This study mentions but provides no data or analysis for how their study is impacted by or was affected by the differences between nuerotypical and autistic samples. Which is a shame because as an autistic person who doesn’t like eye contact, I think those findings would have been much more insightful and potentially groundbreaking. My hope is the authors have plans to look closer at that.
you say typical, which means you already recognize the exceptions are exceptions, which makes this into nothing more than an observation that exceptions exist, but exceptions exist in everything, and so it is an uninteresting no-op of an observation. You could say "except for the exceptions" about everything on every topic.
2 + 2 = 4 in any base system 5 or higher, not just 10
Anyway I agree with your argument and am not trying to nullify it with this tangential correction
To add to the chain of tangential corrections, it is incorrect to state that you are correcting a mistake. What your parent said was in fact a true statement, you just generalized it a bit.
This is so silly because roughy 15% of people or 1 in 6 people is neurodivergent.
Or stated another way if you would feel squeamish about playing Russian Roulette then you’re making the same bet if you make judgments about someone you’re not sure is neurodivergent.
If we play this game at the margins every human in the US is female and there’s some exceptions.
Things there’s fewer of than neurodivergent people.
or... it's already the default baseline that everything ever written about any chaotic system from humans to frogs to cells to the weather, is already understood to only ever be expressable in any other terms than percentages, averages, generalizations. All facts or observations are already only some percentage. especially for humans, especially for behavior, especially for behavior in humans. It's frankly ridiculous to mention, like any other truism.
You could add a ridiculous qualifier on practically every other word in any statement on any subject, and that doesn't make them go from false to true, it makes them go from useful to useless.
Wow. Do you feel the same way about feminism? Racism? Do you doubt the existence or severity of ADHD, ASD, etc?
In case there was any doubt on that last point, consider that each of those lower lifespan by about 30 years, have ~15X higher suicide rates, and are 1:2 are not able to work full time.
Insults are in the eye of the beholder. For a person with a disorder marked by issues with eye contact and understanding social nuances, imagining insults that aren’t there IS the disability’s effect.
If you comment on how much a black person enjoys watermelon and you do so objectively without malice, it’s still fair for that to be considered a big insult. Why? Because it has been used as a derogatory stereotype for many years.
If you want to understand the perspective of neurodivergents, look up the terms “allistic” and “ableism”.
When anybody hallucinates an insult where there was none, that is their own problem. You can't hold people accountable for offenses they never committed, for insults they never uttered, just because some crazy person hallucinates an offense.
When you walk into a situation that has an intergenerational history rife with 'hallucinations' you don't immediately start talking about pink elephants.
Stirring up a bad situation is not blameless behavior. It's the favorite realm of children, narcissists and saboteurs.
No, it's the same ableist nonsense that's been spewed since at least the Victorian era. If you're not making intense eye contact during difficult conversations you're not engaged, you're weak and undeserving of the respect you deny others.
There are way, way more people who are alike in this way than are blind or deaf. Because it's not visible it's a 'safe' form of discrimination.
As someone you are referring to, though not on the spectrum, I can say confidently that eye contact has a negative impact on my following of a conversation. This is more true when the conversation requires more thought to contribute meaningfully.
Perhaps interesting is that I do have a mild form of Tourette's syndrome. Eye contact for me very quickly becomes "itchy" and there is a lot of focus required to ignore that feeling for a lengthy conversation.
I'm sure that if you make any eye contact during conversation it marks the rise and fall of shared attention even if the correlation is lesser or maybe a lot lesser for you. Unless you're saying you do make eye contact but it's when your attention has lapsed, which I doubt is what you're saying but correct me if wrong!
That said I've personally almost never made eye contact in 42 years of life, but I do look at mouths which nobody has ever noticed isn't eye contact, and I'm sure serves the same purpose. If all you ever do is look away, it would be interesting to hear if you think there are other things that might serve the same "signal shared attention" functionality for you.
I'll also note that autism isn't the only way to be atypical, and sure wouldn't be surprised if eye contact signals shared attention just as much in ADHD folks as in neurotypical folks (but would be very interested in finding out if that's true or not).
At a local Burger King drive-through, there's an attendant who looks off to the side while handing me stuff through the window. It was a learning moment for me: "so that's what other people see when I'm talking to them!"
Just about to say that. I've worked with a few very talented engineers who simply wouldn't look anyone in the eye during conversation, but focused their full attention on the subject under discussion.
Could you clarify what you might expect from a similar analysis performed on neuralatypicals? For example, would eye contact play little to no role in shared attention between two autistic people? I ask in part because I don't think I know that much about the autistic experience.
I would suspect significantly reduced eye contact between autistic and Nuerotypicals and between autistic and autistic social pairings. My central question would be in high masking autistic individuals does there masking ability relate somehow to eye contact? And if so… by how much? Similarly in autistic-autistic pairings how much eye contact is required for autistic people to communicate well with each other? In my experience, and in some recent studies we see that autistic people can communicate seamlessly with other autistic people without the need for eye contact.
This study asserts that eye contact is required for good social engagement and communication. What I am challenging is that that finding is probably only true in Nuerotypical samples and is probably not present in autistic people.
> And if so… by how much? Similarly in autistic-autistic pairings how much eye contact is required for autistic people to communicate well with each other?
As a neurotypical person, this is actually pretty interesting to me as well. I live in the US and here we are always taught to make eye contact when speaking to someone, as it shows as sign that you are "engaged" with that person. It's something so ingrained in you from a young age here that you start to think that this is how all humans should communicate.
Neurodivergent people just tend to ignore those social constructs, makes me wonder if we as neurotypical people play all these social games and a neurodivergent person just looks at all that as window dressing that isn't required.
> Neurodivergent people just tend to ignore those social constructs, makes me wonder if we as neurotypical people play all these social games and a neurodivergent person just looks at all that as window dressing that isn't required.
I can only speak for my own view, which is that I find making eye contact uncomfortable, and I find that when I do make eye contact it seems like I must be “doing it wrong” because it seems to make others uncomfortable too. Granted I may be reading others’ reactions wrong, the possibility of which contributes to my own discomfort!
> a neurodivergent person just looks at all that as window dressing that isn't required.
This seems like a hypothesis that we could test. For instance, by rationally explaining the practical utility of eye contact, to detect earnestness or deception. Then ask them to attempt this, and see if they can bring themselves to even try. My guess is most neurodivergents who avoid eye contact will find that eye contact remains too uncomfortable to even attempt it. This would show that their eye contact avoidance is not merely a matter of them not seeing any utility in a pointless social game.
As pointed out in another thread, the population of cultures in the world where not making eye contact is the social norm likely exceeds that where it is, so no - not neurotypical population.
Thank you for the re-welcome! I've been in "science" for 15 years now, it's always good to be welcomed again.
You should know that the cohort you would like studied was actually referenced in the article as a further avenue of study and an additional publication! So your critique of the current study is actually just a complaint that it isn't your cohort. They've outlined their materials and methods, you could maybe do a study yourself?
"These findings raise many questions for further research—both for typical and atypical neurological populations—about how attentional states are modulated during interaction with downstream consequences on how minds engage with each other"
This study mentions but provides no data or analysis for how their study is impacted by or was affected by the differences between nuerotypical and autistic samples. Which is a shame because as an autistic person who doesn’t like eye contact, I think those findings would have been much more insightful and potentially groundbreaking. My hope is the authors have plans to look closer at that.