Working on your quirk

Another brief interlude from the stats and cog psych, but related to individual differences in reasoning I think! Interesting aside in a book by Robert Sutton on dealing with assholes (technical term here) in the workplace. He clarifies his defintion of the particular breed of asshole (technical term) in whom he is interested (pp. 16–17):

My focus is squarely on screening, reforming, and getting rid of people who demean and damage others, especially others with relatively little power. [...] I am a firm believer in the virtues of conflict, even noisy arguments.

Here’s a special case he describes (pp. 18–19) of people who can occasionally appear to be assholes (technical term), but are not:

I also want to put in a good word for socially awkward people [...]. I was struck by how many successful leaders of high-tech companies and creative organizations like advertising agencies, graphic design firms, and Hollywood production companies, had learned to ignore job candidates’ quirks and strange mannerisms, to downplay socially inappropriate remarks, and instead, to focus on what the people could actually do.

Examples he gives include autistic people and those with Tourette’s syndrome.

Reference

Sutton, R  (2007). The No Asshole Rule. NY: Business Plus.

“Autistic-like traits”

“There is evidence that the discrete boundaries imposed by DSM and ICD-10 are not always respected by the conditions described. For instance Gillberg (1983) wondered whether a ‘common biochemical disturbance’ may cause ASC in young males and anorexia nervosa in young girls, and recently evidence has been found of weak central coherence in anorexia (C. Lopez et al., 2008; Southgate, Tchanturia, & Treasure, In press). Depression is often comorbid with autism (e.g., Ghaziuddin, Ghaziuddin, & Greden, 2002). DSM warns clinicians not to confuse Schizophrenia and Asperger Disorder as aspects of the conditions are quite similar. Given this overlap between conditions, it is unavoidable for measures of ‘autistic’ traits to detect traits associated with conditions other than ASC. [...] There seems to be no shortage of continuums, overlapping and distinct, within and between typical and atypical development and clinical and non-clinical conditions of existence.”

“… I would argue in favour of defence of the label ‘autistic-like traits’ as merely shorthand for the class of traits which are of relevance to a study of ASC, so long as it is emphasised that there is overlap between conditions, for instance between ASC, psychosis, and anorexia. As more is known about the purer dimensions of importance, then it becomes easier to move instead towards discussion of these.”

(From here.)

Create your own economy (updated some more)

Recently I read Create your own economy by Tyler Cowen (thanks Michelle for the tip-off!). Interesting page-turner discussing autism, autistic(-like) traits in non-autistics, and implications for society.

Cowen points out (what is thankfully becoming more familiar) that although autism is often associated with tragedy, many autistics and not only savants have cognitive strengths, e.g., being infovores for their preferred areas of interest, better perceptual skills than non-autistics, less suspectiblity to false memories.  He argues that technological tools available today such as iTunes and Facebook allow non-autistics to have the same abilities.  Non-autistics are driven to do the same sort of organisation and searching for information as autistics are, and this is being made possible by technology. He argues that education is even designed to teach non-autistics some of the cognitive strengths of autism.

One side of autism mentioned in the book and not frequently discussed is that autistics are more likely to talk about feelings than make small talk (has this been studied? Is it true? I would like to know more). The emotional experience of autistics is rarely acknowledged.  Cowan gives examples of people who despite appearing outwardly aloof are deeply sensitive, caring, and who are shocked when they’re told otherwise.

There are plenty of examples in the book of people, real and fictional, who appear(ed) to have autistic traits. I found this a tad tiresome (there has been a lot of it about elsewhere), especially when suffixed with hedges saying that of course we don’t know whether they were autistic. The key point is that “what-we-call-what-it-is-that-I-am-talking-about” (to quote Cowan) probably ought not be derived from a name for a disorder. So viewed this way, most of the book is not about autism, but about a cognitive and emotional profile which many people in society have. This is not to say that autistics do not have cognitive strengths—and he discusses some examples in the book—but I do not see what is to be gained by conjecturing that people are/were autistic. What does this explain?  The details matter, not a one word label. (However this could be because I am deeply suspicious of labels in general!)

Lots of good stuff in the book. In general I think it does a great job of defending the eccentric, and argues successfully that many of the traits eccentrics possess are desirable. Good news for academics!

There are plenty of important points on respecting the individual. I like this of course, and am a big fan of positive individual differences research, e.g., discovering the strengths of people diagnosed with various developmental and psychiatric conditions. But I think my favourite sentence in the book is this (relatively unimportant) one:

“In June 2009, a group of Norwegian astronomers broadbast a Doritos ad to a distant star, forty-two light years away.”

This is genius, and I think it’s a good author indeed who can spot and report such facts. It’s these kinds of things that make society fun.

“It’s like you are just a spectator in this thing”

I’ve just read an article by Sara Ryan and Ulla Räisänen ["It's like you are just a spectator in this thing": Experiencing social life the "aspie" way. Emotion, Space and Society, 2008, 1, 135-143] which used an in depth interview approach to explore how people with Asperger’s syndrome experience problems like social exclusion, and interpreted what’s going on with respect to various sociological theories. Some excerpts from the interviews:

“… it just sort of highlighted and made me almost feel as though basically sort of like a freak. You know you really had nothing in common with these people and with people in general and it was a very lonely feeling […] You know, loneliness, I think, sort of becomes the default setting.”

“… like you say something stupid, and then realise you have said something stupid, and say something even more stupid, and or say something or do something awkward and then sort of combination of doing something awkward and saying something awkward and trying to make it funny and then making it even more awkward, making yourself look like a complete and utter idiot and then going all sort of red in the face and then hiding for days.”

This sort of detail of attempts to explain what it feels like to be an “aspie” in a (in general) non-aspie friendly society is sadly missing from much of the psychological literature on autism spectrum conditions.

It would have been lovely if they’d also included a matched typically developing group. For instance after discussing how it felt like for one of the participants to try to have a conversation, the authors comment:

“Of course, this is an experience that is probably familiar to many neuro-typical people but the level of intensity and frequency is substantial for people with AS who are unable, or find it difficult to, internalise social norms and values.”

So, how does it feel for a typically developing person to have a conversation? There must be a tremendous amount of variation! Where do people typically get their ideas from? Where does it feel like they come from. Do they just pop into memory? I’ve been in many fairly unpleasant social situations where people simply have nothing to say to each other. Alcohol is then wheeled in before disaster strikes. I’ve seen a professor quickly digest the contents of an issue of the Guardian just before going to lunch; from the conversation that followed it seems that he was replaying much of what he read, but the result was that people had interesting discussions. To make sense of the ASC experience, the worries of typically developing folk must also be carefully understood.

Also how the aspie folk in the sample think of topics, reminded me of the distinction between stimulus-oriented versus stimulus-independent thought. Perhaps this is further evidence that autistics (or those with ASD/ASC, depending on your terminological preferences—I’m still struggling!) are more stimulus dependent. I wonder if results from the cognitive end of the literature combined with the ethnomethodology and symbolic interactionism approach in this paper could give ideas for coping mechanisms, both for autistics and for NTs. This would fit in nicely with the idea that “Moral obligations … include being sympathetically aware of the kinds of ways in which others present can become spontaneously and properly involved…”—maybe conversation partners can help autistics to ignore local stimulus features.

I've just read and enjoyed your article on how people with Asperger's
experience life.  A few thoughts came to mind.

Have you done anything similar with a neurotypical comparison
group?  You make an interesting side comment:

"Of course, this is an experience that is probably familiar to many
neuro-typical people but the level of intensity and frequency is
substantial for people with AS who are unable, or find it difficult to,
internalise social norms and values."

So, how does it feel for an NT to have a conversation?  Where do people
typically get their ideas from?  Where does it feel like they come from.
 Do they just pop into memory?  I've been in many fairly unpleasant
social situations where people simply have nothing to say to each other.
 Alcohol tends to lubricate proceedings.  I've seen a professor quickly
digest the contents of an issue of the Guardian just before going to
lunch; from the conversation that followed it seems that he was
replaying much of what he read.

Also how the aspie folk in your sample think of topics, reminded me of
the distinction between stimulus-oriented versus stimulus-independent
thought.  Perhaps this is further evidence that autistics (or those with
ASD, depending on your terminological preferences!) are more stimulus
dependent.  I wonder if results from the cognitive end of the literature
combined with your ethnomethodology and symbolic interactionism approach
could give ideas for coping mechanisms, both for autistics and for NTs.
 This would fit in nicely with the idea that "Moral obligations ...
include being sympathetically aware of the kinds of ways in which
others present can become spontaneously and properly involved..." -
maybe conversation partners can help autistics to ignore local stimulus
features.

A shockingly bad characterisation of autistic-like traits

Have a look at the article by Stewart Dakers in the Guardian (October 22).

He begins with a description of a violent young man named Bender, who smashes another young man’s face against the protective grill on a shop front. Dakers’ diagnosis of Bender and co:

This disaffection is characterised by indifference to the interests of others, self-preoccupation, by behaviours that are aloof or aggressive. They are “extreme blokes”, endlessly competitive, combative, techno-whizzes, system obsessed, vocabulary-lite, emotional and social misfits. Top-gear masculinity.

There is an uncomfortable resonance in this hypermaleness with a condition that has begun to assume epidemic proportions. Indeed, those mates of Bender’s fortunate enough to be assessed for special educational needs all have an autistic spectrum diagnosis. Autism has most recently been rebranded as AQ, the autistic quotient, implying that it is an inherent human condition, like IQ. As such, it surely affects us all, capable of being excited, both chronically and anecdotally, by experience of trauma.

It is still open for debate whether Autism Spectrum Condition (ASC) is actually on the increase, or whether diagnostic criteria are weakening or more cases are being spotted.

I am aware of no work connecting ramming peoples’ faces into shop fronts and ASC, and it’s downright irresponsible to suggest there is a connection.

ASC has not been “rebranded” AQ.  There is a self-report screening questionnaire named AQ which is used by some researchers.  AQ may be used to predict whether someone has Asperger’s Syndrome or High Functioning Autism, but it also detects traits which are not specific to these conditions.

I can’t bring myself to quote from Dakers’ causal explanation.

There is more info about the autism spectrum at the National Autistic Society’s website.

Lovely documentary on autism

(Hat-tip: Mind Hacks.)

Autism reconsidered

Lovely article in the Ottawa Citizen on Michelle Dawson.

Sex differences in theory of mind

Tamara Russell and colleagues have discovered that, despite the stereotypes, men did better in a theory of mind test than women. The authors argue that the men used a systemizing strategy, thus, I presume were just simulating empathy. Not sure I like this conclusion, though it is thought provoking. Just how can Baron-Cohen’s empathising/systemizing distinction be made in a solid way?

AutismDiva on a talk by Joseph Piven

Quite old but interesting – see over here.

Autistic superiority

A blog posting by Michelle Dawson, in which she lists researchers who publish data on people with autism who are superior to neurotypicals on some task, reminded me of a quote I’d saved from a BBS commentary paper by Gernsbacker, Dawson, and Mottron (2006):

“Quite compellingly, each of these statistically significant demonstrations of autistic superiority is labeled by its authors as a harmful dysfunction. Autistics’ superior block-design performance is labeled “weak central coherence,” symptomatic of dysfunctional “information processing in autism” (Shah & Frith 1993, p. 1351). Autistics’ superior performance on embedded figures tests is considered “consistent with the cognitive-deficit theory proposed by Hermelin and O’Connor (1970) … due to a central deficiency in information processing” (Shah & Frith 1983, p. 618). Autistics’ superior recognition memory performance is attributed to deleteriously “enhanced attention to shallow aspects of perceived materials” (Toichi et al. 2002, p. 1424); their superior sentence comprehension is described as being “less proficient at semantically and syntactically integrating the words of a sentence” (Just et al. 2004, p. 1816); their superior imperviousness to memory distortions is explained by “representations in the semantic network [that] may be associated in an aberrant manner” (Beversdorf et al. 2000, p. 8736); and their superior resistance to misleading prior context is attributed to their perception being “less conceptual” (Ropar & Mitchell 2002, p. 652).”

Gernsbacker, M.A., Dawson, M., and Mottron. L. (2006). Autism: Common, heritable, but not harmful. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 29, 413-414.

Edited to add: hadn’t clicked that the Dawson in the author list is the blog’s author! (She is.)