Scientists believe assigning point-of-view to lifeless objects morally superior

[Ylva]

http://psychcentral.com/news/2015/1...ds-with-autism-have-social-difficulties/96868

They also believe in training.

Obviously not written by me.

Scientists believe that children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) have difficulties in social interactions at least partly due to an inability to understand other people’s thoughts and feelings through a process called “theory of mind,” or ToM.

A new innovative brain imaging study has uncovered new evidence explaining why ToM deficiencies are present in ASD children. The researchers found disruptions in the brain’s circuitry involved in ToM at multiple levels compared to typical brain functioning. The findings provide valuable insight into an important neural network tied to the social symptoms in children with ASD.


“Reduced brain activity in ToM-related brain regions and reduced connectivity among these regions in children with autism suggest how deficits in the neurobiological mechanisms can lead to difficulties in cognitive and behavioral functioning, such as theory of mind,” said Marcel Just, the D.O. Hebb University Professor of Psychology at Carnegie Mellon University.

“Weaker coordination and communication among core brain areas during social thinking tasks in autism provides evidence for how different brain areas in autism struggle to work together as a team.”

The researchers used an approach first developed by Fulvia Castelli and her colleagues in the U.K. that created animation videos showing two geometric shapes moving around the screen. The shapes, such as a large red triangle and a small blue triangle, moved in ways that could be perceived as an interaction between them, such as coaxing or dancing.

The team demonstrated that “seeing” the interactions was in the mind of the beholder, or to be more specific, in the ToM circuitry of the viewer’s brain. Without ToM, it just looked like geometric shapes moving around the screen.

To better understand the the neural mechanisms involved with ToM, the scientists asked 13 high-functioning children with ASD between the ages of 10 and 16 as well as 13 similarly aged children without ASD to watch these short animated films. The children were asked to identify the thoughts and feelings, or mental states, of those triangles while having their brains scanned by an fMRI scanner.

The ASD children showed significantly reduced activation compared to the control group children in the brain regions considered to be part of the ToM network, such as the medial frontal cortex and temporo-parietal junction. Furthermore, the synchronization between such pairs of regions was lower in the autism group.


The findings support Just’s previous research in 2004 which discovered this lower synchronization. In later studies, Just continued to show how this theory accounted for many brain imaging and behavioral findings during tasks that are heavily linked to the frontal cortex.

“One reason this finding is so interesting is that the ‘actors’ in the films have no faces, facial expressions or body posture on which to base a judgment of an emotion or attitude,” said Rajesh Kana, associate professor of psychology at the University of Alabama at Birmingham.

“The neurotypical children managed to identify a social interaction without social cues, such as interpreting the large triangle nudging the smaller one as a parent’s attempt to encourage a child, but the ASD children were unable to make the connection.”

Until now, most research focused on the connectivity among core brain regions in ASD has focused on adults, limiting knowledge about how the disorder affects younger people.

“By studying children, we were able to show that it is possible to characterize the altered brain circuitry earlier in development, which could lead to designing earlier effective intervention programs that could train children to infer the intentions and thoughts that underlie physical interactions between people,” Just said. “For example, children could be trained to distinguish between a helpful nudge and a hostile poke.”

 

[Beverly]

I would tentatively agree and, say the research was accurate. I find assigning human characteristics, emotions, motivations, reasoning, etc... to objects utterly ridiculous and stupid. I also find assigning higher reasoning and sentient thought to non sentient living things just as ridiculous.

Perhaps I am in error in not allowing my mind such folly? Could my truck be a SHE, My guitar a HE, my mic a XE? Hmm, could I even convince myself to believe objects had brains at all?

 

[Bellatrix]

"To better understand the the neural mechanisms involved with ToM, the scientists asked 13 high-functioning children with ASD between the ages of 10 and 16 as well as 13 similarly aged children without ASD to watch these short animated films. The children were asked to identify the thoughts and feelings, or mental states, of those triangles while having their brains scanned by an fMRI scanner." - from linked article

In other words, and if these results are at all accurate, those with ASD didn't see things that actually weren't there to begin with. The attribution of 'mental states' to inanimate objects one would think would be a sure sign of a deeply disturbed mind, of someone who is out of touch with reality, but apparently in the 'normal world' that's not the case. Yet, they think that WE are the strange ones!

 

[Wireless]

Where does it say that it's morally superior to assign emotions to objects? I couldn't find that bit.

It does seem weird to me that us NTs do see social relationships in everything and it just shows that those on the spectrum can think more objectively, clearly and logically, which is what the world needs.

The study is quite an old one, I think. But, I'm not sure how old.

 

[Wireless]

Found the triangle video on Youtube

I'm sorry if it's the wrong one.

 

[Beverly]

I'm well aware that NTs do assign intelligence to inanimate objects. My ex was forever telling me that I had "Trained the truck to go to Cold Stone Creamery." No, I drive my truck to Cold Stone Creamery, the truck does not know where it is, it lacks sensory input capability.

That sort of thinking makes no sense to me, you can't assign human motivations to anything that is not human and expect them to be true. Perhaps NTs use such thinking to make sense of why things happen the way they do just as we gather facts and try to figure out why something happens as it does. The difference is, NTs try to humanize or personalize it while we don't feel the need to do that so, look for tangible reason that can be demonstrated or repeated. In short, NTs choose an emotional approach to understanding the world more often and, we choose a scientific approach more often.

Of course that means we need a lot more information since we don't fill in the missing bits with imagined human characteristics, we need the physical, logical bits that actually are there so, in most cases, it takes us longer to understand whatever it is and, accept that that is how it is and, it's right - see has to be right based on facts to us but, to an NT, if it works for them, it's fine, they can let it go, we can't let it go until we KNOW what is true and right.

"Oh, the salt shaker wanted to be on the floor." Is a good enough reason for it to have fallen off the counter to an NT but, not to us. "Did I accidentally knock the shalt shaker off the counter? Was there a small earthquake? Did the house settle and, it was too close to the edge of the counter? Did I bump something else that bumped the salt shaker and caused it to fall?"

We would both be equally satisfied with our reason for the salt shaker being on the floor but, how we get to that reason and, what reason we accept is different. neither is good or bad, right or wrong. Ours may be more factual and will take longer to arrive at but, in the end we have both accept that the salt shaker is on the floor for a reason we understand.

 

[Wireless]

I've heard of people on the spectrum feeling emotions for objects as if they were alive. This man talks about it on his blog. http://adultswithautism.org.uk/autism-feeling-sympathy-for-objects/
Is this different to what was discussed in the article?

I don't believe that NTs always assign human characteristics/motivations to everything. But, perhaps we do it to a greater extent than aspies? For Beverly's salt shaker example I doubt many NTs would think that it chose to fall. Rather we would think that it was accidentally knocked off the counter and stop there. I believe that aspies think more deeply and ask more questions.

I have in the past jokingly referred to objects as alive. But, it was done for humor.

Also, I would like to make the point that the study used children as its subjects. Children learn and understand social situations by acting it out in their play. Just about any object can be used. If adults were used the results would have probably been different.

 

[Ylva]

Where does it say that it's morally superior to assign emotions to objects? I couldn't find that bit.

The scientists didn't say, "Great, now we can work out how to train (NT) children to understand that computer graphics don't actuaaly have an experience of itself, other graphics, or anything at all." That's where it says that.

 

[Ste11aeres]

http://psychcentral.com/news/2015/1...ds-with-autism-have-social-difficulties/96868

They also believe in training.

Obviously not written by me.

This is funny! This is seriously funny!
Now I know that the author of those little notes I used to see someplace attached to microwaves etc with instructions about proper use, as told in the first person by the microwave, was actually an emotional genius.
http://www.passiveaggressivenotes.com/2007/12/29/office-anthropomorphism/

 

[Ylva]

I've heard of people on the spectrum feeling emotions for objects as if they were alive. This man talks about it on his blog. http://adultswithautism.org.uk/autism-feeling-sympathy-for-objects/
Is this different to what was discussed in the article?

A little. The children in the study probably don't feel sympathy for their toys, and the man with the blog probably doesn't "see" interaktions the way the children do. (If an action figure accidentally stood with a raised hand facing a slinky, would it look to him like it was about to strike the poor thing? He doesn't say.)

I remember that my mother used this conditioning on me when I was little ("poor teddy bear!" etc.). I also remember being twelve and reading one of her child rearing books that she got when she was pregnant, and finding that this technique supposedly instills empathy in little children.

I never bought that things were alive, I knew about brains and stuff, but I do what this man does. Just yesterday I felt guilty that I couldn't find my Penguin pocket edition of Requiem for a Dream (don't tell me how it ends), because it must feel lost and forgotten. I recognize it as a result of conditioning, I know perfectly well that it doesn't have a nervous system nor an experience of self. I have real feelings about it, though.

I don't believe that NTs always assign human characteristics/motivations to everything. But, perhaps we do it to a greater extent than aspies?

I think it's often just figures of speech, since most people don't actually follow it up. Most NTs don't hug their copy of Requiem for a Dream while apologizing profusely for being so stupid as to forget where they put it for so long. If I accidentally tear up some grass while picking up after my dog, I apologize to it as well, with or without people present.

I am sort of reminded of Lorelai Gilmore. She used to give things voices, like clothes or food, and I always kind of figured she was just reluctant to let go of the one fun thing you can do with your baby.

 

[Wireless]

The scientists didn't say, "Great, now we can work out how to train (NT) children to understand that computer graphics don't actuaaly have an experience of itself, other graphics, or anything at all." That's where it says that.

I understand now.
Even as I read the article for the first time I was thinking that actually NTs seem odd for seeing human interactions going on in shapes. I don't really like myself for seeing the same. I'd rather think like an aspie and see it for what it is without being distracted by all these thoughts and questions about the relationships going on between the shapes.
And if aspies are seen as inferior for it then that's just crazy!

 

[Ste11aeres]

I am sort of reminded of Lorelai Gilmore. She used to give things voices, like clothes or food, and I always kind of figured she was just reluctant to let go of the one fun thing you can do with your baby.

I've always assumed that when people do things like that, it's for the sake of humor-that such an action contains a peculiar form of humor.

 

[gringosteve]

The test was illustrating that NT people are able to recognise social behaviours. The inanimate objects were an attempt at experiment control.

Aspies are inferior at observing and processing certain types of information, but superior in others. I do not think this article accuses us of being inferior in a broad brush manner

 

[Naturalist]

I've heard of people on the spectrum feeling emotions for objects as if they were alive. This man talks about it on his blog. http://adultswithautism.org.uk/autism-feeling-sympathy-for-objects/
Is this different to what was discussed in the article?

I don't believe that NTs always assign human characteristics/motivations to everything. But, perhaps we do it to a greater extent than aspies? For Beverly's salt shaker example I doubt many NTs would think that it chose to fall. Rather we would think that it was accidentally knocked off the counter and stop there. I believe that aspies think more deeply and ask more questions.

I have in the past jokingly referred to objects as alive. But, it was done for humor.

Also, I would like to make the point that the study used children as its subjects. Children learn and understand social situations by acting it out in their play. Just about any object can be used. If adults were used the results would have probably been different.

Thanks for the link to the blog post about feeling sympathy for inanimate objects.

I would qualify that I feel an inexplicable "sympathy" for objects with which I have some attachment, even just a fleeting interest, even though it seems illogical. I would suggest that inanimate objects are a safe canvas on which to explore one's own feelings about a situation, and that is why I feel spontaneously sad for something that is mistreated or neglected, or happy when I can reunite a missing piece with its mates, even when I know by logic that item has no emotions of its own. What I am really expressing are my own emotions, which I may have been unable to identify or sort out at the time I first experienced them. But this experience doesn't carry over to people, because when confronted with the emotions of others, I have to work quite hard at figuring out what those emotions are; I can't simply project my own emotions into a situation as readily as with objects. Nor would it be productive to do so.

As to the video, it looked like a pinball machine. I don't get it; but it sounds as if that may be the point.

 

[Wireless]

When I watch the video I see a story of abuse of bullying.
The little triangle and ball are playing happily outside the house until the big triangle ( which I see as the parent of the smaller triangle) comes outside and starts chasing and hitting the little triangle while the ball hides inside. The big triangle then chases the ball and triangle outside again before smashing the house down in a rage.

Although, my brain very quickly told this story as I was watching there is still part of me that feels a little uncomfortable with how easily I can attribute human behaviour to simple shapes.

And I need to apologize because I had posted the wrong video. The video was part of Fritz Heider's & Marianna Simmel's 1944 study, which was meant to investigate how people perceive one another, but was not about autism. I found an article which discusses this study http://www.all-about-psychology.com/fritz-heider.html

However, Uta Frith in 2000 had designed a very similar study which was meant to test ToM. http://www.shiftjournal.com/2012/01/16/can-one-assign-the-wrong-intentions-to-triangles/
I think perhaps it was this was study which is referred to the Psychcentral article.

 

[Ste11aeres]

However, Uta Frith in 2000 had designed a very similar study which was meant to test ToM. http://www.shiftjournal.com/2012/01/16/can-one-assign-the-wrong-intentions-to-triangles/
I think perhaps it was this was study which is referred to the Psychcentral article.

The article at that link is much better than the article at the beginning of this thread, in that the author expresses skepticism about whether this truly is a legitimate way to draw such conclusions about TOM, empathy, etc.
A quotation:
"1) How does a failure to anthropomorphize inanimate objects indicate a problem with mentalizing, empathy, or pro-social behavior? An alternative explanation would be a bias in the autistic children toward seeing the world as it really is.

2) Given that triangles are inanimate objects and don’t have mental states, how could anyone possibly measure, scientifically or otherwise, whether the mental state one ascribes to a triangle is correct? Showing the participants a computer animation and telling they’ve gotten the answer wrong is like giving respondents a Rorschach test and telling them they’ve failed."

 

[Ste11aeres]

I kind of feel like if the test had had different results-say the autistic kids had invented anthropomorphic stories about the shapes, and the NT ones hadn't, the researchers might have used that to justify the similar conclusions. "We've now found out why autistic kids lack empathy and theory of mind-they identify more with abstract shapes than with human beings."

 

[unsurewhattoname]

I kind of feel like if the test had had different results-say the autistic kids had invented anthropomorphic stories about the shapes, and the NT ones hadn't, the researchers might have used that to justify the similar conclusions. "We've now found out why autistic kids lack empathy and theory of mind-they identify more with abstract shapes than with human beings."

But they wouldn't, autistic kids lack pretend play. I didn't have my toys act like people, I just lined them up and sorted them into groups. I imagine it's the same that goes into making little triangles into people.

 

[Progster]

When watching those triangles, I was thinking about what they were doing, and not giving them any emotions to them the big triangle is hitting the small one, they are running round the box - I don't think that I would be able to give them any emotions at the time of watching because I'm focused on what they are doing and not what they may be feeling while watching. I'm not able to process both at the same time. In order to give them emotions, I would need to analyse and think about what those emotions may be based on how the triangles behaved after watching the video. I think the same thing happens in social interactions, and that's why we fail to pick up on people's emotions; I process the words of a person and their actions without processing information about their emotional state, that's too much information. I simply can't process all that information at once, and it doesn't matter whether I'm watching triangles interact or people. It's all the same.

I was biased on what emotions the triangles might be thought to have (though I agree that is is ridiculous to try and attach human emotions to inanimate objects) because I had read the linked articles. However, I don't think it would have occured to me that the triangles were parents and the circle a child. To me it was like watching a computer screen on which someone was playing some sort of video game, controling the shapes. In real life, one of the difficulties I have is not that I'm incapable of understanding that other people have different intentions or emotions to myself, it's more that I react in a different way to most NTs or misinterpret people's intentions or emotions more that the average person does, because although I know that others have different feelings, I don't always know what they are. NTs are apparently able to automatically know what others are feeling or intending on the spot and at the time of interacting, they don't have to go through this processing and analysing to reach a conclusion about what emotion a person may be experiencing as I do.

It has always struck me as absurd that, for example, cartoon characters are speaking, or that they are wearing clothing, standing up on two legs when they should be walking on four legs, and are not anatomically correct. For example, I have a book for children with cartoon characters which are wearing clothes, but not a full set of clothes: one has only a scarf, another has a jacket but no trousers, another just has a handbag... how absurd can you get!!

 

[Ylva]

NTs are apparently able to automatically know what others are feeling or intending on the spot and at the time of interacting, they don't have to go through this processing and analysing to reach a conclusion about what emotion a person may be experiencing as I do.

Can we read each other, though? I know NTs cannot read us, but if it is an intraneurology thing, that would be useful information.