Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums Age or Ability Specific Forums Pre-school Gifted or Aspergers?

Not everyone agrees. Some people with autism pass TOM tests with no trouble.

Simon Baron Cohen's work (asserting that autism is explained by lack of empathy and lack of TOM) has had a lot of press, so it's widely known, but not everyone in the scientific community agrees with it.

For example:
http://cdp.sagepub.com/content/16/6/311.abstract

Many Autistic people feel that not only is SB-C wrong, but his ideas are defamatory and dehumanizing. It is easy to find these critiques with Google.

Interesting. Now I'm trying to remember what I was taught (I'm a TA and have training in this area). We did cover theory of mind in some detail with specific examples of how to identify it, but I can't recall now if it was considered a given in Autism or if it's simply a characteristic that many but not all share. The students on the spectrum who I've worked with definitely lacked it, and I had a student who was very spectrum-like in other ways but failed to meet the criteria for ASD, and he had good theory of mind. But maybe my exposure has been too limited.

It just goes to show you how much of a "spectrum" this profile really is... as they say, when you've met one person with Autism, you've met one person with Autism.

And also that ideas and stereotypes that float around as "maybes" in the press are highly influential-- whether or not they are true.

"Awareness" is good but not always sufficient for understanding of a particular person's needs. IMO.

I did not mean to imply that your post was uninformative. I meant my post to be supplemental to yours, to put Autism Speaks as an organization into context for people who may be unaware of the impact they have had on the autistic community at large. To some, Autism Speaks represents everything that is wrong with the public perception and focus of autism research and does not speak for autistics. Linking to a glossary of terms from the Autism Speaks website is somewhat akin to linking to a glossary of LGBTQ terms from the Westboro Baptist Church website. The organization itself becomes the elephant in the room.

Here is a post fairly typical example of the sentiment against Autism Speaks: http://thescientificparent.org/autism-speaks-but-does-it-listen/

The glossary of terms is benign enough, though overall I would question the motives of what is included and what is not. The page seems rather focused on differentiating between normal and abnormal behavior - including "Red Flags for ASD."

They mention John Elder Robison on the Asperger's page. What they do not mention is that he resigned his role at Autism Speaks in disgust: http://jerobison.blogspot.com/2013/11/i-resign-my-roles-at-autism-speaks.html

Your analogy is unfair. WBC is just vile. Austism Speaks is not in the same category.

Would you share the main points in Theory of Mind (TOM) which are found to be defamatory/dehumanizing?

For a bit of balanced perspective, the 2007 abstract which you linked states, in part "Current research supports the view that autism involves delays and deficits not only in the development of a theory of mind but also in additional aspects of social-affective information processing that extend beyond the traditional boundaries of theory of mind." This does not seem to strongly counter the work of SB-C, but rather continues research of his work from nearly 30 years ago.

Regarding a question posed in the abstract, "How can we explain why some children with autism pass theory-of-mind tasks?", it is my understanding that some individuals may successfully answer social questions in an academic sense, but are unable to apply the information in context, at the opportune moment.

Simon Baron-Cohen's Theory of Mind hypothesis dates to 1987, and he is currently associated with Cambridge University and the Autism Research Centre (ARC) in the UK, and is an author/co-author of several books. Although his work may be controversial, he has demonstrated considerable perseverance, dedication, and productivity.

IMO, Rachel Cohen-Rottenberg makes a fairly strong refutation here: https://autismandempathyblog.wordpr...hizing-systemizing-e-s-theory-of-autism/

The claim that Autistic people have "no empathy" may be understood (and has been used) as a way to see them as less than fully human.

Baron-Cohen links autism to psychopathy, in which "empathy deficits" lead to acts of cruelty or violence. This despite the fact that autistic people are more likely to be victims of violence than perpetrators of violence. (His theory of empathy is more complex than this, but what gets coverage is the gist of it.)

This kind of characterization of Autistic people is only one part of a larger problem of understanding and (dare I say it) empathy. When a homicidal parent kills an autistic child (happens a couple of times a year in the US), the press often demonizes the child as "impossible" to live with or care for, lacking all loving reciprocity-- thus implicitly justifying the parent's actions.

Indigo, I do not understand what your stake is in this conversation, but no one censored your post (as you claimed). You in turn have not justified your continued defenses of Autism Speaks (on this and other threads).

Agreed. How is it censorship to present another perspective and say that not everyone agrees with Autism Speaks? No one demanded your post be taken down. More context and an alternate POV were presented.

Not wishing to stray off-topic, I'll address your post briefly: I make no "continued defenses" of Autism Speaks. Would you point me to the words in my posts which cause you to believe I've made "continued defenses" of this organization?