Talk:Double empathy problem

Autistic masking & bullying

I would like to share the observation/feedback that I find the section on Autistic masking to be overly negative.

In particular, the statement "Masking begins at a young age as a defense mechanism to avoid harassment and bullying" and subsequent discussion makes it seem like all (or at least the overwhelming majority of) autistic masking is the result of harassment and bullying. This is neither supported by academic research nor by reports of autistic people. Autistic people learn to mask and do mask for a variety of reasons, most commonly a desire to fit in socially.

The recent book

Sedgewick, Felicity; Hull, Laura; Ellis, Helen (2021). Autism and Masking: How and Why People Do It, and the Impact It Can Have. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers. ISBN 1-78775-580-0. OCLC 1287133295.

contains a short section on the double empathy problem (pp. 162--170). It doesn't discuss bullying in this context but makes some interesting observations on masking in interactions between autistic persons.

Is there a research paper that has explicitly explored masking from the framework of the double empathy problem? This would be a great addition for the entry on autistic masking as well!--TempusTacet (talk) 21:47, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

You raise a valid point of concern here. I don't have much time to look thoroughly into the literature at the moment, but if you could improve on the autistic masking section of the double empathy problem page or at least reword it better, it'd be really appreciated! The 2021 book by Sedgewick, Hull, & Ellis sounds like an interesting read and I'll look into it once I have time. Thank you! Cflam01 (talk) 17:57, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm more than happy to help.

However, as someone who has just a vague understanding of the double empathy problem, my main concern is that the section might currently represent a mixture of research & theorizing on the double empathy problem, research on bullying & stigma, and research on masking that creates connections/conclusions that could very well be valid but are not backed by third-party sources (i.e., a violation of WP:SYNTH).

Hence my question whether there is a paper that discusses masking and/or bullying from the perspective of the double empathy problem, which would allow me -- as someone reasonably familiar with the literature on the former topics -- to get a foot in the door.

It's important to me to emphasize that I don't see anything that I believe to be wrong as individual statements, it's just that upon a cursory look at the section & sources I don't see how the sources support the connections that are made, e.g., the idea that masking is always/only/mostly a result of bullying or the connection between masking, bullying, and ableism in autism research. (And I'm aware how difficult it must be to write such a summary article on an emerging, still-developing topic!) --TempusTacet (talk) 18:41, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Intervention research

This line in the problems section bothers me:

"Furthermore, autism intervention research based on theory of mind has shown little efficacy[...]"

It seems to be promoting an understanding of autism as something to be solved or intervened in, which is part of the pathologising medical model of disability. The line presents effective intervention as a measure of success for a theory of autistic empathy, which suggests that autistic people need to be changed to be valuable/functional.

This is just my two cents as someone with suspected autism, I'll leave it to those more engaged with the research to make any changes. 130.195.253.45 (talk) 00:16, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps this sentence needs a bit more context but the research was most conducted from the perspective that you're criticizing, which is that autistic people lack ToM and that this lack has to be compensated for. It's pretty widely accepted by now that the former is not true (or that it just seems to be the case) and that the latter is at least questionable. The double empathy problem provides a new framework to understand and think about why these interventions must fail. If you read eg the summary of results of this source from the double empathy perspective it's obvious why these attempts were bound to fail and it is very likely that the reverse setting (trying to teach non-autistic people how to eg read emotions of autistic people) would result similar outcomes.--TempusTacet (talk) 09:54, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Ah, I see I misinterpreted the context of that section. Serves me right for trying to critique research on limited sleep. Thanks for the clarification! 130.195.253.45 (talk) 23:54, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Phrase "double empathy"

From my understanding, there is no such things "double empathy" in isolation - in the phrase "double empathy problem", it is the problem that is double, not the empathy. I think this point needs to be clarified, and the wording throughout the article needs to be made consistent.

Ganondox (talk) 05:49, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

The phrase "double empathy" is used in isolation in doi:10.3389/frym.2021.554875, and could refer to the distinction between cognitive empathy and affective empathy (doi:10.1044/leader.FTR2.25042020.58), but I'm not certain. doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-6435-8_102273-2 does refer to a "double problem", but simply uses "double empathy" as the title, although I can't access the full text. HaiFire3344 (talk) 15:28, 12 August 2023 (UTC)