"Theory of mind"

Post Reply New Topic

The "theory of mind" test has been used to diagnose autism. From what I understand, a therapist presents a puzzle to children suspected of being on the spectrum, wherein two imaginary people have different knowledge of their surroundings. For instance, one person in the imaginary scenario hides a toy while the other person is out of the room. The therapist asks the child where the other person believes the toy is. The "autistic" answer is that he will know the location.
I am wondering, how does this play out in typical adult life?
Here is an example: Often I assume that other people know everything that I know. They simply know it. Rationally- I mean if i think it through consciously- of course this cannot be the case. But instinctively, it seems natural. Whether it is a foreign language that I know a bit of, a brand-new policy at work, a current news event, I "assume" in my natural state that everyone around me has the same knowledge that I do.
Here is another: I forget that my husband and I are not the same person. I forget that we do not share a brain.
Can anyone shed some light on this? This is a concept that I am just beginning to understand.

I have a hard time putting myself in somebody else's shoes. I can do it, but it takes conscious effort, and even then I'm not sure what I think I see from their point of view is the same as what they see.

Actually I have an idea but I need more presentation to be present what I think.

I believe I make good points.

I find it easy to keep track of what I know vs. what other people know. In fact, I can keep track of some very complicated chains.

I know what I know, and I know what he knows. I also know that he knows what I know and what he doesn't know that I know. I can also use deduction to figure out what someone else should be able to know, if they also use deduction. Et cetera.

I listen carefully to every word that comes out of a person's mouth and remember most of it. I try to be very observant and take in lots of data and have a good memory to keep track of it all.

The problem is, most NT's don't use their brains. They completely ignore what they know and say random things. They ask for information that was previously provided to them. They forget half the things I told them last week. They lie and exaggerate and put all kinds of noise my "theory of mind."

Right. I can pretty well figure out logically what someone knows or doesn't, but in a "raw" state or just using intuition alone, I really do operate on the assumption that everyone is just like me.
About a month ago I asked my husband if he forgets that he and I not the same person, and he stated that this never has happened to him. He's just as AS as I am, though, so maybe this is a completely separate issue.

Actually...

The interesting thing with those so-called "theory of mind" tests (that supposedly test false belief)...

Look at this link: Experts question prevalent stereotypes about autism.

I've been to one of her talks, and she's really good at pulling apart how bad a lot of autism research is, how sloppy it is, how many conclusions it makes have nothing to do with the evidence of the results people get, etc.

A couple interesting things she's described:

When people with a Specific Language Impairment (SLI) take a Sally-Anne test, they do exactly as badly as autistic people of their same level of language ability. Yet, at the same time, people with an SLI by definition do not have social delays or other autistic characteristics. Additionally, Deaf children have the same problem. The Sally-Anne test involves some of the most difficult linguistic constructions in the English language. But... if what the Sally-Anne test measured was Theory of Mind, then Deaf non-autistic kids and SLI non-autistic kids would not score as low as autistic kids do on it.

When a false-belief test (like Sally-Anne) that does not involve so much language is used on autistic children, then autistic children get normal or slightly superior scores as compared to non-autistic children on average. The same is true of Deaf people.

Some of these are things I've discussed with other autistic people in the past. Another thing I've discussed with other autistic people is that when we pass a "first order" Sally Anne test, what happens is we are given a "second order" or "third order" test, which involves more and more nested and recursive language until one or the other eventually trips us up. If we manage to pass those, then we're given tests of reading people's facial expressions, which have nothing to do with theory of mind at all, they have to do with processing a specific thing. Blind people do not lack theory of mind through inability to read facial expressions on non-autistic people while being asked to process language at the same time, and neither do we.

(And another thing that's wrong with the tests of facial expressions is they are most often given to people who use a lot of language, which can make it hard for an autistic person to process facial expressions at the same time. And also, the person is expected to use language at the same time as processing facial expressions. They've done some testing of autistic people who don't use a lot of language, and unsurprisingly they seem to be more attentive to body language. Which fits exactly with my experience of tuning in to body language better when words start sounding like gibberish.)

Anyway... yeah, the theory of mind crap is starting to crumble all over the place but is still being taught.

Non-autistic people tend to assume people are either just like them or very much like them, too. They're just also more likely to be right. (Not on a details level, but on a certain basic level of ways of operating, enough to get by with some confusion but not the total confusion that happens from an autistic/non-autistic interface.)

I also read that when the Sally-Anne test is administered in a visual format, the autistic person is likely to score higher than the NT person.

Yes, either the same or slightly higher.

I used to believe there was a basic set of knowledge, and basic logic all people had. Outside of that, I don't think I had such beliefs.

One of my interests early on was ESP. I came to believe that ESP was unreliable.(It wasn't always available) EVERYONE claiming they could always access it was a LIAR!

The whole idea behind the basic real ESP abilities is an almost shared brain of sorts, with the ability to see knowledge of another.(even psychometry and clarvoyance could be almost considered that.) Obviously, ESP wouldn't mean much if everyone had such an ability and it WAS reliable.

Thanks for the link. It was an interesting read.

Just FYI, I failed the ball in the box test in June this year (I never heard of it before; I only saw the incorrect answer); I had a language delay (acquired speech after 4/5), but I caught up to my "peers", so linguistics/verbal ability isn't the only thing going on.

I think everybody does this to some extent. The only perspective we can really understand is our own, and we expect everyone else to know what we do.

It's not that we believe the things we know are supposed to be known by everyone. Why should they? And why would be not have known them before? But something familiar is taken for granted, especially when we fail to empathize.

Understanding people's feelings is actually something I do well, but it's not something I think to do unless it's pointed out to me.

I remembered something hilarious.
I hid things from my mom all the time when I lived alone with her when I was three years old. I played at night, when I should be in bed or drew a picture I didn't want her to see until it was finished. At the same time I was always afraid that she would be able to read my mind, for she must surely know whatever I was thinking about when I was talking to her. So I figured that I had to hide my thoughts when I didn't want her to discover any mess I had made by thinking hard about something other than this thing I wanted to hide! It confused the hell out of my mom.


Thanks for that very interesting article anbuend!

The people who might really be said to lack a theory of mind are adults, many of whom are incapable of empathising with children, in the sense of understanding and accepting/valuing childrens thoughts and feelings.
It is well known that lack of empathy occurs in oppressors about the oppressed, ( because can not abuse or exploit or manipulate or ignore someone so easily/smoothly if remain aware of their pain or perspective on things) whereas the oppressed usually become almost preternaturally good at understanding the thoughts and feelings of their oppressors; it is almost necessary for survival.
But if some of them refuse to put any more energy into doing that when all they get from the oppressors is a blank wall, the result may be medicalisation of their aberrant"condition";... before womens "emancipation" women who stopped doing it, catering to mens needs, "understanding them", etc were called hysterical or accused of wanting to be men etc.
Adults demand that children understand them. Children do not have that right. ( tho' perhaps the most sensitive are going on some sort of pre-verbal strike!)
It may be that the whole concept is a product of adults increasing consciousness, and guilt, over being almost entirely lacking in theory of mind when it comes to their treatment of children.

I supopose I do and I dont. I mean, I feel from time to time that other people must know what I'm feeling or thinking, (ie, can they not see what they're doing is driving me crazy?)A bit like a sub-consious / sub-routine. Other times, I just dont consider other people at all, until after the event, then I 'over process' what they might be thinking