One that comes to mind for me: “Whatever doesn’t kill you makes you stronger” is not always true. Maybe even only half the time! Are there any phrases you tend to hear and shake your head at?
One that comes to mind for me: “Whatever doesn’t kill you makes you stronger” is not always true. Maybe even only half the time! Are there any phrases you tend to hear and shake your head at?
Autistic people do have significantly reduced cognitive empathy. That’s literally part of being on the spectrum. Some will have better cognitive empathy than others. If a person is not capable of reading the emotion that an NT is projecting, then their reactions are going to appear to lack affective empathy as well.
Your closing sentence hints at the root of the misunderstanding here. It also fails to strengthen your initial claim at all. This study’s Lay summary sets it out perfectly.
Autistic folks don’t always exhibit the socially defined traits of autism. Absence of evidence isn’t evidence of absence, right? So while your [claim] [double-down] [pre-emptive concession] [claim] ends with a claim that’s reasonable it is also fundamentally disconnected from the initial claim (which is, at best, half-true). Social and non-social traits are additional dimensions on a complex spectrum. Defining autism only by it’s more visible / stigmatized traits perpetuates the false equivocations of abnormal with disordered and disordered with diseased.
Sent with love ❤️
Yes yes, I’m well aware that people can define “empathy” in many different ways to make their point. But honestly, “Autistic people don’t feel empathy” is pretty much a dogwhistle for “They’re broken and I’m better than them”. Autistic communication and non-autistic communication are different and neither are “right” or “wrong”.
Also, interestingly the criteria for autism doesn’t actually mention empathy: https://www.autism.org.uk/advice-and-guidance/topics/diagnosis/assessment-and-diagnosis/criteria-and-tools-used-in-an-autism-assessment
I’m not the one making the distinction.
There’s a reason that ASD is a disability.
Ehh… The autistic and academic communities have been butting heads for a while. Academia has a rich history of marginalising and dehumanising those that they consider “lesser”, and I have no reason to beleive that we’ve moved past that.
Autistic and non-autistic brains work in different ways. And it’s hard for one type to understand the other. Usually called the “double empathy problem” ( https://www.autism.org.uk/advice-and-guidance/professional-practice/double-empathy ). And because neurotypical people have problems reading autistic people, they assume that the person they’re reading must lack “something”.
In addition, all the tools that academics use to measure the worth of a person tend to be tailered to a specific type of person. You can see it with IQ tests; once racism went from being normal to being frowned upon, scientists had to scramble to figure out why Africans suddenly started seeming to be characterised as intellectually deficient.
Being gay also used to be a disability, but now it isn’t. It’s not unreasonable to assume that in 10 years autism will be the same.
Personally, my experiences have been that I have too much empathy. Other people’s suffering hurts me so much more than my neurotypical friends. I think this is a common autistic trait (“hyper-empathy”) other people have. I have theories on how this all relates to their reactions to emotional stimulus, but this post is already too long.
… Of course, there is a group of people who think that Academia is Law and that things aren’t true unless they’re in a journal. If you’re that kind of person, I doubt my hearsay is convincing, but I figure it might interest people travelling this thread.