The Truth (?) behind TOM and lack of empathy...

Post Reply New Topic

I was right. That did it.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cognitive
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/volitional
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=cognizance

It drives me nuts how long I can use a word without ever looking it up, spend years thinking I understand what it really means, just from hearing it in context, then finally look the damned thing up and find out it means something different than what I thought for so long.

I was close, but just far enough off to cause myself some confusion. The meaning of "cognitive" is really a lot simpler than the meaning I had attached to it.

So basically, if we're able to process principles of TOM without consciously thinking about it, we've got a pretty good handle on it. If we have to consciously think about the process, or don't think about it at all, that's the lack. That's how I understand the theory anyway.

So, to extrapolate just a bit, this would probably mean that if two people did the Sally Anne test, both got the right answer, but you then asked how did you get the right answer, I'm surmising that one might rattle off how they reached the conclusion, step by step, and the other might answer, "Geez, I don't know. Isn't it obvious?"

I'm betting the first has ASD, and the second is NT.

And now, with this (what I think is a clearer understanding), I'm ready to state the following flatly (at least for now):

NT's aren't faking it.

The problem with ToM is its just another 'construct', and I have began analysing it ,and it seems to have inherent structural/logical weaknesses . Futhermore:

a) It's not the only model that caould explain what's going on in our heads and other people's heads .

b) There are possibly stronger models that can be developed to explain this process integrating
research from other disciplines which SBC hasn't used.

c) It is possible ToM is useful in approaching some areas , but not others, if another model can be developed more relevant to these areas.

Philosophy, social science and cognitive science etc has a big scrapyard of old models, but some are still running 'on the road' and have stood the test of time. We have to be careful what goes in the scrapyard and what we keep on the road- it's not an either or, its about degrees of usefulness and purpose. ToM may be very useful but it hasn't been challenged yet, at least by us, and to do this, to have our own viable coherent theory about ourselves would be moonshot stuff in terms of achievement.

It's a worhtwhile project.

If you look at Bonnie Auyeung's work ( SBC's assistant) you will see she divides empathy into two catagories:

" the ability to attribute mental states to others, to infer what someone else is thinking or feeling. It is one of the two major components of empathy, sometimes known as 'cognitive empathy'. The other major component is known as 'affective empathy', or the drive to respond with an appropriate emotion to someone else's mental states. Our work is showing that both components of empathy may be impaired in autism and Asperger Syndrome."

They know NT's fake it.

Absolutely.

ADD probably kicked in a bit because while you were posting the above comments, it occurred to me that I may have answered the question of TOM to my own satisfaction, but the question of empathy is still somewhat unanswered.

So TOM is kind of necessary to exercise empathy, so that sort of answers the question of Aspies not being very good at it, but it doesn't really answer the question of whether NT's are any better at it.

So, what I mean is, TOM requirement for empathy doesn't preclude that just because TOM is present, so is true empathy.

So at least part of my question still stands.

What about the empathy?

Is anyone really NOT faking it?

I think the answer lies in the same place. The accurate meaning of "cognitive."

Since the difference between what SBC was trying to describe between ASD processing and NT processing seems to hinge on that accurate meaning, what I think he was really focused on was whether or not the process of empathic abilities was cognitive (conscious, logical processing) or not.

I'll be honest. I haven't read much of SBC's work, so I'm going a lot on third hand knowledge. My sense is that he wasn't concerned so much as to the accuracy of supposed "empathy," but was rather more concerned as to the differences in how people process empathy. I'm kind of guessing that he surmised that NT's tend to process it subconsciously, and those with ASD's tend to process it all consciously and logically, if at all.

In other words, if we're only talking about SBC's Theory of Mind, maybe in relation to his theory, it doesn't matter whether the end result is "correct" or "incorrect." Maybe he wasn't even addressing that issue.

I don't really know. Anyone else know?

If not, maybe he should have addressed that too.

I can only speak for myself, but I learned empathy over the course of my life. It's impossible to be empathetic (understand something from someone elses point of view) if you haven't known someone long enough to be able to think like they do. Because Aspies have a hard time with socializing and making friends, having (or developing) empathy is very difficult. Empathy isn't inborn, it's learned, and reinforced by people you meet. Whether it's positive reinforcement or negative reinforcement depends on the people you know. Because I've generally been accepted by my peers, developing empathy has been easier for me than it has for most Aspies. Not only that, but because of Asperger's, I learned empathy better than most people, because as it turns out, the less you know, the more you can learn. It's like in Pokemon Red and Blue, where it's better to level up the Pokemon through hard work than it is through the Rare Candy cheat. Their stats are higher.

One existing criticism is a simple but powerful one - you can not learn to rollerskate by doing a Ph.D in engineering. Emapthy is such a huge varied range of experiences and emotions - like music - beautiful classical music, maybe it's what music is an expression of ?- it's somehting felt practiced and a dimesndion vanishes when observed and analysed- as we ourselves are aware when we glitch.

I think a lot of this is learnt through play , which we missed out on as kids. Basically.

We all seem to have it to a degree but it takes longer to formulate its meaning and our response in some areas.

Also we seem to have little problem in forming ToM of other AS types, here, so that might indicate
the delay is in the processing- not the lack of the basic emotional and experitial 'substance' of empathy
that does move through us like music until we loose the flow.

This makes so much sense. In a way I often think that an AS/autism necessarily causes difficulties. There's the fact that the NT mind works differently to the AS/autistic mind and the fact that NT's are in the majority. Therefore this world is often not as suited to those who are not NT and that's the cause of a lot of difficulties.

I completely agree that we don't lack empathy in the way some seem to think we do. I don't think that NTs really have any more ability to empathise than us.

Having said that, though, it could be true that they sometimes have more ability to express empathy. Even if that empathy is often "faked". Empathy is a hard thing to define. Does it really mean completely understanding how the person feels and feeling it, or does it simply mean expressing that the person isn't alone in their feelings? I suppose it is a social thing, like compliments.

Even if an NT doesn't believe that somebody is for example looking really good that day, they might sense a cue to offer a compliment and say that they do, anyway.

I think that expression of empathy could sometimes be offered in a similar way.

Sometimes people try to make a person feel better but I don't think it's often that a person really understands exactly how another feels. Or they might try and think back to a time when they might have felt that way. You're still thinking about yourself. Everything around someone shapes them as a person. So how can you possibly imagine all of that detail to get the most accurate picture?

Whether you're NT or not, you can only be yourself. There will always be something you don't understand.

But like others said many people wear a mask and define themselves by their social status. Many people offer what is percieved as "empathy" without really stopping to think about it, in the same way that a compliment might be offered.

A person with an ASD might prefer not to wear a mask or maybe find it harder to sense the right cues. In a world where we were in the majority, this wouldn't be a problem.

Sorry for the muddled reply, but I agree with what you're saying

I think maybe what we are doing in some cases is our own versions of this :

http://www.mensjournal.com/the-blind-ma ... elf-to-see

We use the rational component of our processing systems to do what NTs do unconsciously until they have to stop and think about it . We have learnt to do this on the move,because we've had to, that is why
it takes us time and energy.

Its like trying to calculate the velocity and trajectory of a ball everytime throw it at a target. NTs make this calculation but that do it with out realising they are making it or having to realise they are making it because they have learnt to throw a ball without the math just the practice , thousands upon thousands of times as a kid.

This isso exciting- there should be a channel on Sky for this kind of debate.