• Replies 15 replies
  • Subscribers 89 subscribers
  • Views 806 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
Related
Hints and tips
  • To quote someone's message, first select/highlight the relevant text, and then use the Quote button that appears
  • To "mention" someone, type @ followed by the start of the forum name, and choose from the list; that person will get a notification of being mentioned

Is this correct and is it a reason for bullying?

Lotus

(I posted this research yesterday on the thread "Is autism an excuse for bad behaviour?")

 I discovered that researchers in a 2011 study gave autistic and neurotypical people this scenario:

"Imagine this: Janet and her friend are kayaking in a part of the ocean with many jellyfish. Janet had read that the jellyfish aren't dangerous, and tells her friend it's alright to swim. Her friend is stung by a jellyfish and dies. - Is Janet to blame?"

Their results showed that autistic people usually said it was Janet's fault while the neurotypical people said it was just an accident . The researchers concluded that this showed that autistic people were focused on the result, rather than the intention of the person involved, and was due to "theory of mind" (not being able to imagine what someone is thinking or feeling)

(Edit: I've just been thinking about this again and I'm not sure if the researchers were wholly correct in their conclusion. Perhaps the autistic participants did put themselves in Janet's place and knew they would feel guilty in that situation, which made them decide Janet was guilty - which means it's about how they would feel, not just about the result of it?)

Although I would feel terribly guilty if I was Janet, factually I do not believe the fault is hers as I believe we all have a responsibility to look after ourselves (apart from children and disabled/vulnerable people, but the scenario did not say the friend was either a child or vulnerable) The friend had a choice to research the area before travelling there, and to decide whether to swim in an area with unfamiliar creatures.

But I've been thinking further about this theory that neurotypical people focus more on intent than outcome, and wondered if this is the cause of bullying? Do bullies not have the intention of hurting people? Those who upset others will often claim it was "just a bit of fun" and they say people should " man up" or "not be such a wuss" but I think that for autistic people the intent doesn't matter, if someone is hurt or upset by someone that is wrong. I know that I'm always horrified to think I've upset or hurt someone.

What are your thoughts on this?

Parents

  • This is really interesting. My kneejerk reaction was yeah, it's Janet's fault. But then I wouldn't say so if I were on a jury or something unless it somehow came out that Janet wanted to harm the friend and lied about the jellyfish being safe. But where I really think this lands is why would you take the gamble and assure someone that they'll be fine if you really don't know? Janet clearly didn't know enough about the jellyfish to tell her friend that she would definitely be okay. Over-confidence might border on recklessness, right? In grad school I think the biggest thing I learned was, even if you're supposedly the expert in your field, if someone asks you a question and you are not sure of the answer, you MUST say "I don't know, but I can find out and get back to you." 

    I'm not sure how to relate that vignette to bullying because imo the term bullying implies intent. If someone inadvertently hurts your feelings then I wouldn't call that bullying. I think moreso that bullies are driven by catharsis, trying to relieve their own pain in some way. People who are crass and say it's just a joke might want to hurt others, or they might be unable to understand the other person's feelings. Personally, I find that sort of emotional manipulation super scary (like physiologically anxiety inducing to even think about lol) so idk maybe I can't wrap my mind around it. 

Reply

  • This is really interesting. My kneejerk reaction was yeah, it's Janet's fault. But then I wouldn't say so if I were on a jury or something unless it somehow came out that Janet wanted to harm the friend and lied about the jellyfish being safe. But where I really think this lands is why would you take the gamble and assure someone that they'll be fine if you really don't know? Janet clearly didn't know enough about the jellyfish to tell her friend that she would definitely be okay. Over-confidence might border on recklessness, right? In grad school I think the biggest thing I learned was, even if you're supposedly the expert in your field, if someone asks you a question and you are not sure of the answer, you MUST say "I don't know, but I can find out and get back to you." 

    I'm not sure how to relate that vignette to bullying because imo the term bullying implies intent. If someone inadvertently hurts your feelings then I wouldn't call that bullying. I think moreso that bullies are driven by catharsis, trying to relieve their own pain in some way. People who are crass and say it's just a joke might want to hurt others, or they might be unable to understand the other person's feelings. Personally, I find that sort of emotional manipulation super scary (like physiologically anxiety inducing to even think about lol) so idk maybe I can't wrap my mind around it. 

Children
No Data