Baron-Cohen+II+(WK3)

Here's your page for Baron-Cohen II (WK3)

Question/request/help needed not on topic with article: I was wondering if anyone finished the reading from Descartes' Baby for this week and could possible lend me their book? I attempted to order it online, but apparently my order never went through. I just checked the book store and they are all out also. I'm requesting it on both summit and interlibraryloan, but it usually takes at least a week for things to come in. I would so appreciate anyone's help with this! Thanks!!! -Julia

Julia, you can borrow my book as well. wiese.jennie@gmail.com ~jennie

Were we supposed to finish just part 1? If so, you can borrow my book. I live right next to campus, just let me know. you can text/call me at 360.481.5481 : D Rachel


 * "The Extreme Male Brain Theory of Autism" By Simon Baron-Cohen**

The male and female brain are determined prenatally, therefore giving us male and female differences in cognition. Generally, females are better with "folk psychology" while males are better at "folk physics." Some people are equally balanced, but in an even more rare case, people with autism are far better at folk physics and significantly lack folk psychology (Pg. 28). There is a strong relationship with males and people with autism; both are better at folk physics and autism is predominantly a male condition with a 4:1 female/male ratio (Pg. 24).

Baron-Cohen writes a lot about mindreading and mindblindness. Mindreading, an ability that autism lacks, begins in toddlers ages 18-24 months. Though there might be earlier origins in noticing mindblindness in autism children who do not engage in behaviors such as pointing, gaze-duration and showing gestures, these behaviors are referred to as joint attention. Joint attention is the precursor to mindreading (Pg. 14). Mindreading is evident in pretend play. Children with autism have difficulty understanding the mind's mental functions, like thinking, dreaming, deceiving, etc. So they also have difficulty using their imagination for pretend play. An interesting connection that Baron-Cohen states is that even though they don't engage in pretend play, researchers have done tests that show people with autism are not prisoners of reality; so it seems they do use their imagination, they just don't show it.

Though there were numerous examples of how the minds of autistic children differ from normally functioning children (in the beginning of the article), the two themes I saw come up the most were that autistic children are unaware that peoples beliefs can differ, as well as struggling with mental representations. These are both "theory of mind" deficits. Two other theories that are seen commonly in autistic children are "central coherence" (lacking use/understanding of context) and "executive function" (not able to inhibit actions/reactions). Parts of the brain may influence autism, as well as possibly indicate a genetic tie to autism.

What an interesting article! I'm trying to look at it and question it, but it seems to make a lot of sense. Of course it is quite a big claim to make, and with it comes some issues, such as the study done by Satz on page 35 that was inconsistent with the author's theory. I'm really interested in knowing the opinions of researchers who disagree with Baron-Cohen. -in response to my own comment I found an article written by an Autistic woman who took great offense to Baron-Cohen's essay, and her article does offer some very good points. [|A Critique of the Extreme-Male-Brain Theory of Autism].

=
As Tony Attwood and others have shown, female Aspies tend to have an __ [|entirely different presentation] __ from males. The diagnostic criteria were developed from the results of studies using only males. All of Leo Kanner’s subjects and Hans Asperger’s subjects were boys. The male bias lies in the diagnostic markers, not in the condition of autism itself." =====

In another critique ([|"The Extreme Male Brain?" Incrementum And The Rhetorical Gendering Of Autism]), the author states "By considering autism through the terministic screens of sex and gender, researchers have historically shifted their focus towards some features of autism and away from others. In the example of autism, masculinity itself has been cast as a disability, at least in its so-called "extreme" form." -Perhaps equating a condition with male and female is so new and exciting that parts of the condition that don't fit into this scheme are overlooked in order to make the theory more tidy (which reminds me of the Skinner article from last week.)

Pamela~I'm not sure if I am missing something here but I don't see people's names. I would like to reference the above person by thanking them...but not sure who wrote it. I liked that they brought up the women's point. My brain was questioning the validity of the tests and male/female ratio in testing. In contrast to the above person, I found this article lacking. It seemed to me that the reference was more than the actual content. I have been fascinated with the topic of Autism for quite some time and have read a bit about it. This substance of this article is sparse compared to what is available on the topic. The part that intrigued me was on pg. 3 ph 1. The discussion of what is considered "abnormal". The presence of restricted interests, repetitive activity and limited imaginative ability seems to address a considerable amount of the population. Meaning their terminology is too broad. Repetitive interests and collecting unusual objects or facts? Again what constitutes unusual? Going off these broad terms I would say I could categorize many people into an autistic label. Another aspect that peaked my interest was on pg. 9. The ability for them to relate to physical pain vs. mental pain. This particular issue was of immense value to me. I have tried to wrap my brain around aspects of Autism in cases that are borderline. In cases that stand out because of the extreme difference to "normal" behavior the Autism speaks for itself. When a person is borderline or high functioning it is much harder to comprehend if the person has Autism. This aspect helped me to have another understanding of Autism. The inability to deceive p. 10. was a fascinating tidbit. I would love to have more information on this aspect. How they don't understand manipulation; fascinating. Also, their ability to only interpret literally as opposed to an intention or metaphor. ~Pamela

The part that really resonated with me is the physical differences in the brain. Those seem to be less subjective and easier to see promise in the findings. And while not a measure of physical differences in the brain: “Left handedness is more common among males, and people with autism or AS show an elevated incidence of left-handedness” 18-22% depending on the study.
 * “Normal males have a smaller corpus callosum than normal females, and people with autism or AS have an even smaller one."
 * Counter-point from the "Critique" link above: A 1997 study by Professors Bishop and Wahlsten at the University of Alberta showed that, on average, the corpus callosum is larger in males, not smaller. According to the article, “Data collected before 1910 from cadavers indicate that, on average, males have larger brains than females and that the average size of their corpus callosum is larger…The recent studies, most of which used magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), confirm the earlier findings of larger average brain size and overall corpus callosum size for males. The widespread belief that women have a larger splenium than men and consequently think differently is untenable.”
 * “In the normal population, the male brain is heavier than the female brain, and people with autism have even heavier brains than normal males.”

I would like folk psychology and physics to be the better defined. What exactly do these two entitle? Does anybody know more about this? Baron-Cohen defines these as the following, "Folk psychology is broadly “mindreading”, and folk physics is broadly understanding physical objects (and this includes mechanical, constructional, mathematical and spatial skills)." (p.28) Harkening back to last week, it could be folk psychology related to the core system of articles and folk physics related to the core system of objects.
 * Questions / Topics of Discussion**

On autism and genetics, I wonder if the "raised risk of autism" isn't necessarily genetic-based, but if it could have to do with family lifestyle and eating habits? In my Developmental Movement Therapy class we talked about how autism could be caused or worsened by the lack of support a child needs to develop normally... this could be lack of tummy time and crawling, too much TV or not enough personal engagement, as well as poor/unbalanced nutrition (and way too much sugar). If one person is autistic and they were raised in such a way that they didn't have an optimal environment for natural development or didn't get good nutrition, that could be an environment that would make it more likely for their sibling to be autistic as well?