Talk:Simon Baron-Cohen

Justification for article changes

 * However, his empathizing–systemizing theory, views on autism advocacy, and views on autism and sex differences are highly controversial. I added a reliable source for that claim.


 * According to Time magazine, his views on systemising traits had "earned him the ire of some parents of autistic children, who complain that he underestimates their families' suffering". I moved that to the "Criticism" section


 * James McGrath has criticized the autism-spectrum quotient, writing that the score increases if one indicates interest in mathematics, and decreases if one indicates interest in literature or art. Reliable source from a university lecturer, published in The Conversation


 * Darin Hayton, a historian of science at Haverford College, claims that Baron-Cohen's method to destigmatize autism by retrodiagnosing famous figures is not appropriate or effective. University professor, Haverford college.


 * Writing for the Autism Society of America, Jill Escher has criticized Simon Baron-Cohen's support for neurodiversity, claiming that many autistic people lack basic life skills and will need lifelong care because of autism, and claimed his definition of autism was too broad. She does say that there are too many kinds of autism.

Ylevental (talk) 12:18, 11 May 2019 (UTC)


 * One point first of all while I deal with the others, and that's Jill Escher is not writing for the Autism Society of America. The ASA has distanced itself from the San Francisco chapter. She is also not a reliable source on her own. 2001:8003:5901:B400:E5AA:C138:962C:B23D (talk) 01:54, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The ASA criticized Jill Escher, but the San Francisco chapter is still recognized as an official affiliate on their site http://www.autism-society.org/about-the-autism-society/affiliate-network/ Ylevental (talk) 02:05, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Not by them. 2001:8003:5901:B400:E5AA:C138:962C:B23D (talk) 02:07, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * What I mean by that is that they haven't got around to removing San Francisco yet. They will, unless Escher resigns. 2001:8003:5901:B400:E5AA:C138:962C:B23D (talk) 02:11, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * We should wait for them to remove it first. Ylevental (talk) 02:14, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * No we should not because of the presence of the criticism you identified. It shows a disconnect therefore you can't inherit ASA's notability to Escher. It stays out as not notable. 2001:8003:5901:B400:E5AA:C138:962C:B23D (talk) 02:21, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Do not re-add this. Prove that Escher is notable without using the ASA or that other group. 2001:8003:5901:B400:E5AA:C138:962C:B23D (talk) 02:23, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh and stop marking it a "minor" edit. It's not. That's an issue in itself. 2001:8003:5901:B400:E5AA:C138:962C:B23D (talk) 02:27, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Elliot covers the retrodiagnosis issue adequately. There is no need to add anyone to that as it adds undue weight. Notability of Hayton is also questionable as he does not have an article on WP. 2001:8003:5901:B400:E5AA:C138:962C:B23D (talk) 01:59, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay, that's fine. Ylevental (talk) 02:05, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * This article is recognised as part of medical matters on WP. The Conversation is therefore not reliable in that sphere, unless the writer of the article is medically qualified. McGrath has no such qualifications. Therefore, that goes. 2001:8003:5901:B400:E5AA:C138:962C:B23D (talk) 02:09, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The AQ is a psychological tool, not an objective diagnostic. Ylevental (talk) 02:18, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * That's irrelevant to the issue at hand. 2001:8003:5901:B400:E5AA:C138:962C:B23D (talk) 02:21, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll leave Time alone but I've changed the first one because it added things that weren't there in the source. The only two controversies mentioned were the extreme male brain and the merger of autism and Aspergers in the DSM-5. 2001:8003:5901:B400:E5AA:C138:962C:B23D (talk) 02:21, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Deleted Reference
I deleted the part on B-C theories being controversial, not because they are not, but because the reference did not provide any evidence of that, and is not enough to say that something is controversial to make it so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aristotele1982 (talk • contribs) 15:46, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I added more details. The specific examples are found lower in the article Ylevental (talk) 21:48, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

NPOV
Maybe it's me, but it looks like the entire part on criticisms is based heavily on feminist scholarship and not on independent research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aristotele1982 (talk • contribs) 15:54, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Just to let you know, I added another source in this section to see if this source will be worth it. Ylevental (talk) 21:57, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree. Simon Baron-Cohen may be somewhat controversial, but he is not that controversial. He is a highly respected researcher and the length of his criticisms section is WP:UNDUE. Let's try to cut out the criticisms by non-scientists. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 17:22, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

He is controversial. https://www.psychologytoday.com/ca/blog/neurodiverse-age/202108/why-autistic-people-are-worried-spectrum-10k And hence has paused the study due to the outcry from the community. https://spectrum10k.org/statement-10th-september/ Characterizing members of the Autistic community as "feminist scholarship" seems inappropriate in light of these events. Mrrealtime (talk) 18:53, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

This article will need updating
This article will soon need updating. It was reported on the news today (Tuesday August 24 2021) that Simon Baron-Cohen is to be linked with a huge study of autistic people, looking at over 10,000 autistic people. He was on the Radio 4 Today programme today. If Wikipedia is to maintain its status as the world's most up-to-date encyclopaedia, it will need to follow the progress of this study carefully. YTKJ (talk) 19:37, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's called Spectrum 10K. Here's a summary from the University of Cambridge. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:52, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

"Eugenics" wick in "See Also"
The inclusion of the wick seemed spurious, particularly for a biography of a living person, and could have easily been read as an indication that Baron-Cohen is associated with the eugenics movement. I've gone ahead and removed it as potentially libelous. 2001:56A:FB4D:5200:B62E:99FF:FEA3:D19A (talk) 01:15, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

"key test" or "key text"?
The first paragraph of the lead ends with "the key test of which was published in 2015" (emphasis mine), but I'm left wondering whether that should be "test" or "text". In addition, naming that key test/text wouldn't be out of place, I believe. What do others think? The Crab Who Played With The Sea (talk) 16:48, 31 July 2023 (UTC)