Male Centric Autism Narrative and Undiagnosed Autistic Women

Post Reply New Topic

The evidence are they are both processes which are not being observed but the result is being seen. Of course it applies, it's the same thing. Unless you prove why it doesn't apply, you have no logical case. Again, abnormal empathy is NOT a lack of empathy. You are falling for dogma.

You need to have evidence that an analogy works before you apply it.
I didn't say that abnormal empathy is lack of empathy.
I said normal empathic behaviors indicate normal empathic eggsperience internally, unless behaviors were faked.
There can be normal and abnormal empathic behaviors in the same person.

If a child spontaneously comforts someone who just fell down and got hurt, that child is displaying a normal empathic behavior, and it is much more likely that such behavior comes from normal empathic internal eggsperience than something else.

"You need to have evidence that an analogy works before you apply it."
The evidence is they are the same type of system, that's how analogies work. Same structure, different specifics, same relative result. From what I see, it's self evident it's the same type of thing, you need to explain how it's not.

"I said normal empathic behaviors indicate normal empathic eggsperience internally, unless behaviors were faked."
Prove it. You're the one making the claim which I see no evidence for.

"If a child spontaneously comforts someone who just fell down and got hurt, that child is displaying a normal empathic behavior, and it is much more likely that such behavior comes from normal empathic internal eggsperience than something else." Why must one have a normal empathetic experience to comfort someone else? I can think of many other explanations which most people wouldn't consider faking, you don't need to fake anything to comfort someone. Anyway, I see no reason why an autistic person can't do this if the circumstances are right, so that's that.

It is not self-evident that an analogy applies to some other system, unless there is evidence that it does.
Popsci books are full of analogies that quickly break down to people who know the details.
Analogies in science are mainly useful to eggsplain something to people who don't know the details and want a general idea of some process.

The link between normal empathic behaviors and normal empathic eggsperience cannot be proved absolutely, but it has a lot more evidence for it in social cognition literature than normal empathic behaviors not indicating normal empathic eggsperience.

I am not saying that autistic children can't ever have normal empathic behaviors or eggsperience, I am saying that children with empathic behaviors are likely to be viewed differently in a less concerned way by adults than children who don't display these behaviors, and that these children are more mildly affected (or less delayed) in this area of empathic behavior/eggsperience than other children who have no empathic eggsperience and behaviors, so that is one reason that they might be diagnosed later than nonverbal, socially aloof children. They may not be fundamentally different from these other autistic children, just more mildly affected if they display more empathy, which is one factor that makes them appear socially more normal.

Amongst diagnosed autistic adults, there are plenty of people who have same brain responses as neurotypicals and same behavioral responses in expts and same self-reports on empathy measures. There are other people who differ on continuums of brain/behavioral/self-report measures. That is spectrum of given autistic trait, even within HFA group.

Some autistic people don't show superior visual search or embedded figures detection, they may perform in the middle range of neurotypical group. More spectrum of more autistic traits within HFA.

Some autistic children respond to their name just like neurotypical, others do sometimes, others do after many repetitions to get their attention, others almost never. More spectrum of this particular trait. Even within HFA, it is possible to find a child who almost never responds to own name.

I think that I have a lot of empathy for people who are busy students like high school or college or grad or other, as long as they are really busy in their academic pursuits, I empathize intuitively with them on that, because I have spent much of my life being really busy in this area. One thing that others and I say and mean the same when said is, "Life is a struggle."

But on different emotional things like hurt feelings, low self-esteem, or depression to give eggsamples, I don't empathize due to having much less direct eggsperience.

The parable of the blind men and the elephant comes to mind...

Ok, so what you are saying is what many have said all along: people empathize with those having similar experiences. If I understand you correctly, and I apologize if I am misunderstanding, I'm glad for you you've never been hurt to where you can relate to feeling hurt, confused, and sad, but why does that suggest to you that those feelings would differentiate autism from neurotypical experience? Or that the ability to recognize similar experience should be somehow restricted in autism? People here are able to provide more empathy for one another than many of us can find in the real world.

I don't think looking for how empathy is different in autistic children will be successful if one is looking for more than pattern to something specific and diagnostic because I don't believe lack of empathy is what defines autism, if anything it's a world lacking in empathy for those on the spectrum that's the major empathy issue I see and autism is about patterns of thinking and behavior, as well as communication, empathy is a byproduct not a primary defining characteristic IMO.

But it's nice to see you writing you are capable of empathy.

Also in terms of micro expressions, just as you say you see a puzzle and want to better understand it, so do I, so do others here. And that researching defining characteristics of autistic children may seem to you very different from my way of existing and thinking is ironic, isn't it? They're the same thing fundamentally, trying to better understand people, both of us. I don't mean that to be insulting, I just notice you seem to write what you think so want to feel free to do the same.

Sometimes the greatest breakthroughs come from thinking outside the box. I want you to do great work, Btbnnyr! So now I wonder, is it perhaps less a characteristic of the child and more a response to lack of empathy from others impacting many children, as in the intense world theory? I think though if what you want is ideas from verbal adults, you are getting a lot of responses from all ages and one thing that's missing here is a way to track those changes that likely occur as one learns and grows older. But feeling and expressing empathy don't make one normal, and doing it doesn't mean looking normal expressing empathy normally. Empathy is a separate construct. Related but separate, that I am convinced of.

In my experience, I have only attained "true" empathy once I've experienced the event/thing/experience for which I am called upon to empathize.

I have gotten in trouble in the past for not showing "true" empathy at the appropriate times.

Now, at age 54, I've gotten much better recently. This has helped me to grow as a person, and perhaps as a therapist, too.

Regarding the analogy, it's not the same as those as it's being used differently. It's not being used to explain a phenomenon, it's being used to demonstrate a fault in reasoning. Basically, just because something appears as something else doesn't necessarily mean they are the same. This is theory of knowledge, not pop psychology. You don't need evidence to apply logic, you just need to think. The fact is you already make an exception for faking it, so why can't their be other exceptions? Or else you just arbitrary set the limits for what is faking and real, and what is normal and abnormal to force it to fit the assumption.

"The link" Of course there is a link. That doesn't mean it's absolute. Only takes a single counterexample to refute the claim the it requires as such.

"later than nonverbal, socially aloof children." No no no no that's not what I'm talking about at all, how many times do I have to say it. Obviously nonverbal children are more likely to diagnosed, but I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about specifically within higher functioning females, that's where the huge disparity is. Is their a population of higher functioning autistic females that is less likely to be diagnosed than another population of equally high functioning females? I'm talking more about tomboys than the nonverbal here. By saying they come across as highly empathetic I don't mean they are less autistic, I mean they are more sensitive, which is generally regard as being more autistic, and are at least capable of empathetic concern, which is normal in autism. They aren't less autistic than the less sensitive and concerned tomboy, but they are seen as being such. And of course getting a skewed sample skews the results.

To return to the original topic, I think absolutely psychologists are less likely to diagnose a girl showing any social interest. My daughter was originally described by a psychologist as conclusively not on the spectrum because of this, and I think people are confused by my effort to be considerate and empathic when they clearly see me occasionally stim and struggle to understand the social context. I look at it that those of us who are confusing and can speak maybe have something to offer for understanding autism rather than stealing money and attention by taking resources away from others. But some people see learning to live in the world as incompatible with autism which I think is a cruel deprivation of hope to parents of kids on the spectrum and to ourselves as one really does not know at an early age how a child's life will be.

It's ridiculous to suppose that autism is inconsistent with functioning in the world. Many autistic people function quite well in the world, making adjustments (like NT's make adjustments).

Oh my, I hope I did not come on too strong!!

I'm only confirming what you said...about doctors having distortions about autism in females (and autism in general). You didn't come on strong. You came on like the rainbow Waterfall that you are.

When people say that autistic people cannot communicate with others, they are repeating the old notions of autism.

The evidence on sensory processing in autism is mixed, and there is no general consensus that more sensitive means more autistic. In sensory studies, sometimes there is hypersensitivity in asd vs. nt, sometimes hyposensitivity, often no differences across multiple measures in same study, or lack of repeated differences shown by more than one study to have confidence to conclude that more sensitive means more autistic. Sometimes, hyper is associated with poorer functioning, sometimes hypo is associated.

One thing that has been repeatedly found is that less brain/behavior responses to social stimuli in expt tasks seems to correlate with more autistic behaviors and social/communication impairments, either observed or self-reported.

In ackshul doing of science, esp. cognitive, there are not really clear-cut countereggsamples, as used in series of logic statements. Instead, people can only compare what there is more vs. less evidence for, what has more vs. less clear mechanism, what has been detected more vs. less proportion of the time. Even in physical science, things are not so clear-cut.

I said NOTHING about sensory processing. The closest technical term to more sensitive here would having poor emotional regulation, which is definitely more autistic. Anyway, it's not a linear relationship, either extreme is less NT. More sensitive DOES mean more autistic, but so does less sensitive. That's the problem with slapping number on things and getting caught up in the psychometrics while forgetting reality.

If the fact is factual and it doesn't fit the theory, the theory is wrong. You just get more legroom in social sciences to deny facts as being factual.