When we view or read journalistic coverage on the subject of autistic spectrum conditions such as classic autism, Asperger syndrome or autism that is secondary to general intellectual disability, the opinions and quotations from so-called experts are sought, to give the story added authority and to provide a nice, concise overview of the topic. This is where speculative ideas about the nature of autism are very often presented by these experts as though these were scientifically proven facts. Experts have never been very good at making clear the distinction between their own pet theories and widely accepted facts. Scientific enquiry being what it is, contrary findings and opinions can appear in the scientific literature, but at the end of the day, it appears that the theory that has the most charismatic expert with the publisher that has the most effective PR department will have his ideas believed and recounted over and over again, regardless of the evidence.
We have been told by those experts that (all) people with autism have trouble recognizing faces. We have been told that some type of inborn brain defect that is unique to autism is the basis of so-called theory of mind deficits. We have been told that recognizing human facial expressions is an essential and basic human ability that all normal people have, with the exception of autistic people. Is this all a load of B. S.? Sometimes the evidence gets in the way of a good theory, dammit!
Ananthaswamy, Anil (2009) Language may be the key to theory of mind. New Scientist. 27th June 2009. p. 13.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20227144.400-language-may-be-key-to-theory-of-mind.html
Callaway, Ewen (2009) Human facial expressions aren't universal. New Scientist. 13th August 2009.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17605-human-facial-expressions-arent-universal.html
Wilson, Ellie (2009) Heterogeneity in the ability to recognise faces in Autism Spectrum Disorder. Asia Pacific Autism Conference 2009.
http://www.apac09.org/files/abstracts/Wilson-E.pdf
http://www.apac09.org/full-program.php
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Sometimes I wonder if some scientists are convinced that nothing exists until they've proved it in a study. Does it really take multiple college degrees to consider the possibility that if blind people have theory of mind, then being able to read faces isn't the be all and end all?
That's a good point, and one that I think I've read somewhere else.
Lili
Could it be possible that non-verbal language including facial expressions is being proven to be a bunch of crap?
In fact, could facial expression reading and non-verbal language be a form of people assuming and assuming makes an ass out of you and me(Figure of speech)?
People do use non-verbal signals and expressions to communicate with other humans. People also misread the way others look, seeing communication where none was intended, or misreading expressions. Some people use non-verbal signals and expressions to deceive and mislead. It seems plausible to me that some genetic mutation that forces some humans to partly or completely withdraw from this non-verbal communication game could be adaptive. Any scientist who assumes that non-verbal communication is simply beneficial to all involved, and not participating in it fully is simply a disability, is a fool.
Post a Comment