Interesting theory of mind experiment

Post Reply New Topic

Describe what you think is happening in this video: Social Attribution Task

Try to use as many social elements to describe the "personalities" of the shapes.

-Large triangle sees small triangle and circle approaching; large triangle wants nothing to do with them and withdraws into his house
-Small triangle convinces large one to come out and meet circle; large triangle does so reluctantly; small triangle attempts introductions; large triangle not impressed/interested
-Both triangles begin to argue; circle slips into house and shuts door; large triangle is QUITE annoyed/angry at this, follows circle in and closes door--intent menacing; circle gets out of there and shuts door on large triangle
-Large triangle exits and chases small triangle and circle, with murderous intent; when they escape, large triangle is so frustrated and angry that he (I see them all as male for some reason) destroys own house

Personalities:
-Large triangle: keeps to himself; slow to anger but can be violent when he is, and then anger overwhelms his reason; willing to give others benefit of the doubt; probably a decent sort most of the time (when treated decently by others)
-Small triangle: prankster/kind of a "douche"; probably enjoys bullying others
-Circle: small triangle's "toady"; might very well turn on him if opportunity arose

I didn't interpret it as a story, or the triangles as having personalities. It seemed like a series of unrelated vignettes at best and I was attributing various adjectives like "playful" or "mean."

Maybe I'm a little sick, but I saw a scene of domestic violence.

The big triangle is the abusive dad. The small triangle is the mom. The dot is the kid. And the big rectangle thingy is a broken home.

Mom is talking with the kid out of the house. Dad comes out and starts arguing with mom, the kid tries to hide in the house while dad starts to beat on the mom. Dad chases mom into hiding and then goes in the house to abuse the kid. Mom's maternal instinct kicks in and she opens the door so the kid can escape. Mom checks to see if the kid is okay and runs around him. Dad comes out of the house and chases them. Mom and the kid flee the area to live in a homeless shelter. Dad breaks the wall in a rage.

I lost track after a while.

How is this a theory of mind experiment?

Thats kinda similiar to how I viewed it.
The two triangles are estranged spouses. The dot is a child.
The big triangle is angry husband trying to shut mom and the kid out.
He comes out. The two adults confront each other. The child sneaks into the house

Dad chances the kid out. Mom and the kid reunite and mom comforts the kid.
Dad chases mom and the kid away. Then the big triangle obliterates the house for some reason. Couldnt quite make sense of that.

I took it from a study by Ami Klin who had NTs and aspies describe what was going on.

It has to do with your ability to anthropomorphize and ascribe emotions to the "characters." The theory is that NTs come up with more elaborate personifications of the shapes with a complete storyline, while aspies develop less ornate attributions. NTs are more likely to project human social behavior on other species, as well as inanimate objects. Also, adult aspies should be better at assigning social understanding to the scenario, while younger aspies should have a harder time.

This is one of the reasons why I think alot of aspies make good animal behaviorists. They're less likely to misinterpret the body language of other species because they don't humanize animals as much as NTs.

I could perceive the shapes as little beings interacting but after a while too much interplay had already gone on and I hadn't immediately come up with a story line any more complex than big circle wants to be alone. What I'm wondering is how is this any different than those social story pictures they use to test you. Is ascribing an emotion to an image really theory of mind? Isn't it a matter of knowing what someone else's state of mind would be knowing that they don't know as much as you (like in sally/ann)?

Tony Attwood's definition of theory of mind: the ability to recognize and understand thoughts, beliefs, desires, and intentions of other people in order to make sense of their behavior and predict what they are going to do next.

By assigning personalities and emotions and interpreting the actions of the shapes, you are using theory of mind. Recognizing someone else's lack of knowledge is only one aspect of theory of mind.

I see. Then I'm not that good at it in the example given. It seems you would have to have a social framework to explain further actions of the figures and I did not do that, but perhaps I was just distracted and tired. However, in real life I do have a much better theory of mind even if it's achieved by cognitive means and not intuitive.

Yes, it looks as if people tend to interpret the scenario based on their own experiences, so you do need primer of sorts. I think they used shapes specifically so you couldn't get information from facial expressions and body language.

I interpreted it that triangle fought triangle and circle went into the square. Big triangle went in with circle and little triangle let the circle back out and at this point I pretty much lost the plot. and they were just shapes moving around.

Also, this is the relevant study?

http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/con ... /159/6/895

No, but close. The study you linked looks as if it's more about eye-tracking to gain social interpretation. The study I was referring to was also done by Ami Klin, but in 2000. I believe the actual title of the article is "Attributing social meaning to ambiguous visual stimuli in higher functioning autism: the Social Attribution Task"

Ah, it just mentioned the earlier study. I only read the paragraph that was basically the abstract from the one you mentioned.

This is the study:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11079426

And also a bit here on Tony Attwood's site(link).

Also, I was surprised at how little I got out of that video. I mean, I guess I didn't expect a lot, but I'm still trying to work out just how much social difficulty I really have, and this was a bit of an eye opener. Thank you for linking it.

It was an eye opener for me as well. I saw the other people post more elaborate plots than anything I could come up with. Part of my problem was my horrible working memory. I couldn't link the previous actions to the current ones, so I just lost track. I do the same thing when I watch movies with humans, so it makes sense that I would have an even harder time with shapes.

My interpretation was that the big triangle was bellicose, but the smaller shapes were more playful. I also interpreted the square as a house, but I don't understand why it was broken up in the end. I also don't understand why the circle was in the house while the triangle was outside. It was all very ambiguous. I had to watch it several times to extract any understanding.

- Smaller shapes were two kids playing. Large triangle is an old man.
- Large triangle (played by Clint Eastwood) gets fed up with them noisy kids and scares them away: "Get off my lawn, ya punks."
- Small triangle (some WASP kid, played by Owen Wilson) argues with Eastwood. Small circle (which is the stereotypical "Zany Black Kid", played by Chris Tucker) runs inside mr. Eastwood's house.
- Clint Eastwood runs after Owen Wilson to beat the s**t out of him, but changes his mind when he sees his closed door. He confronts Chris Tucker: "Do ya feel lucky, punk?"
- Chris Tucker runs around while Owen Wilson tries to open the door. After a few attempts, he finally manages to pick the lock, thanks to the streetsmarts mr. Tucker taught him during their Black Cop/White Cop shenanigans earlier in the movie. Tucker and Wilson lock mr. Eastwood inside.
- Clint Eastwood, who is very Genre Savvy, opens his door with his key while Tucker and Wilson are gloating outside. "I tried being reasonable; I didn't like it", said Eastwood, his Magnum firmly pointed at Owen Wilson.
- Hilarity ensues, with a Benny Hill Chase Scene.
- Clint Eastwood, who is too old for this s**t (even though he is not Murtaugh), decides to spend what is left of his night sleeping. Chris Tucker and Owen Wilson run away to defeat some drug lord, in what will undoubtedly be a very touching tale of tolerance and friendship, despite any perceived ethnical and cultural differences. The End.