>This may be a stupid question but...is he fooled by feigned emotions, do you think?

Well, several things.

First you have to realize that there are a LOT of problems with SBC's so called "Empathy Quotient".

To begin with, constructing a VALID "instrument" is a VERY difficult thing. SBC has attempted to create something that appears to be similar to say Hare's PCL instrument. But, he has not done the kind of diligent work necessary to get anywhere close.

For starters, SBC's EQ instrument/test is a "self-report" -- such things are notoriously INaccurate because they can be (and are) subjectively manipulated (i.e. "gamed"). Second even a cursory look at it shows that the questions 'telegraph' what the expected "correct" answers should be.

So let's take 3 groups of people:

Group AA is introspective, brutally honest, non-conforming, and more than a bit self-effacing;

Group NT is a mixture of people of varying degrees of superficiality and with varying amounts of rather dubious scruples, but overall a penchant for "going along to get along"** (i.e. doing what they are told, what is expected, answering questions in a fashion that will be "conforming" to the group);

Group SP is the opposite of group AA, entirely superficial, manipulative and deceptive.

Guess which group is going to show up with the lowest scores?

Answer: Group AA (by a wide margin). Why? Simply because they ARE being honest, self-doubting, and self-effacing.

Group NT will (because of the mixed nature of the questions*) probably form a mixed range will creates a nice little normal distribution "bell curve" of scores.

And Group SP will show up as probably THE most empathetic. (Cf Hare's research {repeated & confirmed} showing that Sociopaths/Psychopaths are EXCELLENT at expressing sympathy/empathy -- and a self-report test is the ultimate in opportunities for them to "game" other people).

*Note that the array of questions will have been designed to produce EXACTLY this result. (In other words, there will be some questions that are designed to be "gimmes" obvious to everyone; some questions that are "borderline" {and so those with slightly more honesty, scruples, and self-effacement will occasionally answer in a NON-empathetic manner}; and the third category of questions will be designed to be slightly "tricky" in an attempt to confirm/verify previous answers, but with the side effect of causing some people {including those "gaming" the test} to mis-answer. End result a "nice distribution" of population answers (which is then claimed as a confirmation of the validity of the test, but in fact it proves nothing of the kind).

So the entire thing is (from a scientific standpoint) a farce. What is SAD is that this kind of crap is (still) deemed to have some validity.

**EDIT: As a side note, I think it is fairly obvious that in the Asch Conformitu Experiement that Aspies would be in the "non-conforming" group (they would KNOW which lines matched, and would NOT CARE how many of the others disagreed); and likewise in the Milgram Experiment the Aspies would probably nearly ALL be in the "non-obedient" faction (whereas the Sociopaths would obviously LOVE inflicting the pain, using "obedience" as a cover). Which is a REAL demonstration of both "empathy" and an awareness of other people, versus SBC's farcical analysis (which really only gains "pseudo-credibility" because someone gave him a bunch of time with a fMRI machine, and he diddled with it to produce cherry-pickable BS).

---

>Or is it more that feigning emotion is the "done thing" and so, he wants Aspies to do it too in order to fit in better, be less disturbing to the "normals". Heh.

I'm not certain that he WANTS Aspies to feign the emotion, indeed I'm also not certain that he wants Aspies to even display REAL empathic emotion. SBC seems (these days) to be mainly focused on his own needs/wants -- his "reputation" -- he (like his more notorious cousin) seems almost sociopathic at times, and certainly seems devoid of "empathy" for Autistics & Aspies, more than willing to scapegoat, sacrifice, and entirely mischaracterize them for his own aggrandizement.

Indeed the direction SBC seems to be going (see his latest book) is to attempt to replace Robert Hare -- but he really DOESN'T have the "chops".

AND, he has falled into the same "trap" that Hare did initially -- thinking that a "lack of empathy" was what leads to criminal behavior. Hare eventually found out his error, that it is NOT a lack of empathy, but rather a lack of CONSCIENCE (a profoundly different thing altogether).

One of the Amazon comments on his "Zero Empathy" book says it pretty succinctly:
>Simon-Cohen posits a very forced empathy-based construct, to explain Borderline and Antisocial Personality Disorders, for example.
Those of us who have decades of clinical experience working with these disorders can readily see Cohen's forumlations as far too simplistic, at best, and, at worst, ignorant!
For example, Cohen makes NO allowance for the fact that many (classical) sociopaths are exquisitely sensitive to every nuance of the feelings of others -- which they then EXPLOIT with great skill.
Back to the drawing board, Dr. Cohen.

And likewise, another commenter notes on his "Science of Evil: Empathy" book that:

>An amateurish attempt by a great researcher out of his depth
>His argument is that researchers have overlooked the importance of empathy in studying evil. Despite the fact that psychopathy researchers have noted, and studied that, for decades, he pretends (or really thinks?) that he's come up with something new here. [...] Baron-Cohen calls his new empathy link between two of these traits "blindingly-obvious". It should be, because it's been recognized for decades now! So Baron-Cohen is really reinventing the wheel here. Worse in fact, as he leaves out the troubling (for his theory) case of Machiavellians, who can flip back and forth between empathy as it suits their needs.
>[...]
>Baron-Cohen also conflates/confuses psychopathy with general antisocial behavior. One of the fascinating things about psychopathy is that it isn't strongly correlated to the parenting one received. In direct contrast to what Baron-Cohen reports, Lalumiere and colleagues have done excellent research showing that compared to general criminals, psychopaths are LESS likely to have suffered from pre- or post-natal trauma.



---

>But feigning emotions is sociopathic. Isn't it? Sinister, manipulative.

Yes, it is. There is plenty of evidence that it is (at least occasionally) symptomatic of most of the population (i.e. NT's) and it is one of the hallmarks of sociopaths (aka psychopaths), who are the masters of both READING and of feigning emotions (i.e. playing on/with empathy).

The mistake I see a lot of people (including SBC) making is saying that sociopaths lack empathy -- not true at all, sociopaths are EXPERTS at being charming, sympathetic, producing "crocodile tears", etc.; in short at both reading AND displaying whatever emotions will "get the job done" of manipulating people. (And quite frankly a lot of NT's are pretty darn good at this as well).

What sociopaths REALLY lack is not just "empathy" it is that they have ZERO "conscience" -- i.e. they do not (internally) feel "bad/guilty" about harming other people (or creatures) -- they are essentially "thrill/adrenalin/power" junkies.

I have seen several mentions in Aspie forums, and from my own experience I think it true: that Aspies (especially the really aware HF Aspies) are the "natural enemies" of sociopaths -- and if sociopaths are caricatured as "snakes" (i.e. Hare's "Snakes In Suits" book) then Aspergers are the "Riki Tiki Tavi mongooses" of the world.

I think the prevalence/problems that Asperger's and Autistic types are having in our modern world is in no small part DUE to it being the kind of world that it has become. I think Aspie & Autistic types has a MUCH easier time in a "small world" of agricultural communities (it is notably almost non-existent among the Amish), with lots of animals needing care, a tendency to small local schools (you are much less of an "oddball" in a school of 10 students of mixed ages, than you are in a mass-school of 1000+ all similarly aged), not to mention the old "orderly" courting & social practices (often explicitly TAUGHT to children as "set" rules), etc.

Where Asperger's and Autistic types "stand out" and run into problems is in the "chaos" of recent decades -- in our cliquish/materialistic, gossip-centered MASSIVE schools, urban environments, etc. The problems of Asperger's and Autistic types are exacerbated.

And equally of note: In the "older" world, it was much HARDER for sociopaths to pull off their tricks; our modern world (with it's superficiality, triviality, and disorderly chaotic social practices) seems to be "tailor made" for sociopaths (in everything from promiscuity, to the world of banking & bureaucracies).

True psychopathic disorder is not that common.

Not all asshole bosses are psychopaths--it's often confused with Narcissistic personality Disorder, Histrionic PD et al.

Some further reading if interested:

Snakes in Suits

No Asshole Rule

You can also check out Snakes in Suits: When Psychopaths Go to Work by Paul Babiak and Robert D. Hare.

"The PCL-R has slipped the confines of academe, and is being used and misused in ways that Hare never intended. In some of the places where it could do some good -- such as the prison in the TV documentary I was yelling at -- the idea of psychopathy goes unacknowledged, usually because it's politically incorrect to declare someone to be beyond rehabilitation. At the opposite extreme, there are cases in which Hare's work has been overloaded with political baggage of another sort, such as in the United States, where a high PCL-R score is used to support death-penalty arguments, and in England, where a debate is underway about whether some individuals with personality disorders (such as psychopaths) should be detained even if they haven't committed a crime."

I see it used well here in BC, in the courts. Interesting how it's misused elsewhere.

Edit: Uh-huh, and that's what I get for replying before I finish reading. So, anyway, the article's from 2001! The book with Babiak is this one:

http://www.amazon.com/Snakes-Suits-When-Psychopaths-Work/dp/0060837721

Still an interesting article, though.

http://www.amazon.com/Snakes-Suits-When-Psychopaths-Work/dp/0060837721

http://www.amazon.com/Snakes-Suits-When-Psychopaths-Work/dp/0060837721

Absolutely. A previous post of mine:

There is a lot about corporate culture that attracts and rewards psychopathic behavior. In this situation, it sounds like the manager would be rewarded and protected for keeping costs down and improving profit. This is a very interesting book on the subject (I'm not sure how to embed hyperlinks)

http://www.amazon.ca/Snakes-Suits-When-Psychopaths-Work/dp/0060837721

Not to be argumentative, but my knowledge comes from here:

http://www.amazon.com/Snakes-Suits-When-Psychopaths-Work/dp/0060837721

and here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Hare_%28psychologist%29

http://www.amazon.com/Snakes-Suits-When-Psychopaths-Work/dp/0060837721

http://www.jarche.com/2012/09/first-we-shape-our-structures-and-then-the-sociopaths-take-over/

There are others of course, but I have a paper due and really need to get off reddit.