Knowing someone HAS a motive, but can't identify it??

Post Reply New Topic

How many of my fellow autists have had a situation where you could just tell that someone had a certain motive or desire, but you just couldn't put your finger on it??
(And, of course, you couldn't really ask them about it?)

This instinct seems to surface in me whenever there's something in the other person's behaviour that just doesn't make sense, and so you think maybe they're just nuts or they're just being difficult for no good reason. There's a good literary example of this, in the book The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-time, where the book's protagonist is a 15-year-old boy called Christopher - he runs into conflict with his dad, and one major incident is where his dad kept the truth about his mother away from him, so he plays "detective" to find out analytically when most NTs would have inferred the reason intuitively.

Note that I'm talking about the inference of motive where no facial expressions are necessarily involved - that's another aspect of our challenges w.r.t. Theory of Mind. Either way, it's about the NT cliche of "put yourself in the other person's shoes; why would they do that?"

I find that what exacerbates our challenges in inferring motive is that we've been exposed to so many incidents of toxic behaviour from NTs, like passive-aggression or psych warfare, so we tend to conflate this experience with our experience of being unable to infer motive and just think "they're all nuts, their behaviour is so arbitrary and unreasonable."

But in thinking of that last paragraph, I believe the antidote to this is (challenging it may be to attain) that if we inferred motive early on, BEFORE they resorted to that toxic behaviour against us, then the toxic behaviour would never occur as they'd have no reason to exhibit it. Their passive-aggression, sullenness etc. is the result of our not inferring their motives (and reacting accordingly) like a "normal" person would earlier. Not justifying it, but just illuminating some of the dynamics of NT interactions, perverse as they may be.

Motives are irrelevant.  Actions produce results.

Exceptions, of course: Various degrees of murder, for instance.

Part of the trouble being an autist.

Speaking as a NT. Boy I wish it was socially acceptable to break the frame and just say "My motives are X and I am doing Y. What is it that you are doing and why?"

There must be some clues that you are picking up on that leads you to believe that the other person has the motive or desire. It might be useful to have a little notebook (THAT NO ONE CAN FIND. It would be so awkward to explain) where you can note down any clues. Maybe call the person "Subject A" or something in case anyone happens across it.



Yes, this putting oneself in another's shoes is really bullsh**, but most people do not know that it doesn't work. It is a kind of "reification" (something that has been made into a fact, but is not a logical fact). Something taken for granted as true.

I think it's best for autists to consider neurotypicals AND other autists to be exotic animals they must live among and understand at a basic level. You don't want to become one of them, but you want to co-exist peacefully. There should not be too much energy put into getting them to understand you at more than a basic level (if at all). Just gather information using your own natural observation skills. Whatever each of you have going on will be different than the average neurotypical, but you will have some other way to keep track of things. You might notice that people touch their faces in certain situations. Or look away. Or wear particular clothes on certain days. Just catalog these things either on paper or in your mind, and after a while patterns will emerge.

I wholeheartedly agree that the toxic experiences get in the way. Again, remember that each other person is just in their limited capacity to understand anything. The way the other person is, or treats you, doesn't determine who you are or how your life goes. However it seems, you may actually be in a position of power over that other person. I can't tell you how many times autistic people have influenced my life, for good or ill. I believe I have very much above average social skills. That isn't everything. Another person may easily be smarter, better positioned, more knowledgeable, or even just nicer than I am. Any of these things will win the race over time.

In such situations, do you have absolutely no idea what their motive can be, or you can think of so many possible motives that you don’t know which is right? Does it happen only in complicated situations, like in the example from the book you gave, or also in common, day-to-day situations? By the way, good that you reminded me to read this book




So, your point could be that, if someone isn’t fast enough to infer NT’s motive in time, NT goes into jerk mode, and then their motive is different than at the beginning? So, it becomes impossible to grasp the motive from their current behavior (it’s possible only if one remembers their behavior before jerk mode and can deduce it from memory)?

I believe there are quite a few people who actually wouldn’t mind to be directly asked why they’re doing what they’re doing. But maybe it’s just because I spend time with atypically open-minded people, or I am not that much different from them, so they don’t go into toxic mode.


I guess, this “shoes slogan” is one of these things people believe they understand, but if asked what exactly it means, they wouldn’t know. But it may be explained quite logically, e.g. by this 'simulation theory' of theory of mind (in contrast with 'theory theory' of theory of mind – some people just love the word 'theory' ). It explains having theory of mind by having a mostly unconscious process of simulating your own reactions in situations in which you see others. But then, it works well only if your basic perception, thinking style etc. are similar to others'. The more you differ, the more wrong results would such a simulation provide.