Aspies For Freedom

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*  

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.    

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 [but in consequence it was a kick into the stomach for the other one ].

"NT people don't need to do that, they just think I would react this way so other people must too. "

There's a vast range among NT's as to how well they understand the minds of others. Often it's just an accurate assumption based on stereotypes. The more people are like us, the more we believe we know what they're thinking -- and it's true, to a great degree.

Where it tends to break down is when there are significant differences between the two people -- when there are age, gender, racial, cultural, orientational, educational gaps between them. All of a sudden the Amazing 100% Mind Reading Miracle is no good any more.

Yes indeed, and add to that the fact that a large proportion of us look similar to them physically - the opportunities for misunderstanding abound.

Very interesting test and reactions.

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.

First, Some autists do have "therory of mind".

Second, your definition does not match with how it was explained to me. (Not to say I'm correct, just to say the explanation I was provided was different...and nothing like what you are discussing)  

When Hrick was young, they actually gave me an activity/test I could do to see whether he had "theory of mind".

I think, Theory of mind may be best understood from the standpoint of the  person who does not possess it.  Basically, that individual would believe you know everything they do. This would go so far as to include information that was acquired in your absence.

Here is the test I was given. It was designed for use with a small child.  The test requires three people: a moderator, testee and third party assistant and involves hiding an object. First, you place an object out of sight, but you do so in front of both the testee and third Party Assistant so they actually know where the object is hidden. Next you send the third party assistant out of the room.
You then take the object from its then location and move it to another spot that is also out of sight.  This again  done  in front of the testee ( but not in front of the third party assistant because they are out of the room at the time.)  Then you call the third party assistant back into the room.  Here is the test question.  You ask the Testee where will the third party assistant think the item is.

Someone who does not have theory of mind will believe the third party knows everything that they do.  Their answer will be the second hiding spot even though there is no way the third party could know the item was moved to another location because the third party was out of the room at the time the object was moved.

Someone who has "theory of mind" will answer the first hiding spot because they understand the third party would have no way of knowing that the item was moved or where the item was moved to.

Now for the glitch. A situation/possibility wholly unanticipated by the test designers - an individual testee who happens to be a telepath.

That was Hrick. He initially thought the third party would know where the item was moved to because he assumed they, like him, were telepaths and could therefore read the minds of the moderator and testee to know the object had been moved and to where.  (I've since explained this is not the case).

My side point is this: Who knows why Autists believe what they do. It may be, at least as to some of them,  that they assume we NT's and AS's have abilities they have, which we really don't.  Their brains are wired differently with result that there exist all kinds of unique abilities that pop up. (most of which are rarely spoken of within the culture.  Bad enough you have a "crazy" child, let alone you be labeled "crazy" as well). Hrick calls these unique abilities side effects of Autism.  What do they say, " we as human beings only use 5% of our brain".  Who knows what abilities lie dormant in the other 95% of the brain that we are not using. To have one area of the brain injured may be to draw from another. I do not think it strange that someone who can't speak might develop an alternate telepathic skill .


Mom of Hrick

P.S.  And I agree with Couldbecousin.  When NT's say "theory of mind" they mean whether individuals have an understanding of how the NT mind works. We as NT's do lack "theory of other minds".  

When Hrick was diagnosed I was told Autism occurred 1 in 10,000 births. I am now told it is 1 in somewhere around 100. That is an awful lot of people who are wired differently. The majority mind set is shrinking.  

Mom of Hrick

A lot of research turns out to be bunk, especially in the autism world where the standards of what constitutes a good theory to publicize (and what various conclusions actually mean about someone)  are pretty low.  Here's a link to someone's blog entry that links to a whole lot other stuff about this.

But the stuff I've heard is actually what autistic people have been saying for years.  (For instance, see A discussion about Theory of Mind:  From an Autistic Perspective.)  

My own observations had been similar to what Jared said in that link:  "Theory of mind" is a term that is used in a number of different inconsistent ways, and the way researchers use it shifts around in equally inconsistent ways.  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.  

What really convinced me of this was that when the linguistic construction "What do you think that she thinks?" wasn't enough to trip some autistic people up (and many autistic people do pass the Sally-Anne test), they simply added another layer onto it, "What do you think that she thinks that he thinks?" and declared that our inability to answer that (I can barely parse that let alone answer it) showed impaired theory of mind.  That seemed like they were just going to pile on the language and the multitasking until it screwed us up and then blame our theory of mind for it.

But, yeah, the idea that we lack theory of mind is being seriously challenged in research by now, and for good reason.

Personally I do not find much of his work useful - he is a "dry, research" autism specialist whose work seems to be based on anything but actual real autistic individuals. I know he has a diagnostic service but the kind of crap he let loose in the Daniel Tammet documentary (he tried to argue that he couldn't be autistic on some daft little point that he wasn't even interpreting correctly) didn't inspire me with a lot of confidence.

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!"

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?

Batman55, as far as I can see - Theory of Mind means that you can picture how other people think and perceive things and that it might be different to how you think and perceive the world.

Actually it can mean, as someone pointed out:

1.  That you know that minds exist.
2.  That you know that minds can differ from your own.

It doesn't necessarily mean that you know how to predict other minds, it's just a precursor to being able to do so.

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".