debate ?-)

I think academics might prefer to have this debate here and that it be kept friendly.


I actually doubt that that was copy-paste work from Baron-Cohen's work. The way I see it, it's the author of the article taking what she wants to. I looked up another review (Link) and it's not as bad as the other one. There's still the faulty statement that Aspies lack empathy, but at least we get differentiated from the psychopaths.

I think the main problem here is that what we're saying boils down to "the EQ test is not an accurate measure of empathy", or at least not in people with Asperger's. Given the fact that the EQ test is one of Baron-Cohen's accomplishments, I doubt he will be open for any debate on its validity. Yet we must somehow make him see that empathy is about more than what he's testing. I've read it and it takes a view of empathy which is very strongly related to expressed empathy. It's about knowing what the other person thinks. There should be some part of the EQ test (perhaps video-based) which is more about expressing empathy towards people or animals who are in obvious distress. Even among psychologists I think it's common knowledge that Aspies tend to like and understand animals (it's even in the EQ test itself). Perhaps there should be more focus on that.

We have a right to reply, but what do you think we should do? We could simply start sending e-mails to the relevant papers when they publish something like this, or we could mass-criticise Baron-Cohen's book on Amazon, but neither of those are really an opening to a discussion, which is what we want.



InsomniacDreams
Tufted Titmouse
Tufted Titmouse

User avatar

Joined: 5 Aug 2011
Age: 54
Gender: Female
Posts: 42
Location: Swansea, Wales, UK

06 Aug 2011, 7:53 pm

Great thread guys, thanks!

memesplice wrote:
...I am not sure if my attempts to use the Twitter communciation are effective. It is possible they have made a tentative response. I am not even sure it is intended for us . It may be an invitation to join in a neutal friendly 'converstion' and see if we can follow their rules of particpation...


I don't think twitter is really the best way to go about it, but I have loved your description about the experience

memesplice wrote:
Could all those intrested in making friendly contact with NT researchers please give opinions on how to proceed?



If there was a way to make contact and have a discussion with them, what would people actually want to say?


btbnnyr wrote:
I am wondering if there are any websites, maybe blogs, collecting and discussing research papers about autism? Blogs with posts presenting one research paper at a time and evaluating it for accuracy and scientific validity? Ones that point out erroneous assumptions wherever they are found? Ones that point out factual and logical errors wherever they are found?

Just because a research paper has been published does not mean that it does not contain erroneous assumptions and conclusions. NTs have their "Peer Review". We should apply our "Logical Review" to the results of their "Peer Review".


btbnnyr, I would be surprised if there wasn't, though problem w/could/might be getting on to such a site. Collecting research papers on one subject can be time consuming, collecting enough for a meta-analysis goes beyond just mere time consuming. Even just collecting the data from SBC papers would be extremely time consuming. But a meta-analysis "Logical Review" might be a good place to start, comparing it to the "Peer Review". I could be wrong though. I might be able to find out a good way to approach this, might take awhile to find out how, because it is summer.

aghogday wrote:
Regarding the ARC organization, I doubt they would discuss this in a public forum... If we presented serious objective ideas ... that differ from what they have considered before, we might get a couple of back and forth emails to get the ARC viewpoint.

In my opinion a better approach might be to not ask for a public debate, and focus on a smaller goal for private email correspondence. If they respond with a viewpoint, that might be the time to ask them if they are interested in coming here for discussion.

But, I seriously doubt they are going to be interested in debating their ideas vs our ideas; it might be better presented as a request for discussion to discuss our ideas, leaving their ideas completely out of the conversation. In fact, I wouldn't mention the word debate or mention any of their research in any correspondence, if we want the best possibility of them ever actually coming here to discuss our ideas with us.


Or it might be better just to have solid data to back-up the ideas/hypothesis presented to them, in a way they are used to seeing and responding to.

memesplice wrote:
...
Dear Dr. Cohen,

Greetings. A Wrong Planet research craft is currently in proximity to your own vessel and crew. We are monitoring your communications and the work you are publishing concerning our species. You have our assurance our weapon systems will be stood down for the duration of this proximity. We understand how you species require this assurance prior to entering into any communication. Please understand we mean you no harm and we are as curious about you and your crew as you seem to be about us.

...


:lol: Brilliant!



youngdoug
Tufted Titmouse
Tufted Titmouse

User avatar

Joined: 6 Aug 2011
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 26
Location: United Kingdom

08 Aug 2011, 3:32 am

Quote:
We have a right to reply, but what do you think we should do? We could simply start sending e-mails to the relevant papers when they publish something like this, or we could mass-criticise Baron-Cohen's book on Amazon, but neither of those are really an opening to a discussion, which is what we want.


Could I suggest a broad spectrum response with a constant message that we consistently hammer home. We do this with politeness and firmness.

The message needs to be a sentence or two. Not needed to be actually written all the time, but communications need to stick to the point to get the message across.

Mass criticism might be counter-productive. I am not sure. An inundation can be dismissed as 'loonies' by those convinced of their own purity (hello media folk, y'know who I'm looking at).

Independent, short(ish), simply argued communications with clear requests for actions to be taken. If no action is taken, then the complaints are taken as far up the chain as possible.

From the little I've seen here there would be a lot of help here - especially when it comes to back and forth communications.

I might be wrong, but a constant drip drip might be a very strong foundation. I'm not suggesting this as the only route. I do think that people will sit up and take notice after a time.

I apologise for maybe coming in possibly a bit strong here :oops: , but the prejudice around AS is making me furious :x . I know such a range of people on the spectrum. If a word for AS knocked on my door it would say 'Hi, I'm representing AS. My name is Gentleness :) '

The message we want to give? Can I fly a kite here as a point for discussion?

'Statements that stereotype the Autistic Community are nasty and prejudiced against the individuals concerned. Please apologise, withdraw them or give a right of reply. Prejudice against minority groups has a long history of causing pain and suffering, and you are responsible for this.'

This is 3 sentences, so that's me told anyways.

thanx 4 listening :)


_________________
Scrape the surface of language, and you will behold interstellar space and the skin that encloses it

a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong gives it a superficial appearance of being right


Artros
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jul 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 646
Location: The Netherlands

08 Aug 2011, 8:40 am

youngdoug wrote:
Quote:
We have a right to reply, but what do you think we should do? We could simply start sending e-mails to the relevant papers when they publish something like this, or we could mass-criticise Baron-Cohen's book on Amazon, but neither of those are really an opening to a discussion, which is what we want.


Could I suggest a broad spectrum response with a constant message that we consistently hammer home. We do this with politeness and firmness.

The message needs to be a sentence or two. Not needed to be actually written all the time, but communications need to stick to the point to get the message across.

Mass criticism might be counter-productive. I am not sure. An inundation can be dismissed as 'loonies' by those convinced of their own purity (hello media folk, y'know who I'm looking at).

Independent, short(ish), simply argued communications with clear requests for actions to be taken. If no action is taken, then the complaints are taken as far up the chain as possible.

From the little I've seen here there would be a lot of help here - especially when it comes to back and forth communications.

I might be wrong, but a constant drip drip might be a very strong foundation. I'm not suggesting this as the only route. I do think that people will sit up and take notice after a time.

I apologise for maybe coming in possibly a bit strong here :oops: , but the prejudice around AS is making me furious :x . I know such a range of people on the spectrum. If a word for AS knocked on my door it would say 'Hi, I'm representing AS. My name is Gentleness :) '

The message we want to give? Can I fly a kite here as a point for discussion?

'Statements that stereotype the Autistic Community are nasty and prejudiced against the individuals concerned. Please apologise, withdraw them or give a right of reply. Prejudice against minority groups has a long history of causing pain and suffering, and you are responsible for this.'

This is 3 sentences, so that's me told anyways.

thanx 4 listening :)


I think it's a bit of an aggressive message. We'll be talking to scientists (at least, supposedly). We are interested in discourse first and foremost. I'm afraid such a message would only serve to alienate them from us.

There was a thread on the News forum which contained a link to a guy who apparently won an Award for disproving the link between the MMR vaccine and autism (Link). Would it not be an idea to see if we can get support from this man?


_________________
"Be slow to fall into friendship; but when thou art in, continue firm and constant. " -Socrates
AQ: 40/50
EQ: 17/50
SQ: 72/80 (Extreme Synthesiser)
Aspie test: about 150/200 Aspie, about 40/200 NT


youngdoug
Tufted Titmouse
Tufted Titmouse

User avatar

Joined: 6 Aug 2011
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 26
Location: United Kingdom

08 Aug 2011, 4:01 pm

Quote:
I think it's a bit of an aggressive message. We'll be talking to scientists (at least, supposedly). We are interested in discourse first and foremost. I'm afraid such a message would only serve to alienate them from us.


Yes, I take your point. I was really thinking of media articles, like the book review by Ms Rowe that was pointed out here. There I'm not sure that subtlety will help... operative term is 'not sure'.

Brian Deere - the mmr journo - might be able to help, but he's more of an investigative journalist. How about Ben Goldacre http://www.badscience.net/
He has a weekly column in the Guardian.

The whole thing is bad science anyway isn't it? Choose the result and get the data to fit it. I'm sure with the best of intentions.

I suspect that the media needs to be engaged with as well. They just have to realise that it is unjustified prejudice they are encouraging.


_________________
Scrape the surface of language, and you will behold interstellar space and the skin that encloses it

a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong gives it a superficial appearance of being right


youngdoug
Tufted Titmouse
Tufted Titmouse

User avatar

Joined: 6 Aug 2011
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 26
Location: United Kingdom

09 Aug 2011, 4:30 am

Ok, SBC has already participated an interview and it is interesting. His POV is nuanced.

http://tinyurl.com/3kpadqk

A lot of the problem revolves around his definition of empathy

Quote:
But you are right that different theorists may have different definitions of empathy. I don’t suggest mine is the only one, but it is one I find useful.


Here's a critique of his interview - which is possibly a bit unfair on SBC

http://tinyurl.com/3lq9hsd

Dunno what others think, but I suspect the no-empathy meme for those who want to think in stereotypes - can't deal in nuance. God nose there r enuff of 'em.

Not saying that SBC is right at all. The bugger is, go to read his book. Dam.


_________________
Scrape the surface of language, and you will behold interstellar space and the skin that encloses it

a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong gives it a superficial appearance of being right


angelalala
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2011
Age: 49
Gender: Female
Posts: 53

09 Aug 2011, 7:50 pm

Mirror neurons support stimulation of Theory of Mind; empathy in the sense of "affect sharing" is supported in different parts of the brain depending on what type of empathy it is (empathic responses to pain, to touch, to smell, etc). See: Singer, 2006



angelalala
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2011
Age: 49
Gender: Female
Posts: 53

09 Aug 2011, 7:56 pm

Also, I'm not entirely convinced that someone who puts out the amount of research that SBC does AND is related to Ali-G is necessarily NT.

Just sayin'.



aghogday
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Nov 2010
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,561

09 Aug 2011, 10:21 pm

Listening to the the answers in the interview, it seems like Cohen when pressed, doesn't deny much of what we are theorizing here: that some people with Autism have greater levels of empathy than others; that some have a great deal of affective empathy without the cognitive empathy; that some have deficits in both; and some are extreme cognitive system empathizers to the point where we expect people to play by the rules that we determine they should play by, from our own personal cognitive studies.

And, last but not least, empathy is not a static quality, it is affected by environment and can be muted or enhanced depending on circumstances; we learn TOM, but not necessarily as quickly as others.

I'm not trying to suggest he has aspergers, but he is obviously an extreme systemizer himself. Just out of curiosity, I did a search to see if anyone had an idea of what his personal SQ/EQ score is. Wasn't anywhere to be found; I'm surprised no one has asked him this question, but I guess it would take someone that thinks a little bit like him to ask him that question.

Scientists tested by Cohen's SQ/EQ tests score in the high range of SQ; Cohen is a scientist, so I'm not sure why he would be immune to what he is studying.

He doesn't seem to understand the emotional quotient too well, otherwise I doubt he would have called the theory the extreme male brain theory of Autism, focusing on the systemizing/empathy effect, ignoring so many other variables that are gendercentric. Definitely a sign of rigid thinking.

If he had been thinking out of the box he might have used the more detailed gender type brain tests and compared those to the SQ/EQ tests, as has been done on this site, although not a scientifically controlled measure.

If the results were the same as they have been here, I think he might have used a different term; perhaps extreme systemizing mind theory of Autism. On this site most women and men have scored high on the systemizing part of the tests with the SQ/EQ test of Cohen, but on the other hand, in the Brain Sex IQ test, that is much more comprehensive, the results are all over the board with women scoring higher than men at times, but most of the scores fairly neutral for both men and women.

Listening to him talk about autism and listening to Bill Gates talk about computers, would we be able to distinguish a difference, if we weren't previously aware that Gates was reported to have Aspergers?

Is there anything about Bill Gate's Aspergers that is impairing his life? He seems like one of the most well adjusted people that I have ever seen in the media. Whatever problems he may have had, he has adapted extremely well with his cognitive abilities. If there are similarities it is a focus and drive for each individual's special interests.

I think Cohen might be a bit "Bappy". My understanding is he came up with the Broad Autism Phenotype too.

He started out working, with Autistic Children that were severely debilitated with learning disabilities; it became his focus and passion to systematically understand the children as more than feral human beings; there is the potential that many of us could have been in similar situations, without a full understanding that we shared some of the same traits to a lesser degree.

As he stated in the interview, people with a lesser degree of empathy, do not understand themselves in relation to others as well as those with normal levels of empathy. If, so, he would not be immune to this either, so he might not be able to see it in himself as well.

I haven't seen a scientist yet, that I would measure as having a balance of SQ and EQ yet. most though, light up, when it is time to talk about their specific areas of interest.



youngdoug
Tufted Titmouse
Tufted Titmouse

User avatar

Joined: 6 Aug 2011
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 26
Location: United Kingdom

10 Aug 2011, 2:15 am

Quote:
Listening to the the answers in the interview, it seems like Cohen when pressed, doesn't deny much of what we are theorizing here: that some people with Autism have greater levels of empathy than others; that some have a great deal of affective empathy without the cognitive empathy; that some have deficits in both; and some are extreme cognitive system empathizers to the point where we expect people to play by the rules that we determine they should play by, from our own personal cognitive studies.

And, last but not least, empathy is not a static quality, it is affected by environment and can be muted or enhanced depending on circumstances; we learn TOM, but not necessarily as quickly as others
.

I haven't read the book yet but it seems that:
a) His definition of Empathy is shared universally
b) It's an overarching hypothesis, statistically derived (mainstream book - some cherry picking likely). Characteristics of individuals can't be derived from it.

Unfortunately a shedload (sic) of humans can not do nuance, ideas or statistical thinking. So they stereotype. After all, why use a brain if you can waste it?

SBC might be very wrong here, but I'm not sure that that is important to him. The book is likely enough a piece of speculative imagining/semi-trolling/flying a kite/profile raising.


_________________
Scrape the surface of language, and you will behold interstellar space and the skin that encloses it

a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong gives it a superficial appearance of being right


Xyzzy
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2011
Age: 58
Gender: Female
Posts: 126

11 Aug 2011, 11:55 am

I think that what it comes down to is that there are absolutely no absolutes.

All of this stuff is broad generalizations, assumptions and occassionaly some statistical analysis thrown in to support the case.

At the end of the day, we're all different and the more that the definition is narrowed, the more people end up falling outside of the criteria. However, if the definition is too broad, then it becomes meaningless. Baren-Cohen is in a difficult position of being expected to create very specificly shaped and sized pigeonholes and then being criticized because some of the pigeons fail to fit.

With that said, I do agree that a forum like this would provide an excellent sounding board for refining the definitions.

I'm new to all of this, but I've always beleived that it was wrong (not morally, but from an accuracy perspective) to say that someone "lacks empathy" or "lacks intelligence" or is "anti social" just because they're not typical in the way that their brain works. I'm a very compassionate person. I generally value the wellfare of other above my own. I'll help a stranger in need, I'll patiently listen to a friend who needs an ear, I love to teach. However, I find social pleasentries to be a waste of time. I have a very rational mind and I'll tend to be overly blunt and my ability to understand what others are feeling is more akin to Jane Goodall studying the apes than it is to instinctively "getting it" myself. Once I can analyze what's going on, I can usually connect it to my own experiences, but it's a logical rather than emotional process. Does that mean that I lack empathy or that I just have a different process? I excel at math and science and I can learn an entirely new programming language overnight, but I can't remember historical dates or names (or the names of characters in books that I'm reading). Does that mean that i lack memorization skills? I was hosting a conference call ever week and I'd open it exactly on time, every time. However, every week I'd get a message from one of the execs about 2-3 minutes before the call asking if I was going to start it. It wasn't until he bluntly asked me to open it five minutes early from now on that I understood what was going on. Does that make me stupid or imply that I lack intelligence?

I have a strong hunch that Aspies and some other ASD people have unique strengths and skills that could provide an advantage over NTs as the way that we communicate and interact changes. It's just a shame that most NTs are continually try to emulate "normal" using new technologies instead of recognizing and embracing the advantages of doing things differently. But that's a discussion for another thread.

Think Different(ly)


_________________
"You are in a maze of twisty passages, all alike"