I think I might have been wrong...

Post Reply New Topic

I was serious and the thought was funny to me. It was an exaggeration, but true. I've done it.

What comes out, is what was in there from the beginning.

Okay, I don't know what you mean by this either. Since this conversation is failing to make much sense to me, I guess I'm done.

These ToM tests requiring large amounts of working memory are actually tests of intellectual analysis, so I don't think they have much to do with real-world social interactions, interpersonal relationships, group power play, stimulus-to-response profiles of emotional arousal, all of which are elements of the social cognition modulated through intuitive ToM underlain by a set of many neuronal connections in the brain. The results of the tests are not indicative of ToM deficits or lack of ToM deficits in autism, because they are not testing for intuitive ToM in the first place. No one understands the subconscious processes of reading people or being synchronized with people in social groups, but for NTs, much of this is accomplished without conscious intellectual analysis. In the wild and in a wide range of everyday situations, it's hard to see how a person who applies intuitive ToM with little or no conscious effort can be autistic.

It is only when the situation gets more complex than the ones in everyday life that NTs also have to use intellectual analysis. Such as when they are plotting against each other to gain something for themselves or their groups. By systemizing social cognition, autistics could engage in this plotting as well. The face-to-face interactions required to carry out the plots might be very difficult though. But that is not to say an autistic person could not possibly win out over an NT for the one thing that they are both going after. One way might be to leverage the inevitably erroneous readings of autistics made by NTs against NTs. After all, we have learned more about them during a lifetime of adaptation to them than they have about us to whom adaptation is not required of them.

Put an autistic into a casual social interaction without a specific goal to accomplish, and she will find that conscious analysis cannot keep up with subconscious processes. If I wanted to engage in small talk, then I'd have to analyze the microexpressions on the faces of several people to determine who is going to talk and when it is my turn to talk and what I should say in response to what someone else just said and what I should say to establish or maintain relationships with the others in the group. Not just say, but non-verbals as well. This is the kind of thing that NTs do easily, and this is the kind of thing that can seem insurmountably difficult to autistics having to do much of it through conscious analysis. Most of us have tried this, and we know how awkward we can be. Not just awkward, but unable to project the right cues to connect with NTs.

Autistic children are less capable of intellectual analysis than autistic adults, so their ToM deficits are more obvious.

NTs only have NT ToM. They cannot intuitively understand or read people who are not NT. Especially not people as different as autistics. Autistics are so different from NTs, because autism and plethism are two different developmental trajectories that diverged very early during neural development, when the neurons were migrating to their locations in the brain and growing out their axons to synapse with each other.

I understand people with no conscious effort, but I cant connect with them. I understand the effort of connecting also, which forces me to act because Im not "with them" I am out of it. It can make me feel very bad, as if I cant accept them, as if Im condescending because I understand them but cant put myself into it. Im only capable of sharing humor or serious moments where we talk about things that consern "us".

Sharing information intellecutally in conversation with other people has not much to do with this connection.

My friends only seldom try to connect with me like that, (and then I have to act), but we are very connected when we speak seriously about problems etc. or if we share humor. Also with my boyfriend I have the opposite of distance, but I know there is something missing when he connects with other women.

If there is a person in the group which is searching a lot of connection I tactically become invisible and am relieved when the person gets the connection from somebody else, both because I dont have to act (which is risky) and because if the person is "rescued" he/she is comfortable and doesnt feel left out -for the rest of the day with the whole group, which could be the result if I would have to connect.

If I fail an "act", trying to "rescue" a person that needs connection, its often seen as if I dont accept them/am condescending, but hiding it. This leads to further problems because the person will emit this to others, which may draw the same conclusion as soon as the subject is on the table. Sometimes I have told a person that I like him/her and that Im just a bit strange. That has helped! But it makes me sacrosanct, so it isnt a good solution for everybody. Strong NT women would use it against me. And: the opportunity to have that talk isnt always available.

Often people try to "rescue" me, which is even more difficult to respond to. These people are mostly strong NT women who have analyzed that Im not inside the group, and so I dont like it because it becomes obvious (it becomes a problem) and they will never arrive with their plan. If this continues without having the chance to talk personally, they will draw the conclusion that Im distancing my self to the group and that I dont accept them/am not grateful for their effort/am jalous of them etc. Further it depends on their personalities how they deal with it and many become heavily evil.

This means that all my friends have to learn that I am strange and that I dont fit their assuptions built on NT ToM.

I have do add that I know other people which I assume are on the spectrum, with whom I connect when we understand situations/people in a way that other people dont notice, and where we collectively have to act e.g.: being serious when we actually have problems not laughing. (Which we replay at a later point).

Please consider that english is not my main language and that I dont know which word could be better than "rescue", but I think it doesnt really cover the meaning. It sounds more like an emergency, which would be wrong.

Fascinating. I've never had problems knowing when it's my turn to talk. As a child, I was able to do all of this subconsciously, and I still have that intuitive ability. I never interrupted people or dominated the whole conversation. I was just thought to be shy as a kid, and I'm beginning to see more and more truth in this. If I don't see a reason to respond to something, I won't. It's not that I don't know when to respond or how to respond, it's that I need a reason to respond. If I'm maintaining eye contact and nodding my head, why should I say "yes, I agree with you?" The only times I usually say something are when I have something relevant to say. Such examples might include questions, comments, or bits of information. When I say them, it seems natural with the flow of the conversation.

That is a characteristic of introversion. That could also be seen as "a lack of spontaneous seeking to share enjoyment, interest or achievements with other people, (e.g.. by a lack of showing, bringing, or pointing out objects of interest to other people)" or "lack of social or emotional reciprocity." But is that what it really is?

Yeah, I don't think to say "hi" to people as I'm walking. That's an aspie trait. But why is it considered as such? Why is this considered to be a defining trait of a mental disorder characterized by a lack of empathy? Do people really not realize just how little it makes sense? The word means nothing. It's just a recognition that you see someone. That's all it is. I see no valid reason to acknowledge something so blatantly obvious. How does this mean anything? Seriously? I'd say it's just a trait of someone who actually uses their brain to realize just how stupid it is.

Sometimes I really don't know what to say, though. For example, if my mom asks me how my day has been, I really can't ever seem to give a good answer. In any given day, many both good and bad things can happen. Summarizing that in just a few words is no easy task, and I never feel like going over every event in detail. I'm usually exhausted anyway, and want to spend time alone. This sounds like it could be AS, but I don't think so. Whenever I'm asked I'll usually shrug my shoulders and maybe say something like "I don't know, I don't remember, and I don't really care" in a frustrated tone. What does this have to do with a lack of being able to express myself? I think I can do a fairly accurate job of that.

Yet, I should probably also mention that I test positive on the AS empathy test.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/exp ... s-syndrome

Wait - NTs think that those are different? How are those different? That makes absolutely no sense. They're the same situation...He wanted a smoothie, and wanted the largest one and his intent was to buy the largest smoothie.

NT's think the second situation was intentional, while aspies think both were unintentional. Of course, this is only the statistical majority.

My initial thought was that both were unintentional. Although, now, I can see it both ways.

Yeah, I just can't understand why it'd be intentional. I see why people say it is (after reading the comments), but it doesn't make sense to me - he didn't make any decisions or such, just wanted a smoothie.

Haha, my first thought was "How is "intentional" defined?"

Edit: Aw, this isn't particularly organised so I added some things. I have chaotic thoughts?

#2 story is intentional: He intentionally paid the prize because he decided to and did it. That's an intentional action, he knew what he was doing. He intentionally paid the extra dollar because the act of paying fits the definition of intentional.
#2 story is unintentional: He (probably, unless he's really odd) didn't intend to pay one extra dollar that he didn't yet know about at the moment that he decided to get a drink. His intention was to buy the drink and everything he had to do to get it wasn't his (original) intention.

#2 is unintentional: Also "intentional" could be associated with a desire or hope to get to do something. Not sure if that should be associated with it, but yeah, it was one of my first ideas. Lots of people say "I intend to do X" to (indirectly) express their fondness of something. But few people think "I will offer an extra dollar for it" or "I desire to pay an extra dollar" or even "I am happy to pay an extra dollar". Unless Joe enjoys spending extra dollars, he didn't "mean" to spend the extra dollar because he doesn't like doing that. It sounds fine to me to replace "mean" with "intend".

And I think that's somewhat what the second article is talking about, I just started reading it.

My thought process was approximately "How is intentionally defined? I think they mean whether something was purposeful or a side effect. Getting the cup is a side effect. *reads second case* Paying more money is irrelevant - he didn't make a decision based on the increased price, he said it was irrelevant to the situation - thus it was also a side effect."

I think this might actually have more to do with language interpretation, and less with actual empathy.

Which reminds me of something else I found a few weeks ago.

http://life-with-aspergers.blogspot.com ... rally.html



While I don't usually misinterpret things, I do have multiple meanings for words and phrases to choose from as described.

I often misinterpret, and I do have multiple meanings for words and phrases I have to work through. My previous custom title before swbluto forced my hand* was "strangely literal."

* swbluto asked if autistic people preferred to use icons with fictional characters and NTs preferred to use icons with animals, so I picked an icon with a fictional animal...well, a picture of a real animal portraying a fictional animal. It wasn't all that funny, but kittens are the cuteness, so there you go.**

** My footnote is longer than my post.

I remember that.

Now that I think about it, the way I've been analyzing my own behaviors seems even more intensive than swbluto.

I'm a bit puzzled by that one too!

I can see it both ways. I can see how they both be intentional. Intentional because the boy was informed about the cup and the extra dollar but he went and did it anyway. if he didn't want the cup and if he didn't want to pay the extra dollar, he would have went "forget it" and not get the smoothie. Now does this make sense?


Unintentional because he wasn't planning on getting the big sized cup, he wanted the smoothie and he still didn't care when he was informed about the cup. He just wanted the smoothie and it was unplanned when he got the cup so unintentional. An extra dollar because he wanted the smoothie and then he was informed about the extra cost but he wasn't going to change his plan so he didn't care. So unintentional because he didn't plan to pay a dollar more when he planned on what drink to get.


There is no right or wrong answer. This has to do with semantics on the words intentional or unintentional. To me whatever you do on purpose is intentional and if you were informed about something but did it anyway, that is intentional. The boy was informed about the cup and the extra dollar but went on and got the smoothie anyway after being informed. But I can understand now how that can be unintentional. The first time I didn't get it.

Last edited by League_Girl on 03 Sep 2011, 12:48 am, edited 1 time in total.