A journal article in The Journal of Neuroscience was released last week regarding morality and individual gain, comparing groups of autistic people and non-autistic people (Hu et al., 2020). Participants were from Brazil and age range was 14-25 years old (note that socio-economic status wasn’t considered here). Participants had to either accept or refuse these two different conditions:
- They could accept or refuse to fund a good cause at the expense of their own funds
(a charity supporting education for children and teens) - They could accept or refuse to support a bad cause in exchange for individual monetary benefit
(an organization that wants to “clean the street by exterminating street animals”)
The researchers had participants choose this in 2 different settings – a private setting, or a public one. Autistic individuals were much more likely than the non-autistic group to refuse the second choice, which is to refuse to support the bad cause to gain money for themselves.
However, neurotypical people often accepted the second bad condition in the private setting, but not the public one. Autistic people did not differ in their actions between private and public settings. This was the main difference between groups in the tasks. Under the private setting, autistic participants refused to support the bad cause significantly more often than the neurotypical participants.
Neurotypicals – More Selfish When There’s More to Gain
Figure 2 of the paper shows the percentage of moral choice between groups and settings. During the experiment, the participants would see different amounts of individual gain/loss and different amounts of gain for the cause they are supporting during each trial.
When I look at the private bad cause condition, I can see that NT participants are less likely to refuse to support the bad cause when they have more to gain monetarily, whereas I do not see this pattern in the autistic group. In fact, the autistic group refuses more often overall in the bad condition compared to the neurotypical group, regardless of setting.
Using computational modeling, the authors suggest that the autistic participants “over-evaluate the negative consequences of their actions” which is why they refuse to support the bad cause in both settings.
In my personal opinion as an autistic person, I would argue that the non-autistic participants underestimated the negative consequences of their actions, and simply chose individual benefit over their principles.
fMRI Analysis
In the authors’ representational similarity analysis (RSA) based on the participants’ fMRI data, they found reduced right temporoparietal junction (rTPJ) representation in the autistic participants compared to non-autistic participants, and argue that this reduction may somehow mediate this over-evaluation of negative consequences in autistic participants.
The rTPJ has been commonly investigated in autistic participants, mostly children, and is thought by some researchers to be used in Theory of Mind tasks. However, more recent literature has shown that autistic people do not have “worse” Theory of Mind than neurotypical people, but simply interact differently than neurotypicals do (Crompton et al. 2020; Heasman & Gillespie 2017).
Pathologizing Positive Human Traits “Because Autism”
The authors pathologize autistic participants for refusing to support a bad cause, essentially for not being as selfish as the non-autistic group:
Here, we show that ASD individuals are more inflexible when following a moral rule even though an immoral action can benefit themselves, and suffer an undue concern about their ill-gotten gains and the moral cost.
– Hu et al. 2020
Let’s break this down. Autistic participants were less likely to take “an immoral action” even though it “can benefit themselves.” That sounds like a good thing. That sounds like those participants have integrity. Then they specify that they “suffer an undue concern” – as if our concerns about immorality are unnecessary or unimportant, “about their ill-gotten gains and the moral cost” – about money that was obtained through means that didn’t align with their actual principles, and the weight of that decision.
So what they concluded was – autistic people cared too much about their morals, and too little about themselves.
– Autistic science person
Reframing
Let’s reframe this. On average, autistic people were more likely to be selfless, and to show integrity in their moral values, than neurotypical people. Autistic people were less likely to change their moral values based on their own individual gain, even when that individual gain was large. And just to extrapolate that further, autistic people cared more about their values than themselves, whereas this was not clearly shown in neurotypical people.
So what they said originally, what they concluded was essentially this: autistic people cared too much about their morals, and too little about themselves.
Pathologizing Language Harms Us
Here are some phrases that are used within this research article:
- “healthy group” is used when referring to the neurotypical group
- “ASD patients” is used when referring to the autistic group
- uses the term “atypical moral behaviors” when referring to autistic people
- “a core deficit in theory-of-mind (ToM) ability” as part of being autistic
- the difference between groups is a “dysfunction” in the rTPJ for autistic people
Real World Implications – Autistic Employment and Poverty
Unfortunately, sticking to your morals in a capitalist society doesn’t often gain you monetary benefits. This means less opportunities for autistic people, and high rates of poverty and homelessness. This can be seen in autistic people’s stance against ABA for example, which decreases speaking opportunities for autistic advocates.
It is harder for us to find and keep jobs because we often speak up if rules are broken, or if people in a company are trying to cut corners. Many of us think about the ethical consequences of our actions even if gasp it doesn’t affect us!
Here’s one autistic person’s experience with keeping their job and the difficulty with having uncompromising morals:
Further, another autistic person can’t take a variety jobs because of the harm these jobs cause:
Meanwhile, so many companies are commodifying our neurotype because of how “efficient” autistic employees are. This means that often autistic people must compete amongst themselves for even fewer employee positions in these autism at work programs, leaving many qualified candidates to fend for themselves. Most positions involve data analysis, IT jobs, or other tech jobs, again leaving out a huge proportion of autistic people who don’t have that specific background.
Conclusion
Just to be clear, this is one research paper. Not every autistic person is selfless, and not every neurotypical person is selfish. However, when researchers twist common positive human traits into autistic deficits (“inflexible” and “overly sensitive to morals”) it hurts everyone. Autistic people don’t care too much, they care correctly. Many autistic people have immense integrity. It’s okay to acknowledge that. In fact, it’s imperative that we acknowledge that.
The actual research done in this study is somewhat interesting, and could have implications for autistic adults especially regarding employment, socio-economic status, and homelessness. The researchers were just too busy pathologizing autism to notice.
In closing, here’s a succinct summary of this research by another autistic person:
References
Crompton, C. J., Sharp, M., Axbey, H., Fletcher-watson, S., Flynn, E. G., Ropar, D., & Bottema-beutel, K. M. (2020). Neurotype-Matching , but Not Being Autistic, Influences Self and Observer Ratings of Interpersonal Rapport. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 1–12.
Heasman, B., & Gillespie, A. (2017). Perspective-taking is two-sided : Misunderstandings between people with Asperger ’ s syndrome and their family members. Autism, 1–11.
Hu, Y., Pereira, A. M., Gao, X., Campos, B. M., Derrington, E., Corgnet, B., … Dreher, J. (2020). Right temporoparietal junction underlies avoidance of moral transgression in Autism Spectrum Disorder. Journal of Neuroscience, JN-RM-1237-20.
- Autistic People Care Too Much, Research Says - November 7, 2020
- The Crossroads of Being Autistic and Queer - November 6, 2020
- $5 Million Grant Awarded to Make Autistic People Mask in Job Interviews - October 6, 2020
39 Responses
Also related to this is the employment problems of the autistic employee who is able to find new ways to function more efficiently, or to achieve a given goal, and is told “no it must be done the way we’ve always done it – just do it better the old way.”
Most people are having a problem with the positive change we are bringing into society and the workplace, but that’s ok, they’ll get over it! 🙂 I think soon we will start seeing businesses owned by Autistics who will not only rewrite the currently very sad work ethics, but will also lean more towards hiring Autistics because it just makes sense too. And then those companies will become the Models in their industries for the future of companies, that want to run honest, ethical, businesses that are full of integrity!
But first, well in my country, we are going to need to remove the government as it is the leader in, way to many, bad ideas. We’ll just call my government a ‘disposable government’ since there isn’t anything there worth recycling! We need to dispose of it anyways and not just for the sake of our country, but for the sake of the rest of the world that are being taken advantage of by it!
The fresh Hell was that? That’s five minutes of my life I want back. Giving a f*ck isn’t a “disorder.”
Many thanks for this prompt response to this culturally biased piece of “autism research”. If anything, this piece of “research” illustrates the bizarre notion of “success” within industrialised “consumer” societies https://neuroclastic.com/2019/11/11/celebration-of-interdependence/.
Last year I was discussing a potential research collaboration with an autism researcher, and when I insisted on the use of non-pathologising language in relation to autism, I was told that that would be impossible, because it might impact on the ability to publish in the most “influential” journals. Needless to say that I refused to co-sponsor the research.
Perfect example of an ND losing out on work for refusing corruption
As an autistic person: Could you please explain to me the concept of “to altruistic”? This is something I simply can’t understand at all. How can upholding a moral code and knowing the difference between good an bad and actually acting it out be considered faulty behavior?
If a society puts more emphasis on who watches than on what is actually done, that is a society in severe need of remodeling.
It shouldn’t be considered faulty behavior, and you’re absolutely right, that does indicate society is in severe need of remodeling. The way that someone can be considered too altruistic, though, I think, is that Western capitalist society is completely based around everyone, to one extent or another, being out mostly only for themselves and those who are close to them. This, focusing “too much” on others or not being willing to cut corners both means that it’s going to be much harder to get ahead in society.
Depending on other people’s views, they might even view being “too moral” as an unwillingness to participate in the same social game as everyone else. For instance, look at gossiping, when a group of people use it to build social bonds by rejecting someone else who probably isn’t there, or how many people on the internet are willing to judge the worth of someone they’ve never met based on a few snippets of information which definitely don’t give a complete picture. Trying to point out the unfairness of these practices can get you labeled a killjoy or socially rejected yourself, which, yeah, is pretty messed up!
It’s time for change, I am a person who also cares to much.
Its time for people like us to run businesses putting care before greed, autistic people are in my opinion the best of the best, they mostly have 1 specific interest that they have studied every aspect of and from every angle possible even what could change in the future and the consequences of the negative impacts it could have.
The world needs change like!!!
Imagine caring being seen as a pathology. Holy shit.
That was super instructive and very well written !
great critique i hope the authors take note and check themselves.
It is, I think, a classic example of the fallacy of the “rigidity of thought” label. People apply it to us so we are stuck with it … but do they ever question whether it is right. How can the question of whether, and where, an autistic or a non-autistic person draws an ethical line in the sand have ANYTHING to do with rigidity of thought? I does not, and it cannot … yet the authors of this research appear to feel confident that it does without producing any justification or supporting evidence because, of course, “everyone knows that autistic people suffer from ridigity of thought”.
I’ve never yet been able to get a clear understanding of just WHAT this “rigidity of thought” we suffer from is actually meant to be. Here is a typical case:
Me: I don’t think this is about right and wrong … it’s about seeing things in a different way. I don’t think I am seeing this the same way that you are seeing it.
My boss: The way I see it is the way that everyone else sees it … except you.
Me: OK … I can accept that I’m in the minority here. But I’m not trying to say that I think you’re wrong and I’m right … I’m just saying that you’re seeing it one way and I am seeing it another way. I’m not asking you to change the way you see things … I’m just asking you to accept that I do not see it in the same way that you do. I, for my part, am happy to accept that you do not see it in the same way that I do. And then we can work from there … from our mutual acceptance that there are different ways of seeing it.
My boss: But everyone else agrees with my on this … why do you have to be different? Why can you not accept my way of looking at it?
Me: I am happy to accept that your way of looking at it is not the same as my way of looking at it. I have no problem with that. But I cannot pretend that I see it the same way as you … because I don’t. I see it differently. All I ask is that you accept that this is the case, so that we can work together on the basis of a mutual recognition of the fact that we see things differently.
My boss: You need to stop being so rigid in your thinking and learn to accept other people’s viewpoints.
I mean … HUH???? There was certainly somebody showing rigidity of thinking here, and an inability to accept other people’s viewpoints. BUT. IT. WAS. NOT. ME!!!
Bigoted researchers: Let’s test morality in autistic and non-autistic people!
*does the test*
Bigoted researchers: Okay, what were the results? Need to know what neurotypical people did differently than autistic people so we can say that the autistic way is wrong… Hmm, so a lot of neurotypicals would take money to support killing stray dogs and cats in private but would refuse to do so in public? But autistic people *didn’t* do that? Lol, suckers.
This is what happens when you have amorality like Ayn Rand being taught in school… Selfishness is not and never will be a virtue!!!
Ummm… okay… in what societies do people _not_ bias their behavior to suit their self-interest?
Answers founded on social systems that “have never been tried” (because no amount of social ABA can drill self-interest out of an NT) are out-of-bounds. Autistics. I tend to get annoyed by service to in-group mythos (pro-capitalist or anti).
Sorry. Autistic. Ex-friends tell me I get too upset too easily over little details.
Thank you so much for writing this! As an autistic, I really appreciate you pointing out the obvious prejudice in this study. It’s so wild to me that autistics are often labeled as rigid and lacking empathy. Having a strong moral code is a good thing. We should be allowed to be defined by our weaknesses and our strengths!
Great post. I read the original paper not long after it came out. Given what they said about theory of mind, I’d bet the researchers *expected* to find that autistics would be less altruistic. After all, that’s logical if you think we don’t have insights into other people’s thoughts and feelings.
But what they found, wasn’t what they expected. It was the opposite. I’m a scientist and a researcher and I know how this goes. Test assumptions, find the opposite, conclude that the assumptions are WRONG. Doing intellectual backflips to justify your assumptions based on your own evidence that refutes them… that is not how scientific investigation is supposed to be done.
Here is a little bit more understanding on this subject! (Please understand I am not referring to All)
1. – NT’s are a part of society! That society has raised them (Indoctrination) to live on a lot of lies and unnatural ways of doing things! (When you are living on lies and deceptive ideas your mind can’t work very fast because of these conflicts, and the more you have in your mind, the less intelligent you will become! This is LITERALLY why Autistics should avoid getting to involved with society for now!)
2. – Autistics generally stay away from society which means they aren’t getting indoctrinated into all the lies as much or as quickly! (The less conflicts within your mind the more intelligent and Honest you will become! We are born with good morals and then society slowly erodes away at those good morals! Or as I like to say, “We are born sinless and Pure!” The church says that they have to teach kids good morals when in fact what they are really doing is tearing those children away from the morals they were born with! The church says, “We are all sinners!” and I asked them, “What sins has a newborn baby committed?” This is where they STFU!)
Have a Great Day!
Ableist framing aside, this really is a fascinating study. I’m especially interested in the detail that the NT participants were more likely to accept the “bad” condition in the private setting than in the public one. One can extrapolate that they felt they might be judged by the other people present in the public situation, even though according to the results of the study, many of those other people would also have accepted the “bad” condition in private. It would be interesting to survey the “bystanders” in the public situation to see if they really did judge participants who accepted the “bad” condition, and whether the level of judgement has any correlation with their own likelihood of accepting a similar offer.
the irony of this study is the monetary gain of the researchers seeking to pathologise a clear expression of a stable moral stance. ain’t nothing like sticking to the mainstream pathology paradigm to keep the research money flowing.