ToM, Logic, Deep Thinking

Post Reply New Topic

Can anyone though? Aren't other people just guessing, or just assuming that they they know? I can't know what another person is thinking or feeling, but I could make guesses most of the time if I had to. My understanding is that someone lacking ToM is someone who cannot grasp that someone else has different thoughts and feelings to our own. It seems most of us have a somewhat opposite problem, where we are so aware that other people think and feel differently to us, that we couldn't possibly make an assumption about them.

In fact, I am very unlikely to believe that someone else thinks or feels the same as me, as I always feel as though I am different to other people. I look the same as other people, so it must be what's going on inside my head that is different. That would be ToM to the extreme, right?

This thread is great. I'm inspired to do more ToM research as I really feel like challenging it.

I don't know if this is what you mean, but recently I was seeing my psych and he said "Can you read a book for me?". I was confused as to what he meant: Read a book right now? Pick one off the shelf and read it out? Hypothetically could I? Funnily his actual meaning didn't occur to me, that he wanted me to borrow a particular book of his to read between visits. I thought he might have wanted me to read something out to check my tone of voice or something! But even though I was confused, the answer would of course be "yes", because whatever he meant, I could do that. But I couldn't bring myself to say "yes", or even "what exactly do you mean?" for quite a few seconds. All that comes out of my mouth in such situations is a bit of an "Uuhh..." and a confused or blank face. I hate when this happens at work!

Yes, yellowtamarin, you have it exactly! I would've thought exactly as you did. And I would've been all the more reluctant, given my reading issues, for fear of reading badly and embarrassing myself in the demonstration. (I read with good comprehension, but I've posted in other threads about my processing issues that cause me to take long because of misreading, not registering what I read right away, etc.)

[Sorry, can't work out how to quote stuff using my mobile yet else I'd quote some of YellowTamarin's posts above, but I lets generally just take it as find they seem to sum it up well, also I really like Mind without walls examples]

Yes, it seems to me that people couldn't do this without making assumptions too.

It seems like there are potentially several complicated things going on that to the observer it might look like it meets the criteria of lack of ToM but its not that simple.

1) Reluctance to make assumptions
A number of people don't like to make assumptions about what other people are thinking or feeling; this may put them at a disadvantage in social situations because they don't jump to conclusions it takes them longer to think things through and they can be slow to react so the conversation / social interaction might pass them by

2) Slow Processing
Some people struggle to process multiple inputs or to fast switch between them, or process external inputs slower than others, because of this they are still processing input 1 when input 2 comes in so they might miss it, or receive both but not be able to switch between them fast enough to be able to give a coherent reply

[To give an example the psychologist I see did a quick test where she told me to really concentrate on processing her facial expressions while she asked me a question, so I did, and I heard her words but I just couldn't comprehend what she had just asked, I was too busy trying to analyse the facial expressions. So she suggested maybe I sometimes had an ongoing monologue in my head trying to actively interpret what was going on which got in the way,so I could seem inattentive and people might not like this. At the time I said maybe, but after the session and I'd had a bit more time to process what had happened, I don't think this is what actually occurred; there was no monologue at all that I was conscious of, instead there were just more inputs than I could process quickly at once. And thinking about it when someone is explaining something complex to me I frequently ensure my eyes have focused on something wsimple, like a single bit of a monotone bit of clothing / furniture nearby. That way I'm more likely to follow what they say.]

So yes I agree with the comments of posts I referred to above, potentially if you do 1) don't make assumptions and 2) for whatever reason are slow to process something, it can look like you're doing 3) Failing to understand others emotional position, and therefore lack ToM, when this isn't what's happenin at all.

BTW as I have only very basic knowledge of biology and psychology and it is somewhat out of date, I have no idea whether 1) or 2) would be more likely to be due to environmental factors or neurological / biological ones.

YellowTamarin if you do more research on this and find out more I'd be keen to know, or from anyone else who thinks, knows or experiences anything about this.

Considering that the test was supposed to assess pragmatics, not ToM, I think I know what is actually going on here: In the question, people is implied to mean "you". Pragmatics is how the meaning of words changes depending on the situation, and autistic children are usually better with semantics, the unchanging meaning, than the pragmatics.

There is a natural even inherent inclination for people to mimic aspects of a person's social behavior when engaged in conversation(mirror neurons at work). From facial expressions: a blink of an eye or a slight upward turn of the lips TO body movements: a subtle movement of the hand or an inconspicuous shifting of feet, etc; all distractions leading to either hyper or hypo sensory input in the Autist.

One can choose to interact or focus on an object without distress because there is no biological imperative cajoling your social mind to mimic and respond to something so instinctually present in others.

* Just an opinion and should be taken as such

TheSunAlsoRises

My take on this is that she already knows she's different - and that has forced her to think about the issue.

I grew up undiagnosed - but I knew I was different, and that I had to "hide" even from my parents (by hiding, I mean not reveal everything about myself) so early that I can never remember not thinking that way - and some of my memories go back to when I was two, and I would certainly recall it if I reached this understanding any time after my fourth birthday. So I was no older than three when I'd figured this much out.

And, yes, I would have 'stalled out' on a question like that, too. And my logic would have matched your daughter's, precisely.

I don't think this is ToM - I'd say this is an example of why we get accused of "not seeing the forest for the trees". We see a tall pine, a couple of oaks, a birch grove... and NTs look and just see "forest". We see that we're different, then we may notice that another person just likes whatever their friends do, and still another who only likes loud music, and we decide there is no "forest" answer, just an illusion.

If that's what they intended, it seems absurd to me. "People" never just means "you", in any context. If she was "supposed" to think that, they were simply presuming her to be sloppier with language than she obviously is.

I do understand some things are implied in NT speech, like the classic example "Did you wash your hands?" <---- "Recently" or "Just now" implied. But "people" should never be a synonym for "you". That is a completely incorrect use of the word, and a very sloppy use. Why not just ask "Why do you like music?" if that's what you mean?

the theory of mind is only a theory.
who came up with the theory? was it archimedes or pythagoras or someone else who is living in obscurity.

if it is all just theoretical,
then who knows what is true,
until i have some confirmation,
i have better things to do.

i have thought of a melody i must attend to now so bye.

From Wikipedia(first line sums ToM up):

Theory of mind is the ability to attribute mental states—beliefs, intents, desires, pretending, knowledge, etc.—to oneself and others and to understand that others have beliefs, desires and intentions that are different from one's own.[1]

Do you have slight problems with ToM, today ? And, IF so, is there a point in time THAT you believe you could have benefited from some type of assistance ?

I don't theorize 'lack ToM" which implies it is non-existent in the Autist; I theorize a possible 'disruption in ToM' meaning it's present BUT with slight to significant differences depending upon the individual.

TheSunAlsoRises

You're right. She's very aware that she's different. It's not something I've chosen to tell her, she just speaks about it quite openly with me.

When she was leaving P1 (she was just 5 1/2), she had to write a letter, describing herself, to her new P2 teacher. Her letter said, 'I'm different, because my brain works different' (spelling was not quite as good as that ). I hadn't realised that she'd become so aware. I'm sure I was a little older before I realised I wasn't really like my peers.

However, her peers have grown up much quicker than mine did (not emotionally, but in their fashion, tastes, etc). My daughter loves stuffed toys, puppets and crawling about the floor with toy cars. Her female classmates like handbags and having their hair done. That's all very noticeable to her. But, I don't think it's the only thing she's noticed.

....lol

I do understand what ToM is, and I'd agree at least in general with your summary. I simply don't think ToM has any relation to this answer.

I do still have some problems with ToM - I do understand people have beliefs, desires, and intentions that are different from mine, but at the same time, if those are too different, I struggle to comprehend them. (I'm talking about perfectly benign differences here - I also don't understand how the Nazis, for example, could have thought and acted as they did, but I don't even wish to. That's a different issue. Anyone who could, say, understand how a serial killer could enjoy killing would scare the wits out of me. But, oh, to take one example: pens. I still struggle to comprehend how anyone could bear to use a Bic. They scratch and scrape across the paper, they're just awful - and there are perfectly wonderful fountain pens available instead. Even if you don't want to hunt down a nice vintage one, there a perfectly acceptable cheap Chinese pens out there. I just can't get my head around why anyone would ever, willingly, use a Bic - or any similar nastiness.)

And I developed ToM late - although I'm not sure that delay was for the reasons commonly assumed. See, I could understand animals, just fine. I knew they were creatures with their own desires and feelings (I was told they couldn't think, although it didn't take me too long to figure out that was wildly wrong). Before I was six, I understood they were living in a world they hadn't made, trying and usually failing to communicate with the people around them. It took me a lot longer to realise I understood that instinctively because it was essentially my own situation.

Meanwhile, people made no sense to me. If you've ever played one of those video games where a figure just stands there, waiting for you to figure out what they want, until you either work it out or go find a cheat sheet - that's more or less what I thought of people. So I never imagined they had thoughts or desires or anything that comprehensible. I was told they did, but I figured it was one of those things you're supposed to pretend you believe, even though it isn't true. Then, in junior high, I can't remember what it was she said, but I was in a class with a teacher we called "Freddy the Frog" (because Fred was his first name and he looked like a frog) and this girl said something, and all of a sudden I had this huge insight - that there was another person like me in there, staring out at the world, trying to make sense of it. It was kind of unnerving, because this wasn't a girl I liked or thought was pretty or anything of the sort. But I couldn't deny that she seemed to be a fellow thinking creature. And from there, I started to figure out that other people were, too.

I don't think this was because I lacked the theory. I had the theory, just fine, when I was not even six. What l lacked was the specific data that would let me apply the theory to people. Animals, I can understand; I may not always know exactly what they think, but they make sense to me. (And I don't think this is for the reason Temple Grandin has advanced, that we are "more like" animals. Yes, we do share the sensory issues to some extent, but I know my own ability to understand animals sprang from seeing them trying to cope with other creatures they couldn't understand or make sense of.) And now that I've met others like me online, they make a lot more sense, a lot more easily (even now when I'm over fifty) than the NTs I know. I've met one or two people in real life I suspect were on the spectrum, although none have been formally diagnosed. (But my now dead friend, who had a GED because he couldn't even get through school, but knew quantum physics, string theory, etc. was about as classic an aspie as I've ever heard of.) And I understood them much more easily.

The only thing I think would have really helped would have been the chance to meet people I could understand, sooner. Because all the explaining in the world wouldn't have convinced me people really had thoughts, until my own mind was so advanced that I could make sense of something that alien. And even then, I struggled with the idea for a few years.

Since I only figured out the answer to what made me so different two years ago, I've never tried any therapies - but I do have a theory that goes against most of the reasoning behind at least many of them. It comes in two parts. Part one: we are wired differently. We can never be what we aren't. Trying to make us "fit in" and act as though we are only hobbles us mentally. It's like trying to use a race car as a truck to haul produce. Sure, you can stick a couple of heads of lettuce and a few boxes of strawberries in there and drive them to a supermarket - but it will never work well in that role. Part two: since we work so differently, expecting us to develop at the same rate, learn things at the same time as those who are utterly alien to us, and so on, will only confuse us. And I think this can - at least sometimes - have long term consequences. For example, if anyone had tried to "help" me with ToM by "explaining", since whatever they told me would have made no real sense to me, I would have eventually learned to outwardly pretend I believed them, while working out an elaborate explanation of my own to make sense of it all. This explanation would have shaded how I interacted with the world, and would have steered me in many wrong directions. Heck, exactly this has happened to me, just not with ToM. In places where I was pressed hard enough to "fit in", I learned all the wrong things, and now I'm having to unravel them in order to figure out how I really work. I've made more progress in the last two years than I did in the fifty years before that, too.

Just to be clear, I do understand we have to work within the world we find ourselves in. I don't object to that idea. But I think, in order to do so most effectively, we need to learn in our own way, the things that make sense to us - and how to function as aspies and auties in the wider society. It used to be that having black skin made you "less functional", not because you were really any lesser, but because people thought differently about you. Things like "eye contact" are no different. There is no real reason we need to do this. People can learn to accept that we exist, that we are different, and that we don't have to be like them. But, instead, we're forced to learn to do what people expect. I don't think it's any different than it would have been to expect black people to bleach their skin and straighten their hair. (And I know some of them felt this was necessary, and did what they could, and the thought of that makes me sick, too, just to be clear.)

Last edited by theWanderer on 15 Jun 2012, 3:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.

ToM will be one of the biggest issues facing the wave of Autistic children born in the 90's seeking independence.

In many cases, it can result in gross misunderstanding of social situations THAT everyone around is attuned to BUT them. In this regard, ToM does NOT have anything to do with a different perspective of what's going on; it could simply be an erroneous perspective THAT could have dire consequences.

Do Non-Autist have these issues ? Yes. BUT, not to the degree that Autistic people living in a non-autistic socially constructed world do.

For those children of the 90's( and generations to come), a greater desire to be among their peers socially and a refusal to be as isolated as the previous generation will require more than awareness and acceptance.

TheSunAlsoRises

I need more details.......

Background: Peer relationships in-particularly social interaction and communication that would foster ToM.

Does she have any siblings or was she exposed to an environment ( involving her peers) that would promote consistent and age appropriate situations THAT use ToM ?

For your daughter to have the presence of mind to realize others may NOT have the same thoughts THAT she has leads me to believe THAT.......role playing, situational practice, or some sort of initiated peer involvement during play time might surprise a few people in regards to ToM.

Yes, she needed a bit of prompting and she was a bit unsure BUT she eventually got IT.

You have to build on these moments. Do not let them slide. When ever you find out 'why' she answers the way she does, compliment her on her perspective THEN give her examples of other perspectives( including the one which was implied) and explain to her "why' these perspectives could be true.

IF there is one obvious perspective ( or social acceptable correct answer) explain 'why' using the same process i outlined above.

I suggest doing it this way because frankly what she said is valid. We want to give her different perspectives without silencing hers.

*these are just opinions and should be taken as such.

TheSunAlsoRises

TheWanderer, your post makes perfect sense to me. It was what i expected. Thank you.

It is my belief THAT the 'hard data' THAT you needed could have* i stress could have* been obtained through some of the examples THAT i listed above. The data THAT you mention IS simply what ABA therapy is trying to accomplish.

Temple Grandin understood Animals as well as a large number of children/adults who are considered to 'lack theory of mind'. I find THAT Autistic people can relate to objects and animals as defined by ToM BUT ToM is reserved for social interaction amongst human primates.

I have enjoyed this discussion. It has reinforced a few things i suspected.

TheSunAlsoRises

Ok, leme rephrase this. While the question literally asks about other people, it's implied that it's really asking why she likes music, or something else. That's pragmatics. Whenever something isn't taken literally, it's because of pragmatics. I'm not NT, so I'm guessing I'd answer exactly the same as the daughter, for whatever reason. I believe that a lot of which is believed to be errors in theory of the mind is actually simply miscomincation related to pragmatics. This can be illustrated by countless stories I've heard here on the forum about that infamous doll test and WHY people answered as they did, which I believe to be completely idiotic. Also, see the slushy cup thing.