On empathy and autism and other stuff.

[conuly]

Disclaimer: Don't confuse me for an expert or anything :)

A lot of people believe that autism is incompatible with empathy, or with normal empathy. This, I believe, is not the case. I think that autistics are no less likely to be empathetic than other people, but that this is often overlooked because of communication problems.

Example: A while back, my mom was (apparently) hungry, and she asked me if I was hungry. I wasn't, so I said so. A little while later, she repeated the question. Now I'm irked, because I'm busy, so I say that no, but if I were, I'd cook something, she doesn't have to worry about it. And she gets upset.

Jenn eventually explains this as "well, she was hungry, and she wanted either for you to cook for her or to get her food, but she didn't want to ask" (at this point, Mommy's foot is still broken, so she shouldn't be standing in the kitchen for a long time).

Now *I'm* upset. If she were hungry, she should've said that, because I don't want my Mommy to be hungry. But she didn't, and this caused massive problems with us both being upset because she was trying to hint around the issue. I'm not lacking empathy, I just can't mindread like I want to be able to.

Example: The other day, I was at school with my sister. We were leaving James, and I went through the door to hold it for Jenn. Afterwards, she chewed me out for "pushing past the guy with the packages". I hadn't even *seen* the guy with the packages. If I had, I would've held the door. I don't lack empathy, I lack... I don't know, an ability to look where I'm going? I felt really bad about this too :(

Example: Way back on good ol' I&S, I corrected people's spelling. Religiously. I always corrected people. Occasionally, people would get upset at this. To them, this is mean. To me, though, this is courteous. I don't like being wrong, and I assume others are the same way. If I made a horrible spelling error, or any factual error, I'd like a correction. I may still argue, if I think your information is wrong, but I like to know anyway that I could be mistaken. I wasn't lacking empathy, I was trying to uphold the golden rule.

These are crappy examples, but the point should be clear. And the list, no doubt, goes on. And on. And on and on and on.

Comments

[leora.livejournal.com]

Example one is something that many people get wrong. I like Deborah Tannen's book You Just Don't Understand (I think that's the title... she's written a few, her first book on the subject is best). She talks about differences in dialects. Some people speak indirectly, some speak more directly. In most cases, whichever you use, you tend to view the other as rude. Learning to understand those who speak differently and use different methods is an acquired skill for everyone.

The second, that's a possible problem for anyone. My father is truly horrible about this... he just forgets to look down, so sometimes he walks smack into children. This is a trainable skill also. But has more to do with attention and perception than with empathy or caring.

The third is closest to empathy - missing the signs of distress or displeasure. But in not a single case do you express having any empathy. All of these explain why you don't feel it inexcusable for you not to be aware of all the facts of the situation and to act improperly, and I agree. But where is an example of actually having empathy?

[conuly]

As I told you, I don't think your definition of empathy (feeling what other people feel) is actually possible. I think those that believe they can do this are actually deluding themselves, and are wrong more often than not. This fits with my own experience, when people often pretend to know what I am thinking, or complain that other people act in "horrible" ways which are only horrible when you assume they know how you feel about them.

[leora.livejournal.com]

Oh and the golden rule is crap. Being a masochist doesn't give you a right to hit others, even those you want to have hit you.The golden rule is an oversimplification that only stays around because it does work for a large chunk of people when interacting with a large chunk of people. It almost never works for me.

I slightly prefer the Jewish version: Do not do unto others what you do not want done unto you.

It is slightly better, but still full of flaws. What you really need to do is try to do unto others as they want to be done unto except don't let it hurt you too much and well, morality is too complicated for a single sentence.

But you just can't trust the golden rule.

[conuly]

But you just can't trust the golden rule.

Hear, hear.

[ex-chaos-by-699.livejournal.com]

If somebody asked me if I was hungry I don't know if I'd know that they were asking me because they were hungry themselves and expected me to make something for them. I think my natural assumption would be that they were planning to make something and wanted to see if I wanted some.

For the record, I don't think I'm autistic. But I have certainly had my share of oblivious moments. I really hate it when someone gets mad at me because I didn't get a hint. It feels unfair. Even if I see something that could be a hint, it's often something that has multiple possible interpretations, so I could have just picked the wrong one to go with.

I don't mind if people correct my spelling, as long as they're civil about it. But I'm a bit of a spelling/grammar whore.

From what I've seen, autistic people don't lack empathy in the sense that they don't care about other peoples' feelings. If they hurt someone, it's usually by mistake and they usually feel sorry about it once they find out. I think they more have trouble figuring out what's likely to hurt someone else. I think the key is just to be straight up with people, which seems to work best with everyone as far as communication goes anyway.

Personally I just prefer it when people give it to me straight.

[readerravenclaw.livejournal.com]

I just wanted to let you know that I read and appreciate what you write about Autism and Asperger's. I'm really interested in the ASD spectrum in general (I'm majoring in speech-language pathology) and I love hearing about this sort of thing from an insider perspective, so to speak. :)

(And btw, about my whole non-response to the issue about equality between men and woman... I was tired the next night, and the next day I was out all day, and by now I can't work up the energy to get back into a debate. :) But that doesn't mean I've conceded. But now I'm remembering another point you brought up which I wanted to mention. You discovered that by examing your own beliefs, you came to the conclusion that America shouldn't have entered World War II, because war should only be fought in self-defense - that America has too many problems of its own to worry about the world. The thing is, isolationist policy tends to ignore the fact that sometimes not interfering can end up causing much, much worse long-term problems. For example, say America hadn't interfered in World War II. It's reasonable to conclude that Germany and its allies would have won. Germany would've gotten stronger and stronger, whereas Britain and the other "free" countries would've gotten much weaker. The end result would have been a very, very significant threat. Being on a separate continent is helpful, but it does NOT keep you safe. Of course, the whole idea of saying, well, an entire race is being tortured and wiped out, but they're not Americans, so it's not our business to worry about them - that is, quite frankly, an attitude that is radically opposed to my own that I can barely comprehend it. Because the thing is, America stepping in WAS what helped win the war, and winning the war prevented the deaths of all those who survived the concentration camps up till that point. You might want to point out that the number of American soldiers who died were significantly more than that, but war always results in death, and America was founded upon the whole "give me liberty or give me death" principle - just keeping your mouth closed and keeping a low profile and obeying the nasty, prejudiced, mean guys will cause fewer deaths, but many people feel that it's just not worth it in the long run. You're probably jaded because of Iraq, where at the moment it seems that there's just as much suffering now as there was before, but taking the attitude that America should never step in to stop the mass suffering of other people is really short-sighted, even from a logical and emotionless point of view. Anyway, sorry for going so off topic in this parenthesis! Your journal moves so fast that I didn't want to start hunting for the correct journal entry to post this in....)

[conuly]

1. I figured that was probably what happened.
2. Okay, out of order, but I'm not the "one voice on autism". I'm just me.
3. Nope, believed this before Iraq, I just don't talk about it.
4. Oh, definitely - even a casual reading of Mein Kampf would've shown Hitler to be a risk to the entire world. I'm not an isolationist, just a lets-not-stretch-too-thin-ist.

[leora.livejournal.com]

Well, you may believe that empathy doesn't exist, but then you certainly can't claim that auties/aspies have empathy.

Empathy seems to be the ability to observe a large number of small details, and process it as a personal experience of the emotion you conclude the person is experiencing.

If the person does not express their emotions in a way that you understand, then of course you will be wrong. But there's a huge difference between having an outright sensa of what others feel and thinking about what others feel.

[elenbarathi.livejournal.com]

*hugs you gently, having enough empathy to surmise that you're feeling sad about people accusing you of not having empathy when really you do*

I know, hon. It bugs the hell out of me when people ask me "do you want to...?" rather than saying "I'd like to..." or "Would you please..." - even though I know people do this, I don't always catch it. I tell people straight-out, "don't hint around with me; go with the Direct Approach", because I utterly loathe that whole mind-game of "I'm going to ask for something while pretending not to ask for it, and you're supposed to give it to me while pretending that I didn't ask, that you just wanted to do it" - since both know the whole thing's a pretense, what's the point?

*more huggles* Hey, I can't always look where I'm going either; in crowded places there's so much going on that I can't 'see fast enough' to sort it all out. So I can completely understand your having just not seen the guy with the packages - perceived him, yes, as an obstacle to navigate around, but not really seen him.

*wry grin* The Golden Rule doesn't work worth shit for auties dealing with NTs. It's as if a cat living with rabbits was to assume that what she wanted was what they wanted. Works the other way, too; I'm always finding I need to thank people politely for giving me things or doing things for me that they assumed I would want, when actually I don't. I totally suck at guessing what other people want - I know they're not like me, but what are they like? - so, again, I go with the Direct Approach, and just ask.

I have observed this much: the whole NT social structure is based on a status-hierarchy, and position in it is based on the perceptions of others - therefore NTs are always trying to deceive each other, to make others think they are stronger, smarter, prettier, nicer, more honest, more generous than they actually are. The lower someone is in any particular phase of this hierarchy, the harder they have to work at the deception. That's what "insecurity" means: people are insecure about the areas in which their status-indicators are most lacking.

Therefore they don't like to be corrected about anything, but the good spellers will resent it less than the poor spellers. Advice of any sort isn't "free"; there's always a hidden price-tag in 'status-units' assumed.

I know it sounds crazy, but watch people with this behavior-model in mind, and see if it doesn't make a lot more sense.

[conuly]

Well, you may believe that empathy doesn't exist, but then you certainly can't claim that auties/aspies have empathy.

I just made a NEW new post, so we can talk there instead of the two/three/twenty threads thing. I suspect we're using different definitions of empathy, and until we settle that, we're just going to be talking at cross purposes.

[readerravenclaw.livejournal.com]

I know you're just one voice - but reading lots and lots of one-voices can be very informative, and it certainly offers a fresh perspective. :) You're not the only person with an ASD whose opinions I've read. :)

[gingembre.livejournal.com]

This totally reminded me of an LJ pet peeve - when people type "here, here." I always think, are you calling me? Am I a dog?

*ahem* still patiently waiting...*

[conuly]

*hugs you gently, having enough empathy to surmise that you're feeling sad about people accusing you of not having empathy when really you do*

Well, at the time I posted this... not really. We were talking about the pedophile guy, and leora mentioned the classic "lack of empathy" that autistics are rumored to have, and it just... went on from there. Just the idea, though, upsets me, even when it's not talking about me.

So I can completely understand your having just not seen the guy with the packages - perceived him, yes, as an obstacle to navigate around, but not really seen him.

This is the first time I can recall this happening to me - though probably not the first time it's happened, which explains a lot of arguments I've had with my mom about "why didn't you pick up the mess on the floor/table" and "what do you mean you didn't hear me? YOU ANSWERED ME!"

Therefore they don't like to be corrected about anything, but the good spellers will resent it less than the poor spellers.

I did eventually figure it out, and got myself a whole cadre of people who defended my right to correct spelling. What was really funny is that some of the corrected would hang around waiting for me to make a mistake, just so they could correct it. And then they would get mad when I wasn't upset!

[conuly]

Doing them in a minute. I promise.

[leora.livejournal.com]

Okay, starting over and trying to be clearer... I don't think we truly disagree. The problem is my very first comment was aimed as trying to explain the vast differences between someone with autism and a standard NT to an NT. So, the bits I gave you and the bits I left out were all backwards.

Empathy is very specifically defined as the emotional feeling of what others feel (real or imagined). Here m-w.com (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=empathy&x=0&y=0)

What you're describing is sympathy and compassion. Which I definitely agree that most autistics/asperger's people have.

The difference is that brains react differently to different kinds of knowledge. Some things get processed more quickly. This is why if you stick your hand against the hot metal pot, you jerk it back, then realize it hurts, then realize you were an idiot.

Likewise, processing intellectually that someone fidgeting and looking away may be in distress is slower and easier to not do. I think that autistics care, but they have to make a conscious effort to consider whether someone is in distress, in most cases, rather than having it scream out at them so loudly that they can't function because the person close to them is in pain. You get the advantage that you're not crippled by someone else's grief or pain, but the disadvantage is you need to take effort to notice. So, you can forget to notice.

Most people seem able to tune out things like buzzing noises or flashing lights. I cannot tune out flashing lights and they will hurt me so much. Likewise, I can't tune out the suffering of someone I care about.

So, I think the way in which you process other people's feelings matters. It makes a difference as far as what you are likely to notice when other factors are distracting you, and what you miss.

I think what I call a lack of empathy is a subset of a wider communication problem. It's the difficulty understanding the signals others give that lead to a lack of feeling about them. You are intellectually aware of them, but it's just not the same. Your own feelings will always be more real to you than other people's, and not experiencing other people's as your own will cause some things to be more difficult and some things to be easier.

It's like being born blind. Lots of blind people who were born blind are highly competent and perfectly content. They don't miss vision, they never had it. They can do all sorts of things. They miss various bits of body language, but they can still interact with people, even though they are at a disadvantage around sighted people. But they're likely more attuned to changes in tone of voice. There's really no serious problems with being born blind that you can't fix with the right kind of education and technology. However, few people would say that being born blind doesn't put you at a disadvantage and might not make it easier to run into some particular problems. It also likely gives you some strengths, hey you can read in the dark. And being forced to compensate builds skills. But it does give you a different landscape of strengths and weaknesses.

[bridgetester.livejournal.com]

There's some more information on the first (indirectly or directly) here (http://members.aol.com/macvjv/docs/PreferredCommunicationStyle.htm). It's called Informing vs Directing on that page. :)

[bridgetester.livejournal.com]

It's not just pretense. Some people, including me, don't like what we see as ordering other people to do things. But that doesn't mean that we Informers can't be assertive when we need to.

More information on Informers vs Directors (http://members.aol.com/macvjv/docs/PreferredCommunicationStyle.htm) :)

[bridgetester.livejournal.com]

I cannot tune out flashing lights and they will hurt me so much. Likewise, I can't tune out the suffering of someone I care about.

*nods emphatically*

[staircase-wit.livejournal.com]

I agree. Sympathy/empathy are confused in the vernacular, and while saying that autistic people lack empathy is dangerous, as it implies they lack sympathy, it is also accurate within the specific jargon.

Well, half accurate... autistics lack empathy for neurotypicals. Neurotypicals lack empathy for autistics. Were it not so, Mommy would have said, "Connie, I'm hungry, could you make something for me?" Mearly hinting was, well, a lack of empathy.

[adiva_calandia]

Sympathy/empathy are confused in the vernacular

Definitely. I like saying "I empathize," when I do. It gets me a few odd looks sometimes, but it makes me feel good for using English correctly. :)

[leora.livejournal.com]

Ooooh fascinating - and another puzzle piece for general understanding of communication and its variance.

I don't think this actually describes the difference I was trying to describe, but it describes something related. Also, I have a personal interest as an INFJ. But I think my style depends on how close I am to the person I am talking to. I am more directing with people I am not as close to, but if I care about the person enough, I trust them to make the best decision if I merely inform.

However, the difference I was trying to describe is believed to be almost entirely cultural (although you can never be fully sure on these things) and is a matter of level of directness.

An example:

Direct informing:
I'm hungry.

Indirect informing:
Would you like to get some food?

Direct directing:
Make lunch so we can both eat.

I'm not sure how indirect directing would work... maybe:
It's lunchtime.

It's hard for me to know what a realistic example is the further I wander away from my own modes of communication.

I was raised in a direct communication environment. Although most women, apparently, are raised to communicate indirectly. This causes much fun and conflict with those who are raised to communicate directly and vice versa. As both methods can be seen as rude (you're trying to trick me, why not just come out and say what you mean? versus You're so blunt, why not phrase things more politely?) And getting used to the other is hard to do.

But now I have another distinction to play with... but not now as I'm passed my 2 minutes to dim sum notice.

[bridgetester.livejournal.com]

Yes, I do agree that there's a gradient of directness, not just binarry.

I highly recommend the rest of the site, as well as http://www.infj.com/
http://www.infj.org/
and my post on INFJs (http://www.livejournal.com/users/bridgetester/21678.html).

They're odd to me, as an INxP. INFJs and TJs would say I'm INFP with a strong focus on knowledge and systems, but whatever. :)

[leora.livejournal.com]

No, I'm not saying there's a gradient - although there is. But that isn't my point. I think the confusion comes from the web site as it is vastly misrepresenting Deborah Tannen's work and saying that it's the exact same thing as she said. It isn't. It's a completely different, but related thing.

There are two spectrums at work here - two different kinds of direct/indirect distinctions. And you can have any breakdown of the four attributes, and each scale is a gradient.

[bridgetester.livejournal.com]

I recognize that you're separating them into four groups, but I don't completely understand your separation. Perhaps give more examples?

Direct informing:
I'm hungry. (You should/Do something about it)

Indirect middle ground informing:
Would you like to get some food? (I'm hungry.)

Direct directing:
Make lunch so we can both eat.

I made lunch. Come eat.

[leora.livejournal.com]

Okay the web site is making a good and very fundamental distinction.

Some people will state what people should do. They call this directing (in the sense that people direct traffic). Other people provide information so that people can make an informed decision, and assume that providing information is sufficient to trigger the decision making process.

Direct in the sense of direct/indirect is actually using a totally different meaning of the word, which is where I think the confusion comes into play. That is making the distinction between being straight-forward in your communication (saying what you literally mean) or whether you imply what you mean.

So, there is no connection between where you lie on the directing/informing spectrum and where you lie on the straight-forward/implying spectrum - two totally different aspects that both mold communication.

So, you need to ask yourself for any statement:
Is this statement saying exactly what it means or is it implying things for someone to deduce? (this is usually shaped by cultural forces as to how polite it is to state things outright)

Then ask: Is this statement providing information or telling someone what to do? (this is the temperment difference)

Probably both are partly shaped by culture and temperment, but that's just because everything is.