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).
How do you account for the fact that many aspies have great success in highly abstract thinking, such as computing and math? Even the concept of a number is abstract - there's no such object as a number in the world - and mathematics and computer science/programming pile abstraction upon abstraction.
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.
I think you're wrong on this, or at least you're generalizing about something that only holds for some. I know I generalize and abstractify naturally. There's even a hypothesis (I can't remember where I read about it - I might be able to dig it up) that autistics are hypergeneralizers; they tend to think about the world as a collection of rules acting on a collection of objects. One example from someone in this thread was that anger meant "I've done something wrong". This is an example of a generalization that's wrong - an observation that was perceived as general when in fact it only holds in some instances.
I can see how the world can be perceived as a massive state machine, the mind a gigantic set of tubes that maps inputs of one kind to outputs of another. I know this isn't exactly how it works, but it's a useful metaphor to a certain extent. There's this thing about emotions: it doesn't follow rules. It's unpredictable and irrational, and that makes it hard to deal with if you look at the world as a state machine.
This is how I handle social situations in which I can't rely on instincts (I suspect that these situations occur more often for aspies than NTs with normal social development) - I apply heuristics. 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.
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.
Anyway, that's how I work. I love concepts and abstractions, metaphors and analogies. I see them everywhere. I realize this isn't what it's like for everyone. I can only speak for my own experience. No matter how good you are at reading other people's minds through their behavior, it's impossible for us to actually experience the world through someone else's eyes. Just thought I'd point out the idea that abstract thinking is a second-class concept for aspies is not an accurate generalization.
By the way, here's a link that, if I remember correctly, argues that savant abilities arise from a failure to integrate details into a coherent whole. By perceiving the details, savant brains can exploit the diversity in their brains and do remarkable stuff that normal people can never do even when they practice for years.
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.
I'm as good as anyone to understand symbolic meanings. Does that mean I'm not aspie enough? 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.
Shnoing's second comment is related to conceptualization, in my opinion. Since autistics live in the [/i]actual 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'm not so sure. Perhaps there are different types of aspies. Hypotethicals, on the hypergeneralizing view, should be easy. I don't have any trouble imagining myself in hypotethical situations, at least, but I don't know about others.
That said, your particular example is actually nuanced, but the nuance usually slips below the radar. If someone asks me what I'd like for dinner, there are many things to take into consideration: for instance, I like junk food, but junk food is more expensive than making something out of what you've already got, and it's not healthy to eat often. I might like food X, but it takes a long time to make, and today is a weekday, so perhaps that can wait. On the other hand, there's Y, but then Z won't be happy. Perhaps with an impaired social intuition (I like the term intuition, as it suggests that you might have social skills that are learned but not intuitive, like math for most people is learned but not intuitive, because some (many?) aspies do [i]learn social skills) you won't be able to intuitively find out when and what is appropriate to say, and so you go down all possible roads, and that is energy and time consuming no matter how good you are at conceptualization and abstractification and placing oneself in hypotethical situations. Alas, I am no quantum computer, I can't hold all possible superpositions in my mind and quickly collapse into the right one. No, my mind is a regular, semi-deterministic computer, but it certainly can generalize, abstractify and conceptualize.
