Honesty, deception, and autism
October 4, 2007 9:50 AM Subscribe
An interesting article by Simon Baron-Cohen on honesty, deception, and autism.
That guy who plays Borat is a lot deeper than I had originally thought...
posted by horsemuth at 9:55 AM on October 4, 2007
posted by horsemuth at 9:55 AM on October 4, 2007
That guy who plays Borat is a lot deeper than I had originally thought...
L to the fuckin' O L.
posted by phaedon at 10:00 AM on October 4, 2007
L to the fuckin' O L.
posted by phaedon at 10:00 AM on October 4, 2007
SOMETHING ABOUT BORAT
posted by DU at 10:08 AM on October 4, 2007 [4 favorites]
posted by DU at 10:08 AM on October 4, 2007 [4 favorites]
Mentally or physically retired?
posted by Artw at 10:09 AM on October 4, 2007 [1 favorite]
posted by Artw at 10:09 AM on October 4, 2007 [1 favorite]
That's the guy who played Borat!
...not!
posted by Pope Guilty at 10:10 AM on October 4, 2007 [1 favorite]
...not!
posted by Pope Guilty at 10:10 AM on October 4, 2007 [1 favorite]
Another sign of autism: Giving up on that test because "frequently" and "easily" are ill-defined.
posted by DU at 10:11 AM on October 4, 2007
posted by DU at 10:11 AM on October 4, 2007
lolborat
posted by exlotuseater at 10:12 AM on October 4, 2007
posted by exlotuseater at 10:12 AM on October 4, 2007
I remember a documentary about /savants/autism/ where a bunch of autistic kids were given the task of watching a politician giving a TV speech. For the researchers and the casual onlooker, it seemed like any other political speech, but the kids kept roaring with laughter at what they perceived was obviously deceitful behavior by the politician. Turns out that they were exceptionally good at interpreting body language.
posted by Foci for Analysis at 10:12 AM on October 4, 2007
posted by Foci for Analysis at 10:12 AM on October 4, 2007
These celebrity relatives have all the most fashionable diseases.
posted by Artw at 10:16 AM on October 4, 2007
posted by Artw at 10:16 AM on October 4, 2007
Interesting documentary I watched recently discusses savantism, and interviews Simon on the subect. Well worth a look.
posted by klinefelter at 10:17 AM on October 4, 2007
posted by klinefelter at 10:17 AM on October 4, 2007
From the article:
Why would a person believe something that is untrue?
Having a bit of Aspergers myself, I recognize this as a thought occurring quite a lot. I usually just shrug it off as "hey, they're humans!" but it used to bother me...
posted by DreamerFi at 10:18 AM on October 4, 2007
Why would a person believe something that is untrue?
Having a bit of Aspergers myself, I recognize this as a thought occurring quite a lot. I usually just shrug it off as "hey, they're humans!" but it used to bother me...
posted by DreamerFi at 10:18 AM on October 4, 2007
You can take his AQ test to find your autism quotient.
At 50 questions, it seems to have proved that I have ADD instead of Aspergers.
posted by GuyZero at 10:23 AM on October 4, 2007 [2 favorites]
At 50 questions, it seems to have proved that I have ADD instead of Aspergers.
posted by GuyZero at 10:23 AM on October 4, 2007 [2 favorites]
Excellent post, thanks.
1. Virtue only occurs by choice, not by habit. Unless you can lie and choose not to, telling the truth is not virtuous.
2. If someone has a bad haircut and you don't tell them, this isn't necessarily a lie of omission. There are many things a person with a bad haircut doesn't want to know. Not telling him these things isn't lying. If he wants to know and you don't tell him or tell him something that isn't true, that's a lie. My impression is that autistics often convey unwanted information. This isn't lying, this is failing to mind-read, as in "I'm thinking I don't want to hear what you think about my hair cut."
3. People often can't accurately describe their inner states. Sometimes people say they believe in something, but the way they live their lives and the limits of human rationality suggest that they can't really believe in it. Like God. Or Virtue. These aren't lies because they aren't intentionally deceiving you - they don't know how to differentiate between what they believe and what they want to believe.
posted by ewkpates at 10:25 AM on October 4, 2007 [1 favorite]
1. Virtue only occurs by choice, not by habit. Unless you can lie and choose not to, telling the truth is not virtuous.
2. If someone has a bad haircut and you don't tell them, this isn't necessarily a lie of omission. There are many things a person with a bad haircut doesn't want to know. Not telling him these things isn't lying. If he wants to know and you don't tell him or tell him something that isn't true, that's a lie. My impression is that autistics often convey unwanted information. This isn't lying, this is failing to mind-read, as in "I'm thinking I don't want to hear what you think about my hair cut."
3. People often can't accurately describe their inner states. Sometimes people say they believe in something, but the way they live their lives and the limits of human rationality suggest that they can't really believe in it. Like God. Or Virtue. These aren't lies because they aren't intentionally deceiving you - they don't know how to differentiate between what they believe and what they want to believe.
posted by ewkpates at 10:25 AM on October 4, 2007 [1 favorite]
Previous Simon Baron-Cohen thread: Have you a male or female brain?
posted by ericb at 10:31 AM on October 4, 2007
posted by ericb at 10:31 AM on October 4, 2007
I work with a lot of autistic people and I've found out that the best way to communicate, is to be brutally honest. As a matter of fact, I'm brutally honest all the time now. That's probably why I'm single:(
posted by doctorschlock at 10:36 AM on October 4, 2007
posted by doctorschlock at 10:36 AM on October 4, 2007
Virtue only occurs by choice, not by habit. Unless you can lie and choose not to, telling the truth is not virtuous.
I thought that at first, too (and I'm still thinking about the implications of what the article asserts). But doesn't that lead to the conclusion that, in matters of truth-telling, those who are autistic are incapable of virtue? That is, if one neurotypical and one autistic person tell me the same truth, that only the neurotypical person can be considered virtuous? I'm not sure that I want to bite that bullet.
posted by Prospero at 10:40 AM on October 4, 2007
I thought that at first, too (and I'm still thinking about the implications of what the article asserts). But doesn't that lead to the conclusion that, in matters of truth-telling, those who are autistic are incapable of virtue? That is, if one neurotypical and one autistic person tell me the same truth, that only the neurotypical person can be considered virtuous? I'm not sure that I want to bite that bullet.
posted by Prospero at 10:40 AM on October 4, 2007
Virtue only occurs by choice, not by habit. Unless you can lie and choose not to, telling the truth is not virtuous.
From the standpoint of another person, this is entirely irrelevant. What you care about is whether or not the person in question is telling the truth. The process by which they get there does not matter. If they are truth-tellers, from your standpoint, they are virtuous.
Virtue is fundamentally asking, "Can I trust this person?". Essentially all morality comes from that question. What Mr. Baron-Cohen is pointing out is that you can trust autistic people; they literally don't know how to lie.
posted by Malor at 10:41 AM on October 4, 2007 [1 favorite]
From the standpoint of another person, this is entirely irrelevant. What you care about is whether or not the person in question is telling the truth. The process by which they get there does not matter. If they are truth-tellers, from your standpoint, they are virtuous.
Virtue is fundamentally asking, "Can I trust this person?". Essentially all morality comes from that question. What Mr. Baron-Cohen is pointing out is that you can trust autistic people; they literally don't know how to lie.
posted by Malor at 10:41 AM on October 4, 2007 [1 favorite]
My question to the author would be, "and then?"
What about the autistic person who despite not innately understanding social deception, comes to understand that it exists, and looks at it from their unique perspective. Much as they would a train timetable, or pile of legos? I'm prettty sure the view of "normal" human behavior that they would give you would be fairly astounding.
posted by billyfleetwood at 10:43 AM on October 4, 2007 [1 favorite]
What about the autistic person who despite not innately understanding social deception, comes to understand that it exists, and looks at it from their unique perspective. Much as they would a train timetable, or pile of legos? I'm prettty sure the view of "normal" human behavior that they would give you would be fairly astounding.
posted by billyfleetwood at 10:43 AM on October 4, 2007 [1 favorite]
But doesn't that lead to the conclusion that, in matters of truth-telling, those who are autistic are incapable of virtue? That is, if one neurotypical and one autistic person tell me the same truth, that only the neurotypical person can be considered virtuous?
Yes, and that's indisputably true. Why does it bother you? The conclusion doesn't mean that autistic people can't be virtuous, only that they can't be in this particular way. Would you praise someone with no legs for not walking away from a situation?
Nice article, but way too long unless there are still a lot of people who have never heard of autism and need time to grasp the concept.
posted by languagehat at 10:45 AM on October 4, 2007
Yes, and that's indisputably true. Why does it bother you? The conclusion doesn't mean that autistic people can't be virtuous, only that they can't be in this particular way. Would you praise someone with no legs for not walking away from a situation?
Nice article, but way too long unless there are still a lot of people who have never heard of autism and need time to grasp the concept.
posted by languagehat at 10:45 AM on October 4, 2007
If they are truth-tellers, from your standpoint, they are virtuous.
Huh? No, from my standpoint, they're useful. That's like praising a chair for its virtue in being sturdy when you sit on it. (Yes, that's part of the ancient concept of virtus/arete, but not of the modern English word virtue.)
posted by languagehat at 10:47 AM on October 4, 2007 [1 favorite]
Huh? No, from my standpoint, they're useful. That's like praising a chair for its virtue in being sturdy when you sit on it. (Yes, that's part of the ancient concept of virtus/arete, but not of the modern English word virtue.)
posted by languagehat at 10:47 AM on October 4, 2007 [1 favorite]
You can take his AQ test to find your autism quotient.
Does it mean anything that for every "Definitely Disagree" answer I had to repeat "Definitely Disagree" several times in my Dustin Hoffman/Rainman imitation voice?
posted by MikeMc at 10:57 AM on October 4, 2007 [1 favorite]
Does it mean anything that for every "Definitely Disagree" answer I had to repeat "Definitely Disagree" several times in my Dustin Hoffman/Rainman imitation voice?
posted by MikeMc at 10:57 AM on October 4, 2007 [1 favorite]
I remember a documentary about /savants/autism/ where a bunch of autistic kids were given the task of watching a politician giving a TV speech. For the researchers and the casual onlooker, it seemed like any other political speech, but the kids kept roaring with laughter at what they perceived was obviously deceitful behavior by the politician. Turns out that they were exceptionally good at interpreting body language.
Are you sure that wasn't an episode of Deep Space Nine?
(Then again, Star Trek isn't known for its original plots).
posted by Citizen Premier at 11:07 AM on October 4, 2007
Also, I'm apparently so autistic or so not-autistic that I broke the test.
posted by Citizen Premier at 11:08 AM on October 4, 2007
posted by Citizen Premier at 11:08 AM on October 4, 2007
Also also, I found the stuff not-Borat said about animals to be more interesting than the stuff about autistic people. I seem to have been taking a "rich approach" all along without realizing it.
posted by Citizen Premier at 11:10 AM on October 4, 2007
posted by Citizen Premier at 11:10 AM on October 4, 2007
That's like praising a chair for its virtue in being sturdy when you sit on it.
Fundamentally, the reason for virtue is to get along in groups; virtuous behaviors are always those that enhance group cohesion or group welfare. (some of them function purely as custom only, like keeping kosher or wearing burqas, but their fundamental purpose is to maintain group identity.)
From the outside, there is no difference between someone who could deceive you and chooses not to, and someone who simply can't do it at all.
I think it's interesting that you would compare someone who can't lie to a piece of furniture.
posted by Malor at 11:15 AM on October 4, 2007 [1 favorite]
Fundamentally, the reason for virtue is to get along in groups; virtuous behaviors are always those that enhance group cohesion or group welfare. (some of them function purely as custom only, like keeping kosher or wearing burqas, but their fundamental purpose is to maintain group identity.)
From the outside, there is no difference between someone who could deceive you and chooses not to, and someone who simply can't do it at all.
I think it's interesting that you would compare someone who can't lie to a piece of furniture.
posted by Malor at 11:15 AM on October 4, 2007 [1 favorite]
Yes, and that's indisputably true. Why does it bother you?
Let's say I claim that:
(1) People who are considered honest are virtuous;
(2) People who tell the truth are considered honest.
Now, I'm presented with two people--they're strangers to me, and I to them. Both of them tell me, unprovoked, that I have an embarrassing spaghetti sauce stain on my tie. Later, I'm asked by an observer if they both told me the truth. I'd answer yes in both instances, and that would lead me to conclude that both people, in this case, were virtuous.
But if I'm told after the fact that one of those people is autistic, would I then claim that the autistic was not honest, or not virtuous? That seems to imply claiming that either (1) or (2) above is true only under circumstances when I know that I am dealing with a neurotypical person. I don't believe I can justifiably make that claim, since it involves a radical revision of traditional definitions of either virtue, or honesty, or both.
Would you praise someone with no legs for not walking away from a situation?
But the interesting thing here is that Baron-Cohen is arguing that the symptom of autism under discussion isn't a handicap (though other symptoms are).
posted by Prospero at 11:20 AM on October 4, 2007
Let's say I claim that:
(1) People who are considered honest are virtuous;
(2) People who tell the truth are considered honest.
Now, I'm presented with two people--they're strangers to me, and I to them. Both of them tell me, unprovoked, that I have an embarrassing spaghetti sauce stain on my tie. Later, I'm asked by an observer if they both told me the truth. I'd answer yes in both instances, and that would lead me to conclude that both people, in this case, were virtuous.
But if I'm told after the fact that one of those people is autistic, would I then claim that the autistic was not honest, or not virtuous? That seems to imply claiming that either (1) or (2) above is true only under circumstances when I know that I am dealing with a neurotypical person. I don't believe I can justifiably make that claim, since it involves a radical revision of traditional definitions of either virtue, or honesty, or both.
Would you praise someone with no legs for not walking away from a situation?
But the interesting thing here is that Baron-Cohen is arguing that the symptom of autism under discussion isn't a handicap (though other symptoms are).
posted by Prospero at 11:20 AM on October 4, 2007
I think it's interesting that you would compare someone who can't lie to a piece of furniture.
I think it's interesting that you deny interiority to people, and think they can be defined purely by exterior effect. Your knee-jerk, trivializing response, however, is supremely uninteresting except insofar as it indicates you may have a future in politics.
But the interesting thing here is that Baron-Cohen is arguing that the symptom of autism under discussion isn't a handicap (though other symptoms are).
What does that have to do with what I said?
posted by languagehat at 11:23 AM on October 4, 2007
I think it's interesting that you deny interiority to people, and think they can be defined purely by exterior effect. Your knee-jerk, trivializing response, however, is supremely uninteresting except insofar as it indicates you may have a future in politics.
But the interesting thing here is that Baron-Cohen is arguing that the symptom of autism under discussion isn't a handicap (though other symptoms are).
What does that have to do with what I said?
posted by languagehat at 11:23 AM on October 4, 2007
Yes, and that's indisputably true.
Uh, why again is that true? If there is no observable difference in behavior but there is a distinction in 'virtue' then virtue is most definitely not a property of the actors. It's an external idea that you arbitrarily decide to award to one person but not the other. And the idea that most people go around everyday "choosing" to be virtuous is pretty damn silly. This is why modern legal systems generally don't care what's going on "inside" a person. A person's motivations, beliefs, and opinions are ultimately irrelevant to the question of whether they are innocent or guilty. This is established only by the provable facts.
Generally people don't care what's going on inside other people and this is a good thing. People should be judged only by their actions in the realm of the everyday. The problem with autism is that the behavior is so nonstandard that now special allowances have to be made for what is ultimately a vastly different world view. The thing is, there's really no rational basis for taking the "rich" or the "lean" approach when trying to decipher the behavior of alien beings. That science prefers lean explanations is pure prejudice. And the lion, like any truly alien intelligence, certainly doesn't care whether you think its virtuous or not. So it's difficult to see how we ought to respect autistic individuals especially those who simply can't function in modern society and, without special assistance, would otherwise starve. If we are to respect them such respect could never amount to anything more than the respect accorded to children or guests, that is respect which is given and not earned.
posted by nixerman at 11:28 AM on October 4, 2007
Uh, why again is that true? If there is no observable difference in behavior but there is a distinction in 'virtue' then virtue is most definitely not a property of the actors. It's an external idea that you arbitrarily decide to award to one person but not the other. And the idea that most people go around everyday "choosing" to be virtuous is pretty damn silly. This is why modern legal systems generally don't care what's going on "inside" a person. A person's motivations, beliefs, and opinions are ultimately irrelevant to the question of whether they are innocent or guilty. This is established only by the provable facts.
Generally people don't care what's going on inside other people and this is a good thing. People should be judged only by their actions in the realm of the everyday. The problem with autism is that the behavior is so nonstandard that now special allowances have to be made for what is ultimately a vastly different world view. The thing is, there's really no rational basis for taking the "rich" or the "lean" approach when trying to decipher the behavior of alien beings. That science prefers lean explanations is pure prejudice. And the lion, like any truly alien intelligence, certainly doesn't care whether you think its virtuous or not. So it's difficult to see how we ought to respect autistic individuals especially those who simply can't function in modern society and, without special assistance, would otherwise starve. If we are to respect them such respect could never amount to anything more than the respect accorded to children or guests, that is respect which is given and not earned.
posted by nixerman at 11:28 AM on October 4, 2007
Huh, nixerman? I thought motivation was pretty central to most of law with the a few exceptions (like statutory rape) which explicitly ignore intent.
posted by Wood at 11:36 AM on October 4, 2007
posted by Wood at 11:36 AM on October 4, 2007
Dear Wired, chmod +x http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/9.12/aq.cgi please, I don't need to see your perl script.
posted by Skorgu at 11:39 AM on October 4, 2007 [1 favorite]
posted by Skorgu at 11:39 AM on October 4, 2007 [1 favorite]
I think it's interesting that you deny interiority to people, and think they can be defined purely by exterior effect.
From your perspective, why is it important WHY someone doesn't lie to you? The net effect is the same either way. In fact, the autistic person is more trustworthy, because they're not going to deceive you tomorrow either.
That's what the original author is trying to say... that the autistic, while odd, are very trustworthy. And I think it's very silly to start saying that they 'don't have virtue', when in practical terms it makes no difference whatsoever. It strikes me as a method of belittling them.
posted by Malor at 11:44 AM on October 4, 2007
From your perspective, why is it important WHY someone doesn't lie to you? The net effect is the same either way. In fact, the autistic person is more trustworthy, because they're not going to deceive you tomorrow either.
That's what the original author is trying to say... that the autistic, while odd, are very trustworthy. And I think it's very silly to start saying that they 'don't have virtue', when in practical terms it makes no difference whatsoever. It strikes me as a method of belittling them.
posted by Malor at 11:44 AM on October 4, 2007
And I think it's very silly to start saying that they 'don't have virtue', when in practical terms it makes no difference whatsoever. It strikes me as a method of belittling them.
On the other hand, casting them as moral pillars of honesty is just as dumb.
I'm a good person because I don't use my superhuman X-Ray vision to look at women under their clothes.
posted by TheOnlyCoolTim at 11:53 AM on October 4, 2007
On the other hand, casting them as moral pillars of honesty is just as dumb.
I'm a good person because I don't use my superhuman X-Ray vision to look at women under their clothes.
posted by TheOnlyCoolTim at 11:53 AM on October 4, 2007
on the AQ online test: pushing "calculate score" causes the perl scrip to display on your screen. Chmod people! I am too bored to hand score the test.
posted by craniac at 12:05 PM on October 4, 2007
posted by craniac at 12:05 PM on October 4, 2007
Foci for Analysis: wasn't this stoke patients in Oliver Sack's The Man Who Mistook His Wife For a Hat ?
posted by eegphalanges at 12:06 PM on October 4, 2007
posted by eegphalanges at 12:06 PM on October 4, 2007
And I think it's very silly to start saying that they 'don't have virtue', when in practical terms it makes no difference whatsoever.
Virtue doesn't make any difference in practical terms. That's why it's either essential or unimportant, depending on your point of view. If you prefer to treat people as robots, it's completely unimportant, agreed. But it's not the same as usefulness. If you don't believe in / care about interiority, you don't believe in / care about virtue.
posted by languagehat at 12:07 PM on October 4, 2007
Virtue doesn't make any difference in practical terms. That's why it's either essential or unimportant, depending on your point of view. If you prefer to treat people as robots, it's completely unimportant, agreed. But it's not the same as usefulness. If you don't believe in / care about interiority, you don't believe in / care about virtue.
posted by languagehat at 12:07 PM on October 4, 2007
on the AQ online test: pushing "calculate score" causes the perl scrip to display on your screen. Chmod people! I am too bored to hand score the test.
Then you pass.
posted by litfit at 12:07 PM on October 4, 2007 [3 favorites]
Then you pass.
posted by litfit at 12:07 PM on October 4, 2007 [3 favorites]
There is no virtue machine: Without free choice, there can be no virtue. Without the will to virtue in the face of baseness one cannot be virtuous.
posted by ewkpates at 12:11 PM on October 4, 2007
posted by ewkpates at 12:11 PM on October 4, 2007
From your perspective, why is it important WHY someone doesn't lie to you? The net effect is the same either way.
You're taking an extremely consequentialist position on morality. To swipe an example of Kant's: you really don't care if the only reason a shopkeeper gives you correct change is because he's afraid of getting caught? Is a person virtuous if she would lie and cheat and steal if the policeman on the corner were to turn his back?
Virtue is fundamentally asking, "Can I trust this person?"
Maybe. But trusting a person is not just trusting him or her to give correct answers when asked questions... it's trusting a person to keep your secrets, to look out for your best interests, to think of you as an agent, etc.
Virtue, at least as conceived of by Hume, is founded upon empathy, which is precisely the trait that autistic people are claimed to lack. The virtuous, empathetic person will recognize that there are times when it is appropriate to lie in order to be a good person. Honesty is not simply telling the truth all the time. (Is a working calculator honest?)
posted by painquale at 12:17 PM on October 4, 2007 [2 favorites]
You're taking an extremely consequentialist position on morality. To swipe an example of Kant's: you really don't care if the only reason a shopkeeper gives you correct change is because he's afraid of getting caught? Is a person virtuous if she would lie and cheat and steal if the policeman on the corner were to turn his back?
Virtue is fundamentally asking, "Can I trust this person?"
Maybe. But trusting a person is not just trusting him or her to give correct answers when asked questions... it's trusting a person to keep your secrets, to look out for your best interests, to think of you as an agent, etc.
Virtue, at least as conceived of by Hume, is founded upon empathy, which is precisely the trait that autistic people are claimed to lack. The virtuous, empathetic person will recognize that there are times when it is appropriate to lie in order to be a good person. Honesty is not simply telling the truth all the time. (Is a working calculator honest?)
posted by painquale at 12:17 PM on October 4, 2007 [2 favorites]
Take the boy with Asperger’s syndrome in the playground at school who was approached by a group of other boys, one of whom asked, “Can I have a look your wallet?” Innocently, the boy handed it over, and was shocked when the other boy ran off with it. This lack of “street smarts” boils down to not being aware that other people may say one thing but mean another. For the child with autism, there is only one version of reality. The other version (the world of beliefs and intentions) may be one he rarely glimpses, or grasps too slowly, too late
This is painful. I deal with this, and sometimes worse, on an almost daily basis. It breaks my heart to see my once bright-eyed, ever-wondering Aspie child grow agressive at the strain of the daily abuse.
the problem is the ASD child can learn "bad" behavioral patterns that stay with them for life in response to this sort of behavior. Unlike the neurologically typical it is extremely difficult to unlearn behavior patterns.
And yet we have done him a disservice in the family by lauding his honesty.
The symptoms are most definitely disabling, although the condition I agree is not.
posted by Wilder at 12:41 PM on October 4, 2007
This is painful. I deal with this, and sometimes worse, on an almost daily basis. It breaks my heart to see my once bright-eyed, ever-wondering Aspie child grow agressive at the strain of the daily abuse.
the problem is the ASD child can learn "bad" behavioral patterns that stay with them for life in response to this sort of behavior. Unlike the neurologically typical it is extremely difficult to unlearn behavior patterns.
And yet we have done him a disservice in the family by lauding his honesty.
The symptoms are most definitely disabling, although the condition I agree is not.
posted by Wilder at 12:41 PM on October 4, 2007
And the idea that most people go around everyday "choosing" to be virtuous is pretty damn silly.
No, it's (as languagehat has been fighting uphill to argue) central to the definition of virtue.
Generally people don't care what's going on inside other people and this is a good thing.
No and no. That's the whole point of the history of the dramatic arts.
posted by kittyprecious at 2:02 PM on October 4, 2007
No, it's (as languagehat has been fighting uphill to argue) central to the definition of virtue.
Generally people don't care what's going on inside other people and this is a good thing.
No and no. That's the whole point of the history of the dramatic arts.
posted by kittyprecious at 2:02 PM on October 4, 2007
For the child with autism, there is only one version of reality. The other version (the world of beliefs and intentions) may be one he rarely glimpses, or grasps too slowly, too late. This tells us something very important: that the skills you need to survive and negotiate the social world involve mind-reading and meta-representation – and that the capacity to deceive is a marker that a child is developing typical social skills.
But how does this tie into the whole learned rules thing that even animals use--and the lean interpretation thing? And what are the implications for education of both autistic and regular-brand kids? Isn't it then just a matter of teaching the (smartass, deceptive, worldly-wise, etc) rules? And in terms of "areas of expertise" isn't it just that those rules are far easier to grasp immediately because they're visible (esp the physical things in the world)?
Very interesting article--thanks!
posted by amberglow at 2:19 PM on October 4, 2007
But how does this tie into the whole learned rules thing that even animals use--and the lean interpretation thing? And what are the implications for education of both autistic and regular-brand kids? Isn't it then just a matter of teaching the (smartass, deceptive, worldly-wise, etc) rules? And in terms of "areas of expertise" isn't it just that those rules are far easier to grasp immediately because they're visible (esp the physical things in the world)?
Very interesting article--thanks!
posted by amberglow at 2:19 PM on October 4, 2007
And also, what about the really rich structures and ways of dealing with the world that so many autistic kids develop (whether as coping mechanisms or for any reason)? Or are they all physical reactions to/about physical things too? it seems like there's stuff missing from that essay that might illuminate the whole social/physical rules thing.
posted by amberglow at 2:22 PM on October 4, 2007
posted by amberglow at 2:22 PM on October 4, 2007
litfit writes "on the AQ online test: pushing 'calculate score' causes the perl scrip to display on your screen. Chmod people! I am too bored to hand score the test.
"Then you pass."
What does it mean if you read the source code since Wired fails at chmod and discover that (1) "they wrote this in Perl? I hate Perl!" and (2) you have strong disagreement with how they actually code their scoring methodology? Not at all how I would have done it.
Wait. I think I know the answer already...
posted by Fezboy! at 3:21 PM on October 4, 2007
"Then you pass."
What does it mean if you read the source code since Wired fails at chmod and discover that (1) "they wrote this in Perl? I hate Perl!" and (2) you have strong disagreement with how they actually code their scoring methodology? Not at all how I would have done it.
Wait. I think I know the answer already...
posted by Fezboy! at 3:21 PM on October 4, 2007
Wait. I think I know the answer already...
I took the test--when code came up, i figured i wasn't autistic since i didn't care about figuring out what it all meant. ; >
posted by amberglow at 4:08 PM on October 4, 2007
As someone who was diagnosed with what is now known as aspergers' ... the article rings quite true.
As a child, I was described as 'tactless'. I told it like I saw it. As an adult, the one overriding characteristic of my relationships is an absolute requirement of honesty and clarity, and the explicit statement of reactions. I've been told that it is refreshing to be around me, as I am direct, forthright, and hold no truck with mindgames. My friends are largely male, as a consequence.
I decided that I would learn the social dance at age 18, since it was a skillset that I was missing. I approached it like any other practical skill; studying, observing, asking questions, requesting feedback, practicing. I was blessed with a group of friends who were willing to help me with this, and accept that I wouldn't get offended by such feedback. After about two years, I was close enough to normal for a geek.
I still don't have the innate level of social understanding that most people have from age 6. But I have better algorithms now, to the point where most people only notice that I am somewhat odd some of the time. To me, it is not natural. With each new situation I have to spend time learning the appropriate behaviours, and ask for patience while I do so.
Honesty is something that comes naturally to me. I've learned to not tell the whole truth, and to say the truth in such a way so as to lead to incorrect conclusions in the listeners' mind - but those are skills I don't chose to employ except as a last resort.
posted by ysabet at 5:38 PM on October 4, 2007 [1 favorite]
As a child, I was described as 'tactless'. I told it like I saw it. As an adult, the one overriding characteristic of my relationships is an absolute requirement of honesty and clarity, and the explicit statement of reactions. I've been told that it is refreshing to be around me, as I am direct, forthright, and hold no truck with mindgames. My friends are largely male, as a consequence.
I decided that I would learn the social dance at age 18, since it was a skillset that I was missing. I approached it like any other practical skill; studying, observing, asking questions, requesting feedback, practicing. I was blessed with a group of friends who were willing to help me with this, and accept that I wouldn't get offended by such feedback. After about two years, I was close enough to normal for a geek.
I still don't have the innate level of social understanding that most people have from age 6. But I have better algorithms now, to the point where most people only notice that I am somewhat odd some of the time. To me, it is not natural. With each new situation I have to spend time learning the appropriate behaviours, and ask for patience while I do so.
Honesty is something that comes naturally to me. I've learned to not tell the whole truth, and to say the truth in such a way so as to lead to incorrect conclusions in the listeners' mind - but those are skills I don't chose to employ except as a last resort.
posted by ysabet at 5:38 PM on October 4, 2007 [1 favorite]
I took the AQ test when it came out; I'm sure my comment is somewhere in the blue. Basically, I scored halfway between "normal" and "Aspie" which I take to mean that I have some Aspie traits -- just as Asperger's is labeled the "shadow syndrome" to autism, say I have the shadow to Asperger's.
I had a very similar experience to ysabet, although not as extreme. I still often experience that I don't "get" what someone is doing or why they are doing it, but I do have the meta-representation that it makes sense to them. I was very intrigued by the discussion of "rich" and "lean" explanations for animal behavior. I recognize that the reason for this is to avoid getting into analyzing the mental state of a creature with which we can't communicate.
For example, I have a new kitten. He's very affectionate and he loves to be held on my chest while he rubs his cheek against my beard repeatedly. I look at this behavior and contemplate the "rich" one, that ktitens feel emotions like humans, and also the "lean" one, that it's a behavior that gets him treats and fresh water and a clean litterbox. The thing is, I can't help but extrapolate that onto people. How much are our social behaviors explicable by "lean" rationales? It's interesting that languagehat brings up interiority. You really must give due consideration to the possibility that our interiority is just as rich as a kitten's. The only difference is that we can talk about it or write it down. Or maybe it isn't (Chomsky is breathing down my neck): maybe having the capacity for language makes us think about simple things in more complex ways.
posted by dhartung at 6:07 PM on October 4, 2007 [1 favorite]
I had a very similar experience to ysabet, although not as extreme. I still often experience that I don't "get" what someone is doing or why they are doing it, but I do have the meta-representation that it makes sense to them. I was very intrigued by the discussion of "rich" and "lean" explanations for animal behavior. I recognize that the reason for this is to avoid getting into analyzing the mental state of a creature with which we can't communicate.
For example, I have a new kitten. He's very affectionate and he loves to be held on my chest while he rubs his cheek against my beard repeatedly. I look at this behavior and contemplate the "rich" one, that ktitens feel emotions like humans, and also the "lean" one, that it's a behavior that gets him treats and fresh water and a clean litterbox. The thing is, I can't help but extrapolate that onto people. How much are our social behaviors explicable by "lean" rationales? It's interesting that languagehat brings up interiority. You really must give due consideration to the possibility that our interiority is just as rich as a kitten's. The only difference is that we can talk about it or write it down. Or maybe it isn't (Chomsky is breathing down my neck): maybe having the capacity for language makes us think about simple things in more complex ways.
posted by dhartung at 6:07 PM on October 4, 2007 [1 favorite]
I'm still thinking about the relationship implied in the article between honesty, virtue, and autism.
I see the point made above that virtue is a matter of choice; however, I'm still not willing to bite the bullet and claim that people on the autistic spectrum who tell the truth are not as virtuous as people who aren't. That seems to lead to a couple of positions that are too counterintuitive to be comfortable--first, that whether I can authoritatively call an act virtuous is contingent on my knowledge of the actor's genetic makeup (as in my post above); second, that people similar to ysabet become more virtuous in matters of truthtelling once they learn how to lie effectively. That can be logically deduced from certain premises about the nature of virtue, but on its face it seems like an absurd thing to say.
But perhaps the problem is that the concepts we're dealing with (virtue, honesty, interiority and so on) date from a period long before autism became a recognizable and measurable phenomenon. One of the essential concepts of interiority is that we can't know the causes for another person's behavior. Yet, in the case of autism, we can know these causes to some extent: they're empirically verifiable. Should that change our notion of the link between interiority and virtue? Are we forced to assert that when discussing people to whose interior states we're in some small part privy, virtue is a meaningless concept? Baron-Cohen all but says the opposite of that, that in certain circumstances what we think of as virtue can be a hardwired trait:
Hence a neurological disability that leaves the child challenged in fast-changing social situations also leaves him or her more virtuous, more truthful, less deceitful.
I find both those conclusions to be equally troubling, for what it's worth.
posted by Prospero at 7:02 PM on October 4, 2007
I see the point made above that virtue is a matter of choice; however, I'm still not willing to bite the bullet and claim that people on the autistic spectrum who tell the truth are not as virtuous as people who aren't. That seems to lead to a couple of positions that are too counterintuitive to be comfortable--first, that whether I can authoritatively call an act virtuous is contingent on my knowledge of the actor's genetic makeup (as in my post above); second, that people similar to ysabet become more virtuous in matters of truthtelling once they learn how to lie effectively. That can be logically deduced from certain premises about the nature of virtue, but on its face it seems like an absurd thing to say.
But perhaps the problem is that the concepts we're dealing with (virtue, honesty, interiority and so on) date from a period long before autism became a recognizable and measurable phenomenon. One of the essential concepts of interiority is that we can't know the causes for another person's behavior. Yet, in the case of autism, we can know these causes to some extent: they're empirically verifiable. Should that change our notion of the link between interiority and virtue? Are we forced to assert that when discussing people to whose interior states we're in some small part privy, virtue is a meaningless concept? Baron-Cohen all but says the opposite of that, that in certain circumstances what we think of as virtue can be a hardwired trait:
Hence a neurological disability that leaves the child challenged in fast-changing social situations also leaves him or her more virtuous, more truthful, less deceitful.
I find both those conclusions to be equally troubling, for what it's worth.
posted by Prospero at 7:02 PM on October 4, 2007
Booyakasha! I am 'ere wit me main man, Simone Baron Chohin! 'e knows about important things like psydolatry of autism, so listen up and keep it real!
Mr. Chohin, why is a person with autism so unfair to people with autos?
posted by bugmuncher at 8:21 PM on October 4, 2007 [1 favorite]
Mr. Chohin, why is a person with autism so unfair to people with autos?
posted by bugmuncher at 8:21 PM on October 4, 2007 [1 favorite]
I have two children in the autistic spectrum. While I appreciate Baron-Cohen's attempt to infuse autism with positive stereotypes, that's what they are -- and in other contexts, these stereotypes can be harmful.
When you deal with the multiple comorbid issues that accompany autistic conditions it becomes very obvious that we are not in fact talking about what is merely a way of seeing the world that only has functional problems because of the biases imposed by neurotypicals. The spectrum of autism includes children who find it difficult to move or eat without special assistance -- and analogs to those problems exist at the milder ends of the spectrum. Yes, we should *definitely* work within their ways of knowing (keep in mind I'm talking about child development, not advocating neurotypicals bossing autistic spectrum folks around), we are not talking about a style of intellectual discourse, but a global cognitive condition -- one that often puts aspects of basic health outside the comfort zone.
At this point, I am as frustrated with romantic autism as I am with it being treated as pure pathology. I certainly think my kids are good people, but I also know that omission and avoidance also have powerful ethical effects that can be negative and that as someone teaching what I believe to be virtue to my own children I find it comforting that they don't pull a fast one on me as often, it is more than matched by the challenges involved in teaching proactive moral agency.
posted by mobunited at 8:38 PM on October 4, 2007 [1 favorite]
When you deal with the multiple comorbid issues that accompany autistic conditions it becomes very obvious that we are not in fact talking about what is merely a way of seeing the world that only has functional problems because of the biases imposed by neurotypicals. The spectrum of autism includes children who find it difficult to move or eat without special assistance -- and analogs to those problems exist at the milder ends of the spectrum. Yes, we should *definitely* work within their ways of knowing (keep in mind I'm talking about child development, not advocating neurotypicals bossing autistic spectrum folks around), we are not talking about a style of intellectual discourse, but a global cognitive condition -- one that often puts aspects of basic health outside the comfort zone.
At this point, I am as frustrated with romantic autism as I am with it being treated as pure pathology. I certainly think my kids are good people, but I also know that omission and avoidance also have powerful ethical effects that can be negative and that as someone teaching what I believe to be virtue to my own children I find it comforting that they don't pull a fast one on me as often, it is more than matched by the challenges involved in teaching proactive moral agency.
posted by mobunited at 8:38 PM on October 4, 2007 [1 favorite]
Lots of food for thought! Thanks for the interesting and stimulating post Prospero.
This article is certainly fascinating for me for a few reasons, especially as it relates to people with Axis II Cluster B personality disorders (NPD, ASPD, BPD and HPD), who are notorious deceivers, known for their lack of morality in any number of ways (conniving particularly) and who also have autistic traits. People with Axis II Cluster B disorders are all empathy impaired and as a result are sometimes inappropriately compared to people with Asperger's who are also empathy impaired.
It's my observation that people with Axis II Cluster B disorders are capable of comprehending what others may be feeling in any given situation but choose to respond sadistically to one degree or another. And this has not been my observation regarding people with Aspergers.
Loved learning about rich/lean interpretations and the capacity for meta-representation. Could lying to kids about Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny be some part of educating a child in meta-representation?
And I wonder if the left medial prefrontal cortex being less active in autists as an indicator of their lack of deception skills would be reversed in pathological narcissists and they might have a excessively large left medial prefrontal cortex?
Once I understood that a number of skilled surgeons or doctors I've known likely have Asperger's traits it made it much easier to accept their lack of bedside manner wasn't about them being mean or coldhearted but more lean kind of thinkers.
posted by nickyskye at 9:29 PM on October 4, 2007
This article is certainly fascinating for me for a few reasons, especially as it relates to people with Axis II Cluster B personality disorders (NPD, ASPD, BPD and HPD), who are notorious deceivers, known for their lack of morality in any number of ways (conniving particularly) and who also have autistic traits. People with Axis II Cluster B disorders are all empathy impaired and as a result are sometimes inappropriately compared to people with Asperger's who are also empathy impaired.
It's my observation that people with Axis II Cluster B disorders are capable of comprehending what others may be feeling in any given situation but choose to respond sadistically to one degree or another. And this has not been my observation regarding people with Aspergers.
Loved learning about rich/lean interpretations and the capacity for meta-representation. Could lying to kids about Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny be some part of educating a child in meta-representation?
And I wonder if the left medial prefrontal cortex being less active in autists as an indicator of their lack of deception skills would be reversed in pathological narcissists and they might have a excessively large left medial prefrontal cortex?
Once I understood that a number of skilled surgeons or doctors I've known likely have Asperger's traits it made it much easier to accept their lack of bedside manner wasn't about them being mean or coldhearted but more lean kind of thinkers.
posted by nickyskye at 9:29 PM on October 4, 2007
"Many children with autism are perplexed by why someone would even want to deceive others, or why someone would think about fiction or pretense... Why would a person believe something that is untrue?"
Are any autistic people religious or superstitious, I wonder?
posted by Pericles at 7:14 AM on October 5, 2007
Are any autistic people religious or superstitious, I wonder?
posted by Pericles at 7:14 AM on October 5, 2007
Here's a working flash version of the AQ test.
I got a score of 39. I'm surprised that it was that high. I figured it would point in that direction, but had no idea it would be that far out on the scale.
posted by syzygy at 9:05 AM on October 5, 2007
I got a score of 39. I'm surprised that it was that high. I figured it would point in that direction, but had no idea it would be that far out on the scale.
posted by syzygy at 9:05 AM on October 5, 2007
Borat, I think, is autistic,
Seriously, I think this relationship must have a big impact on the performing brother's humor. I mean, the lack of empathy and obsessing is mostly what makes Borat funny, isn't it (if that's what you call funny, and I say he's got his moments).
posted by saysthis at 3:22 PM on October 6, 2007
Seriously, I think this relationship must have a big impact on the performing brother's humor. I mean, the lack of empathy and obsessing is mostly what makes Borat funny, isn't it (if that's what you call funny, and I say he's got his moments).
posted by saysthis at 3:22 PM on October 6, 2007
Here's a working flash version of the AQ test.
I got a score of 39. I'm surprised that it was that high. I figured it would point in that direction, but had no idea it would be that far out on the scale.
And I scored a 15, lower than most men, but I can't make any sense of people for the most part, have hangups about dishonesty and program computers for a living. I'm as confused as you are.
posted by litfit at 1:05 AM on October 7, 2007
I got a score of 39. I'm surprised that it was that high. I figured it would point in that direction, but had no idea it would be that far out on the scale.
And I scored a 15, lower than most men, but I can't make any sense of people for the most part, have hangups about dishonesty and program computers for a living. I'm as confused as you are.
posted by litfit at 1:05 AM on October 7, 2007
i'm a 16 on that test, and do work that is much more detail-oriented and concrete than i actually am as a person, and i'm too honest and undiplomatic too. c'est la vie, no?
posted by amberglow at 1:54 PM on October 7, 2007
posted by amberglow at 1:54 PM on October 7, 2007
« Older Composer spoofs HSM to plug Broadway show | Our father who art in elevator shafts Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by GuyZero at 9:55 AM on October 4, 2007