University of Nevada, Reno Great is our Sin: Neuroprivilege in Modern Autism Discourse A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in English By Lauren Jeanne DeGraffenreid Dr. Lynda Olman/Dissertation Chair December, 2019 Copyright by Lauren Jeanne DeGraffenreid 2019 All Rights Reserved THE GRADUATE SCHOOL We recommend that the dissertation prepared under our supervision by Entitled be accepted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of , Advisor , Committee Member , Comm ittee Member , Committee Member , Graduate School Representative David W. Zeh, Ph.D., Dean, Graduate School i ABSTRACT Disability and Neurorhetorics have taken significant strides in unpacking disabling language and discourse within modern autism studies. The rhetoric of science has determined multiple useful strategies for isolating the mechanisms by which these discursive paradigms operate. However, less attention has been devoted to the origin of theories suggesting that observed differences in autistic behavior necessarily indicate deficiencies in cognitive ability. Rigorous work demonstrating propagation and dissemination of these concepts through time within disciplinary publishing is needed to expose how flawed ontological perspectives on neurotype can integrate themselves into neuroscientific practice. This work employs lexical and visual enthymeme analysis to explore how driving, value-laden premises behind disablist language can become accepted as legitimate scientific ‘facts’ considered foundational within a discipline. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Introduction…..…………………………………….…………………………………………………………...1 II. Methods a. Tools i. Lexical…………………………………..……………………..……………………………….51 ii. Visual…………………………….…………………..…………………………..……….……75 b. Literature……………………………………………………………….…………………..……….……84 III. Analysis a. Kanner vs. Asperger………………….………………………………..……….……………..…….93 b. Theory of Mind………………………………………………………………….……………….……108 c. Executive Function Theory…………..………………….……………….………………..……138 d. Discussion.………………………………..……………………………………………..…….……….172 iii LIST OF TABLES I. Table 1: Sample Enthymemes………………………………………………………...………………..……33 II. Table 2: Static Enquiry………………………………………………………..………………………………….39 III. Table 3: Stasis and Enthymeme Analysis for Morton……………………………..………….…..68 IV. Table 4: Stasis and Enthymeme Analysis for Asperger…………………….……………………101 V. Table 5: Stasis and Enthymeme Analysis for Baron-Cohen, Frith, and Leslie 1985..110 VI. Table 6: Visual Enthymeme Analysis for Baron-Cohen, Frith, and Leslie 1985……...113 VII. Table 7: Stasis, enthymeme, and nomotic analysis for Baron-Cohen et al. 1995…..115 VIII. Table 8: Visual enthymeme analysis for Baron-Cohen et al. 1995………..……………...119 IX. Table 9: Static, enthymeme, and nomotic analysis for Baron-Cohen and Lombardo 2011…………………………………………………………………………………………………..………………..121 X. Table 10: Static, enthymemic, and nomotic analysis for Stravopoulos and Carver 2014…………………………………………………………………………………………………………..………..129 XI. Table 11: Visual enthymeme analysis for Stravopoulos and Carver 2014……………..133 XII. Table 12: Static, enthymemic, and nomotic analysis for Fitzpatrick et al. 2017…….135 XIII. Table 13: Visual enthymemic analysis for Fitzpatrick et al. 2017…………………………..138 XIV. Table 14: Static, enthymemic, and nomotic analysis for Just et al. 2007…..………….141 XV. Table 15: Static, enthymemic, and nomotic analysis for Kleinhans et al. 2010……..152 XVI. Table 16: Visual enthymemic analyis for Kleinhans et al. 2010…………………………....161 XVII. Table 17: Visual enthymeme analysis for Williams et al. 2010………………..…..……….166 XVIII. Table 18: Static, enthymemic, and nomotic analysis for Kiep and Spek 2017……....168 XIX. Table 19: Visual enthymeme analysis for Kiep and Spek 2017…………..………………...172 iv LIST OF FIGURES I. Figure 1: Modified Toulmin Method………………………………………………..….…………………42 II. Figure 2: Procedure for determining nomotic inheritance…………………..………………...54 III. Figure 3: Procedure for analyzing visual enthymemes and extracting their premises……………………………………………………………………………………………………..……...…60 IV. Figure 4: Autism Diagnostic Trends. “Autism counts.” K. Weintraub. Nature. November 2011……………………………………………………………………………………………………..76 V. Figure 5: Autistic Testing Battery Scores. “Anxiety and social deficits have distinct relationships with amygdala function in autism spectrum disorder.” Herrington, John. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience. June 2016………………………………..78 VI. Figure 6: fMRI Neural Activation Regions. “Autism, the superior temporal sulcus and social perception.” Zilbovicius et al. Trends in Neuroscience. July 2006………..…….….80 VII. Figure 7: Study Design. Source: “Does the autistic child have a ‘theory of mind’?” Simon Baron-Cohen, Ruth Campbell, Alan M Leslie, Uta Frith. Cognition. 1985……112 VIII. Figure 8: Study Design. Source: “Are Children with Autism Blind to the Mentalistic Significance of the Eyes?” Simon Baron-Cohen, Ruth Campbell, Annette Karmiloff- Smith, Julia Grant, Jane Walker. British Journal of Developmental Psychology. November 1995……………………………………………………………………………………………………117 IX. Figure 9: Handicap Table. Source: “Are Children with Autism Blind to the Mentalistic Significance of the Eyes?” Simon Baron-Cohen, Ruth Campbell, Annette Karmiloff- Smith, Julia Grant, Jane Walker. British Journal of Developmental Psychology. November 1995…………………………………..……………………………………………………………...117 X. Figure 10: fMRI false-color data visualization and explanatory caption. Source: “The Role of the Self in Mindblindness in Autism.” Simon Baron-Cohen and Michael V. Lombardo. Consciousness and Cognition. March 2011………………………………………...123 XI. Figure 11: Predictive game design. Source: “Reward anticipation and processing of social versus nonsocial stimuli in children with and without autism spectrum disorders.” Journal of Child Psychiatry and Psychology. May 2014…………………….…130 v XII. Figure 12: EEG waveform analysis. Source: “Reward anticipation and processing of social versus nonsocial stimuli in children with and without autism spectrum disorders.” Journal of Child Psychiatry and Psychology. May 2014……………………….131 XIII. Figure 13: False-color EEG topographic analysis maps. Source: “Reward anticipation and processing of social versus nonsocial stimuli in children with and without autism spectrum disorders.” Journal of Child Psychiatry and Psychology. May 2014……....131 XIV. Figure 14: Statistical analysis of autistic social and motor battery responses. Source: Social Motor Synchronization: Insights for Understanding Social Behavior in Autism.” Paula Fitzpatrick, Veronica Romero, Joseph L. Amaral, Amie Duncan, Holly Barnard and Michael J. Richardson. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders. July 2017…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..137 XV. Figure 15: Activation data and visualizations. “Functional and Anatomical Cortical Underconnectivity in Autism: Evidence from an fMRI Study of an Executive Function Task and Corpus Callosum Morphometry.” Marcel Adam Just, Vladimir L. Cherkassky, Timothy A. Keller, Rajesh K. Kana and Nancy J. Minshew. Cerebral Cortex. April 2007………………………………………………………………………………………………..142 XVI. Figure 16: Activation data and visualizations. “Functional and Anatomical Cortical Underconnectivity in Autism: Evidence from an fMRI Study of an Executive Function Task and Corpus Callosum Morphometry.” Marcel Adam Just, Vladimir L. Cherkassky, Timothy A. Keller, Rajesh K. Kana and Nancy J. Minshew. Cerebral Cortex. April 2007………………………………………………………………………………………………..143 XVII. Figure 17: Corrected test scores. “Executive Functions in Autism and Asperger’s Disorder: Flexibility, Fluency, and Inhibition.” Natalia Kleinhans, Natacha Akshoomoff & Dean C. Delis. Developmental Neuropsychology—June 2010……………………………..148 XVIII. Figure 18. Contrasting profiles among study subjects. “Executive Functions in Autism and Asperger’s Disorder: Flexibility, Fluency, and Inhibition.” Natalia Kleinhans, Natacha Akshoomoff & Dean C. Delis. Developmental Neuropsychology—June 2010………………………………………………………………………………………..…………………………..152 XIX. Figure 19. Performance on the Trail Making Test. “Executive Functions in Autism and Asperger’s Disorder: Flexibility, Fluency, and Inhibition.” Natalia Kleinhans, Natacha vi Akshoomoff & Dean C. Delis. Developmental Neuropsychology—June 2010…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….153 XX. Figure 20. Performance on Color-Word Interference Test. “Executive Functions in Autism and Asperger’s Disorder: Flexibility, Fluency, and Inhibition.” Natalia Kleinhans, Natacha Akshoomoff & Dean C. Delis. Developmental Neuropsychology— June 2010………………………..…………………………………………………………………………………..153 XXI. Figure 21. Performance on Verbal Fluency Test. “Executive Functions in Autism and Asperger’s Disorder: Flexibility, Fluency, and Inhibition.” Natalia Kleinhans, Natacha Akshoomoff & Dean C. Delis. Developmental Neuropsychology—June 2010…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….154 XXII. Figure 22. Performance on Design Fluency Test. “Executive Functions in Autism and Asperger’s Disorder: Flexibility, Fluency, and Inhibition.” Natalia Kleinhans, Natacha Akshoomoff & Dean C. Delis. Developmental Neuropsychology—June 2010…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….154 XXIII. Figure 23. Performance on Design Fluency Test. “Executive Functions in Autism and Asperger’s Disorder: Flexibility, Fluency, and Inhibition.” Natalia Kleinhans, Natacha Akshoomoff & Dean C. Delis. Developmental Neuropsychology—June 2010…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….163 XXIV. Figure