I was a bit excited at the prospect of finding some spare time to read this recent paper by Professor Tyler Cowen, who has been known to take an atypically positive view of the autistic spectrum, but Mr Anon has informed me that Cowen cites the questionable Daniel Tammet as an example of a savant in this paper, which kinda takes the shine off it for me. Probably still worth a look though.
An Economic and Rational Choice Approach to the Autism Spectrum and Human Neurodiversity.
Tyler Cowen
December 22nd 2011
GMU Working Paper in Economics. No. 11-58.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1975809
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
Interesting.
Sad to note that this very recent paper is quoting Daniel Tammet as an example of a savant, when anyone capable of a bit of background research on the internet really should know that this claim should be treated with skepticism.
One of the things that the economic perspective on autism highlights is that in modern society at least, traits that are associated with "autism" are also associated with "success" in many fields.
That is, if you want to be successful in an intellectually demanding field (physics, finance, mathematics, memory champion) you may want to deliberately cultivate traits associated with autism (like obsessively focussing on your task) at the expense of things like a good social life (which is not associated with autism or success in these fields). If you can deliberately cultivate this kind of trait, you will get more academic success and earn more.
We see this question in the Daniel Tammet story. He has definitely lived a life of obsessively focussing on memory and calculations - you don't get to memorise 22,000 digits of pi any other way. But there is a question of whether this is because of his obsessive interests per se, or whether it is because he saw this as the way to fame and fortune.
I've taken a look at the Autism Quotient test and I'm struck by the fact that anyone who is good with figures and dates would be almost guaranteed to get a high score. So let's say you want to get a high earning job in finance - you work hard at school, get interested in maths, and get good at learning (memory improves with practice as professional memorisers know). You would then answer "yes" to questions on the AQ test such as "I am fascinated by numbers" and "no" to "I find it hard to remember phone numbers". The scores from these kinds of questions would bring you well on the way to being classified as having an autism spectrum condition on this (admittedly simplified) test. But the root cause of the high score for autism is not the "autistic" trait of fascination with numbers and obsessive interests - it's the much more normal and mundane desire for money, a good job, and success.
Mr Anon
Prof. Cowen cites Tammet as a savant? I'll have to take a look at that! What a dope!
Regarding the AQ, if you take a good look at the scientific literature you will probably find that Prof Baron-Cohen's well-known tests and questionnaires are next to useless for diagnosing AS or autism. I wrote a well-read critique of his RMET. He's a disaster, and I think he has an odd personal agenda to pathologize intellectual qualities that he conspicuously lacks, such as a broad knowledge base based on a well-stocked memory of factual information and a committment to the truth over social concerns.
If I were going to play the devil's advocate over your objection to the AQ on the grounds that it incorrectly pathologizes the use of study and memory for mundane personal goals as autistic traits, I would ask, well, if you aren't autistic, then why don't you pursue your personal goals by charming, manipulating and morally compromising your way up the ladder of success, like normal people do? I would argue that the financial and social rewards of studying and being correct are very much over-rated, so why would any normal person bother? Take a look at Tammet and Baron-Cohen. They are both famous and probably both very wealthy, and they didn't get what they have by simply getting their sums right or even getting their facts right. I've scrutinized the work of both men, and lots of it doesn't "add up".
There is a common belief that being a nerd, a person who studies to the exclusion of honing his social skills, is next to autism on a spectrum. One could argue that if one's social skills are a bit soft to begin with, choosing to be a nerd would be a natural choice.
I'm sure it is still decent enough. Few people (Joshua Foer notwithstanding) have bothered to dig as deep into the Tammet saga as you have. Maybe the paper also mentions actual savants as well.
Joshua Foer is by no means alone in his scepticism. I'm of the opinion that many people, including some from the memory competition community, have known about Tammet/Corney right from the start of his ascent to fame, but have not been reported or known widely.
I think an academic would have to be a bit of a dill or slack to trust the Tammet story enough to recount it uncritically.
I've been thinking about whether Daniel Tammet really has Aspergers. I think the conclusion is that we will really never know.
On the one hand, there is nothing I have found in Tammet's life story that is completely inconsistent with Aspergers - for example, it's clear that Tammet has obsessive interests.
On the other hand, the Asperger's diagnosis was mainly based on his life history, and there is very clear evidence that Tammet's descriptions of his life history are not complete and trustworthy. The omission of his top performance in face memory is an example.
Basically, as far as I can tell, it would be extremely easy for anyone who is fairly introverted to "fake" being an on the autistic spectrum.
That's not usually a problem, because in general people don't want to be diagnosed with a condition they don't have.
But what about if there is a financial reward to being diagnosed? What if employers decided that people with aspergers were better computer programmers than those without aspergers?
In that case, you could get so many people deliberately "faking" the diagnosis that it would quickly become essentially meaningless as a diagnosis. A person saying they had aspergers would become more a statement of identity, like membership of a club, than evidence of a medical condition.
Indeed, looking at the shortcomings of tests like the AQ which you have highlighted, I wonder if this is already the case.
Mr Anon
"A person saying they had aspergers would become more a statement of identity, like membership of a club, than evidence of a medical condition."
Asperger syndrome has a medical-sounding name, but let's be clear, it never was and never will be a medical diagnosis. The label had it's origins in child psychiatry, and it is now generally regarded as a disability, like blindness or deafness or cerebral palsy. Disabilities are levels of ability, not disease processes, although they certain can be the result of diseases. I'm sure that there are scores of different medical diseases that can cause blindness, but blindness itself is not regarded as a disease. I think it is wise to look upon the autistic spectrum in a similar way, a very heterogenous type of disability or difference that can be the result of genetic variation or a large number of different diseases.
"On the one hand, there is nothing I have found in Tammet's life story that is completely inconsistent with Aspergers - for example, it's clear that Tammet has obsessive interests."
Pick any elite sportsperson and you could say that they have an obsessive interest in their sport. To perform at an elite level in anything you need to devote huge chunks of your life to it. Objectively, that is no different than autistic obsession, except that the autistic obsession often looks odd because it can thrive outside of the social milleu in which the interest is usually found.
One could say that some of Tammet's interests asa young person - the music of ABBA, the Carpenters and Romanov imposters, were odd for his working-class English background, but let's not forget that he didn't choose to be smart and gay, and both of those characteristics can set a person apart socially.
"But what about if there is a financial reward to being diagnosed? What if employers decided that people with aspergers were better computer programmers than those without aspergers?"
In a note in one of Baron-Cohen et al's papers they dismissed the possibility that their synaesthesia test could be cheated by claiming that no one would be motivated to go to such lengths, because there is no reward associated with being declared a synaesthete, then Tammet came along....
And don't be naive about there being a financial reward to being given a diagnosis of AS. A diagnosis of a mental illness or a disability gives special privilidges in welfare systems and educational systems in developed countries. Whether or not the priviledges are worth the drawbacks to the label is up to to the individual to decide.
Does Tammet really have AS or not? As far as I know there is not set cut-off point between AS and normal, and there is no physical or medical marker for the presence or absence of the condition. Apparently some diagnostic instruments are much better than others, but as I see it, it is a subjective judgement by some professional that says if the patient has it or not, and for sure this is far from perfect and pure in execution.
I think the question about Tammet must come down to common sense. The autistic spectrum is primarily considered to be a disability of communication and socializing. Tammet writes and speaks just fine. He has performed as a public speaker many times, comparably to other authors. Socially, most of the media interviews that I've read going back many years now give the impression that the interviewer personally LIKES Tammet. At the same time I can think of people who I have known who appear to be autistic in many ways, who are almost universally disliked, feared, ridiculed, pitied...and they are poor to terrible communicators. This is what the autistic spectrum is all about, in my opinion. Tammet looks nothing like it.
"Indeed, looking at the shortcomings of tests like the AQ which you have highlighted, I wonder if this is already the case."
Don't judge the business of autism diagnosis by looking at rubbish created by Baron-Cohen et al. Apparently there are better instruments out there. Michelle Dawson would probably by a good researcher to ask about this, if you are interested.
And for heaven's sake, please stop referring to the AQ as a test! It is not a test, it is a self-report questionnaire! So many people don't think and refer to Baron-Cohen's rubbish "quotients" as tests, wrongly. No single trait is measured by them and they have no objectivity in that they are self-evaluation.
Thanks for your thoughtful comments - and I stand corrected on a few of the things I said about the AQ test and Aspergers, which are subjects I know very little about (or at least, what little I do know about them comes mostly from the media and Mr Baron Cohen. I should know better by now than to accept what they say unquestioningly).
Mr Anon
Post a Comment