Do Aspies have a different Theory of Mind?

Post Reply New Topic

I have wondered why so many NTs I've met, who should have Theory of Mind, often have said to me: "Oh, I don't understand why you can do this / like that / feel that way, because I don't!"
Hmmm? Why don't you use your ability to know that not all that goes on in your mind goes on in others' minds too??
It's a bit of the same with empathy, where the apparently empathetic NTs anyway tend to empathize with other NTs / people like them.

Maybe Theory of Mind in fact isn't Theory of Mind, but just a huge projection?
I mean: Maybe people say that a person, who didn't see a ball being hidden, have no basis for knowing where the ball is - because people themselves wouldn't know, if they didn't see a ball being hidden. If that makes sense?
I mean, if Theory of Mind was about "knowing what others are thinking", as it's often claimed, then NTs wouldn't have problems understanding autistic people - which they have.

But there must be a reason why it's called Theory and not Reading of Mind.

Hm, this was just another... yes... theory. Don't know if it's good though.

^ AnnePande - I think what you are saying is similar to what my aspie boyfriend says. Operating under the premise that the definition of "Theroy of Mind" is - being able to understand how/why/what other people think:

He says that there is no such thing as theroy of mind. No one can tell what anyone else is thinking. It's just that most people happen to think similarly so can understand most other people. "We" don't think like most people so we can't understand most people and most people can't understand us.

That explination makes a lot of sense to me.

Yes, exactly. I think it's that way too.
People are guessing all the time how people may feel in certain situations, because most people they know feel that way in said situations.
So when their guess is correct, it's not because they "know" what others are thinking. It's a qualified guess out of experience.
When they meet an aspie, though, their guesses tend to be slightly less qualified...

BTW, even NTs misunderstand each other all the time! So how that fits with the "knowing what others are thinking" part, is a riddle to me. One must ask, who are those "others"??

It seems to me like the NTs try to convince us on the spectrum that they possess something almost like supernatural abilities like reading minds / knowing others' thoughts, feeling others' feelings (many claim that's what empathy is like), etc.
How stupid do they think we are, since we are expected to believe that? Do they even believe in it themselves, really??
Or maybe it's not because they think we are stupid. But maybe just a misunderstanding. Or maybe they look at us and compare themselves to us, and then make their conclusions. But they don't ask themselves if they really are such persons with such ability that they claim.

When I write "they", it's not to say that all NTs think that way. It's rather for the convenience, and because I've seen it a lot of times, especially among people who try to explain what AS is.

I wish it was that simple, because my ToM is so bad that it's ruined my whole life - so I wish it didn't exist indeed. However, it's not so.

1. Why it's not about experience: NT children exhibit a developing ToM at ages 4-5 already. There's no life experience there. How did I discover the existence of Asperger's? After 4 decades of intensive research, analysis and 3 decades of therapies and self-growth intensive work, I came to my last conclusion about what my problem was: there was some inborn mental difference between my siblings and I that made them know what mom meant behind her words as early as age 4-5, when I only started seeing that people said things and meant others when I was in my forties.

2. There are different possible interpretations to "knowing what another person is thinking". One of them is mind-reading, indeed. But it's not the one meant in ToM. In ToM, it means having a general, intuitive feeling, without thinking about it, of a person's/group's motivations, feelings, desires, goals regarding a specific issue. It's hard for us to grasp what this is, because we never experienced it - except intellectually, by having gathered experience. When my nephew was 6, I sat him down with my husband's 5-year old niece and gave them colored pens to draw. At some point, she asked for the pink one. He said NO. A few minutes later, she stopped drawing and got up to leave. Automatically, he jumped up: "You can have the pink one!" Had he read her mind and found the words: "Since he answered me so bluntly and I'm feeling hurt, I'm leaving him."? No, and besides he was too young to apply experience: "She's acting like the other people in my class, she leaves if I act selfishly, so I'll give her the pink pen." What he had was a surge of something we Aspies can't comprehend: intuition of her desires and motivations at that specific moment.

When I was younger, my family had a joke, which I hated, that went, "mgran (not my real name) has no feelings." They thought this because I was always rationalising why I thought or felt or behaved a certain way, and was always doing the same to them. It took me years to realise that most people don't think about their reactions or "feelings", they just experience them. I've always known that other people have their own minds, but those minds are still, often, a mystery to me.

OK, I'm going to apologize in advance, because I haven't read much on ToM, and just have my own naive musings.

When I first read about it I thought it was delusional, and couldn't believe the importance. Every NT I've talked with about how it works (not the theory, but the sense of understanding other people as a complete picture) have confirmed it, and it seems totally obvious to them.

I think it starts with assuming other people are just like ones self, and then applying differential filters to improve accuracy.

So let's pretend I'm NT. I see a stranger, and he's wearing the same kind of shoes I like. So I think 'I like him, he must be just like me'. I see someone else, and I don't like his shoes, so I think 'he's different from me, so we won't get along', and I avoid him. The guy who's shoes I like glances at me and raises an eyebrow ever so slightly. That's what I would do if I were interested in him and wanted to talk, so I recognize it and walk over and say 's'up?'.

As the apparent differences grow, the concept of 'other' is introduced, but it needs a complete archetype, or .... stereotype!! Then the individual is compared, with differential filters, to an archetype of the 'other' that seems closest. Amorphous pluralism isn't an easy fit for this kind of thinking.

But as an aspie, how how that interaction go? I might notice the shoes, and make inferences from them, and the shoes might even make me think we shared some common attitudes, but come on, they're just shoes! And the shoes I don't like? If they're white patent leather with a matching belt, then I'll avoid him, but otherwise it's just a curiosity. And if they're really interesting shoes, I may ask about them and have a conversation, but it really is just about the shoes, and then it's over (this happened the other day).

So the NT is trying to assume that I'm 'exactly like him', and if I 'fail' that test, he is looking for another archetype to work with. If I'm 'unique' he's confused and unable to socialize. If I'm 'aspie', then we can both socialize, on an equal basis, meeting in 'middle ground', similar to if I were from a different culture or spoke a different language.

The next question is, what about aspie to aspie socializing? Is there an alternative aspie ToM, that is an automatic, reflex, self-adjusting system, or is the interaction always cognitive? First of all, a natural aspie ToM would be different, so we can't look at aspies in social skills class, for example. I don't have enough experience yet, but I've read that sometimes it seems to be true.

My best friend at one time was neurologically similar to me, and probably aspie. He's the only friend I've had where I felt able to 'read his mind' automatically, without thought or reservation. And we had the most amazing discussions, because we would explore issues, thinking the exact same things, and making the same connections, including the asides, and all we had to do was clue each other in with individual words and sentence fragments. One of our friends told us that he and some others liked to just sit and watch us talk because it was so bizarre, and sometimes scary, and it was like performance art. We were also perfectly happy to do things around each other without interacting at all, and that was having fun together.

Another example is a co-worker of my partner's. It's pretty clear he's aspie. I've met him a few times, but not really talked with him much. At times he is the bane of my partner's existence at work <grin>. As soon as my partner starts telling a tale of woe regarding this guy, I understand completely, intuituvely, how the guy was thinking, what his concerns were, and how to address them without getting into a conflict. I explain it to my partner, and it has always worked. I can't do that with anyone else. Sounds like an aspie ToM is at work.

I really agree with this, as far as I can tell it is so. It's like what we Aspies have to consciously analyse and research, NTs have an internal, unconscious program that does the research and analysis for them and hands them a finished product - an emotion, a dictation of a course of action.

Do we Aspies have such a thing too, when it's about other Aspies? I'm still not sure either way...

Well, here's one way to look at it. Our minds are wired in such a way that unless a "topic" can be quantified (or is considered interesting), its not worth discussing or mentioning. So, lets say we get into a highly focused discussion on a topic of interest (since we can quantify it). On this topic, the Aspie and NT can actually share a ToM since both are knowing what to talk about (My NT brother and I have done this on numerous occasions, where what we say is synchronous). "Great minds think alike," I guess

Bear in mind, i havent read much on ToM either so is there a site or other reference that can describe the concept?

Why don't you do a search on WP and one on Google and form an opinion? That's what I did, since we all seem to interpret ToM a bit differently... The DSM is like the Bible in that sense.

Because this ability is not magical but mechanical, it’s expression relies in part on informational input. As people experience the world they become familiar with the kinds of things people are likely to differ on, and this effects their expectations about other peoples’ experience. These expectations both contribute to and are constituents of ToM. How many human abilities do you know that are characterized by the attribute of infallibility? ToM is not a suggestion of magic, just another fallible human capacity.

As we would expect, unless we were supposing that empathy was some magical attribute rather than a human capacity that relies on mechanistic processes.
Just a huge projection? Not really. When a child decides that an adult they are unfamiliar with, will not appreciate some joke that the child and their friends enjoy, and further that the adult might even tell them off if they told the adult the joke, the child is obviously not projecting their own response to the joke onto the adult. This would be an example of employing ToM.

Projection is a component of ToM but not the whole of it.

Your second statement refers to your error in the earlier statement. ToM is not mind reading, but a fallible skill.

Our ToM is different. The NT ToM is optimized for communication with "those like me", the AS ToM is much less discriminating. AS folks are needed to bridge the gaps and work with the bigger picture, something the NT optimizations for communication amongst their own tribal affiliations make difficult for them.

You must understand, the poor NTs do not communicate by CHOICE, but by NATURE. They are tied into an imaginary network of stimulation and supposition that is much more detailed than we AS can or care to perceive. Their actions and ideation is tied to a collective, ours to logic. They have difficulty functioning outside of the collective understanding, that is our territory.

On the other hand, if ToM is the ability to grasp that others may have different goals, feelings, motivations, fears, etc. than ours - then maybe our problem is the following:

Lack of ToM means we assume others feel like we do ----> we don't try to find out what the other (NT or Aspie) may be feeling in a specific situation ----> we don't get experience at detecting others' mental states ----> we remain clueless.

I'm not discarding this possibility, because if Aspies had a different ToM, more attuned to Aspie mental states, then eg we wouldn't mind being lectured by a verbose Aspie, but it does bother us.

It's really complicated...

When you're talking to someone who basicly got into fights in school over however you should step on worms or not (Edit: I was the not-part, since I considered it cruel and pointless), that's a rather strange question.

I've always thought that too, I really can't belive someone would not know, instead just live in their little bubble.

I'd say, buy it if you like it.

ToM seems to be a little different regarding age, and I think they start reading more into it with adults. I can see where they come up with some of their stuff, but other stuff I don't buy.

First, you have to use some ToM and understand the people who come up with "symptoms of Autism" are not autistic, have no idea what an autistic person is thinking or experiencing, and is basing a lot of their opinion on observation whether it be directly observing an autistic person socially or observing their mind patterns on a machine. Look around this website, and you will see most people on the spectrum complain more about being misunderstood than about misunderstanding others. I really believe the world of psychology is close with a lot of their opinions on autism, but I don't think they have quite hit the nail on the head with a lot of this stuff they come up with.

Second, when we get into ToM, I believe Aspies monologue not because they don't recognize non-verbal cues as much as they are so excited to talk about what they are talking about that they choose to ignore those cues. I think it's more of an anxiety issue than ignorance. Because we aren't really big about setting off nonverbal cues, to an observer, we wouldn't appear to experience any anxiety or nervous behavior.

Third, in ToM, the major issue with autism in adults is the taking people's words literally. You would almost think pointing out of the fallacy of "shut your mouth and eat your food" came from an autistic person who probably still can't figure out what's so funny about it. Anyway, because we are all different on the spectrum, we all are going to experience this to a degree, but at varying degrees. I know when someone says "shut your mouth" that they mean to quit talking, but I still often can't help myself to be so insulted that someone wouldn't respect me enough to tell me that that I would actually shut my mouth and turn it into a literal thing. But, I can see how someone else with autism might not get any of that and take the words literally. What gets me is when someone lies. They say you lack ToM if you believe what people say. To me, it's allowing people to lie even though it's wrong to lie. This is where you see my supposed lack of ToM come into play. I've been told by God and the world that lying is wrong, so I don't think other people will lie. I know other people are going to lie when they have an obvious motivation for it. Like the kid trying to stay out of trouble is going to lie. But the adult who is just blowing smoke up somone's butt, I don't get that. If someone needs to kiss my butt saying they like something about me that they don't like, then they are fake people and not someone I like to hang out with. What I don't get is that people just pass these white lies off as a social norm when it's not. NT's don't like it when people lie to them, even when it's white lies. To me, though, all this is "gullibility," and I'm assuming someone took the copyright to that word for the world of psychology to give it a new word "Theory of Mind."

I also think what's at play more with the whole children's question of what box is the toy in? Well, if you tell someone that the toy is in Box B, and Mary doesn't know that, what box is the toy in? The answer is box B. What box will Mary look? The answer is Box A unless Mary is me, then she won't think to look in any box and it will take her a half hour to find that stinking toy because she has no memory of where she last put the toy (sorry, a little placenta brain going on, and it's frustrating). Anyway, I think what happens more is that Autistic people often "finish other people's sentences." As we grow up, we are more right on with following other people's logic and knowing where they are going to go with it. As children, we suck. We are learning this skill that seems to come natural to us (where I'm going to go next with the Aspie ToM). Either way, when you ask an Autistic child "Where will Mary look," often I think they assume you are wanting to know where the toy is and doesn't get that you are trying to get them to look at Mary's perspective because to an autistic person, Mary isn't as important as the result of finding the toy. Think of it, let's apply some ToM, when you were a kid, how many adults went out of their way to think of your feelings? Of course, you don't realize as a child that you might be different and they are incapable of figuring out your feelings, but in comparison to other kids, you start to see that it isn't about people as much as results. Adults are very big about results. Find the remote control. Get good grades. I don't care how you do it, just do it. I don't care what the other kid said to you, there's no excuse for your behavior. So it's easy with ToM for any kid to logically conclude the adult is more worried about the location of the toy than what Mary is thinking. Since Mary is a two dimensional object and the psychologist is real, an autistic kid will be using ToM on the psychologist more so than a fictional character.

You can see how I think we are more misunderstood. I also get this way on the concept of imagination. I never ate invisible food until recently (my two year old keeps handing me invisible food). But, I did have to battle bears and the harsh nature of the outdoors as I ate my food indoors. Every kid has their unique way to apply their imagination, and just because they are bored with some games more so than others doesn't mean they lack imagination.

Aspie ToM. I think our ToM is more logic focused than emotion. This isn't about Aspie to Aspie either. This is Aspie and the world. I notice it on this site. The members here who are on the spectrum tend to follow other people's logic well. They make great debators because of it. How many times have you thought of something in a debate on this site and have the other person respond to it before you bring it up, and as a result, your response ends up being like 6 steps ahead of how the argument would go if you were arguing with someone else. It's like they knew what you were going to think before you thought it. Sometimes they are wrong, but sometimes they are right. The NT's on this site, on the other hand, tend to be that way with emotion. Their posts often know what they are saying might tick you off or make you feel uncomfortable, and if they feel so strongly about saying it anyway because it needs to be said, they will apologize in advance. I'm not saying NTs won't follow logic or Aspies aren't concerned about emotion cause that would be wrong, but when it comes to predicting things in other people, I think Aspies are naturally more about the logic and NTs are naturally more about the emotion. When they flip to the other side, they are using more conscious thoughts to do so. That would also explain why Aspies are more concerned about giving out information, even in monologue such as this post, even though they know it might annoy you, it's still about the information more so than the emotion.

Edit to add: Going back to my example of lying to explain what I'm saying better. I don't get why people lie for emotional reasons. I do follow it logically like when I see that they have something to gain for lying. For example, I know people will lie on their resume because they want the job...computes. I don't know why people lie about what they ate for dinner last night because they are concerned about their weight...does not compute.