A Theory of Mind? Or A Theory of War....

Post Reply New Topic

Before we get caught up in a esoteric circlejerk, it needs to be understood what theory of mind actually is. Actually, generally people are concluded to lack theory of mind when they fail a false belief test, which is more inline with what you call theory of difference than theory of mind. I elaborate more on that here: https://wrongplanet.net/forums/viewtopi ... 36&start=0

Your childhood experiences were interesting. I agree with you that the greater the difficulty reading nonverbal cues, the less someone would tolerate ambiguity and the more questions they might ask to cope with this. For myself, if I can't read or understand someone, it's harder to trust their truthfulness or intentions. How do people trust without understanding, or the illusion of understanding, some of what the other person might be thinking and feeling?

As shown in your post, there are so many facets of trust, including reliability/dependability in different circumstances. I have no idea how anyone trusts anyone else on these without some sort of knowledge of past behavior/results.

You said that you don't trust extroverts. I don't trust many of my fellow extroverts to tell the truth all the time, because I get the sense that they want my, or other people's approval, more than they want honesty. I hate that. Is that the kind of trust you mean?

As for those of us who speak before we think, yeah, I have learned not to trust my own snap judgments, first reactions, and first impressions either. Some of them come out anyway though. In the moment, I'm not always aware I've made a mistake. Again, is this what you mean?

When I was a kid, I actually experimented with taking the advice to think before you speak literally. I'm not sure whether to laugh or cry about this, so I'll go with a chuckle. I started forming the full sentences of what I was going to say, and then talking! This did not work at all! I couldn't keep up with conversation that way. Pausing to consider every sentence just wasn't the answer for me. I do think about what I'm going to say now, but not like that, not completely.

I also notice that some really outgoing people, the ones who turn everything into a story, they sound even more like they're speaking stream-of-consciousness. I have to infer that their thoughts aren't quite as organized or systematic as people who speak more to the point. As a kid, I never really thought about how their thoughts might differ from mine.

Then there's the extreme introverts. They don't really tell me what I need to know, and I can't read them, so I have trouble getting very close to them. I'm surprised you didn't mention those, along with your lack of trust in extroverts.

It failed for two reasons, the main one was that Sony didn't license the technology, only they can can make Betamax VCRs which is why you only hear "Sony Betamax". VHS was licensed so anyone could make one which lead to more of them on the market (and lower prices too, but that was a side-effect). The second reason was that the porn industry adopted it, and that was an influential industry in the physical media market.

"Claim" is slightly pejorative, it doesn't "claim" this is the case, SBC has demonstrated it via experiments.



Only on this forum, and possibly other ill-informed outlets. SBC does not claim this himself, he is on record many times saying the opposite.


No, it's clearly a straw-man argument and no matter how many times I explain this you all want to keep on believing it. It's like you all want to be offended.

If someone makes a claim about autistic minds, and then supports that claim with dubious experiments designed to support that claim rather than to explore the truth about how autistic minds work compared to neurotypical minds, then should we trust their conclusions? The scientific method is not infallible and can be misused and misapplied--and we should be able to question research and examine methods, and only those studies that stand up to examination and questioning should be considered valid research. SBC's methods are being questioned and not standing up against examination by his peers or by those living with autism. This is not bias against him or his work, it is honest questioning of the validity of his claims. Honestly, it seems to me that your inability to fathom why anyone would question his claims shows more of a bias than I am seeing elsewhere in this comment thread.

I know I said I would have further to say on this thread when I'd had more time to process, and I do plan to do that, but I haven't had time to finish reading all the linked material in the last few days as I've had some company over. I will try to get caught up in the next little while and hopefully will have more to say then, because I'm really enjoying this discussion and am learning a lot and I want this thread to keep going. I really think everyone on these forums should read it because we all have a stake in this issue--clinicians and other professionals in the field of psychology and social work denying our basic humanity because of this supposed "lack of theory of mind" they attribute to us is a dangerous precedent and should be a concern to everyone here.

The history of science is interwoven with tautology, ie "dominant narratives must be true because they are dominant narratives". So many dominant narratives (as Thomas Kuhn and others have so eloquently exposed) took on the discourse of "everyone knows".

I can localise this with an example of a once-dominant, expert-driven "everyone knows" narrative in New Zealand: dinosaur remains could not be found in New Zealand because there were never any here, and so there was no point in looking for them; that was the dominant narrative, so it "must be true". It reigned for decades, and then a woman (an ordinary woman, not a scientist) went looking and found some dinosaur bones here.

Baron-Cohen has laboured prodigiously to create his own dominant narrative, and there will be true believers for a long time to come; however dissent is ultimately more essential to scientific progress than hegemony of belief, and as AS people, asking questions about context, motive, belief and assertions of dominant narratives seems to me more necessary now than ever before, for a variety of reasons.

No-one here has a problem with this because the delay in theory of mind only occurs at a very young age, we're talking 3-5 year olds. Beyond that no-one fails the false-belief test unless they have some other significant impairment. No-one is saying post-child autistic people don't know what others are thinking or that they have no empathy. This is a concept that exists solely on this forum and no matter how often I try and debunk it you are all so intent on being offended you just ignore all reason.

I'm doomed to endlessly repeat myself on this thread.

B19, I'll try and be as succinct as I can....

You post numerous theories every day and you represent them as fact.
Anytime anyone mentions something you don't agree with you wax lyrical about how science can't be trusted.
All you do is exhibit textbook confirmation bias.

And what you are doing here in this thread is exhibiting a textbook example of the phenomenon of projection, going on and on about other people's bias and neglecting to recognise your own. Do you work for SBC or something, or do you shill for him for free out of some weird sense of fan love or loyalty? Whatever the reason for your bias and subsequent projection of said bias onto everyone else, it's untoward.

I think critically reviewing the assumption that "theory of mind" exists and that autistic people lack it is worth the time because so many people who work with those on the spectrum (like psychologists and teachers and social workers) unquestioningly embrace that assumption and this does real harm by allowing those people to see us as less than them, less than human--and to treat us accordingly. Just because you don't feel the same about SBC's conclusions about autism doesn't make me biased, it makes me a healthy skeptic.

Wrong Planet is a truly fascinating place for me, because of the way that the dominant narrative is so often replicated here, as it is in dominant culture, to shape and reinforce stereotypes, while counter narratives (other than those of a strictly personal kind) are generally absent and often resented when they occur. Nevertheless, I like to suppose that the counter narratives will always play an important role in the resistance to the oppression which underlies the propositions of dominant stereotypes applied to minority groups. I would rather use my energy in this thread toward the deconstruction of oppressive stereotypes than defend myself from personal insinuations et al from dominant narrative adherents. There are so many threads on TOM here already, which centre around the internalisation and acceptance of the dominant narrative.

There is a great catalogue of evidence, manifest on Wrong Planet, that "internalised oppresion" is real and the most disempowering factor in AS lived experience and outcomes. This is why counternarratives are so important.

I'm not talking about people's "bias" so from the off your whole argument is invalid. "Confirmation bias" does indeed include the word "bias" but I am not saying that B19 is biased in the traditional meaning of the word. Google what confirmation bias is and you'll understand what I'm saying. Further more I have no bias myself; looking at evidence and making an informed decision is not bias.


It does exist, there is no assumption. Theory of mind is a well recognised developmental milestone completely unrelated to autism.



No-body says that autistic people lack it. Seriously, how many times do I need to say this? I say it time and time again but nobody listens.

WP: SBC says autistic people don't have theory of mind, I am so offended.
Me: He doesn't.
WP: SBC says autistic people don't have empathy, I am so offended.
Me: He doesn't.
WP: SBC says autistic people don't have theory of mind, I am so offended.
Me: He doesn't.
WP: SBC says autistic people don't have empathy, I am so offended.
Me: He doesn't.
WP: SBC says autistic people don't have theory of mind, I am so offended.
Me: He doesn't.
WP: SBC says autistic people don't have empathy, I am so offended.
Me: He doesn't.
WP: SBC says autistic people don't have theory of mind, I am so offended.
Me: He doesn't.
WP: SBC says autistic people don't have empathy, I am so offended.
Me: He doesn't.
WP: SBC says autistic people don't have theory of mind, I am so offended.
Me: He doesn't.
WP: SBC says autistic people don't have empathy, I am so offended.
Me: He doesn't.
WP: SBC says autistic people don't have theory of mind, I am so offended.
Me: He doesn't.
WP: SBC says autistic people don't have empathy, I am so offended.
Me: He doesn't.
WP: SBC says autistic people don't have theory of mind, I am so offended.
Me: He doesn't.
WP: SBC says autistic people don't have empathy, I am so offended.
Me: He doesn't.
WP: SBC says autistic people don't have theory of mind, I am so offended.
Me: He doesn't.
WP: SBC says autistic people don't have empathy, I am so offended.
Me: He doesn't.
WP: SBC says autistic people don't have theory of mind, I am so offended.
Me: He doesn't.
WP: SBC says autistic people don't have empathy, I am so offended.
Me: He doesn't.
WP: SBC says autistic people don't have theory of mind, I am so offended.
Me: He doesn't.
WP: SBC says autistic people don't have empathy, I am so offended.
Me: He doesn't.



They don't because this theory only exists on WP, professional mental health experts understand the concepts.


Utter rubbish.

I want to clarify (in case confusion has been introduced into this thread) that I not, nor ever have been "anti-science"; an interest in the misuses of science long preceded my knowledge of AS, and there are many wide ranging aspects to that, including omission such as the lack of contexualisation that has been so well discussed in this thread.

The term "epistimological violence" - which I was entirely unfamiliar before the 21st century- is a very interesting one to me and it seems to synch in well with the first linked article of this thread:


http://2012.ferienuni.de/files/Teo2010EV2.pdf

B19 wrote:
The assumptions that all research claims must be automatically valid and reliable because they come from a prestigious university and have been peer reviewed have been proved erroneous in a very conclusive fashion.

Right.....I don't see any inconsistency in those two remarks you've been quoted on. I presume that's the unstated allegation?

The irony that this Chichikov person is claiming confirmation bias on WP but can't see it in the way SBC structured his research studies is kind of amusing to me.