Have you wondered where the claim that autistic people lack empathy came from?
-
Autistic participants were more likely than non-autistic participants to say Sally was to blame, despite her good intentions.
This was interpreted as evidence of faulty moral reasoning or reduced empathy.
But that conclusion rests on three errors of logic built into the task itself, and not on evidence that autistic people care less about others.
️@KatyElphinstone that's so revealing. i care more about the person who *died* because sally was objectively wrong. sally should feel responsible!
-
Autistic people, after all, are known for preferring logic (I certainly do).
And we’re also known for thinking outside the box – meaning that if we’re forced to make false decisions based on faulty assumptions, then we are quite likely to make the ‘wrong’ choice.
Interested to hear others’ thoughts on this! And I’ll be looking for another influential study to look closely at.
I really enjoy analyzing things!
End of thread. 🧵
@KatyElphinstone@mas.to There is something to the blame vs responsibility view. The question was put to "high functioning" autistics, meaning that those were pretty good at masking, and anticipating the social discourse. The general experience and script is, the victim will be blamed .
That's how we get through life, by correctly anticipating what realistic reactions will be. From my experience, NT people react pretty badly when I apply my masking prediction scripts to hypothetical, isolated scenarios, because they think that society isn't like that. And suddenly we're painted "deficient", because our experience based scripting reflects a pretty awful picture of society instead of the lip service expected in hypothetical, artificial scenarios. -
Have you wondered where the claim that autistic people lack empathy came from?
The “jellyfish” study (2011) was influential in this, as it concluded that autistic people lacked Theory of Mind & capacity for moral reasoning.
https://medicalxpress.com/news/2011-01-autistic-mind.html
In the fictional scenario given to participants, Sally tells a friend it’s safe to swim with jellyfish. She believes they’re harmless. The friend is stung and dies.
️ #Autism #Empathy #Neurodiversity #Psychology #TheoryofMind #ActuallyAutistic
I agree with your analysis of the question and situation 100%
Unfortunately, researchers forming bad questions/scenarios re ethics/morality is the rule rather than the exception.
IME, researchers who have little to no background in philosophy tend to import a lot of unnoticed philosophical baggage into their work. Usually it goes unnoticed by peers who likewise lack the exposure.
-
Autistic participants were more likely than non-autistic participants to say Sally was to blame, despite her good intentions.
This was interpreted as evidence of faulty moral reasoning or reduced empathy.
But that conclusion rests on three errors of logic built into the task itself, and not on evidence that autistic people care less about others.
️@KatyElphinstone I've always felt this case so strange because the concept of accidental manslaughter does exist in at least US law. Just because you didn't mean to, doesn't mean the person is less dead. And in this case the friend acted as an authority on a topic when they didn't have all the facts. In a different setting that could be medical malpractice or negligence. I'm not saying she needs to be in jail or anything, but some blame is certainly there and not seeing it feels wild to me
-
@KatyElphinstone i think the only differences i would have with you are semantic. in fact the whole problem seems to be one of semantics: what does "blame" mean?
Yes, Janet is "to blame"; her advice directly lead to a death. That doesn't mean that she should be punished! that's a whole other question!
i think the questioners are failing to recognise that "blame" has a variety of different meanings here — as many autists would have happilly pointed out to them…
@fishidwardrobe @KatyElphinstone
Exactly, "blame" is an imprecise term used to mean be at fault, or have responsibility, or be a causal factor, or be a scapegoat, or combinations thereof. -
@fishidwardrobe @KatyElphinstone
Exactly, "blame" is an imprecise term used to mean be at fault, or have responsibility, or be a causal factor, or be a scapegoat, or combinations thereof.@HighlandLawyer @KatyElphinstone right!
-
I agree with your analysis of the question and situation 100%
Unfortunately, researchers forming bad questions/scenarios re ethics/morality is the rule rather than the exception.
IME, researchers who have little to no background in philosophy tend to import a lot of unnoticed philosophical baggage into their work. Usually it goes unnoticed by peers who likewise lack the exposure.
Everyone tends to have some basic first principles about morality that they are attached to prior to doing any reading in the subject.
For example: Intentions > consequences, Consequences > intentions, Individuals > collective, Collective > individuals, Tradition > relevant facts, Relevant facts > tradition, etc.
These intuitions can vary wildly between people who otherwise seem similar. Plus they often vary by context.
But how often are researchers aware of and accounting for their own intuitions? Unclear but I suspect it is proportional to the number of STEM grads who took a lot of humanities courses.
-
I’ve noticed that being innocent of knowledge is a good defense for many crimes in our society.
Those with the most power to change things seem to often be the most innocent of knowledge.
While people who are marginalized, discriminated against, and who don’t have much in the way of resources, influence, or free time...
️@KatyElphinstone
There's a common term in a lot of laws "knew or should reasonably have known" specifically to stop people turning a blind eye to something & claiming innocence by reason of not knowing. -
@fishidwardrobe @KatyElphinstone
Exactly, "blame" is an imprecise term used to mean be at fault, or have responsibility, or be a causal factor, or be a scapegoat, or combinations thereof.@HighlandLawyer @fishidwardrobe
Exactly this.
-
Everyone tends to have some basic first principles about morality that they are attached to prior to doing any reading in the subject.
For example: Intentions > consequences, Consequences > intentions, Individuals > collective, Collective > individuals, Tradition > relevant facts, Relevant facts > tradition, etc.
These intuitions can vary wildly between people who otherwise seem similar. Plus they often vary by context.
But how often are researchers aware of and accounting for their own intuitions? Unclear but I suspect it is proportional to the number of STEM grads who took a lot of humanities courses.
Or to those who did not
-
Autistic people, after all, are known for preferring logic (I certainly do).
And we’re also known for thinking outside the box – meaning that if we’re forced to make false decisions based on faulty assumptions, then we are quite likely to make the ‘wrong’ choice.
Interested to hear others’ thoughts on this! And I’ll be looking for another influential study to look closely at.
I really enjoy analyzing things!
End of thread. 🧵
i'm making some assumptions drawn from my own life, but i experienced a lot of bullying as a kid and i wonder if this isn't common among people with neurodivergence. that might leave someone predisposed to judge outcomes (even if not consciously).
as a kid it was hard for me to tell if someone was being sincere or lying to get me into an unsafe situation. others with similar experiences might focus more on making up their own mind and evaluating what they think will happen as a survival strategy.
-
@KatyElphinstone@mas.to There is something to the blame vs responsibility view. The question was put to "high functioning" autistics, meaning that those were pretty good at masking, and anticipating the social discourse. The general experience and script is, the victim will be blamed .
That's how we get through life, by correctly anticipating what realistic reactions will be. From my experience, NT people react pretty badly when I apply my masking prediction scripts to hypothetical, isolated scenarios, because they think that society isn't like that. And suddenly we're painted "deficient", because our experience based scripting reflects a pretty awful picture of society instead of the lip service expected in hypothetical, artificial scenarios.@thatfrisiangirlish @KatyElphinstone good point, i think.
-
R ActivityRelay shared this topic
-
Autistic people, after all, are known for preferring logic (I certainly do).
And we’re also known for thinking outside the box – meaning that if we’re forced to make false decisions based on faulty assumptions, then we are quite likely to make the ‘wrong’ choice.
Interested to hear others’ thoughts on this! And I’ll be looking for another influential study to look closely at.
I really enjoy analyzing things!
End of thread. 🧵
@KatyElphinstone I like to say there's always another option in a forced binary choice. Like the trolley problem - group A or group B gets killed: you choose. What about slipping the points so the trolley doesn't hit either group? These contrived problems often assume there is no 3rd option, without ever considering if there is one. I think Autistics are much more likely to identify the "3rd option". I've often found myself in work situations where management have identified the "two possible" solutions, and I've been called awkward for asking about the (to me) third option they never even identified.
-
Have you wondered where the claim that autistic people lack empathy came from?
The “jellyfish” study (2011) was influential in this, as it concluded that autistic people lacked Theory of Mind & capacity for moral reasoning.
https://medicalxpress.com/news/2011-01-autistic-mind.html
In the fictional scenario given to participants, Sally tells a friend it’s safe to swim with jellyfish. She believes they’re harmless. The friend is stung and dies.
️ #Autism #Empathy #Neurodiversity #Psychology #TheoryofMind #ActuallyAutistic
@KatyElphinstone
This is a worthless scenario and false conclusion.Arrogant idiots. What sort of peer review was there?
-
@KatyElphinstone@mas.to There is something to the blame vs responsibility view. The question was put to "high functioning" autistics, meaning that those were pretty good at masking, and anticipating the social discourse. The general experience and script is, the victim will be blamed .
That's how we get through life, by correctly anticipating what realistic reactions will be. From my experience, NT people react pretty badly when I apply my masking prediction scripts to hypothetical, isolated scenarios, because they think that society isn't like that. And suddenly we're painted "deficient", because our experience based scripting reflects a pretty awful picture of society instead of the lip service expected in hypothetical, artificial scenarios.@thatfrisiangirlish @KatyElphinstone Depressingly true. People think I'm gloomy or misanthropic because I paint what I think are accurate, dispassionate pictures of folks' behaviour.
And yet, I somehow still seem to be more (cautiously) optimistic in my interactions with strangers than lots of NT people where preconception seems to shape reality.
-
@KatyElphinstone
This is a worthless scenario and false conclusion.Arrogant idiots. What sort of peer review was there?
@raymaccarthy @KatyElphinstone
Don't blame the paper authors. They likely don't have a theory of mind.
-
@KatyElphinstone IMO the book where Sally read about it is to blame. But then again I like splitting hairs
@farah @KatyElphinstone
.
the google AI killed them, my thought too. We wouldn’t blame the person who actually looked it up before they answered! -
Have you wondered where the claim that autistic people lack empathy came from?
The “jellyfish” study (2011) was influential in this, as it concluded that autistic people lacked Theory of Mind & capacity for moral reasoning.
https://medicalxpress.com/news/2011-01-autistic-mind.html
In the fictional scenario given to participants, Sally tells a friend it’s safe to swim with jellyfish. She believes they’re harmless. The friend is stung and dies.
️ #Autism #Empathy #Neurodiversity #Psychology #TheoryofMind #ActuallyAutistic
@KatyElphinstone I have always resented hypothetical questions like that and felt the urge to invent scenarios consistent with the given facts that go in both directions. Perhaps relatedly, I've wanted to write fiction since I was a child....
Scenario 1: Sally has just taken a course on ocean swimming safety, but slacked off and cheated to pass the final.
Scenario 2: Sally has an abusive parent who has actively deceived Sally about what is and is not safe because they wish her harm.
-
Autistic people, after all, are known for preferring logic (I certainly do).
And we’re also known for thinking outside the box – meaning that if we’re forced to make false decisions based on faulty assumptions, then we are quite likely to make the ‘wrong’ choice.
Interested to hear others’ thoughts on this! And I’ll be looking for another influential study to look closely at.
I really enjoy analyzing things!
End of thread. 🧵
@KatyElphinstone
.
Thing is, when I as an Autistic blame someone or something, I’m just identifying the causal chain of events - there’s nothing “moral,” about it.
.
It’s a “moral,” matter when you’re planning to punish who or whatever caused the problem. As a lifelong God’s fool sort of Autistic, that isn’t automatic, in fact I try to never punish anyone for anything.
.
So “blame,” is a word that means different things to different neurotypes, making these tests faulty from the start. We’re suppose to lack empathy because for them, blaming Sally means hurting Sally, which it doesn’t for me.
.
Worse, their version includes punishment, and they think that’s Human Nature and true for everyone so they don’t even try to compensate for that confound.
🤨
.
#ND #ActuallyAutistic #Autism @autistics -
what kind of sociopath considers empathy for the dead a sign of disability?
we are dealing with the limited information we are given. we could speculate outside these parameters but that is most likely not reflected in the answers to choose.
it’s almost as if the test was created to prove cultural assumptions that say empathy for those we kill with our willful ignorance is a disability.
@blogdiva @KatyElphinstone the kind who’s concerned more about their own potential culpability than the fact that people are dead.
We could be equally callous and assert that neurotypicals are more likely not to blame Sally for the death of her friend because they identify more with the alive person and their self-preservation compels them to deny any responsibility.
These kinds of studies always end up showing how effed up neurotypical tendencies are.
