Aspies For Freedom

Phew! I thought it was just me.

I've been trying to understand this since I first read about it a couple of months ago, but I just don't understand the concept at all. I'd like to know how it is supposed to help too.

I used to think when I was little that everyone thought the same way as me, but now I know they don't. What I keep getting confused about is that it says we need to understand how other people think like NT people do but I'm not sure I think the whole thing is back to front.

Once we learn other people don't think like us, we try to understand. NT people don't need to do that, they just think I would react this way so other people must too.

I thought I would be able to understand this being only borderline AS but I just don't get it.

ASDAdult Wrote:

Or.......is it because I do not have or apparently cannot understand theory of mind the reason behind why I state others do NOT think the same as me?��(Man, this one truly is way beyond me.)

Well, this is a sort of paradoxical concept and you've stumbled across a very interesting question (which had occurred to me before.)

And thank you for quoting the description I used in the other forum--it's gratifying to see one's words used by other members.

ASDAdult Wrote:

So, I HAVE to learn and rely heavily on rules, etc., to regulate my behavior because of that lack. I "care", though, if I accidentally do hurt someone else or something, so I don't possess of lack of feeling at all. I "feel" emotions just fine.

This is how it is for me as well, I have to "build up an NT act" by applying stubborn rules I've stored in my longterm memory, to approximate the social environment. Sometimes I connect well to certain individuals within the environment, but I never connect to the whole environment itself. As for emotions I "feel" them just fine, but my problem is I often feel them too much... "sensitivity" is all across the board for me.

My adaption to environment is tailor-made, for each different person I come into contact with--one thing/person/situation at a time. I'm mono-tracked so I have to do "a lot of mode-switching" to adapt my responses to each new person/situation, etc. This is one of the things that makes me almost certain I have Asperger's, as I have not often read that this trait occurs in ADD or Generalized Anxiety Disorder (I am DXed with the latter, but I am sure I have ADD as well--it's a mystery why I'm not DXed with that.)

couldbecousin Wrote:

For what it's worth, NTs are often quite wrong in their assumptions about how other people think and operate.��In my 41 years I have many times had my motives and feelings "explained" to me by clueless people who were merely projecting their own issues onto me.��The most NT person I have ever met will call me at home, then hang up after several rings, usually just before I can get to the phone.��I then immediately call her back, whereupon she accuses me of screening my calls with my caller ID box and deliberately dodging her.��She will not be swayed from this delusion no matter what I say, which means she believes I am not only inconsiderate but also a liar.��A former therapist of mine (probably NT) actually corrected me in session when I said this or that didn't bother me.��Yes, he actually told me, "And it does hurt you when such-and-such happens!"��He also made assumptions about my past based on the way I sat on the couch.��Yes, apparently this genius, this shaman, can figure out everything he needs to know about clients from their posture.��*sarcastic*�� Rolleyes

Anyway, the celebrated NT superiority at mind-reading seems to have been overrated just a wee bit in my opinion.��One autistic person's comeback to "Autistics lack theory of mind" is that "NTs lack theory of other minds."��(I wish I could remember who said it.)��I have concluded that most of us, whether NT or on the autistic spectrum, tend to expect, to varying degrees, that others will act the way we would.��

That makes it a lot more complicated for me, though. Can you provide a gross oversimplification for me, a notorious black-and-white thinker?

couldbecousin Wrote:

For what it's worth, NTs are often quite wrong in their assumptions about how other people think and operate. In my 41 years I have many times had my motives and feelings "explained" to me by clueless people who were merely projecting their own issues onto me.
�
"NTs lack theory of other minds."
�

Well, there you've got the answer to your own statement. NTs are able to anticipate other NTs' feelings/thoughts which may have proven helpful when chasing mammoths, waging wars etc. ages ago. In these situations, it is important to know whether some other person will use his[her] spear to kill the mammoth or to kill you to get your property.

I try to "read" the other passengers' minds when using public transport but unfortunately I'm not very good at it so recently I got a hit in the face without any obvious reason Sad [but in consequence it was a kick into the stomach for the other one Big Grin ].

sangwyn Wrote:

Since Betty has not run into Johnny yet, Betty believes that the ice cream cart is going to be at the Community Center. That's the information she received and has not received the updated information that Johnny received. Therefore she goes to the Community Center.

How much of arriving at that answer hinges upon coincidentally having the same kind of nervous system that Betty has and how much is really some kind of magical "mind reading" power that "Theory of Mind" ascribes to the allegedly "normal"?

sangwyn Wrote:

�
One simply tells a story something like this:

[i]� "Okay. I'll go home and get my money and meet you down at the Community Center," says Betty. She says good-bye to Johnny and promises to meet up with him later at the community center.
�
Betty still really wants ice cream. Where does she go to get it?

�
Does this help?

Here are the two sentences which I would pick as important: Betty tells Clark that she'll meet him at the Community Center and she promises Johnny to meet him there, too.
According to my view, Betty would stick to her promise and go to the Community Center in order to meet them both. Then, she would try to get the ice cream.

If there's any hidden information about Betty preferring ice cream to meeting her supposed friend Johnny, I didn't get it.

Am I supposing (incorrectly) that anybody would stick to his/her promises?

Without this above-mentioned promise, the case probably would be totally different to me.

anbuend Wrote:

Um... FYI, the Sally-Anne test is also difficult for non-autistic children who happen to have the same difficulties with language that autistic children do.��This is because the Sally-Anne test involves some of the most complex constructions in the English language.��Further, if you give autistic children a drawing-based false-belief task rather than a verbal one, the autistic children do at least as well as the non-autistic children and sometimes outperform the non-autistic children.��So basically the theory of mind idea of autism is becoming known to be a myth.��And theory of mind is the ability to understand that mental states exist, not necessarily the ability to predict mental states:��Anyone capable of having a discussion on theory of mind, has theory of mind, provided they're not just echoing words without meaning.

Are you suggesting all that research Simon Baron-Cohen did on "theory of mind" is bunk?

And all that stuff he wrote about "mindblindness" was for naught?

Noetic Wrote:

anbuend Wrote:

The things they measure are often not of our ability to understand mental states exist or even the ability to understand that mental states can differ from our own, but our ability to predict specific particular mental states, or our language abilities, or our multitasking abilities, or our abilities to see exactly what researchers think we should see in other people, or any number of other things.��All of which are used as "proof we lack theory of mind," all of which is pretty sloppy science.��

Indeed, I read about some study where they tested kids with AS (as defined by higher verbal skills) vs. kids with HFA. And the AS kids tended to get better ToM scores, so the conclusion was that AS has better ToM.

But as the person who quoted the study in their article (I think it was in one of the Schopler volumes, or in the Klin volume on AS) pointed out, how do you know these results aren't just down to the higher verbal IQ?

Personally, I do know that I was well unaware of other people as "mes" until perhaps my early teens, and even when I did recognise that someone was "angry" (which to me meant they shout and their face goes funny), I could not understand that they might actually "feel angry" and that there might be a reason unrelated to myself to cause this "anger".

People "being angry" or "arguing" with each other to me meant "Noetic has done something wrong", and that was that. When I was 4 or 5 my Mum raised her voice a tiny bit when telling my Dad off for forgetting something when going shopping.

I was engrossed in my building blocks in the living room (this "argument" took place in the kitchen) and my parents were convinced I was utterly oblivious to them at the time. But since "discord" has always made me feel really uncomfortable, I retreated to my room on tippy-toes, confused and in fear.

When they came to ask why I was hiding, I replied "You are arguing but I haven't even done anything wrong!" Rolleyes

I don't have the patience to read the Sally-Anne thing here, and all the replies centering around it... so, I'm still very confused by Theory of Mind.

Noetic, how about you give me some fairly simple definitions for "theory of mind" and how it connects to autism/AS, without providing any Sally-Anne examples (the word play they use in those confuses me.) I also read the autistic discussion of Theory of Mind and it seems everyone in that discussion has different "understanding" of the concept, so I got even more confused in there.

Can anyone give me a "gross oversimplication" of Theory of Mind here, without linking to another discussion?

I am confused now, very confused, and I need some simple definitions.

Please??

Noetic Wrote:

Sorry Batman55 but if you can't be arsed to read up on the subject, how DARE you delegate me to do this for you?

I did read up on the subject, and I have been thoroughly confused time and time again as it seems that Theory of Mind is one thing in which the opposite thing is also true, most of the time.

To me that doesn't make sense, that's why I need people on this board (if at all possible) to provide a gross oversimplification for me, as I have multiple learning disorders and certain concepts are tough for me.

I have trouble with all aspects of theory of mind. I KNOW (I have been told it enough times) that other people have independent minds, but it is something that I constantly forget.

I have trouble understanding that other people have consciousness. I tend to think of people as being like props in the film of my life - they do not think, they are just there for me to interact with, in the same way as inanimate objects.

I always assume that everyone else has the same knowledge and experiences as me. I often assume that my friends and parents have been to all the same places and seen all the same things as me. I also assume that people know all the things I do. This causes problems as I assume that my Dad knows I want a lift to hospital on Wednesday, even though I haven't even mentioned I have a hospital appointment.

I have trouble realising that people exist when I cannot see/speak to them. This doesn't affect me as strongly as it used to, but I still sometimes forget that my boyfriend still exists when he is away at work, then I am surprised when he phones me and tells me about all the things he has been doing that day.

I have problems understanding how people will react to my actions. Often I will act in a way towards someone, which if they did the same to me I would find hurtful. I don't tend to realise that they will find it hurtful too, because it doesn't occur to me that they think in a similar way to me.

If there are any further questions as to what theory of mind IS and what it is NOT, please let me know -- I've done a lot of research on it. It seems like most of that's been clarified already but I don't know if that's actually true (it definitely IS a confusing topic).

I wanted to comment on Shnoing's question because it may help you get a better sense of what ToM is

Shnoing Wrote:

Two comments on ToM:
When I was six, I was confronted with someone speaking a foreign language. At that time I thought "how difficult it must be to think in one language [=mine] and to speak another [=theirs]".
Is it a question of ToM if you are asked e. g. "do you prefer to go to the zoo or to go to the cinema?" � I've got difficulties to place myself [in thought] into both situations in order to decide under which circumstances I would feel better. So my standard answer is: "I don't know/mind".

This has to do with a more general aspect of Aspie/Autistic wiring (which underdeveloped ToM is also an effect of which): Lack of symbolic perception.  I'm not saying that autistics can't understand symbols, but they don't automatically perceive the world in symbols like NTs do -- they see the details of something, the actual something, instead of an abstractified concept, generalization, the "idea of something," etc.  Aspies are less apt for conceptualization/generalization/abstractification.  Symbols -- which require universals -- make sense through these operations.

I, a NT, live in a world of concepts.  Aspies see the world for what it actually is.  I see it in through concepts, abstractifications and generalizations.  As Grandin and others often point out, when NTs say that it is as if Aspies are in their own little worlds, they couldn't be more wrong -- aspies are in the actual world and it is NTs who are in a world they created for themselves!  Since NTs create that world through collective consciousness, it is a world they all share -- we invent, modify, and teach those concepts, generalizations, abstractifications, etc. collectively.  That world is common among us (NTs).

As many on this forum believe and/or often preach, both NTs and Aspies are wired in such a way that there are advantages and disadvantages.  While NTs each have their own viewpoint and their own life, much of life, especially public life, is understood in a universal way.  This facilitates interaction because it allows for communication without being plagued with major misunderstandings.  On the flip side, NTs may overlook things -- by understanding the world in an abstractified way (i.e., the "big picture"), we miss the details.  Also collective consciousness can become detatched from the reality when we abstractify too much (in other words, widespread alienation (in the Marxist sense) is possible).  For autistics, it's the opposite:  The major benefit of their wiring is that they see the world for what it is -- they are less likely to be alienated from the truth and would not commonly miss the details.  The major disadvantage is that communication can be difficult because (a) autistics don't automatically see the world in terms of universals, like NTs do, and although they can translate, it takes more effort and can lead to mind exhaustion, and (b) without universals/concepts as one's principle way of perceiving the world, there will misunderstandings (nonliteral meanings, etc.) with language.

ToM requires abstractification, conceptualization, generalization, etc.:  For example, to even understand what the mind is, that's completely conceptual!  The mind isn't something concrete.  Another example: In order to understand what someone is thinking/feeling/imaginging/wanting/etc., it requires the individual to abstractify his or her own thoughts/emotions/imagination/desires/etc, create concepts out of them, and then generalize those concepts so they can be applied to other people.  Many aspies have ToM, but struggle with it.  This is because they are able to abstractify, conceptualize, generalize, etc. -- it just doesn't come as naturally (spontaneously) as it does for NTs.

Getting back to Shnoing's concepts:

The first one (about foreign language) -- that's pretty analagous to ToM:  Concepts/Abstract Ideas/Generalizations are exactly like a foreign language!  When I (a NT) speak (or write), I am using symbolic language -- it refers to universals.  When aspies communicate, language is literal.  Literal language is aspies' "native language."  Symoblic language is NTs' "native langauge."  When we communicate together, we need to translate what the other is saying, just like students taking a foreign language must constantly do.

Shnoing's second comment is related to conceptualization, in my opinion.  Since autistics live in the [/i]actual[i] world, hypothetical situations, which require conceptualization and generalization (in order to, in Shnoing's words, "place [one]self [in thought] into both situations in order to decide under which circumstances [one] would feel better").  That's why those sorts of decisions and other hypothetical ones (even like answering "what would you like for dinner?" when you're not even hungry yet) can be difficult.

I've never read the hypergeneralization thing anywhere and I've read most major works on autism. Maybe we're using the term "generalization" differently...but are you self diagnosed?
Grandin writes in Animals in Translation:

"That's the big difference between animals and people, and also between autistic people and nonautistic people. ANimals and autistic people don't see their ideas of things; they see the actual things themselves. We see the details that maake up the world, while normal people blur all those details together in their general concept of the world."

(page 30)

On the next page, she continues:
"When an animal or an autistic person is seeing the real world instead of his ideas of the world that means he's seeing detail.  THis is the single most important thing to know about the way animals perceive the world: animals see details people don't see.  They are totally detail-oriented.  That's the key."

In that book Grandin does seem to make some false assumptions based on her own experiences, but in this case, all the research backs it up.

Autistic communication does not use symbolic language.  Integrating symbols into one's principal communication system requires symbolic play (sometimes called "imaginative play").  Absence of meaningful symbolic/imaginative play is a feature on every major diagnostic tool.

Not using symbolic language or perceiving the world conceptually does not  mean autistics are not creative -- I think (or at least hope) everyone here knows that's ANYTHING but the case.

Yes-- highly systematized I hear a lot..Baron-Cohen's work on the "extreme male brain" goes into this in detail

ASDAdult Wrote:

Although most of this discussion isn't/doesn't "click" for me......too many "vague" subjects, i.e. not "concrete" or factual (?) enough for me, and would probably end up resulting in me analyzing this discussion for many moons.........it does prompt me to comment on a few things:

Quote:

This makes social interaction a conscious activity, as opposed to an unconscious one. Instead of speaking and acting naturally, you must think and then act. Should I look you in the eyes, should I speak, should I laugh? These are questions I guess you seldom consider consciously.

��Yep........this is EXACTLY my experience.....always.

Quote:

I think the computer metaphor works here too. The brain is a massively parallell computer. At any given time, lots of signals are going from lots of synapses to lots of other synapses. The part that takes the most energy is the conscious part. NTs keep a background process for social behavior. It's always in the semi-conscious area of the brain, and does most of the social processing. This is where the autistic brain diverges: the background process does a lot less, and so the conscious part must do much more. This does give a certain kind of power, in that you get to exercise a lot more control over your social actions, because you do them consciously. That's the good news. The bad news is that it's not optional. You have to do it consciously, because if you don't, you won't function at all.

��Yep......I use the computer "analogy" when describing my brain/mind often.��I like and use analogies often; although, I don't get metaphors most of the time (even my 17 year old son has commented to me because I obviously didn't "get it" somehow or it didn't compute in my mind, "Mom, that's a metaphor.��Don't you know what a metaphor is?"��Well, I had to say "I guess not!")��I can sort of understand intellectually what it is and means, and MIGHT recognize one once in a while, strictly because I keep looking up the meaning of the word "metaphor" in the dictionary; but as a rule, metaphors escape me unless I stop to extremely analyze what someone is saying to me, and oftentimes in social interactions, I don't have that kind of time to do that.��Over the years, I have strictly "memorized" specific often-used metaphors, though, so I can recognize some during social interactions with NTs.�

Quote:

�I do however have a gift for turning literal meanings into humor, if I do say so myself, but in this case it's entirely optional.

��Ok, I learned to do that, too.��Mainly to "cover" for my social, language and communication inadequacies.��If I don't understand something, usually as a result of my extreme literal interpretations (which I found out about after many years of being told I do that), I find a way to look at the communication I am in the middle of in a humorous manner........I think I do this mainly by picking out "words" within the conversation that I did understand and doing "wordplay", as I call it, with those words.��Hard to explain.��And normally, the way in which I do that is to orally mention how/what that word conjures up "visually" in my mind.��NTs seem to think that is hilarious.��Laughter is contagious, as they say.��Even for auties, I believe.

And who was it who mentioned something about all of this being exhausting (can't find it right now).............I do want to mention that I tried (again) to explain that to a couple of my NT acquaintances just this week!��Somehow, I am unable to make myself understood, I guess, about how exhausting it really and truly is!��I watched as an NT acquaintance of mine looked off into the distance (her eyes sort of went upward) when she was attempting to understand, I guess.��She said she just didn't understand that, though.��Why something this "simple" would be so exhausting.��I have explained many times how MUCH of what I say and do (even everyday body movements, etc.) are conscious thoughts, not "automatic".��It took many years of practice and study, too.

That was me, and I deserve all the credit, thank you Wink

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5

Ren Chou

Batman55

Batman55

Batman55

Shnoing

DogBrain

Shnoing

Batman55

Batman55

Batman55

Ceri Chaos

knoxboxlox

knoxboxlox

knoxboxlox

Batman55