Aspies For Freedom

I've read a few things about this and am trying to understand what typifies the NT Theory of Mind?

This is part of my attempt at self diagnosis, I had never heard of theory of mind but think mine may be deficient, until I get some I idea what a "correct" theory of mind is its hard to tell.

If I tackle this with my intellect I understand that all people are separate, have their own goals, desires and quirks.

If I have to react quickly or fail to engage my intellect I sometimes get annoyed/frustrated with people for not doing what I want them to do - despite the fact I have made no attempt to communicate to them that I want help. Its almost as if I have an expectation that people should respond to me telepathically.

Usually my intellect overrides at some point and I calm down. Until this happens talking will not usually help the situation.

This also works in reverse as I can get upset when I fail to do what I expect people want me to do - when they have not communicated any such desire to me.

Is this an indication that my theory of mind is poor, as I am guessing that an NT would not have to manually override their emotions with intellect to reach the correct conclusions. Or is this just egocentric/sociopathic?

Theory of mind - the Sally Ann test.  knowing or guessing what other people's motives or thoughts or emotions might be.  I do not have much of it.  That probably explains why I hated studying literature in high school so much.  

Is this what you are talking about?

I started to read Machiavelli's "The Prince" and had to stop because it gave me such a negative outlook on humanity.  Apparently, this is how most NT people think.  They are all about themselves and what they can get for their goals, all the while trying to make other people believe that they are allies.

Here's an interesting blog entry on theory-of-mind confusion and how it occurs:

http://simuljustis.blogspot.com/2006/04/...-mind.html

It was the Sally Ann test that prompted me think about this properly. As I came across it the other day I tried to mentally do the test as I quickly read through it - I failed. With a little thought I'd have passed it, as I subsequently did when I came upon the Smartie test. Passing the Smartie test made me think Ha - you never got me this time, the fact that I viewed passing a test for 4 year olds as something of an achievement made me think mm, my abilities here are ropey and definitely need further probing.

You ascribe far too much to malice what simple thoughtlessness explains better.

Never attribute to evil intent that which can be adequately explained through stupidity.

I just re-read this, having done a bit of introspection re: "Am I AS" in the interim. I do what Jay does with my SO (Wife, in my case) all the time, I just hadnt thought it was odd. "What does that face mean" is part of the vernacular Chez Richard. I lack the empathy to be arsed to ask anyone else what their faces mean, which is probably a good thing as theyd likely think I was a fruitloop.

My version of that is "what are you thinking?"

Because I can't differentiate beyond identifying facial expressions as either generally positive or negative.  I know smiling is happy, laughing is amused, frowning or scowling are not happy.  

I miss subtleties.  I know an emotion is being expressed, but I don't exactly know what it is.  I know the difference between a welcoming and unwelcoming look.  So I verbally guess.  "Are you angry?"  "Are you sad?"  or, "what are you thinking?".

And I often miss the reason a certain emotion is happening, unless I have some background detail to form a logical conclusion.

I'm starting to wonder if the tendency to avoid looking at people is in part a response to poor abilities in this area, ie If we don't look at people it might force them to use more concise verbal language.

Also for consideration is the notion that emotional language is not concise in itself, but those who understand it do not require concise anyway. Feelings are not concise, this is why we find them confusing, we need clarity.

Consider -

a)Emotional and visual language is an area we are unskilled in

b)Emotional and visual language wouldnt help us even if we did understand them as they are vague(1) even to those skilled in them

(1) By "Vague" I mean they can never be as accurate as verbal language. I've been testing this theory out with my my wife and my counsellor. Both say that there is no requirement for 100% accuracy, there is presumption involved. They also extend this to their verbal comms which is why they perceive us as "literal-minded". NTs are generally lacking in the skill of accurate communication (Because they dont need it ???) and we suffer because of it.  For "We" read "I" as "I" am the test group here  :wink: