Hide and Seek (and Mindblindness)

Post Reply New Topic

Thanks magic (I'd like more too of what KtMcS and vetivert spoke; lets get this stuff out in the open!) this seems to indicate that theory of mind is an in-built mechanism in most people? Perhaps the issue is not the theory but our expectations of how it's displayed? I've always (as far as I can remember) realised others had thoughts of their own, but expected that, if they wanted to convey them to me, they would comunicate them directly. Might a blind person "know" that language is just (for normal people) a means of inferring indirectly, rather than a way of specifying one's exact meaning? Why that should be remains a mystery to me, but there clearly exists a motivation for most people to not say exactly what they mean to imply?

I assumed it was because non-verbal communication was part of the mechanism, but perhaps they are incidental? This a new perspective for me; that people would prefer to use vague visual hints was hard enough to grasp, but that they may be, at a baser level, uninterested in accurate conveyance of information?

What are the implications here? Could it be that, irrespective of their intelligence, most people are operating predominantly at an instinctive level, and the purpose of language is not communication, but is rather just another means of establishing group identity? The further ramification is that the rational use of language, to further ideas and technology, is just an aberration (and an Aspie one at that?)? OMG, in my current state of mind this makes so much sense (and it frightens me!) and I had so much more I wanted to explore, but I'll leave it there for now.

[Felicitations to whoever started this; what a fascinating discussion! Thank you everyone who's contributed.]

It's hard to say IMO. Having missed out on picking up on non-verbal cues a countless number of times, I would have to say yes, but it is one link in the long chain of social interaction that I seem to be dangling on the end of.

My own experience with "mind blindness" could be summed up as follows:

A.) I was aware of the fact that other people had thoughts and feelings of their own but...

B.) I couldn't understand how people could percive things differently than me which meant that...

C.) I would get confused sometimes by peoples reactions to things...

With emotions, I can sum up my "mind blindness" by saying that...

A.) I don't pick on subtle clues that give away a persons mood which...

B.) Has led me to offend people by doing or saying things that they otherwise didn't want me to do or say. and...

C.) When I do pick on someones thoughts or mood, I can be rather un-empathetic since sometimes, the little voice inside my head that tells me I need to react dosen't go off. And...

D.) When I do have that little voice inside my head go off, I often don't know HOW to react to it.

And as a result of this.

A.) by the time I got to highschool, I decided to withdraw from self-initiated social contact as much as possible to avoid upseting other people. But...

B.) Others still made social contact with me, so I had people to hang around with, and when social situations got abstract, I would sometimes make mistakes, thus angering people.

I don't how "mindblind" I would be to Baron-Cohen, but from my perspective, I have been rather "mindblind".

I don't believe that this is the purpose of language, but rather this is something that was valuable in our development as a social species. Instinctive communication of the nonverbal sort was primarily aimed at the sense of group identity, and when we developed language it just found another medium of expression. Language is specialized for conveying ideas and information, however most people continue to use it for maintenance of social hierarchies and expression of other apparently instinctinve behaviours.

Vetivert, thank you very much for the Frith and Happé’s article. The authors argue that autism is a disorder of ‘theory of mind’, and not only of minds of other people, but of one’s own mind as well. It would mean that autistics individuals have impaired self-consciousness and are unable to reflect on their mental states (i.e. they lack introspection). Fortunately, aspies are said to be able to develop the ‘theory of mind’ and pass mindblindness tests, but at a later age than normal children. Still, authors believe that understanding of mental states by aspies is different from the effortless automatic ‘theory of mind’, as demonstrated by normal preschoolers. The former requires conscious calculation and is prone to errors, such as mistaking a joke for a lie or not distinguishing sarcasm from deception. The late-acquired ‘theory of mind’ results in ‘abnormal’ self-consciousness, which suggests a radically different inner experience. The paper contains some personal accounts, but fails to explain this matter further on a general level. Authors speculate that normally developed ‘theory of mind’ does not emerge from general reasoning processes, but involves a dedicated brain circuitry. This circuitry is suspected to be malfunctioning in autistic individuals, including aspies.

After reading this paper I have somewhat mixed feelings about how it relates to me. In my opinion I have a rather well developed introspection, but I must admit that this development happened gradually only in last 10 years. For a couple of years prior to that, I had rather strange theories about myself and others. I cannot say anything for the period before I was 16-17 years old. It is possible that prior to that time I was lacking introspection altogether. Authors write that without introspection one is unable to distinguish whether an event is a thought, an ongoing experience or a memory. I do have problems distinguishing imagination from memory, but not from real events. I think that this would mean schizophrenia, not autism. Furthermore there would be no way to tell another person’s opinion from one’s own. This would explain “why people with autism can suddenly adopt another person’s suggestion that they previously rejected, without any acknowledgment of the reversal”. I don’t remember doing anything like that, but I would not remember if I did, I guess. Additionally, authors say that understanding of one’s own actions would be impaired. An “individual might not know how she is going to act until she acted, nor why she acted as she did”. Hmm… Sometimes indeed I surprise myself by behaving on some inexplicable impulse, but this happens to everyone from time to time, I believe.

Gwynfryn, the paper includes a curious statement, which relates to your questions. It states as an obvious fact that the “theory of mind ability is […] fundamental to communication and possibly also to the acquisition of language […]: we make sense of utterances by reference to what the speaker intends to convey rather than what is literally said”. It means that you might be right saying “language is just (for normal people) a means of inferring indirectly, rather than a way of specifying one's exact meaning” You ask whether the language is predominantly a means for communication or socialization. This is a very interesting question. I was raised in an educated family of scientists, engineers and artists, where everyone talked in well-formed sentences, trying to convey the meaning as best as possible. This is probably not a standard.

Scoots5012, I relate to points A, B and C in your first section, though in the past A was not true. Whole second section also feels familiar, but third section does not. It is only this year that I realized that I was angering people and why. Previously I thought that I just had a misfortune of living among wrong people, who were intent on “demonizing” me (i.e. interpret everything against me). Only when I have read about the mindblindness, I realized that this might be the reason of my problems.

Reference to the book that I was discussing:
“Mindblindness: An Essay on Autism and Theory of Mind”
Simon Baron-Cohen
The MIT Press, 1995
ISBN 0-262-02384-9, 0-262-52225-X
Amazon link: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/026252225X/qid=1096739776/sr=2-1/ref=pd_ka_2_1/102-6585125-7424105

I don't I'm afraid- unless I type them into a PM....total techno-phobe here!
Is there anything specific you want?

also Magic- could you explain the more complex test?

I had such fun during these lessons as my teacher kept referring to me as 'our resident autism expert'! glad I could be of service....

I think that your notes may be very interesting, but I would not dare to suggest that you spend your valuable time typing these notes only to satisfy my pleasure! That's why I asked if they were in an electronic format.


I have read about two such tests. One is a modification of the trivial Sally-Anne test, in which one must understand nested beliefs, or beliefs about beliefs, for example "Anne thinks that Sally thinks that...". [1] According to Simon Baron-Cohen such beliefs are "well within the comprehension of normal 6-7-years-olds", but "most teenagers with autism failed this outright", even those who have passed a trivial test.

A variant of the Sally-Anne test is a "chocolate test":
Maxi has a bar of chocolate, which he puts in the green cupboard. He goes out to play, and, while he is out, his mother moves the chocolate to the blue cupboard. Then Maxi comes in, and he wants to eat some chocolate. Where will he look for the chocolate? [2]

The more complex version of the "chocolate test" is as follows:
Maxi has a bar of chocolate, which he puts in the green cupboard. He goes out to play, and, while he is out, his mother makes a cake using some of the chocolate, then puts the rest in the refrigerator. Then Maxi comes in, and he wants to eat some chocolate. Where will he look for the chocolate? If mum had not made a cake, where would the chocolate be? [3]

This test has two questions: first relates to false belief and requires the 'theory of mind', and second tests logical reasoning. The additional complication comes from the fact that the test subject may believe that Maxi knows (or deduces) that chocolate has been used to make a cake, although this information isn't in fact provided. Apparently, results suggest that children who fails false belief question also fail the logic question, and thus deficient 'theory of mind' may not be the only reason for failure on such tasks. This is consistent with my opinion that one must be unable to reason logically to fail trivial mindblindness tests. By the way, I would fail the second question, because I consider the expected answer (the green cupboard) to be logically unfounded.

I have found information about "chocolate tests" on this page: http://www.uclan.ac.uk/facs/science/psychol/bully/tom.htm

References
[1] Perner, J. and Wimmer, H. 1985. "John thinks that Mary thinks that...": Attribution of second-order beliefs by 5-10 year old children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 39: 437-471.
[2] Wimmer, H. and Perner, J. 1983. Beliefs about beliefs: Representation and constraining function of wrong beliefs in young children's understanding of deception. Cognition 13: 103-128.
[3] Source uncertain, possibly: Peterson, D. and Riggs, J. 1999. Adaptive Modelling and Mindreading. Mind and Language 14: 80-112.

Just passing through guys; I was thinking earlier on the definition of autism as "self absorption". It's nonsense of course ("self sufficiency" would be more apt) just an artefact of NT researchers transferring their limitation onto us. What it boils down to is that their lives depend fundamentally with "connecting" with other humans, ergo, if autistics don't connect with "others", we must be focusing on "self".

It's utter bollocks of course; when I'm in my own world I may be detached from the outside, but in no way am I preoccupied with myself (nor do I lack self-consiousness) but am in fact "preoccupied" with life, the comsoss, and all sorts of abstract ideas. The "problem" here (as is so often the case) is that researchers cannot envision possibilities which are outside their own capacity or experience; these poor benighted people have no understanding of the rich possibilities which so many of us lucky people take for granted!

So if I've gotten the gist of what your saying is that these people, while claiming to understand us, really in reality don't...? Would you say that visual thinking plays a part in this too?

I like being in my world IMO, it's an escape from reality, something I never have cared for too much. In my world I can create an environment where I can various electromechanical devices at work, among other things.

Scoots, I'm heading for the sack, but they can't think as we do!! ! Work it out for yourself; we have fundamentally different outlooks, so we need to explain to them how it is for us! They won't get it otherwise!