WTF?????

Now my "Empathy" blog post is off the Google database again. This is all very strange. My blog piece about "Hyperthymestic syndrome" is still on the database, but it no longer comes up very high on the results listing for searches on terms such as "Hyperthymestic syndrome" or "Hyperthymestic" the way it did ever since it was published. That was the blog article in which I pointed out some facts that might have made some academics look rather foolish.

Something has definitely changed re Google. If anyone can provide an explanantion or knows of any technical changes at Google I'd love to know about it. I must say, for the last year or so, a lot of the stuff that comes up high in search engine rankings in general has been what I would call worthless tripe. How can anyone explain why half-baked copies of one of my best-known blog pieces and links to this blog article rank much, much higher in Google rankings than the original blog piece itself? That just doesn't make sense to me. There was a time when you could throw a suitable search term into Google and find something useful and sensible to read at the number 1 position of a Google results page. That is why Google has been my favourite search engine for many years now, and other search engines were pretty good too. God only knows why half of the stuff gets in the first page of search engine rankings these days. I'm Not Feeling Lucky these days! What is going on?

I guess the message is that if you have found any article from this blog interesting or useful do remember to bookmark it as you cannot rely on finding it again easily through search engines.

Now it's back again! (Lili Marlene considers shrugging her shoulders, but doesn't actually do it as she is not much into body language)

What's going on here?

I just noticed that my most recent blog post, in which I criticised pop science writers for their careless and offensive writings on the subjects of empathy and lack of empathy, appears to be no longer on the Google database. I know that post did come up in Google results lists just days ago in response to searches on particular terms. I guess this is what happens when one dares to criticise a popular and profitable intellectual fad.

Empathy and lack of empathy; two of the stupidest and most offensive fads in popular science writing today

(added to May 20 2008)

Many autism experts and autism-related organizations want the public to believe that the autistic spectrum is The Most Important Problem Facing Society Today. They have vested interests in promoting this message. They want you to believe that terrible, terrible things will happen in the future if we don’t give them a lot of money to spend on their projects that aim to eradicate, medicate or remediate autism. Some of these people with vested interests in the autism industry will go so far as promoting the idea that solving the “puzzle” of autism will provide an explanation for just about everything that is bad and dysfunctional about humankind and human society. Some cite testosterone as an explanation for male violence, war crimes and man’s inhumanity to man in general, and then they go on to argue that autism is the most extreme example of the biological and social effects of this supposedly demonic hormone. Why did the Holocaust happen? Testosterone! Why are males over-represented in the population of convicts? Must be testosterone! You don’t need to be a genius to pick up the message that is written between the lines; that autism is a bad, bad thing and that autistic people do bad, bad things.

Writers of bestselling pop science books and articles in popular science magazines appear to have uncritically embraced this dominant view of autism as the condition that typifies a “lack of empathy”. These writers, many of them renowned psychologists, many of them in senior academic positions, appear to be content to cut and paste their writings on the subject of autism and empathy almost directly from texts produced by influential autism experts. They cite the same texts in their lists of references and notes. For a group of people who are supposed to be highly educated independent investigators of the scientific realm, they certainly seem to behave like a flock of stupid sheep. In books and articles written for a general readership it is common to see psychopathy and autism discussed as though the two very different conditions were almost interchangeable. This is the worst kind of intellectual sloppiness.

This shoddy work is inexcusable when one considers that evidence has always been available in the scientific literature to those who choose to search independently. There is some clinical evidence that clearly indicates that autism (uncomplicated with other conditions) and anti-social type personality disorders may in fact be mutually exclusive. One study of temperament and character in adults with Asperger syndrome, that involved 31 people with AS, categorized these people into Cloninger’s temperament types and eight different temperament types were found, but not one of these 31 people with AS were found to fall into the category of Antisocial temperament type (Soderstrom, Rastam & Gillberg 2002). Another study of the impact of ADHD and autism spectrum conditions on temperament, character and personality development, which involved, among other subjects, 47 people who had an autism spectrum condition only, found that among this group of patients many cases of various personality disorders could be identified, but no cases at all of Antisocial personality disorder were identified in this group (Anckarsäter Stahlberg Larson et al 2006 Table 3). New research is also turning up evidence that calls into question the currently fashionable model of autism and empathy. Science News recently reported two brain-scanning studies involving autistic and normal control subjects which gave results that would surprise some people (Saey 2008).

The most recent example of stupid science writing on the subject of empathy that I have noticed is A. C. Grayling’s recent commentary piece in New Scientist magazine. Grayling writes about morality and moral relativism and mirror neurons, and then asserts that “This strongly suggests that the ability to understand others, read their intentions, interpret their emotional states, predict their behaviour and respond appropriately – the very basis of social capacity itself, and thus of morality – is linked to the involuntary modelling of others that mirror-neuron activity makes possible.” If you find this statement credible it follows that you must regard people who don’t have an ability to understand others, presumably because they don’t have properly functioning mirror-neurons, as being immoral or at least partly incapable of acting as moral agents. Grayling mentions that some researchers believe malfunctioning mirror-neurons are “a factor in autism”, so you are left in no doubt as to whom these morally-disabled people might be. But there is a very questionable jump in Grayling’s argument. He asserts that morality is based upon “social capacity”, but he offers no argument to support this bold assertion. You can say this all you like Mr Grayling, I still wont believe it is true. I know lots of very sociable and popular people who don’t appear to have had very much morality rub off onto them, and some of the most decent people that I know are socially clumsy loners. Please explain, Mr Grayling.

This idea that morality is “hard-wired” into all normal people’s brains would have been laughed at 20 years ago. I am old enough to remember the days when parents, churches and other religious groups took on the responsibility to teach their young what is right and what is wrong. While this process was in many ways flawed and sometimes failed, I believe it was a whole lot better than sitting back hoping that the younger generation will somehow be given a sound moral education by means of empathizing or mirror-neuron activity or peer socialization. These days many children receive most of their moral guidance from their teachers and headmasters at their local government-run school, after the child has breached the moral code in some way. The moral virtues are now a formal subject in the curriculum in the government primary school system in the state of Australia where I live. Apparently mirror-neurons alone aren’t sufficient moral guidance for Australian children.

All of these people, who say and write and insinuate these things about autism, usually fail to do a number of very important things. Firstly, they fail to make important distinctions between the many and varied forms of “anti-socialness” and of altruism. They often write about the subject of empathy with a vagueness and an evasiveness that often has the effect of making their writing meaningless. Their arguments often cannot be challenged or contradicted or disproved with the findings of research studies, because their arguments are often so sloppy and vague that they could be taken to mean almost anything. And I believe that’s exactly what they aim to achieve.

In a related form of vagueness, these writers fail to clearly define what they mean by “empathy”, or they move beyond their stated definition without explanation or warning, when it suits their purposes. Even though there is a confusing variety of different definitions of the meaning of the word “empathy”, and different authorities give different accounts of different types of empathy, one can still discern one specific meaning of the word that appears to be common to most writing on the subject. This definition of empathy is that it is the identification with or experiencing of the feelings or thoughts of another person. When one reflects on this definition, it is a quite narrow concept. Identifying with another person’s feelings or thoughts is not the same as identifying with their best interests. It is not the same thing as caring about someone else’s health or wealth or social standing. It is not the same thing as generally identifying with another person. It is not the same thing as being motivated to do anything to assist another person; it is quite possible that a person may empathize with another person’s misery, but do nothing to improve their situation. How many times have you felt empathy for disaster victims shown on the TV news, but have not bothered to donate to any charity that is working on that project? Imagine you are taking care of a drug addict going through a tough withdrawal process. If you truly empathize with your patient’s immediate feelings, does that mean you feel compelled to give them a dose of their favourite drug to make the bad, bad feeling go away? Pop science writers never pause to point out what a limited and narrow concept empathy really is. They never admit that empathy isn’t the most useful or beneficial feature of human psychology. Who would dare to express criticism of the latest big fad in pop psychology? They are happy to leave the reader to possibly confuse empathy with other related, but broader or more important concepts, such as altruism or compassion. They want you to believe that they are writing about really big and important things, when in fact the subject of their writing may be not much more than a scientific curiosity.

Another failure of most pop science writing about empathy is that the writers never, ever explore the view that there is something irrational, delusional even possibly pathological about the idea of empathy, or empathy itself. It appears that the entire non-autistic section of the human race lacks an understanding that it is not literally possible to experience someone else’s emotions or thoughts. We all have different, unique brains. Even the brains of identical twins are not exactly the same. It is most likely that our feelings and subjective experiences are not identical, and may even be very different. Anyone who has read a book of neurological anecdotes by Oliver Sacks, or an account of synaesthesia or autism, will understand that there can be important differences between the inner lives of people (yes, autistic people, synaesthetes and the subjects of Oliver Sacks’ anecdotes are all people). It might be impossible for you to understand or experience what I experience. And the brains of humans cannot communicate directly. Feelings cannot be communicated directly between people, we can only resort to verbal, textual or body language, which are all failure-prone. We cannot assume that others’ feelings can be accurately simulated, imitated or imagined, because we can never know for sure what it actually feels like to be someone else. People always bring their own experiences and neurological differences to any attempt to interpret the experiences of others. As one pop science writer recently wrote on the subject of people trying to understand what is within other’s minds and hearts; “When we judge others’ behaviours, attitudes, values and beliefs, we anchor on ourselves and extrapolate – we assume other people like what we like, want what we want and believe what we believe, …” (Brunstein 2008). When people who believe in ESP claim that they can read the minds of others, most sensible people dismiss such claims as nonsense. Why are sensible people obliged to take claims about mind-reading made by psychologists any more seriously?

When writing about autism and empathy, most pop science writers commit the sin of failing to inform their readers that the vast majority of anti-social behaviour, of criminal acts, of child neglect, of murders, of sex offences, of malicious gossip, of domestic violence, of workplace bullying, of harmful addiction-related behaviour and of corporate greed, is committed by people who are not in any way autistic. These so-called experts fail to admit the fact that that the vast majority of crimes are committed by people who have disorders that are nothing to do with the autistic spectrum. These writers fail to explain the many important differences between autism and the other conditions that are known to be, and in some instances are defined as being, associated with criminal or anti-social activities. These people either don’t know or don’t care about the real characteristics of psychopathy and criminality. Perhaps they are afraid that they might recognize something of themselves in the clinical descriptions of the psychopathic personality.

Perhaps the worst omission in the writing of pop science writers who delve into the subject of empathy is the failure to acknowledge the fact that it is perfectly normal to “lack empathy” in many social situations. Normal people lack empathy. They lack empathy for people of other races (consciously or unconsciously). They lack empathy for people who are not members of their own social groups. Followers of other religions or ideologies are demonized. Outsiders are distrusted and bullied. Historians and social psychologists have discovered ample evidence of the highly selective nature of human empathy. Human empathy or compassion must be at least partly culturally or socially determined, because in different periods of history and in different societies, levels of general humanitarian sensitiveness appear to vary greatly. In a recent pop science book Steven Pinker pointed out that “In 16th century Paris, a popular form of entertainment was cat burning… the spectators, including kings and queens, shrieked with laughter as the animals, howling in pain, were singed, roasted, and finally carbonized.” (Brockman 2007). In one of her autobiographical books Temple Grandin described another horrific vision of animal cruelty that occurred as a part of the normal processing in a cattle slaughterhouse, which she set her mind to reforming. When autistic people display greater concern about cruelty to animals than many supposedly normal people display, it is sometimes theorized that autists empathize more with animals because we are more like animals than normal folk. If that is the case, I think it must be a nobler thing to be more like an animal than to be more like a callous slaughterhouse manager or a spectator splitting her sides at a 16th century cat burning.

The blatant sadism of cat burning as a public amusement is a reminder of one of the major flaws in the currently popular theories linking human morality with empathy; these theories fail to explain the psychology of the sadist. If people who lack empathy are people who are indifferent or detached from the emotions or suffering of others (including animals as others), then it seems to follow that these people would not derive any enjoyment from positively sadistic activities, because these people should have little or no sense of personal involvement in the situation of the victim. One would expect an essentially emotionally detached person to stare dispassionately at a cat burning, or show no interest at all. Why would such a person laugh? Clearly sadism and “lack of empathy” must be different psychological states. One could argue that sadism is an entirely different thing because it is a form of perversion, and therefore cannot be compared with states that consist of different levels of empathy, but I think any theory about “lack of empathy” that fails to explain what motivates some people to do deliberate acts of cruelty has got to have something seriously wrong with it. One of my biggest objections to many examples of recent writing about empathy is that the writers have failed to warn readers about the extent of human behaviour and mental states that they have not explained.

The author of one recently released book has gone against the trend, giving a thoughtful discussion of apparent similarities between psychopathy and autism, along with an intelligent account of the nature of psychopathy. Daniel Nettle hasn’t just snatched a few ideas and the odd study result from some autism expert, and woven these into a glib little side note that uses autism as device to further an argument for some grand theory, as many pop science writers have done. In his book “Personality: what makes you the way you are” Nettle discusses his own research and takes the time to do justice to the subjects discussed. It just proves that other writers could certainly do better.

Today I read a review of a pop science book on the subject of empathy that has just come onto the market. There is no end in sight to this empathy fad. We might not have seen the worst of it. Perhaps the best remedy to the current epidemic of half-baked and one-eyed theorizing about empathy is to examine the different concepts that make up our cultural and scientific understanding of empathy, lack of empathy, and all related subjects, regardless of how absurd or irrelevant any of these may appear to be. I invite you to browse my lists below, have a think, and make your own conclusions, and formulate your own questions.

(The following section has not been completed yet)

Concepts, labels and conditions that are associated (correctly or incorrectly) with empathy, or are sometimes confused with empathy

Empathy – There are many different definitions, and some of them appear to be not limited to empathy between people:
- power of projecting one’s personality into object of contemplation
- fully comprehending object of contemplation
- entering into the feeling of another
- entering into the spirit of another
- understanding
- understanding another’s feelings through imagining or remembering being in a similar situation
- understanding or experiencing the feelings or thoughts of another without having these feelings or thoughts explicitly communicated

Different psychologists use different models of empathy, and some also identify various sub-types of empathy:
Professor Paul Ekman, a world expert on deception, emotions and facial expression, identifies three types of empathy; cognitive empathy, emotional empathy and compassionate empathy, and he explains that cognitive empathy is required in order to have the other types of empathy, but emotional empathy is not a pre-requisite for compassionate empathy. Ekman states that empathy is not an emotion, it is a reaction to the emotions of others. Internationally recognized autism expert Professor Simon Baron-Cohen has identified an affective component and a cognitive component of empathy.

Sympathy – One could say that this word has the same meaning as “empathy”, but is not quite as scientific-sounding. Some dictionaries give definitions of sympathy that are practically identical to those given for empathy in some dictionaries.
Some definitions:
- compassion for
- agreement with in desire or opinion
- being affected with the same feeling as another simultaneously
- to share or claim to share another thing’s or person’s condition, sensation or emotion

Compassion – pity for the misfortune or suffering of another, may lead one to be helpful or to show mercy

Altruism – seeking the welfare of others

Scoring high for Agreeableness in personality tests

Scoring high for Conscientiousness in personality tests

Extroversion/Extraversion – Some employers assume that job applicants who appear to have extroverted or sociable personalities are nicer or more empathetic people than more socially reserved job applicants. This may be an unwise prejudice. The personality trait of extroversion is associated with Factors 1a and 1b of the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R).

Mirror-touch synaesthesia – In a study by Banissy and Ward that involved 10 people who have this neurological condition and 45 control subjects, the mirror-touch synaesthetes were found to score significantly higher in the Emotional reactivity subscale of the Empathy Quotient (EQ), but this was not found in their scores in the Cognitive empathy and Social skills subscales or their overall EQ scores.

Having properly functioning mirror neurons – Mirror neurons fire when an animal observes an action performed by another animal of the same species, and they also fire when the animal performs the same action. Mirror neurons have been directly observed in monkeys, and humans are thought to have them. These neurons are believed to mediate the understanding or imitation of the actions of others. Monkey see, monkey do. It has been theorized that mirror neurons play an important role in empathy, language and “theory of mind”, and some have theorized that autism is caused by some kind of deficiency in mirror neurons.

Dependent personality disorder – In his book “Personality” Daniel Nettle has identified DPD as the closest thing that can be found in the population to a theoretical condition of being an extreme high scorer for the personality dimension of Agreeableness. DPD is more commonly identified in women than in men.

Ability to accurately monitor one’s own heartbeat – No truly, I am not joking. In the book “The body has a mind of it’s own” a study with a small number of subjects is described in which it was found that the four subjects who were best at monitoring their own heartbeats also scored the highest in an empathy questionnaire. It was not stated whether these high scores were due you any particular subscale of the empathy questionnaire.

Yawning in response to seeing others yawn - This behaviour is thought to be mediated by mirror neurons.

Parental instincts – Some people show more altruism towards their offspring than others. This is sometimes explained with reference to psychological bonding with newborns.

“Team spirit” – People who are team sport fans and people who enjoy working as a part of a team at work tend to be more trusted or highly regarded than people who have no “team spirit”, for reasons that are unknown to the author.

Femaleness – Human females are usually the primary care-givers of their biological offspring. Many people take this as proof that human females are biologically psychologically programmed to be more caring or altruistic than human males. There is one biological, non-psychological reason why males are not fully capable of taking on the role of primary care-giver at birth; males cannot lactate, and breast milk is still regarded as the best nutrition for infants up to the age of 1 year, and in many infants breastfeeding may also be beneficial to neurological development beyond 1 year.



Concepts, labels and conditions that are associated (correctly or incorrectly) with lack of empathy, or are sometimes confused with lack of empathy

Psychopathy – A long-term pattern of behaviour that is immoral, antisocial and predatory. This label is generally only given to adults, and is more commonly identified in males than in females. This category is not currently found in either of the major psychiatric diagnostic manuals, but there are diagnostic instruments applicable to psychopathy, as well as a large body of scientific literature about this disorder. It is thought that 1% of the general population and 20% of imprisoned criminals are psychopaths, with psychopathic criminals responsible for a substantial proportion of serious crimes. Psychopathy is thought to be incurable and untreatable.

Dr Robert Hare developed the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R). There are various legal definitions used in different regions for Psychopathy in addition to Hare’s clinical definition, some applied specifically to sex offenders or paedophiles. The term “psychopathy” also has an obsolete meaning no longer used in psychiatry, a blanket term for any form of mental illness or psychosis. The label “psychopath” is often applied to serial killers and murders by authors of popular literature and mass media journalists.

It is thought that psychopathy may be in some ways adaptive, at least in the short-term, and is not incompatible with a career in politics, law or the media. Psychopaths can be manipulative and charming and may also be violent and intimidating. They do not respond to punishment. Subtypes and sub-factors of psychopathy have been identified by some researchers. Some more characteristics that are associated with psychopathy include: impulsiveness, pathological lying, shallow affect, need for stimulation, irresponsibility, superficial charm, parasitic lifestyles, sexual promiscuity, multiple short-term marriages, early behaviour problems, juvenile delinquency, deficiencies regarding guilt, remorse and empathy, and a grandiose sense of self-worth. Factors 1a and 1b of the PCL-R are associated with extroversion. Factor 2 is correlated with suicide but Factor 1 is not.

Sociopathy – Sometimes used as a synonym for psychopathy. This term is used by some scientists to refer to immoral people who’s condition is thought to be more the result of childhood environment and sociological factors than genes or psychobiological abnormality. Factors thought to contribute toward sociopathy include childhood neglect, deviant peer group, poverty and extremely high or low level of intelligence.

Female psychopathy - Female psychopaths are less commonly identified than male ones, and researchers have found their mean scores in the PCL-R are lower, but some have argued that this is a reflection of gender bias. Criminal versatility and sexual promiscuity are two psychopathic traits that appear to be stronger indicators of Psychopathy in females than in males. It appears that many studies of psychopathy in women have been limited to prisoner populations.

Criminality - Short-term type – typically offend in their teen years, possibly as a response to peer pressure, and then generally grow out of it. May be at elevated risk of developing mental illness or drug abuse.

Criminality – Early-onset, Long-term type/Violent type – Thought to be identifiable from early childhood, having a biological disposition to behaviour issues which can lead to a life of crime if combined with negative environmental influences such as maltreatment. The strength of evidence for maltreatment as a causal factor has been questioned. In her book “No two alike” Judith Rich Harris scrutinized a well-publicized large study of New Zealander males. Harris pointed out that some of the experiences that fell under the definition of “maltreatment” in this study are associated with other environmental factors. Harris stated that she could think of alternative explanations for the study’s results, such as interaction between the identified high-risk gene and another unknown gene, or interaction between the identified gene and other negative environmental influences such as low-SES and being raised in a crime-riddled neighbourhood.

This mostly male group is thought to be characterized by having a combination of three conditions; low IQ, a diagnosis of ADHD and poor language skills. This group is thought to be responsible for a large proportion of violent crimes. This disorder is thought to be largely genetically determined and runs in families. One variant of the MAO-A gene is thought to be involved. This variant has been associated with high activity in a part of the brain called the amygdala, which is involved in processing emotions.

Criminality – Early-onset, Long-term type/Violent type – Callous and Unemotional (CU) traits subtype – Thought to account for 30% of children who show a pattern of antisocial behaviour. These youths are characterized by lack of fear, lack of empathy, lack of guilt, narcissism and thrill-seeking. They respond to rewards but are unresponsive to punishment, and have a normal level of intelligence. This group share many characteristics with adult psychopaths, a group that possibly has low levels of activity in the amygdala. This disorder is thought to be highly genetically determined, but there is some evidence that parenting interventions utilizing rewards to modify behaviour can be effective.

Undetected criminality – This is obviously a very difficult subject to study scientifically.

Addiction – There are many different forms of addiction; alcoholism, smoking, heroin addiction, problem gambling, internet addiction, sex addiction, and almost all of them have considerable or serious anti-social effects. Addiction is generally an anti-social behaviour.

Conduct Disorder - A psychiatric disorder characterized by rule-breaking, cruelty to animals, cruelty to people and violence. It is a diagnosis that is typically given to children, and is thought to be a precursor to Psychopathy in some cases. More males are given this diagnosis than females. Some have argued that this is the result of gender bias in the way this disorder is defined.

Oppositional-Defiant Disorder - a diagnosis that is typically given to children, thought to be a precursor to Psychopathy in some cases.

Antisocial Personality Disorder – the closest thing to Psychopathy in the DSM, more commonly identified in males than in females, correlated strongly with criminality and Factors 2a and 2b of the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised, associated with reactive anger, impulsive violence and suicide. It is thought that something like 80% of imprisoned criminals fit the criteria for this disorder.

Dissocial Personality Disorder – the closest thing to Psychopathy in the ICD-10.

Executive Dysfunction

Child neglect and child abuse victimization

ADD/ADHD

Scoring low for Agreeableness in personality tests

Scoring low for Conscientiousness in personality tests

Alexithymia – A study by researchers at the University of Zurich using functional MRI has been reported in Science News to have results indicating that this condition may be associated with abnormalities regarding empathy, while this was not found in subjects who had Asperger syndrome without Alexithymia.

Normally functioning mirror neurons and hatred of homosexuals – In the book “The body has a mind of it’s own” it is speculated that mirror neurons, which have recently been associated with empathy, may also give rise to homophobia because they may force straight people to experience feelings that they find repugnant if they witness homosexual activity.

Selfishness
- the opposite of altruism
- lacking consideration of others
- mostly concerned with own pleasure or profit

Schadenfreude
- the opposite of compassion
- enjoyment of others’ misfortunes in a malicious way

Indifference to or detachment from the feelings of others – the opposite of empathy

Misanthrope
- person who avoids human society
- one who hates mankind

Misanthropy – distrust, hatred or dislike of mankind

Sadism
- morbid enjoyment of inflicting physical or mental pain
- deriving pleasure from inflicting or witnessing cruelty
- sexual gratification gained from causing humiliation or physical pain, a form of perversion

Sadistic personality disorder – This personality disorder appeared in one revised edition of the DSM that came out in 1987, but is not included in the current edition of the DSM.

Lacking socially responsive body language

Autistic spectrum conditions/Autistic spectrum disorders (ASD) – Autism, Asperger syndrome and other conditions in the autistic spectrum are characterized by a number of core characteristics:
- an ability to focus attention very deeply and for sustained periods, a deep satisfaction in studying and working on one narrowly-defined subject or project in depth and for long periods of time
- a tendency to focus on the details or parts of a situation or thing rather than interacting with or thinking about the thing or situation as a whole or as an enclosed system
- difficulty with communication, including language and non-verbal communication
- difficulty with or lack of interest in imaginative play or pastimes
- difficulty with or indifference to social interaction, "lack of empathy"
- a need for stability in physical surroundings and timetable of activities, unexpected changes to plans or changes imposed by others may cause distress or anger and may disrupt existing systems of self-organization
- stimming
- sensory hypersensitivity, physical clumsiness and spatial thinking talents or deficits are some characteristics that are often but not always found in autistic people

There is a common belief that autistic people are unable to understand the concept of lying or are unskilled at lying. A lack of “mind-reading” ability in autistic people is believed to be the explanation. Anxiety and anxiety-related conditions such as OCD are often found to be co-occurring with autistic conditions.

Many theories have been put forward to explain autism. One recent theory is that autism is caused by some kind of deficiency in mirror neuron function. According to the authors of a recent review of research on mirror neurons “Several studies report multiple anatomical differences between neurotypical and ASD individuals that include differences in cell morphology, cortical thickness, overall brain size and sub-cortical volumetric measurements mostly in brain areas not related to the ‘human mirror system’” (Dinstein et al 2008). The scientific consensus is that autism is highly genetically determined. Some researchers believe autism may be a catch-all diagnosis applied to a number of different unknown conditions that are caused various by genetic and/or environmental factors.

Paranoia/Paranoid personality disorder –

Narcissism/Narcissistic personality disorder -Correlated with Factors 1a and 1b of the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised, it may be more common in males.

Histrionic personality disorder - Correlated with Factors 1a and 1b of the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised. More commonly identified in women than in men, and some have argued that this is a reflection of gender bias regarding which behaviours are considered acceptable in males and females.

Being a Loner – In her book “Party of one: the loners’ manifesto” Anneli Rufus described and refuted the common irrational prejudices against loners.

Not making eye contact – In his bestselling autobiography “Look me in the eye” John Robison did a smart job of describing and refuting the common incorrect belief that avoidance of eye contact is a sign that a person is hiding something or lying, or is a psychopath.

Maleness - The majority of prisoners and personnel in the armed forces are male. Boys are thought to have a greater preference for competitive and aggressive play activities than girls. This is taken by many as proof that males, as a group, essentially lack empathy. Males in general have stronger bodies than women, due to the effects of male hormones post-puberty. In most societies there is an expectation that males will take on the role of “breadwinner”, even in the cases of males who lack the intellectual, physical or social resources to take on this role effectively. Crime, sport and military service have traditionally been careers open to males who have limited work skills or limited academic achievement.

Australians – In the past it was a commonly held view that (white) Australians, as a race, are inferior or villainous due to the high representation of convicts as the founders of white Australian society. Winston Churchill was believed to have despised Australians. While racism, sexism and a fascination with criminals are features of Australian public life, Australia is in general a socially progressive nation in which human rights are recognized and sometimes even defended.

Social minorities – Xenophobia and prejudice against social minorities or anyone who is conspicuously different are human behaviours that are widespread in all societies.


References

Anckarsäter, H., Stahlberg, O., Larson, T., Hakansson, C., Jutblad, S., Niklasson, L., Nydén, A., Wentz, E., Westergren, S., Cloninger, C. R., Gillberg, C., and Rastam, M. (2006) The Impact of ADHD and Autism Spectrum Disorders on Temperament, Character, and Personality Development. American Journal of Psychiatry. 163:1239-1244, July 2006.
http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/163/7/1239

Banissey, Michael J. & Ward, Jamie (2007) Mirror-touch synaesthesia is linked with empathy. Nature Neuroscience. 17th June 2007. vol.10, p.815-816.http://www.nature.com/neuro/journal/v10/n7/abs/nn1926.html

Baron-Cohen, Simon (2003) The essential difference. Penguin Books, 2003.

Blakeslee, Sandra & Blakeslee, Matthew (2007) The body has a mind of its own: how body maps in your brain help you do (almost) everything better. Random house, 2007.

Brockman, John (editor) What are you optimistic about? Simon & Schuster, 2007.

Brunstein, Ada (2008) You’re so vain. New Scientist. March 22nd 2008, number 2648, pages 30-33.
Online title: Being self-centred is the key to empathy
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/being-human/mg19726481.300-being-selfcentred-is-the-key-to-empathy.html

Dinstein, I, Thomas, C, Behrmann, M, & Heeger, D (2008) A mirror up to nature. Current Biology. Vol 18, R13-R18, 8th January 2008.
http://www.current-biology.com/content/article/fulltext?uid=PIIS0960982207022014#back-bib33

Ekman, Paul (2003) Emotions revealed: understanding faces and feelings. Weidenfeld & Nicholson, 2003.

Gosline, Anna (2008) When kids go bad. New Scientist. April 12th 2008, number 2651 pages 39-41.
Online title and date: Nipping teen crime in the bud. 10 April 2008.
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/being-human/mg19826511.800-nipping-teen-crime-in-the-bud.html

Grandin, Temple (1995) Thinking in pictures: and other reports from my life with autism. 1st edition. Doubleday. 1995.

Grayling, A. C. (2008) Our mirror on morality. New Scientist. May 3rd 2008, Number 2654, page 50.
Online title: Commentary: Our mirror on morality. http://www.newscientist.com/channel/opinion/mg19826541.800-commentary-our-mirror-on-morality.html

Jackson, Rebecca L. (2001) Assessment of Psychopathy in incarcerated females. (thesis, University of North Texas).

Nettle, Daniel (2007) Personality: what makes you the way you are. Oxford University Press, 2007.

Robison, John Elder (2007) Look me in the eye: my life with Asperger's. Crown, September 2007.

Rufus, Anneli (2003) Party of one: the loners' manifesto. Marlowe & Company, 2003.

Saey, Tina Hesman (2008) Asperger’s syndrome may not lead to a lack of empathy. Science News. April 24th 2008.
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/31400/title/Asperger%E2%80%99s_syndrome_may_not_lead_to_lack_of_empathy_

Soderstrom, Henrik, Rastam, Maria and Gillberg, Christopher (2002) Temperament and Character in Adults with Asperger Syndrome. Autism. Vol. 6, No. 3, 287-297 (2002).
http://aut.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/6/3/287

Wikipedia contributors (accessed 2008) Hare Psychopathy Checklist. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hare_Psychopathy_Checklist&oldid=212987779

Wikipedia contributors (accessed 2008) Psychopathy. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Psychopathy&oldid=212843732


Copyright Lili Marlene 2008.

Gluten-free and casein-free diets as a "treatment" for autism; why would you bother?

Who would deny any child the simple pleasure of eating ice-cream and milk-shakes, in the absence of any compelling evidence at all that this deprivation will in some way benefit the child?

Special diets and autism (an article from the NHS Knowledge Service)
http://www.nhs.uk/news/2007/January08/Pages/Specialdietsandautism.aspx
"The researchers say that these findings effectively disprove the ’leaky gut theory‘ ..."

Cochrane Collaboration review of gluten- and casein-free diets for autistic spectrum disorder
http://www.cochrane.org/reviews/en/ab003498.html

The standard way that autism is treated in pop science bestsellers; with sweeping statements about things that autistic people in general supposedly cannot do, based on single studies of autistic children that are of questionable relevance (And how’s this for a long title?)

On page 19 of the book “No two alike” by Judith Rich Harris it says “One of the abilities that is missing or badly impaired in autistic children is the ability to recognize faces. There is neurophysiological evidence that autistic people visually process faces the way nonautistic people process objects.” The author then gives a reference in the notes section of the book to one study that compared “brain event-related potentials” of young autistic kids with those of other kids. The text in the book might lead one to assume that a typical autistic adult might have difficulty recognizing a family member’s face in the street, but that isn’t really what the study cited was about. The study was of 3-4 year olds, and as far as I can tell from the study’s abstract, it does not appear that the actual ability to recognize faces in autistic and non-autistic subjects was directly tested. I get the impression that these pop science book writers would rather walk into a speeding bus than make contact with actual autistic adults and ask any of us what we can and cannot do. I did find Judith Rich Harris’s last book interesting, but I’m not sure if I’ll bother reading this book. Judging by the negative language used in the book with reference to autism, I’m sure the “human nature” referred to in the book’s title isn’t intended to include the characteristics of people like us.


References

Dawson, G., Carver, Meltzoff, Panagiotides, McPartland and Webb (2002) Neural Correlates of Face and Object Recognition in Young Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder, Developmental Delay, and Typical Development. Child Development. Volume 73 Issue 3 Page 700-717, May/June 2002.
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/1467-8624.00433

Harris, Judith Rich (2006) No two alike: human nature and human individuality. W.W. Norton and Company, 2006.

Jemel, B., Mottron, L., and Dawson, M. (2006) Impaired Face Processing in Autism: Fact or Artifact? Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders. v36 n1 p91-106 Jan 2006.

No one ever looks at my other blog (chin trembles pathetically). :-(

Find a new cliche, music jouralists, because I'm getting sick of reading this one

I'm getting pretty annoyed at reading stuff about The Vines in the press that appears to be all copied from the same ancient music review. The journos always say that The Vines went into some kind of a decline after their first record, or they say the second was a dud. As someone who has been forced by their offspring to listen to all of The Vines CDs hundreds of times over, I consider myself to be something of an expert on their music, and in my opinion all of The Vines releases have been rock and roll classics. While the first one, Higly Evolved is probably their best so far, any of The Vines CDs are a hundred times better than most of the rock music that you hear played on Triple J or any other radio station. The Vines have never released a dud CD, they never had any notable decline in creativity, and Nicholl's AS diagnosis did not negatively impact on his creativity, in fact, if he did not have AS I'm sure his music would not have the wild and extreme energy and the brilliant originality that sets The Vines apart from the herd.