Adult Aspies are socially 11 years old?

Post Reply New Topic

I wrote in my intro topic that I felt like I got left behind socially about the age of 10. I didn't care for social interaction or bother to learn because at school and uni, your individual ability is all that counts - I didn't need to be sociable to succeed. Come to finding a grad job and nearly everyone I knew got a job because of their social, not technical, ability. I have had to learn all the social rules to be able to play them game but still, my process is all logical and very conscious. I have even gained back a lot of self-esteem by realizing it's not that I suck at this game, but I just didn't know how to play.

I've only just heard of the Sally Anne test and did it quickly and my first thought was "in the box" followed closely by "crap, no she would look in the basket". I am getting better at it, but it's still quite obvious to me that my instinctive thoughts are way behind my conscious, learned response.

I agree. I am very immature but...I like to think that I'm just wired differently, and that Sally has a reason to look in the box.

Actually the Sally Anne is crappy. Nts don't put other options into consideration.

Yea. I think attributing purpose and intent to things is a systematic thing. It doesn't seem like attributing intent is quite the same thing as ToM though, that or its a very crude sloppy form of ToM. I say this because attributing intentions to a person or group of people doesn't necessarily require you to actually see things from their perspective. With things like conspiracy theories people rarely put themselves in the shoes of the conspirator/agent because if they do their theories don't seem very rational. It seems like the assumption is that conspirators/agents are nothing like themselves. They don't really have a logically consistent self interest besides being malevolent and evil and having the power to manipulate things to their whims.

Sorry for going off on such a tangent but this thing fascinates me. Human psychology/socialogy fascinates me.

I did the Sally Anne test as a child (or something similar) and I said the basket. Does that mean I'm not Autistic?

It means you have a ToM better than the average autistic individual! HOORAY! No wonder why you get along so unusually well with others.

(Practically speaking, it's possible you're essentially neurotypical, socially. You might have other autistic characteristics, though, like sensory overload that might make you "autistic" but if it's not really a big deal in your life, then it's more of a superfluous meaningless label than a "disability".)

What if you treat tests like that as reading comprehension tests and don't understand anything not explicitly stated in the story? There was one test posted here but I don't have the url saved that had level 1-4 theory of mind questions for little stories and for some of the level 3 and 4 ones I had no idea what the answer was because they didn't say in the story. My answer wasn't even listed as a choice.

I remember doing many tests as a child and teenager but don't remember ever doing the Sally Anne test. Also as far as my mother and I know I was never given a diagnosis, not even when I did a 30 day evaluation in a mental hospital and went to school at their day treatment program for several months. I do remember the terms "passive-aggressive" and "flat affect" being used to describe me at times.

Hehe, of course they "put themselves in their shoes" because they have a ToM, and their ToM allows them to think there's such a thing as "conspirators" and that they have their own agenda. It's that conspiracy theorists also have heightened paranoia or the "sky is falling" kind of beliefs, which leads them to attribute more negative intentions to these shadowy figures.

I personally know because my cousin is a conspiracy believer, and he has a ton of friends and is great at manipulating people suggesting he has a particularly well developed ToM.

Last edited by swbluto on 06 Nov 2011, 1:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Exactly what they asked from me to do. I narrated the "events" and told about the changing scenes (it was like M.C. Escher's Metamorphosis). I was lucky with the 5 objects, I could tell a story of bringing the car to a car wash. I was stunned in the beginning but the psych did it too before me so I could have an idea how to think. Much more flexibly than I thought initially.

No. Stop right there.

You're basing everything on assumptions that are, quite frankly, not based on any evidence at all.

And, they are not accurate assumptions. Once you start any line of reasoning based on that many false assumptions, the rest of your reasoning is bound to lead you off in all sorts of directions with no logical guidance.



This is a HUGE assumption that is flatly wrong. You cannot reduce ToM development in individual humans to numerical rules. Doing so ignores the dynamics of development in human beings. Human being do not "work" that way, whether they have or do not have a disorder. We are individuals, and each of us is totally unique. Besides, there is NO way to quantify ToM mathematically accurately. It isn't linear nor is it proportionate. ToM is not something that can be measured in any way shape or form by means of mathematics. ToM is a philosophical concept.



Why on earth would you assume this? First of all, while it may be true that at some point we all stop growing physically by a certain age, that does NOT mean we stop growing psychologically, emotionally and intellectually. None of us ever stops growing in these three ways. Neither would ToM stop developing, since ToM is a psychological and intellectual skill that in many ways also affect emotional states.

The brain itself may stop physically growing, but that doesn't stop development in other ways.



For the very reasons mentioned above, your assumption is just plain wrong, and therefore, all the math applied to these assumptions is erroneous.

Try as you might, ToM is not a quantifiable concept. You may be able to measure a fluid amount of water by forcing it into a container for measurement. You just can't do that with ToM.

I've always thought of myself as not being very mature socially. Not sure I have the mind of an eleven year old though cause I don't know what that would be like, assuming that when I was 11 I had a social mind of a 6 year old.

But interestingly I remember at 11 I was very popular with my peers but after 11 it seemed to go down hill.

Sure, ToM might not describable purely in terms of mathematics (At least, not in a way that'd be easily understood by humans), but some parts of it such as the rate of development or the amount of social elements that can be held in the mind simultaneously can definitely be mathematically characterized and their associated "stage of development" can be approximated to mental ages, even though it might not be possible to accurately measure it at current given our crude methods for measurement.

Btw, I'm aware that my "model" isn't a perfect representation of the brain's development but it is very similar to the actual development path and my numerical assumptions are fairly close, I'd imagine.

But my point is some conspiracy theory beliefs just don't make a lot of sense so the ToM is somewhat overdone and inaccurate. In a lot of cases the conspirator's agenda is pretty vague. The only thing certain is danger and possible malice. I'm having trouble thinking of a specific example so bear with me... I guess my point is NT ToM can be pretty distorted and irrational when certain emotions are involved. Paranoia can be a symptom of an overactive ToM.

Interesting. It could because the intention isn't clear making it why the little story isn't followed; it makes no sense in terms of reality. Maybe NT kids can get the motif of it by the "games," and may miss it altogether, say if the ball fell in some way out of a hole in the box and bounced into the other box --- an abstraction now, thus missing any "fun" emotive or drama content.

On another line: If someone can't visualize the actions of Sally/Anne, then you'd be left with a Venn Diagram that you would have to work out verbally on scratch. I understand that in some ASD people there is a lack in visualization ability, but I doubt that would encompass 80%.

Interesting dog marshall. I want him/her. I'd call her "precious."

I feel as though I'm getting left well behind; we now seem to be talking about Sally-Anne, Tom (whoever they are) and their conspiracy theories.

Can someone please explain how an 11 year old behaves socially so that I can catch up?

Pretty please?