Why is this website WrongPlanet against Simon Baron-Cohen?

Post Reply New Topic

I have heard him make differentiation between cognitive empathy (being able to read how others are feeling) and affective empathy (being able to experience how others might feel), and that autistics lack the former but not the latter and that sociopaths lack the latter but not the former. Honestly, that sounds rather accurate to me.

I join in the club of people who are surprised that the guy gets hate around here, unless there are details in his research that are clearly wrong that I am unaware of.

This thing is from Israel I don't think the world needs empathy lessons from those people.


The only cone I want is with my ice cream.

Last edited by sharkattack on 18 Feb 2013, 11:15 pm, edited 3 times in total.

Well, that does make more sense. And explains why sociopaths are considered charming and being master manipulators - if you have a knack for reading and interpreting other peoples' state of mind, you learn how to use it to your advantage to get the most favourable response. I don't know enough of his work though to form an opinion yet though.

That was his initial idea, he has since come out and said people who are on the spectrum lack any kind of empathy, both cognitive and affective.

Is there any documentation that demonstrates his addressing this shift in opinion?

All of his latest books and papers on the subject. One book zero degree of empathy states it very clearly.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/ ... aron-cohen

It looks like this confirms it. Well, in this case, lump me in the disagreement camp because he is just dead wrong on our lack of affective empathy. To the person who mentioned Freud, I can actually see a parallel. He seems to assume that our "strong moral codes" are logically-derived, much like Freud's superego.

I'm an ethical pragmatist (hence, no real emotional attachment to deantological ethical theories), but I know certain things cause deep emotional impact whenever I see them (physical pain, emotional suffering, torture, desperation, etc.). If he is implying that these triggered emotional reactions from me have nothing to do with empathy, then what the hell IS affective empathy?

l read that article.

O_____________________O The extreme female brain theory is bogus. Or at least rare, and l wouldn't put some of the types of women in that category of pure altruists who seek no gain. So now l have about the same regard for his Extreme Male Brain Theory, his extremes are not working lol.

Looks like people are conveniently turning a blind eye to the Martyr complex. l seldom believe anyone who sacrifices their own needs on a regular basis and makes a show of doing so EVER has pure intentions and in my experience they don't

They are deeply damaged types who are excellent at reading people and at their cores, have next or NO affective empathy. Essentially the same as the psychopaths he was describing. But to be fair, they may have just enough to set them apart from that group.

No "6"s on that ridiculous scale, though.

l'm sorry he's giving those on the spectrum this reputation o_O

l think it's fair to say autistics could lack in cognitive empathy on a spectrum itself and lack in affective empathy on a similar spectrum, very rarely double 0s. And an autist could easily and maybe frequently be a cognitive 0 and an affective 5 or 6.

lf they weren',t l truly believe they would just lash out violently. Maybe the 0 positives are autistic psychopaths.

Hmm, makes you wonder what a person with very low both cognitive and affective empathy with addition of sadistic and narcissistic traits would be like. I think history can provide a few examples of a monster like that.

I could be mistaken but...racist much?

Yeah, l've seen narcissists with pretty much zero social intuition, too so l think his entire scale is whack.

He's only considering the charming types. lt's also interesting that he acknowledges these people can lack a true soul while being charming but shrugs the possibility of an autistic person not being a charmer but still being a decent human being.

I am curious. What kind of research methods is this guy using? I know that psychologists (and most social scientists, for that matter) are notorious for using metrics that only prove correlations, and then make inane theories trumpeting causal relationships to give themselves names in their fields. Sigmund f*****g Freud, anyone?

My frustration with the theory aside, I do think it is important to see what this research actually is, and whether or not it is valid. Are there any people here with academic backgrounds in research psychology or neuroscience who can comment?

People tell me I am charming and a decent human being (I question the second part myself, done some disturbing things in my time). But that is due to me trying to be one.
I have some histrionic eccentricities both in good and bad taste (essentially, I've been raised by 6 women), as I evolved them in order to connect with people. I also learned how to perceive people in a better light after my hospitalization and succeeding involvement in various programs at my clinic over a decade ago following a suicide attempt.
The fact that my cognitive empathy is very low (I smile more or less as a developed reflex and try to have an attentive/serene look when listening to people, but quite enjoy "sharing" a laugh. I do get a bit of the "someone you see got kicked in the balls" feeling), does not mean I can't or don't want to sympathize.
Do I lack a "soul" because I act my way through social interactions (what an exercise in patience and focus it is)?
Am I twisted because I posses and work on a rather narcissistic view of what I perceive as beautiful?
I find people, life and the Universe all fascinating and always want to learn more about them.
If I can do that and try to be nice to others while causing them as little harm as possible, I don't mind being labeled in any way that people want to see me (obviously some labels will be bad and some will be good).
Morality is a very precious and fragile plaything.
Cheers

Hehe, no l don't think you lack a soul at all.

These proposed "00's'' would and it goes against some pretty classic AS traits you mentioned. l don't think these people would be curious types at all, there's no motivation to learn about the world if you truly harbor no interest in it whatsoever.

Very unlike AS in some ways and seems more like the misanthropic NTs who aren't intellectually curious but only curious enough to decode other people and manipulate them.

And l think male and female psychopaths and narcissists exist side by side with differences in the way the traits manifest and that the supposed double 6's are usually closer to being female psychopaths anyway so the way he tries to put autism at the extreme opposite end of this alleged extreme female brain is o_O

This guy is an a**hole and that scale was actually suggested to be in the DSM. l think people need to make noise about this but at least that didn't happen.

I've read Zero Degrees of Empathy and found it rather problematic and not particularly supported in the sense that the science probably does not say what SBC says it is saying.

For example, he uses BPD as an example of a zero empathy condition. It should be pointed out that people with BPD tend to score high on SBC's empathy tools: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19460187

he also appropriates urban legends and relates them as personal anecdotes:

http://incorrectpleasures.blogspot.com/ ... ohens.html

As far as extreme male brains go, this study found that autism actually attenuates gender differences so that autistic male brains and autistic female brains are more similar to each other than NT male and NT female brains are.

That is in contrast to what I have read him say in interviews. In one interview he said that autistic people are very caring and if they find an animal which is hurt, they will care for it, while a psychopath doesn't care.