Diagnostic Vogue – Autism Today

I love kids. I want to be a father so much I’d even trade my iPhone for a uterus.

This desire was a major motivator behind my work with children with autism and Asperger’s syndrome during uni. Throughout my psychology studies I got a job with a reputable autism care centre. This required me to visit family homes to administer one-on-one behavioural therapy in their living rooms. I’d look after kids as young as two and as old as nine. I fed, taught and refrained from stealing them.

It was fulfilling and meaningful work that I continued for over three years. During which time my understanding and attitude towards the diagnosis of Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) changed in a dramatic way.

The most poignant of the many catalysts was my time with four-year-old Jason. I best recall us playing with his Thomas the Tank Engine train set in-between bouts of learning exercises. Jason would quote the television series and make up his own hilarious stories, narrated in silly voices. My favourite was his Fat Controller impression. He had the accent down and all.

Alas when it came time to pack the toys away, Jason’s charm was hurled from his disposition by a wave of tantrums. Lunging, scratching, whaling, biting. Chairs would fly across the room when play time was over.

The care centre’s instructed response to these behaviours was called overcorrection. As a psychological consequence for Jason overreacting, therapists had to give the instructions “stand-up” and “sit-down” over and over again. These two commands would be repeated for at least 10 minutes regardless of Jason’s response. The hardest part was ignoring his sobs and pleas as he forced himself to follow the relentless task.

I hated overcorrection. It didn’t make sense to me but I was new to the job at this point and didn’t feel confident to even question it.

During the height of one of Jason’s emotional meltdowns one day, after months of therapy, I yet again began the overcorrection. The moment I began to speak, Jason leaped back crying, put his hands over his ears and screamed “I’M NOT A DOG, I’M A BOY!”

As tears streamed down my face I found myself questioning the whole system.

The truth is autism is in fashion. Many children are being diagnosed with ASD for a number of symptoms. The process is complex given that ASD can be diagnosed based on varying symptom combinations. When a disorder is defined in such broad terms it becomes easier to make it fit with any child, in the absence of neurological testing.

Autistic symptoms, in essence, are normal behaviours in abnormal proportions. For this reason it is difficult to determine where the cut off is. Establishing how much yelling a child has to do before being deemed autistic is at risk of being arbitrary. Part of the issue is that sometimes the academic outlook is that if a child can’t sit still in a classroom, then there is something wrong with them.

Ten years ago ADD or ADHD was in vogue. Now it’s autism. Sure, many children do have mental disorders but it seems to me that there’s no such thing as personality here.

I’ve visited many family homes during my autism work. I’ve seen the lingering grief in parents faces as they look upon their child, forever labelled as disordered. Diagnostic labels are a helpful tool for healing and adapting to the mental challenges that a child may experience. Yet in some cases, I saw this label perpetuating a ‘sick child’ framework that prevented their natural personality from being recognised and embraced.

I still visit Jason now, four years on, even after his parents’ decision to discontinue therapy when he turned five. No one outside the family seems to notice his autism. He’s treated as normal. For me, however, Jason’s unremitting ability to move people with his charisma and powerful words is something else. It’s better than normal.

Weapons of Charity

Before Christmas my Grandfather received a letter from the Peter MacCallum Cancer Foundation asking for a donation. Given that his English is not so good, I said I would read it for him and translate in my best broken Italian. The envelope included: a double sided letter, a donation form, a return envelope, a page of 36 customised stickers of my Grandfather’s address, a cotton dove on a ribbon and cut-out paper dove.

As I read, I noticed something particular about this letter: it was dense with complex persuasion strategies. The amount of literary and psychological techniques employed in this document inspired me to break it all down.  The quotes below are taken directly from the letter.

-URGENCY-

“I need your urgent assistance…”

Here the word ‘urgent’ creates a pressure for action. If something is urgent then we are expected to respond in a manner of haste. This gives us less time to think and opens us up to being guided how to act by other techniques employed throughout the message. This has primed the reader to feel that they need to take action

-PERSONAL FRAMING-

I need your urgent assistance…”

The reader is presented with an interpersonal situation here. Peter Mac has decided to begin the letter by showing framing it in the first person singular.  Writing in form is more emotionally evocative because it’s easier to empathise with an individual than it is with an organisation. This modulates how the other information in the letter is received by the reader.

-DEADLINES-

“…to raise $200 000 before 12 December…”

Creating a time frame for the action needed builds on the sense of urgency. It is also an attempt to prevent people delaying their response and potentially forgetting to donate or having time to rationalise why not to donate.

-CREDIBILITY-

“…Peter Mac can help even more people…”

This is, in essence, a statement that Peter Mac is already a reputable institution in terms of saving lives threatened by cancer. This technique is used to strengthen the credibility of the other information given in the letter. People are more likely to take on board the statistics, anecdotes and other details if they believe Peter Mac already does good work.

-AUTHORITY-

“First, please let me introduce myself. I’m the Executive Director of the Peter MacCallum Cancer Foundation.”

People respond positively to authority and credibility. The greater sense of authority Peter Mac generates then the more power they hold to persuade. This persuasive effect has been shown to work reliably in social psychology experiments, such as the Milgram Experiment.

Here we also see the personal framing technique again. This reinforces the emotive tone of the message.

-PERSONIFICATION OF PROBLEM-

Carole, 57, was diagnosed with a rare and aggressive cancer of blood and bone barrow…”

Our brains have developed to empathise with other individuals with exceptional emotional depth. That’s why telling an anecdote about the problem is far more effective than listing statistics. We can visualise a story and find it evocative far more than a collection of numbers. In this letter, Carole’s story is the bulk of the content.

-RECIPROCITY-

“…you will find a special gift to help us spread the message of hope…”

Psychologists and anthropologists purport that the rule of reciprocity is a social norm fundamental to the human make-up. This innate rule compels us to repay what another person has provided. In evolutionary terms this allowed for humans to aid each other by giving out goods while being confident they would be repaid.

A good example of this is demonstrated by how the Hari Krishnas learned to generate income. Since they often didn’t receive donations because of their eccentricity, they now give ‘gifts’ to people on the street. The moment the unsuspecting person accepts the gift, our Hari Krishna friends ask for a donation in return, thus exploiting our natural proclivity to reciprocate.

Peter Mac included the various items in this letter and called them ‘gifts’ in order to evoke the same feeling of obligation.

-THE MORAL OF THIS POST-

So now that you know some of the techniques involved in persuasion, remember only to use them for good, my young Jedi friends.  Especially when events and disaster necessitate a call for donations, there are many strategies one can use to make your plea more effective.

The Peter MacCallum Cancer Foundation is a strong and admirable swordsman in the fight against cancer, as evidence by the research and effort that went into the construction of this letter.

Being human, and not just a literary deconstructing machine, I certainly felt the effects of the aforementioned techniques.  Hence, Peter Mac gets my cash any day.

Empathy in performance: reflecting on mirror neurons.

I believe it was Dr Who that said “I look at a star and it is a just a big ball of burning gas, and I know how it began and I know how it ends and I was probably there both times.  Now after a while everything is just stuff. That’s the problem, you make all of space and time your backyard and what do you have? A back yard.  But you, you can see it. And when you see it, I see it.”

Although this particular scene from the fifth modern series never made the cut (my housemate made me watch the outtakes… seriously, he MADE me) the point addressed here is a very human one, ironically coming from an alien.  The reason this 900-year-old Time Lord needs a companion as he travels the universe is because seeing  their reaction is the only way he can experience the emotion of the journey.

Empathy, the ability to share others’ emotions, is an everyday occurrence for us.  This can be in the form of cringing as we see an athlete get injured, contagious yawning or laughing a bit harder at David Letterman’s jokes only because the studio audience is told to embellish their chuckles.  These cool little occurrences are proudly brought to you by mirror neurons: the brain cells that fire when you perform an action or simply observe it.

The understanding of mirror neurons in the psychology world is still maturing, but there are some good findings being made.  The best person to hear them from, I would say, is this guy:

Although, as I’ll restate, our understanding of empathy is still very much limited, it seems to me that mirror neurons may play a crucial role in a performer’s career.  Comedians can tell the same joke thousands of times with the same enthusiasm.  Magicians can perform the same tricks for decades without growing jaded by them.  My theory is that when these performers see or hear their audience’s reactions they themselves experience that same quality of emotion, despite not being directly affected by the jokes or tricks per se.

There may also be another implication for mirror neurons in the development of stage performance.  Let’s take a stand-up comedy routine for example.  When developing a routine I perform the material at least three times to different audiences.  One way to go about selecting the best jokes after these shows could be to record the performance, play it on the computer later and measure the volume and length of the laughs after each joke.  This seems to make sense.  From the results of this I can keep the jokes that received the longest and loudest laughs and omit the others.  This quantitative approach has been available to comedians for decades due to our technological capabilities.  However, I would never take this approach and I don’t think many others would either.  Why? Because there a many more variables involved in determining an effective joke than those capable of being captured by a voice recorder.

Our mirror neurons are far more intricate technology than anything that has been invented with batteries.  During the performance my keen ol’ neurons are firing away when I get, not just laughs but, the right laughs.  If I can see an audience member’s face, than I can experience the emotion I am creating.  There are many subtle variables in the moments of live comedy that cannot be reduced to a couple of measures, such as volume and length of the reactions.  On stage I can feel what the audience experiences in great depth, that of which we may not know consciously know the full extent of.  This is, of course, assuming that my empathetic faculties are in working order (which they clearly are, as evidenced by the tears that streamed down my face during Toy Story 3).

The emotions I share with the audience throughout the routine, thanks to mirror neurons, will help me tell the difference between a good quality joke and a joke that simply gets loud laughs.

I wish I could unpack these ideas further but I’m worried about making too many blatant guesses about mirror neurons.  Thus far these are my person thoughts on how they may apply to my field, but I’ll have to wait for stronger research on the matter before having any real confidence in them.

It is a fascinating topic to be emerging, so I will continue to keep an ear out for new discoveries.  Please let me know if you come across any.

For now I just like thinking that when on stage, I can see my reflection in your mirror neurons.

The human science person.

I like science.  I often wish I could take Beyonce’s advice and put a ring on it.  I recently watched Hubble 3D, a documentary on the repair of the Hubble telescope, and was overwhelmed by the achievements of the project.  The images that captured the endless beauty of the nebular made me cry sweet cosmic tears of joy.

Of course when you are fond of something, you find yourself wanting to share it with others.  Yet the stereotype of being a ‘sciencey’ person can deter many from exploring the pure wonder of its many fields.  In my opinion, the still existing stereotype of science people being odd geeky white insensitive loner males is a massive misrepresentation.  A nice little study by Fermilabs showed this perception in seventh graders, here.

Although I fit the white male characteristics, I feel that the general sentiment that some hold toward ‘science people’ as emotionally detached and socially recluse is completely inaccurate to my personality and lifestyle.  I’ve even done some sex.  So there.

The aforementioned stereotyping becomes an issue when it alienates others and deters them from actively engaging in science for fear of an identity clash.  At first I thought the solution to this was trying to advocate science in an identity-neutral way.  The information and principles of science could be communicated in the closest form to pure objectivity as possible, preventing any personality traits from being associated with it.

But this is not particle, nor do I think it is possible.  Being human demands subjectivity, even in the pursuit of objectivity.

This leads me to believe that celebrating personal identity in promoting and communicating science is a valid approach.  That way, a diversity of avenues for endorsing science can be utilised by allowing individualised expression of it.

My sister’s approach, for example, is to come up with awesome science slogans:

Medicine: You’ll never get sick of it.

Botany: For budding scientists.

Haematology: It’s not all in vein.

Linguistics: Everyone is talking about it.

Bacteriology: It will grow on you.

Chemistry: It really does matter.

So my current standing on the subject, especially after laughing furiously at those puns, is that science needs subjective expression to promote the goal of objectivity.  After all, science can be a very personal thing.  It makes you dream, makes you wonder, makes you cry and laugh and want to share and tell and teach.  Science can make you feel overwhelmed by the simplest natural phenomenon or the most complex engineering construction.  It can challenge you, inspire you, annoy you, make you feel insignificant, empower you and always enlighten you.  It’s pure in method yet flawed in practice.  It’s a fierce weapon and a giant bandaid.  It’s a friend and an ally.  It’s a dynamic guide to the world that derives from our deep desire to understand it.  It’s human.  So I’m going to be human about it.

Some of the people I feel that do this well are:

Sara E Mayhew: a manga drawing skepticism-ninja-lady.

Tim Minchin: a multi-talented music man with a heart full of logic.

Richard Hammond: you know him from Top Gear. He used to show people how fun science can be on Brainiac. Stop dicking around in cars Richard and do more of this…

Ultimately, this article from the ABC gives me hope.

Illusions in Language

Linda is 31 years old, single, outspoken, and very bright. She majored in philosophy. As a student, she was deeply concerned with issues of discrimination and social justice, and also participated in anti-nuclear demonstrations.

Which is more probable?

  1. Linda is a bank teller.
  2. Linda is a bank teller and is active in the feminist movement.

If you are like me and 85% of the people confronted with this question, then you were probably struck with a sure instinct to select the second option.  Conversely, the context of this little pop-quiz may have aroused enough of your suspicion to second guess yourself and choose the former answer.  Touché, reader, touché.   The above is an example of a phenomenon called the conjunction fallacy.  Mathematically speaking the correct answer is the first one.  The likelihood of two events co-occurring will always be less than or equal to the likelihood of either one occurring exclusively.

At first, I thought this fallacy exemplified how the pattern seeking nature of our brains can misguide us.  You see the description, you building a picture of Linda in your mind and immediately think the second answer fits best.  Yet even with the knowledge of what is mathematically the correct option, I inevitably experience a lingering visceral compulsion towards the second answer. What confused me about this problem on reflection was why so many of us get it wrong, when we clearly do have the capacity to calculate basic probability even from a young age.  So I went hunting for more answers, internet-Indiana Jones style.

Further exploration of this common blunder reveals where the real error occurs.  Further studies on the topic have revealed that when the question is phrased in more mathematical language most people do select the correct answer (See Hertwig and Gigerenzer, 1999).  It is thus clear that we are well equipped to handle the maths when the question is phrased with more semantic clarity.  So where is our cognitive downfall taking place?  I feel that the illusion is in the language.  It appears, as demonstrated by the common response to the question above, that our brains are far more primed to deal with what is ‘plausible’ rather than ‘probable’.  So rather than a fallacy of logic, failure to select the right answer about Linda’s most likely practices comes down to a pragmatic inference, misguided by ambiguous language.   Hence, the most ‘probable’ answer can easily be taken to mean the most ‘credible’, ‘feasible’, ‘conceivable’, or ‘apparent’ answer.  We can all be excused then for not jumping into a mathematical approach to the question.  Ultimately, the lesson I reap from this intellectual conundrum and its results is that natural language is more sophisticated than logic.  This may mean that the common ‘the glass is half full/empty’ perspectives may have greater implications given these observations of just how powerful a tool language is.

For my interests, it most certainly provides us with a better insight into the workings of our own minds… but I still have no idea what the hell Linda does.