6 ms·

I'm not defending psychology. But you've inserted your own narrative and interpretation into this group of studies which do not necessarily follow. In addition,

I'm not defending psychology. But you've inserted your own narrative and interpretation into this group of studies which do not necessarily follow. In addition, although they are still important in a lot of ways this is a fast developing field and some of these studies are fairly old. Your assertion that [2] and [5] are evidence of problems with the conclusion of [1] does not follow. [2] and [5] are findings of atypical neural activity in specific systems/areas of the brain in response to imitating and experiencing emotional stimuli. [1] is a finding that people with ASD score poorly on a test of theory of mind. It does not at all follow that they are evidence that the result of [1] is incorrect. They could just as easily by a reason why people with ASD are lacking in theory of mind rather than be evidence that the result is incorrect. It's the same thing with [4]. I also don't see evidence to your claim that great apes do not have them. I only see a lack of any kind of studies on MNS in almost all animals. This is the only excerpt I found on them is in [9], and it says nothing of the sort, and it implies that there haven't been any attempts at observation of MNS in other animals including hominids/apes. There is nothing on whether or not hominids do not have MNS, and on dolphins there is only (at this time) conjecture. On the other hand animals having mirror neurons but not having theory of mind does not mean that mirror neurons are not necessary for forming theory of mind. It just means that it's more complicated than that. [8] asserts that it is a part of it. In fact MNS is now believed to be a separate system from the ToM system (even if they are related and interact) [10]. Although [3] cast some doubt, it is by no means a conclusive dismissal. It essentially says one area of the brain previously studied probably has several different functions instead of just a social-cognitive one. It shows only that the specifically relevant previous work is less conclusive. It is also from 2007, and has nearly 1000 citing papers. One such paper that is fairly highly cited is [10], which compensates for issues presented by [3] by looking at a different area of the brain. Here is another study which examines a different aspect of the brain [12]. It also cites a few studies which it cites as specifically showing reduced activity in regions in the brain which are part of the ToM/mentalizing system. It is not obvious to me from the evidence you've provided what the problems with ToM are, especially with regards to people with ASD. [8] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149763401000148 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S014976340... [9] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5810456/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5810456/ [10] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19524046 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19524046 [11] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1053811911002230 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S10538... [12] https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapsychiatry/article-abstract/1860852 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapsychiatry/article-abst...

nbeleski 7y ago
Hey, thanks por posting this and adding to the discussion. You raise some points that I feel are very important.
shakna 7y ago
> Our central question, however, was whether there is any evidence for a direct supporting role of the mirror system during mentalizing tasks. Apparently not. and > This conclusion is contrary to suggestions that the mirror system might aid the mentalizing system to inferring intentions of others. [10] Doesn't seem to support the idea that the mirror system is at all involved in ToM. It may cite other papers, but the conclusions are not in support of that concept. --- > They could just as easily by a reason why people with ASD are lacking in theory of mind rather than be evidence that the result is incorrect. I didn't rule this out. However, from the evidence we have, there isn't enough to rule it in, either. The neurological patterns being seen could simply be the mirror system, which doesn't seem to have to be involved with ToM being active. We don't understand enough. If the test is incorrect, then there isn't a reason to believe people with ASD are ToM deficit. Further, the result that people with ASD have a mirror system deficit hasn't always been reproduced. [0] [0] http://www.antoniahamilton.com/HamiltonMarsh_UoM_preprint.pdf http://www.antoniahamilton.com/HamiltonMarsh_UoM_preprint.pd... --- [12] Brings out the statistician in me a bit. They use Bonferroni correction, which while it works, it isn't the most suitable way of dealing with the problem on hand. If instead they'd used Sidak correction, the resulting confidence may have been different. They would have ended up close to the same result, but if they've made this very simple mistake, (choosing a correction method that has known applicable flaws, in fact probably the weakest familywise method), what else have they done? > the mean z score for ToM overconnected clusters was correlated with ADI-R Social and ADI-R Communication scores (r = 0.45, P < .05 and r = 0.51, P < .01, respectively), although neither survived Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons. If it didn't survive simple correction over multiple comparisons, then it probably isn't significant. However, rather than looking at that, this value that can't survive correction lead to their conclusion that their first hypothesis and second hypothesis were correct. I don't have the time or energy required to use the supplied data to re-evaluate the given data, but currently there does appear to be the suggestion that this paper is a victim of P-value hunting. Which is kind of the point. These practices are incredibly wide-spread, and incredibly harmful to the whole field.

nbeleski 7y ago

Hey, thanks por posting this and adding to the discussion. You raise some points that I feel are very important.

shakna 7y ago

> Our central question, however, was whether there is any evidence for a direct supporting role of the mirror system during mentalizing tasks. Apparently not. and > This conclusion is contrary to suggestions that the mirror system might aid the mentalizing system to inferring intentions of others. [10] Doesn't seem to support the idea that the mirror system is at all involved in ToM. It may cite other papers, but the conclusions are not in support of that concept. --- > They could just as easily by a reason why people with ASD are lacking in theory of mind rather than be evidence that the result is incorrect. I didn't rule this out. However, from the evidence we have, there isn't enough to rule it in, either. The neurological patterns being seen could simply be the mirror system, which doesn't seem to have to be involved with ToM being active. We don't understand enough. If the test is incorrect, then there isn't a reason to believe people with ASD are ToM deficit. Further, the result that people with ASD have a mirror system deficit hasn't always been reproduced. [0] [0] http://www.antoniahamilton.com/HamiltonMarsh_UoM_preprint.pdf http://www.antoniahamilton.com/HamiltonMarsh_UoM_preprint.pd... --- [12] Brings out the statistician in me a bit. They use Bonferroni correction, which while it works, it isn't the most suitable way of dealing with the problem on hand. If instead they'd used Sidak correction, the resulting confidence may have been different. They would have ended up close to the same result, but if they've made this very simple mistake, (choosing a correction method that has known applicable flaws, in fact probably the weakest familywise method), what else have they done? > the mean z score for ToM overconnected clusters was correlated with ADI-R Social and ADI-R Communication scores (r = 0.45, P < .05 and r = 0.51, P < .01, respectively), although neither survived Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons. If it didn't survive simple correction over multiple comparisons, then it probably isn't significant. However, rather than looking at that, this value that can't survive correction lead to their conclusion that their first hypothesis and second hypothesis were correct. I don't have the time or energy required to use the supplied data to re-evaluate the given data, but currently there does appear to be the suggestion that this paper is a victim of P-value hunting. Which is kind of the point. These practices are incredibly wide-spread, and incredibly harmful to the whole field.