empathy and NT medical reporting of autistics
Hello, I got into a debate with someone over on a friend's LJ and basically need autistic help here. I'm going to have to c & p large parts of the conversation so you know what I'm talking about, and then I'd be really interested to hear what people here have to say about it, and if anyone's got any links that would back up my position then I'd like to have them; bear in mind of course that replies may well be seen by the other person in this debate. I apologise for the length of the post, but I'm not great at summarising things like this:
"...the assumption that autistics lack theory of mind and thus empathy is really, really not true and is harmful to autistics. Most of us feel things more than might be considered normal, not less, but we don't show it in the expected ways and/or at the expected things, so we're assumed to lack empathy. In my experience and that of most of my autistic friends, it's neurotypicals who are more likely to lack empathy, they're just really good at saying/doing the stuff that makes it look like they care."
Them:
"As far as I am aware the research supports my original statement. I'd be willing to be proved wrong however."
me:
"The research was done by neurotypicals who were arrogant enough not to think they needed to ask actual autistics,and as long as attitudes like "I'm not going to listen to what actual autistics say, the research supports it!" continue to inform people's decisions regarding how they think about and behave towards autistics, we're not going to get anywhere and more of us are going to be mistreated. You're unlikely to be proved wrong by anything official because oh look, the people who do the studies and write the official guides are NT and often just work from what other NTs have said in the past. Or they talk to NT parents of autistic kids. When autistics do try and speak up, we're silenced or ignored."
them:
"So is your position that the research is invalid because of the people who conducted it?
Is that not just an appeal to special authority?
It's a poor argument."
me:
"My position is that the research is invalid because autistics themselves, about whom it's all been written without their input, say it's not true. It's not an appeal to special authority, it's making the point that if you're going to write/read something about a group of people and then ignore them when they say what you've written/read is inaccurate, you're going to be getting a lot of stuff wrong."
them:
"if you're going to write/read something about a group of people and then ignore them when they say what you've written/read is inaccurate, you're going to be getting a lot of stuff wrong.
Which is not always true. I many cases I'd see it's probably rarely true.
It is also a special appeal to the authority of people on the ASD spectrum. As it claims that the research is invalid because the privilidged information that only one with Autism has is being ignored by "NT's".
Furthermore without alternative explanations for the results of "NT" research it's not a particularly satisfying line of argument - all it does is ask me to ignore the scientific consensus on the basis of a politically motivated position.
There are many ways this debate could continue in a fruitful and interesting fashion:-
There is a strong case to be made that the interpretation may be wrong, but to show that you'd have to reinterpret the research results and show why they were wrong.
(Just saying they are because someone or a group of people say it is doesn't make it so.)
Alternatively you could pick apart the operationalisation of terms or methods used. The operationalisation of terms would be particularly fertile ground I imagine because you could probably construct quite a convincing and intelligent argument against how "theory of mind" is defined. The construct likely has a fair few chinks in the armour that potentially could be exposed."
me:
"It is also a special appeal to the authority of people on the ASD spectrum.
Why on earth should we not be given authority when it comes to speaking about and describing how our own minds work?
all it does is ask me to ignore the scientific consensus on the basis of a politically motivated position.
Firstly, the scientific consensus is given a lot more credit than it deserves in many areas, and patients (not that I consider autism an illness, but I am for the moment not only talking about autism) of all types are suffering because they're not being listened to.
Secondly, I'm not asking you to ignore it; I'm asking you to accept that it is not necessarily true, and that a lot of autistics reject many of the medically-approved stereotypes which abound. Thirdly, I know the personal is political and all that, but saying that it's a politically-motivated position and seemingly dismissing it on those grounds is ignoring the fact that very real damage is being done to people's lives because those in authority won't listen to us about how things really are.
I'm not a scientist by any means, so reinterpreting the research results is beyond me, and in any case, that'd be a pretty major project; a lot of the time, that's part of what people do when minority groups speak up and say "the accepted wisdom about us is inaccurate" - the privileged groups say "well, do a shedload of work that you're not in any position to do, and prove it is" which they know is an unrealistic request, so they get to carry on ignoring the truth.
(Just saying they are because someone or a group of people say it is doesn't make it so.)
But it's not just any old random group of people. It's the people about whom the inaccurate stuff has been written. Our realities are being denied every day. And yet non-autistics get to say how things are all the time, and that seemingly makes it so, because they're the ones in the privileged majority.
Look, I have fibromyalgia, a hell of a long-term migraine and a really rubbish rural internet connection, but I'd be happy to try and find links to stuff that might better illustrate what I'm trying to say. It might take a week or so because of the previously-mentioned difficulties but I'm clearly not doing a very good job of making my point and I'd like to get it across more effectively."
They conveniently ignored everything I said about privileged groups etc and replied with
"I'd be happy to read them, but there's no rush I have comment notifications on and the like."
Basically, this all looks like a lot of "LA LA LA I'M NOT LISTENING" to me, and I had a hell of a job trying to keep my temper with this person who was bordering on pompous and condescending, to my mind, though I understand that may not have been their intent. There aren't any bloody studies showing that autistics have empathy because we're not the ones in charge of who gets funding and credibility, funny enough. Can anyone here back me up and/or link me to articles which support my position? I've had almost no chance to do any research of my own because I live in rural Ireland and our internet connection is nonexistent 90% of the time lately.
"...the assumption that autistics lack theory of mind and thus empathy is really, really not true and is harmful to autistics. Most of us feel things more than might be considered normal, not less, but we don't show it in the expected ways and/or at the expected things, so we're assumed to lack empathy. In my experience and that of most of my autistic friends, it's neurotypicals who are more likely to lack empathy, they're just really good at saying/doing the stuff that makes it look like they care."
Them:
"As far as I am aware the research supports my original statement. I'd be willing to be proved wrong however."
me:
"The research was done by neurotypicals who were arrogant enough not to think they needed to ask actual autistics,and as long as attitudes like "I'm not going to listen to what actual autistics say, the research supports it!" continue to inform people's decisions regarding how they think about and behave towards autistics, we're not going to get anywhere and more of us are going to be mistreated. You're unlikely to be proved wrong by anything official because oh look, the people who do the studies and write the official guides are NT and often just work from what other NTs have said in the past. Or they talk to NT parents of autistic kids. When autistics do try and speak up, we're silenced or ignored."
them:
"So is your position that the research is invalid because of the people who conducted it?
Is that not just an appeal to special authority?
It's a poor argument."
me:
"My position is that the research is invalid because autistics themselves, about whom it's all been written without their input, say it's not true. It's not an appeal to special authority, it's making the point that if you're going to write/read something about a group of people and then ignore them when they say what you've written/read is inaccurate, you're going to be getting a lot of stuff wrong."
them:
"if you're going to write/read something about a group of people and then ignore them when they say what you've written/read is inaccurate, you're going to be getting a lot of stuff wrong.
Which is not always true. I many cases I'd see it's probably rarely true.
It is also a special appeal to the authority of people on the ASD spectrum. As it claims that the research is invalid because the privilidged information that only one with Autism has is being ignored by "NT's".
Furthermore without alternative explanations for the results of "NT" research it's not a particularly satisfying line of argument - all it does is ask me to ignore the scientific consensus on the basis of a politically motivated position.
There are many ways this debate could continue in a fruitful and interesting fashion:-
There is a strong case to be made that the interpretation may be wrong, but to show that you'd have to reinterpret the research results and show why they were wrong.
(Just saying they are because someone or a group of people say it is doesn't make it so.)
Alternatively you could pick apart the operationalisation of terms or methods used. The operationalisation of terms would be particularly fertile ground I imagine because you could probably construct quite a convincing and intelligent argument against how "theory of mind" is defined. The construct likely has a fair few chinks in the armour that potentially could be exposed."
me:
"It is also a special appeal to the authority of people on the ASD spectrum.
Why on earth should we not be given authority when it comes to speaking about and describing how our own minds work?
all it does is ask me to ignore the scientific consensus on the basis of a politically motivated position.
Firstly, the scientific consensus is given a lot more credit than it deserves in many areas, and patients (not that I consider autism an illness, but I am for the moment not only talking about autism) of all types are suffering because they're not being listened to.
Secondly, I'm not asking you to ignore it; I'm asking you to accept that it is not necessarily true, and that a lot of autistics reject many of the medically-approved stereotypes which abound. Thirdly, I know the personal is political and all that, but saying that it's a politically-motivated position and seemingly dismissing it on those grounds is ignoring the fact that very real damage is being done to people's lives because those in authority won't listen to us about how things really are.
I'm not a scientist by any means, so reinterpreting the research results is beyond me, and in any case, that'd be a pretty major project; a lot of the time, that's part of what people do when minority groups speak up and say "the accepted wisdom about us is inaccurate" - the privileged groups say "well, do a shedload of work that you're not in any position to do, and prove it is" which they know is an unrealistic request, so they get to carry on ignoring the truth.
(Just saying they are because someone or a group of people say it is doesn't make it so.)
But it's not just any old random group of people. It's the people about whom the inaccurate stuff has been written. Our realities are being denied every day. And yet non-autistics get to say how things are all the time, and that seemingly makes it so, because they're the ones in the privileged majority.
Look, I have fibromyalgia, a hell of a long-term migraine and a really rubbish rural internet connection, but I'd be happy to try and find links to stuff that might better illustrate what I'm trying to say. It might take a week or so because of the previously-mentioned difficulties but I'm clearly not doing a very good job of making my point and I'd like to get it across more effectively."
They conveniently ignored everything I said about privileged groups etc and replied with
"I'd be happy to read them, but there's no rush I have comment notifications on and the like."
Basically, this all looks like a lot of "LA LA LA I'M NOT LISTENING" to me, and I had a hell of a job trying to keep my temper with this person who was bordering on pompous and condescending, to my mind, though I understand that may not have been their intent. There aren't any bloody studies showing that autistics have empathy because we're not the ones in charge of who gets funding and credibility, funny enough. Can anyone here back me up and/or link me to articles which support my position? I've had almost no chance to do any research of my own because I live in rural Ireland and our internet connection is nonexistent 90% of the time lately.