Lecture by Uta Frith the 29th of August 2011.

Post Reply New Topic

I know I should have written about this a looong time ago, but anyway...

The 29th of August 2011 I attended a very interesting lecture by Uta Frith here in Aarhus: "An Introduction to Autism".
She mentioned some of the difficulties, especially with Theory of Mind, executive dysfunction and central coherence. But also how these difficulties may explain some of the talents some autistic people have.

Eg. the executive dysfunction and weak central coherence might generate the extreme focus on detail and the ability to focus and go into depth with a subject. Likewise, the executive dysfunction and the tendency to repetitive behavior (including perseverance in practising or so) could be connected.
She even said that executive dysfunction might be a “talent engine” because of the focus on detail.
According to her, about 30% of autistic people had a special ability, independent of IQ. Not necessarily savant skills (only very few had such), but e.g. teaching oneself to read, music skills (maybe perfect pitch), artistic skills or other things.

Concerning Theory of Mind, she described it like this: You ascribe to others / make an idea about others’ knowledge, thoughts, and feelings and (“)predict(“) what they are going to do. (I am not quite sure if she meant to “add quotation marks” when she said it.) She also used the term “mindblindness” to describe the lack of this. But told that older children or adults with autism were able to learn the Sally-Ann test by thinking their way through it. Because of that, the theory about mindblindness had been modified. But the NT children would pass the Sally-Ann test automatically and without a lot of thinking about it. The system of mentalizing was not as well connected in the autistic brain as in the NT brain.
Lack of Theory of Mind she described also as “not spontaneously keeping track of thoughts and feelings”.
She asked the question: How can mindblindness have a role in talent? And answered: Creativity does not demand mentalizing. There are no blinkers from shared thoughts.

In sum, I think it was a very interesting view with connection of the difficulties and talents. Maybe you could say that autism has certain traits that may appear both as difficulties / weaknesses and talents / strengths?
I asked her some questions during the lecture, but I would like to put it in another post, lest this be too long.

Last edited by AnnePande on 14 Feb 2014, 5:51 am, edited 1 time in total.

In my mind, what she is telling you, is that theory of mind is just projection transference. Or it is the belief that everything is similar. They can both be lies. There's the problem.

Another thing she is telling you is that there is really nothing wrong with autism, because what we do not do that normal people do, we replace with something else, and alot of the time it is just one thing. Whatever we do with it is usually better than the norm. It is not a deficiency because we still use the same percentage of our brains, just in a different way.

Theory of mind is an untruth. Normal is boring, and less advanced.

Where would the world be without people with special skills?

I'm going to go with sociopathic cave men.

Thanks for sharing. I am going to watch some of the videos featuring Uta Frith on YouTube.

Honestly, I am not certain if fully understand the Theory of Mind thing. I do recall, while growing up, assuming everyone thought like me. I assumed everyone else’s mind was logical, like mine. I remember being quite surprised by people’s illogical behavior, particularly as I entered the workforce.

Yournamehere: I think it is true that much of the so-called use of Theory of Mind and empathy in fact is a projection. I've experienced it a lot of times with NTs.
And yes: Where would the world be without people with special skills? I think that it was exactly one of Uta's points.

Rocket 123: I've met a lot of NTs who (seem to) assume that everyone thinks like them too.

Part 2, as promised…

Before the coffee break there was a time for questions, but I wasn’t quite sure if I had the courage to ask.
It was, apparently, an audience consisting of (merely?) NTs, and the whole lecture seemingly had NTs as its target group. (E.g. with expressions about “them” (the autistic people) and what “we” (NTs) are thinking – but not in a bad way.) I didn’t know any of the people there either.
But fortunately I learned that there was a chance to ask questions afterwards in plenum also. So then I ventured to ask – and got bolder along the way.

I said that to me, it didn’t seem that NTs always used their Theory of Mind either, even in such simple cases as in understanding that other people like some food they don’t like themselves, etc. (I did mention that I was on the spectrum / had Asperger’s.)
And I mentioned that Theory of Mind is hardly a “prediction” as such, but rather a (more or less) qualified guess based on knowledge of the relevant persons, of their type in general, or of the given culture.

She answered that it was right that NTs not always used their Theory of Mind, and that they could not always guess what other people wanted either. E.g. she herself couldn’t always tell what her husband wanted or might think, although they had been married for 42 years.
But she supposed it would take a long time to explain, and more time than we had there or then.
So then Theory of Mind isn’t a kind of “magical” thing? I asked. She answered no. (But I thought it could sound a bit like that with the talk about “predicting”.)

I also mentioned the fact that it is said that we have difficulties putting ourselves in others’ place, in their thoughts and feelings. But which “others’” feelings and thoughts is it that NTs can put themselves in? Obviously not everyone’s. Rather those of the people who are like themselves. Often they also misunderstand us on the spectrum, so it goes both ways. She agreed with me, I think.

(When I asked, why don’t the NTs use their highly celebrated Theory of Mind, that made the assembly laugh. )

It’s a long time ago I’ve written such long posts in English, so please bear with me if there are errors or wrong wording. (Corrections are welcome.)

There's an incredible over-estimation and over-generalization of the average NT ability to socialize, empathize etc. The same applies for 'Theory of Mind'.

I really enjoyed watching the below presentations. Uta Frith's research is fascinating.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nSk-KMTqFxY[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c_nEoe33bp8[/youtube]

I love Uta Frith. She's quite amazing.

The thing is with NT's. although their insight into ToM is imperfect, they have a better ability with it that we autistics do.

I can speak for myself: I have zero ToM. Only if someone I know for a long, long time tells me something directly do I know what he's thinking. NTs don't need that.

ToM alot of the time is a learned trait. There are things about it I do not think people should be doing either. Like manipulation. Some of it should be illegal. Some of the things in there can screw your brain, and leave you mentally scarred. Just because you can do something, doesn't mean it should be done. There is no Santa Claus. When you learn theory of mind and all of it's aspects, you will learn that you may not want to know what other people think. Or do. I had a personal bout with philosophy for a very long time, because I did not understand people. Now I wish people did not bother me soo much to where I felt I had to figure everyone out. After all I believe I have learned, I just think NT's are narcissists, sociopaths, and psychopaths. It is humorous when people talk about "healthy" narcissism. It is a load of hogwash. It is still narcissism, and it is bad. I actually believe NT's could learn a thing or two from autistics, however that is a bother. They cannot change, and do not listen. They do not care about building a better box, because of their hair, romantic episodes, and friends. They need narcissistic supply. They need to be in control. They need to make rules, have games with rules, change the rules, and play with balls and stuff.

Post unnecessary now.

Last edited by Norny on 15 Feb 2014, 6:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I can agree with you totally. I am stubborn, and sometimes right is wrong, or the other way around. Sorry for upsetting you. ToM and I have issues, and I do not believe it is just me. As far as narcissism goes, I took that silly online narcissist test. (Way too many essess. Sounds snakey). They say a "normal" person gets a score of 12-18. Celebrities are on the high end. Average is 15. A labled narcissist gets 20+. I got a 6. Probably why I think everyone is one. I don't believe a couple of points makes a difference. I'm sure most people like me score rather low.

However honest it may be, ToM sets me off wrong, and I dont like it. It spells out like abuse is permissible, because that is the way people are. It tells you that people can bend your mind, and make you believe something that is not real. I know these things that ToM explains are real, however some of it I really despise. On the other hand, you can believe that everything is the same when it is not. That is not a bad thing, just a misinterpretation.

I did not get even half way into the lecture, and it reminded me of bad people, who have treated me bad to suit themselves. ToM is not on my side. It made me rant, and say bitter things. I guess I'm a bad bad man. Once again, sorry for my poor social intelligence, and of course, for just being me.

Yes, maybe they have a better ability. But still, it's interesting that they use it mostly on people whom they know well or people who are like themselves. Not just "other people" as such.

And no. NTs don't "know" what other people think. It's a mere guess based on knowledge of the person or the culture.
After all, it's called "Theory" of Mind, not "Reading" of Mind. (Or "prediction".)

If they really "knew", then how come that they misunderstand us on the spectrum to the extent that they in fact do?

What an interesting discussion. Do you think NT’s spend a lot of time trying to figure out what others think?

For me, I rarely consider what someone else is thinking. Though, I can think of several recent incidents when I tried to do so:

- I was driving along a street at 35mph (the speed limit). A car pulled in front of me and I had to slam on the brakes. Afterwards, I thought, “What was that idiot thinking? I wonder if he saw me or realized how fast I was driving”
- At work, the bosses shifted the priority from one project to another. I wondered, “What do they know that would lead them to make this seemingly stupid decision”.

In both cases, I guessed what might be a cause, based upon what information I had at hand. Also, I only do this when I have time for deliberate thought. It’s not something I could do when other things are happening (say, like in the middle of a conversation). It would be way too much information to process.

It depends on which "others" we are talking about.

To me, it does seem that they do in some situations.
E.g. if they are going to start a new job, or if they are going to a party with people they don't know very well, or in general are in a context that is new to them.

Then you in fact can hear a lot of talk of NTs like: "oh, what will they think if I come in that dress?" or "will they think I look too thick in this?" or "what will they think if I do or say this or that?"

But with well-known situations, persons and contexts it won't be a problem, I guess.

That's the thing: Psychological descriptions tend to generalize way too much, in my opinion, saying that AS people are such and such with "other people", and NTs are such and such with "other people" - and they forget to mention that it is not that black and white at all. "Other people" are not just "other people". Neither to AS people nor to NTs.

I can relate to the "what do you wear thing" as this was something that my parents stressed, when I was young. That you always dress properly for the occasion/event. Even though I thought it was stupid.

As such, I suppose I do this as well. Not at the individual level (i.e. trying to think of what a particular person might be thinking), but more holistically (i.e. how might I be perceived in general by others in a situation).

So, for example, if I am starting a job, I make the decision what to wear (say, jeans versus cotton pants). I prefer jeans. Yet, I realize that this MAY make a negative impression on the group of people I am working with. Not that I ever know what any one particular person is thinking.

Similarly, when I go to religious services, I realize that there is a certain uniform I must wear, otherwise I would stick out. And, I prefer to blend in, whenever possible.

I have no idea if this is the same thing or not.

Hmm, I have never heard that it should make a difference for having or lacking ToM, whether it is at the individual level or towards a group. Usually, just the term "other people" is used.

But I guess that it is also a part of ToM when it is towards groups.

No one of us can "know" what any one particular person is thinking. We can only make a (more or less exact) guess.