Talk:Mind-blindness

message: I am still unhappy with the "inborn" statement about body language, but after rewording it I feel that I don't need to add the  tag back. It still needs a citation though. And telling me to do a google search is pointless, I'm not the person who wants that statement on there (though I do feel that there is now nothing really wrong with it anymore) and it needs to be a reliable source, not just a random site found with google (though it might find a reliable result it isn't guaranteed).
It is good that the other statement now has a source though. Raoul Harris 15:44, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Consider my perspective as a high-order autistic. (High-order is itself offensive in that it asserts the existence of low-order autistics; i.e. low-order Humans. But there ya go.)
I read elsewhere about autistics being labeled mind-blind, so a quick google search brought me to this page. Once here, the first thing that happened was that my cursor accidentally highlighted the word autism. Imagine my surprise seeing the photo of a child building a tower of cans as representing autism.
How many American children don’t build towers with blocks? With Legos? With—don’t scream—with cans? Are you telling Wikipedia readers to unconsciously associate all children who build towers with autism? Do you understand how offended autistics are by such efforts to minimalize and degrade autism? Do you understand the harm you’re doing to leave these gross errors unchallenged?
What you call autism is an externalized expression of an alternative way of wiring the brain. That’s all. Are there autistics who are severely handicapped? Yup. What percentage of autistics are severely handicapped? Is the percentage of severely handicapped autistics roughly the same as severely handicapped normals? Further, what percentage of autistics are severely gifted? Is the percentage of severely gifted autistics roughly the same as severely gifted normals? Is there anyone who argues that Einstein wasn’t autistic? If so, on what basis? When I read the APA’s bible, DSM-5, I see a grocery list of autism indicators, most of which describe Einstein. Why aren’t high-order autistics part of the conversation? Have you asked any autistics for their input? Has anyone who is involved in this Wikipedia article so much as read the DSM-5 descriptions and criteria? I doubt it, and yet the severely miseducated are here encouraged to continue miseducating the uneducated.
Further still, connecting mind blindness with autistics is precisely the same as connecting low IQ with black people. Consideration: there are ZERO mind-blind people in the world, other than possibly those who have phenomenologically proved brain damage. Mind blindness is cocktail party gibberish.
Simon Baron-Cohen’s dark-age assertion of the mind-blindness theory of autism will be remembered in history as similar to the Dred Scott decision and phrenology. This guy was knighted? Who knighted him, Himmler or Hitler? He isn’t the worst example of intelligence misapplied, but he’s high on the current list.
Please recognize that your article contributes to the de-education of Humanity.
2601:407:8501:5F00:BCEE:CAF9:DE2D:2790 (talk) 12:30, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  An autistic's suggestion 

message: I'm Autistic, a clinician working with autistic people, and a researcher studying autism and this is truly a shockingly ableist, biased, and unempirical article. I don't even know where to begin. I'll do some editing but I haven't done it before and I'm overwhelmed by how harmful this is. Is there a way to remove articles from public view while they're being fixed?Rainbowtriceratops (talk) 23:47, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ableist, inaccurate, and poorly researched 

message: I have reviewed all the citations and rewrote the article. Many of them were pointing to incorrect or false claims. In particular, many citations were claiming that "x or y correlates with mindblindness", in most of them mindblindness was a citation and not mentioned in the main article (example), in some of them it was not mentioned at all. I have searched for replacement citations where possible. 
The section on schizophrenia was making a particularly strange claim, that "partial mindblindness" is possible resulting from impaired theory of mind --- this is contrary to all the black and white definitions of "mindblindness" in the research I read from Baron-Cohen who seems to be the main proponent of the theory who stayed with it after its loss in popularity. Not a single citation in the section discussed schizophrenia and mindblindness in the same article! At best, this section was a novel synthesis of information (WP:OR), equating partial deficiencies in ToM to complete loss in ToM. 
Oh, and the section on children had nothing to do with mind-blindness. :shrug:
example: Brune, M. (1 January 2005). ""Theory of Mind" in Schizophrenia: A Review of the Literature". Schizophrenia Bulletin. 31 (1): 21–42. doi:10.1093/schbul/sbi002. PMID 15888423.
Darcyisverycute (talk) 09:55, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Addressed article issues