Along with leveraging the general uncertainty about what "empathy" means, there's some shady pseudo-logic in that claim too. And it can't be accidental - the writer is deliberately lying.
... as a whole that statement is intended to establish empathy as being binary (you have it or you don't).
The writer doesn't want to say that openly, because people who know what empathy means also know it's continuous - you can have more or less of it on a continuous scale, with zero being rare. That leaves a large gap that corresponds with the real world: ASDs probably have an empathy deficit compared to NT's, but it doesn't
Once the "zero empathy" lie has been injected, the reader skips to the next section, and "learns":
Due to having zero empathy, all ASDs are without a conscience, cannot feel guilt or embarrassment, and don't feel any shame even when we know we've done something wrong.
So the implication is that we're all sociopaths, and can't be taught to mitigate or improve our behavior by normal methods.
I'm not going to watch that video because it woud probably make me angry ...
... but one general observation:
that quote could easily be used to create an argument justifying coercive conditioning (e.g. the dark locked rooms, limited food/water, kinetic discouragement style of "teaching").
Maybe the video doesn't actually go that far, but if it contains reasonable suggestions, why start by dehumanizing us (ASDs)?
BTW - the technique I described here is in common use at the moment. The culture war runs hot because of it.
The warning sign is the use of "all or nothing" words (easy to unwrap, but only if you can "see" them).
The indicator for a malicious actor is that the basis for the "binary" assertion is hidden: "fail to develop" + spreading the meaning of what isn't developed between "empathy" and "theory of mind", both of which are susceptible to being misunderstood by normies.
The empathy/theory of mind link is real, but the writer doesn't complete that thought because ....“Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) fail to develop empathy via mentalization (a Theory of Mind). They feel no guilt or embarrassment (they have no conscience). They avoid being shamed after they have transgressed.”
... as a whole that statement is intended to establish empathy as being binary (you have it or you don't).
The writer doesn't want to say that openly, because people who know what empathy means also know it's continuous - you can have more or less of it on a continuous scale, with zero being rare. That leaves a large gap that corresponds with the real world: ASDs probably have an empathy deficit compared to NT's, but it doesn't
Once the "zero empathy" lie has been injected, the reader skips to the next section, and "learns":
Due to having zero empathy, all ASDs are without a conscience, cannot feel guilt or embarrassment, and don't feel any shame even when we know we've done something wrong.
So the implication is that we're all sociopaths, and can't be taught to mitigate or improve our behavior by normal methods.
I'm not going to watch that video because it woud probably make me angry ...
... but one general observation:
that quote could easily be used to create an argument justifying coercive conditioning (e.g. the dark locked rooms, limited food/water, kinetic discouragement style of "teaching").
Maybe the video doesn't actually go that far, but if it contains reasonable suggestions, why start by dehumanizing us (ASDs)?
BTW - the technique I described here is in common use at the moment. The culture war runs hot because of it.
The warning sign is the use of "all or nothing" words (easy to unwrap, but only if you can "see" them).
The indicator for a malicious actor is that the basis for the "binary" assertion is hidden: "fail to develop" + spreading the meaning of what isn't developed between "empathy" and "theory of mind", both of which are susceptible to being misunderstood by normies.
Last edited: