• 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

  • Hi Pixiefox   

    re: the scenario  the "facts" as presented are that Janet had read that jellyfish aren't dangerous - if Janet genuinely believed that then she is not her fault although I concur that she would perhaps feel guilty that she gave incorrect advice, albeit inadvertently, thus accidentally involved in the death.  As the story is presented there is no indication that Janet intended to cause harm.  Furthermore a little research indicates that in the original scenario jellyfish "in the area" were reported to be harmless therefore even the suggestion that general knowledge would normally be expected to be that jellyfish can sting can be excluded from the analysis.  She could be guilty of not fact checking tho' :-)

    Personally - I think that it's an old study of uncertain quality by people who may have been keen to find fault... (hehe ASD so prone to see the worst in people oops! case proven... :-) )  However I'm not alone in concluding that the whole thing about autism and no theory of mind has not got strong evidence.  See :Gernsbacher, M. A., & Yergeau, M. (2019). Empirical failures of the claim that autistic people lack a theory of mind.Archives of Scientific Psychology, 7(1), 102–118.    if you're into it....

    That said I do know about myself as an autistic person and I do know with a high degree of confidence there is something different about me in comparison with "normal" people in respect of how I understand other people's intentions - I seem to have to work harder at it than them and am especially poor at the instinctive interplay that most other people appear to me to engage in. 

    To explain more if that's OK?

    well...  From what I understand of it there are a variety of theories relating to theory of mind :-)  The approach I personally favour based on personal experience is that there are 2 systems.   1 fast and implicit/intuitive and 2 explicit/slow and deductive.  That I explained my reasoning with quite some effort for the scenario indicates that I am using a "cognitive processing" slow and explicit deductive process here.  From what I currently understand of autism (please put me right if I'm wrong :-) ) that I do so does is more characteristic of autism in such circumstances.  Where I lack skills is in the fast implicit intuitive bit - seems I'm just not "wired-up" to do so :-( .   So as regards implicit intent... well perhaps I am missing something however there is nothing in the story to indicate Janet's guilt in this...

    (For this same difference I can end up permanently distrusting and even disliking people  because I "worked out" cognitively the need to do so at some point and can struggle to let it go...  Possible missing the subconscious pointers that it may be appropriate or a good idea to do so.) 

    Does this fit a pattern for you or others too I wonder?

    As regards bullying and the intention to hurt.  Well... I have to admit that I have and probably still do subconsciously bully people.  I find that I also consciously bully people especially friends and family out of a sort of spiteful sense of humour.  However like yourself I would be bereft to learn that I had been so badly out of tune to do so in such a fashion that caused the person lasting actual physical, psychological or social harm.  This is behaviour that I am not proud of but seems to be a normal human flaw -  I'm no saint! :-(   The crux of this is that if it was "just a bit of fun" then it should be fun for all concerned... A joke that plays a social role.  My experience of bullies is that they "get something out of it" that is about their desire/need for dominance in the situation that goes above and beyond social ethics and indicate that their personal morals may be coming up short in ability to prevent them from doing an "evil" act.  Our subconscious can have us do evil before we are aware of it and perhaps behaving like that is less reprehensible than doing so as an act of conscious free will.  Personally I can't judge easily which of these is worse suspecting that one should "naturally" know the difference.  Maybe this is an autistic trait of the sort that studies into autism and morality explore.  I wonder what you and others think?

Reply

  • Hi Pixiefox   

    re: the scenario  the "facts" as presented are that Janet had read that jellyfish aren't dangerous - if Janet genuinely believed that then she is not her fault although I concur that she would perhaps feel guilty that she gave incorrect advice, albeit inadvertently, thus accidentally involved in the death.  As the story is presented there is no indication that Janet intended to cause harm.  Furthermore a little research indicates that in the original scenario jellyfish "in the area" were reported to be harmless therefore even the suggestion that general knowledge would normally be expected to be that jellyfish can sting can be excluded from the analysis.  She could be guilty of not fact checking tho' :-)

    Personally - I think that it's an old study of uncertain quality by people who may have been keen to find fault... (hehe ASD so prone to see the worst in people oops! case proven... :-) )  However I'm not alone in concluding that the whole thing about autism and no theory of mind has not got strong evidence.  See :Gernsbacher, M. A., & Yergeau, M. (2019). Empirical failures of the claim that autistic people lack a theory of mind.Archives of Scientific Psychology, 7(1), 102–118.    if you're into it....

    That said I do know about myself as an autistic person and I do know with a high degree of confidence there is something different about me in comparison with "normal" people in respect of how I understand other people's intentions - I seem to have to work harder at it than them and am especially poor at the instinctive interplay that most other people appear to me to engage in. 

    To explain more if that's OK?

    well...  From what I understand of it there are a variety of theories relating to theory of mind :-)  The approach I personally favour based on personal experience is that there are 2 systems.   1 fast and implicit/intuitive and 2 explicit/slow and deductive.  That I explained my reasoning with quite some effort for the scenario indicates that I am using a "cognitive processing" slow and explicit deductive process here.  From what I currently understand of autism (please put me right if I'm wrong :-) ) that I do so does is more characteristic of autism in such circumstances.  Where I lack skills is in the fast implicit intuitive bit - seems I'm just not "wired-up" to do so :-( .   So as regards implicit intent... well perhaps I am missing something however there is nothing in the story to indicate Janet's guilt in this...

    (For this same difference I can end up permanently distrusting and even disliking people  because I "worked out" cognitively the need to do so at some point and can struggle to let it go...  Possible missing the subconscious pointers that it may be appropriate or a good idea to do so.) 

    Does this fit a pattern for you or others too I wonder?

    As regards bullying and the intention to hurt.  Well... I have to admit that I have and probably still do subconsciously bully people.  I find that I also consciously bully people especially friends and family out of a sort of spiteful sense of humour.  However like yourself I would be bereft to learn that I had been so badly out of tune to do so in such a fashion that caused the person lasting actual physical, psychological or social harm.  This is behaviour that I am not proud of but seems to be a normal human flaw -  I'm no saint! :-(   The crux of this is that if it was "just a bit of fun" then it should be fun for all concerned... A joke that plays a social role.  My experience of bullies is that they "get something out of it" that is about their desire/need for dominance in the situation that goes above and beyond social ethics and indicate that their personal morals may be coming up short in ability to prevent them from doing an "evil" act.  Our subconscious can have us do evil before we are aware of it and perhaps behaving like that is less reprehensible than doing so as an act of conscious free will.  Personally I can't judge easily which of these is worse suspecting that one should "naturally" know the difference.  Maybe this is an autistic trait of the sort that studies into autism and morality explore.  I wonder what you and others think?

Children
No Data