after battling mightily with a number of really priceless (i.e. terrible) autism science articles, i eventually gave up on critiquing them for this post. in most cases, it’s because the experimental procedures these people made up are actually so convoluted and nonsensical that i doubt my ability to accurately describe them (without actually putting everyone to sleep). so instead, i’ve decided to go for a more succinct, pithy tone in this second installment. below, i will show pictures of article titles and/or abstracts from PubMed (all from within the last year). and then i will make fun of them.
M, I found more material for you! Whenever someone writes “[x] may involve significant risk factors requiring thorough investigation” there’s some alarm system in my brain that instantly gets set off…and sends me to sleep. Sometimes I feel like Medical Hypotheses is the National Enquirer of medical journals.
I love it when scientists/psychologists try to make some distinction between things that are “emotional” and things that aren’t. Like…have we all forgotten any and all definitions of what “emotions” are? Also, what makes an inherently emotional scene? This sounds like just another experiment trying to test and see if people who are different also have feelings that are different, so that they can tell the different people that their different feelings are wrong. Oh. Wait. That’s exactly what this is.
I just laugh at this, because the alternative is to scream like a banshee, because this was apparently published in Science, for reasons I truly fail to understand. But anyways. Seriously. The degree of obliviousness needed for someone to write this article title and submit it to a prestigious journal without realizing how inherently absurd it sounds…is astonishing. It says a lot about how ingrained the “mind reading” doctrine is for some developmental psychologists: they actually no longer understand how funny it is that they spend all their time researching “mind reading.”
One last, lighter bit to end things with. Because this is actually funny. Like. It’s funny that someone had to first establish what the “normal, human” way to explore a dog’s face supposedly is. It’s funny that they’re like “Oh, shit. Autistic people can’t even look at dog’s faces the right way!” It’s funny that they consider dog-face-reading a part of the “cerebral specialization of social functions.” But the funniest part, to me, is that now we truly can sit around and watch to see how many different items, species, and pictures they need to observe us observing before they finally figure out that we just look at shit differently in general.
that’s all for now folks! enjoy.