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

Post Reply New Topic

I thought Uta Frith moved away from the lack of theory of mind theory and onto the lack of central coherence theory. Like, she may believe that people on the autism spectrum lack theory of mind, but not in the same manner SBC does. SBC was also involved on the same paper as Frith the concluded autistic children lack theory of mind. The idea that autism is defined as being the lack of theory of mind is nonsense and nowadays every psychologist worth their salt knows that, though ToM impairments may very well be a common trait of autism, that requires more research to access if there is any basis to it or if tests are just being misinterpretted. Another key reason while SBC is more poorly regarded than Frith is because SBC has the extreme male brain theory, while Frith supports women in STEM fields.

I disagree with this conclusion, as the main problem with Sally-Ann seems to be linguistic complexity rather than motivation. You could motivate either test, but Sally-Ann requires more complicated instructions involving multiple objects in a single sentence, with Dot-Midge the subject has to bring up ToM on their own in order to win the game after more simple instructions.

Yes, but that doesn't mean that it's flowed down the chain to the people she'd previously taught and those they taught in turn. That autism is defined by a lack of ToM is still the received wisdom in large parts of the research and therapeutic communities.


Perhaps a parallel test for comprehension of linguist complexity needs to be done with autistic kids. The kids in the study quoted were 7 to 13, so most people would assume they would have no difficulty dealing with complex sentences. However, language delay is a classic feature of autism, so the kids may not be as advanced in linguistic competency as the NT four year olds.

Also, I've always thought the Sally-Ann test has a literalness problem, since "look" is often used to mean "search". So the question "Where will Sally look for the ball?" can be interpreted to mean "Where will Sally search for the ball?" which implies Sally doesn't know where the ball is — otherwise she wouldn't need to search for it. And, of course, one of the other features of autism is a tendency for precision in language, or as the diagnosticians put it, literalness.

So, why doesn't Sally know where the ball is?

A couple of possibilities occur to me.

1. She forgot where she left it. This is the simpler explanation, but it doesn't allow for a clear unambiguous answer to the question. Sally might look for the ball in the basket, in the box, under the piano, out in the sandpit... Indeed, she might look for it anywhere, with no way of determining which answer is right.

2. She went to get the ball and found that it wasn't in the basket. Once Sally realizes that her belief that she knew where the ball was is incorrect, she starts looking for it. Where will she look in this very sparsely furnished room consisting of only a box and a basket when she already knows it's not in the basket? Hmmmm.... I think it's valid to conclude that the first place she will look is in the box.

The second interpretation is more complicated — perhaps far too complicated for four-to-thirteen year olds to develop — but as a long-time detective story fan (I started around the age of eight with Sherlock Holmes), it's a line of reasoning that occurred to me very quickly when I first encountered a description of the Sally-Ann test.

That may just be me, though.

I assume that is a snide shot at me. What makes you think I didn't understand those factors of the design? These tests aren't testing to see who is "correct", but how autistic people differ from non-autistic.

I'm afraid that when someone posts as many links to as many studies as you do, yet when someone remarks on a study you don't agree with you bring up Sir Francis Galton and scandals in peer review, yet you don't bring these things up when you post your own links, I'm afraid that confirmation bias is the only logical conclusion. Also the fact that there are so many personal attacks on myself simply because I think SBC has a point and think his research and findings have merit shows that peoples' hatred (if I may use such a strong word) for SBC goes far beyond thinking he is just a poor scientist. They are attacking him because they feel his research is attacking them. That brings me back to my initial comments on this thread. When someone posts a link suggesting autistic people lack empathy people go nuts, but post a link (as someone did) that suggests autistic people have too much empathy and no-one says anything despite the science in the link being non-existent, seemingly based on anecdotal evidence.

This issue goes beyond the empathy situation. I see on this forum that people often offer theories that autistic people have no disability or failings but that scientists are all wrong and we're actually Übermensch. Maybe I'm just more level-headed and realistic about these things with no real need to froth at the mouth when someone suggests autistic people may be lacking.

So I'll let you get back to your thread where you desperately try to prove that autistic people don't lack anything.

Ftr, I think autistic people do struggle with ToM, but I disagree that this makes them less human.

No-one is suggesting that is the case.

Then why are there numerous discussions of the issue on the web? Here is one:

pnas.org



I know for myself, I tend to feel just as wronged if the harm was unintentional as if it was intentional. To me the harm determines the wrongness of the other's harm to me. I didn't know this was a sign of impaired moral judgment.

I don't see how that supports your statement that people think those with ASD are less human.


That's not what it is saying, your reaction is based on a misunderstanding.

However I looked at the materials they used on the test for false belief and the exact wording was "Jenny expects to find". Previous posters on this thread used the fact that the term "look for" was used as a reason to discount the entire study.

Did you actually read any of the links she posted? It doesn't seem you did, and are rather just preservating on Francis Galton and ILLOGICALLY using it to dismiss everythin else she wrote.


No, Everybody thinks they see things more realistically than other people, but we aren't acting superior and ignoring what other people say based on it. No one here is saying that autistic people have no disability, we're just criticizing SBC's research because frankly it sucks, the study methods lead to very circular arguments. Now, if I were to argue the way you argue, I'd say you are just using a straw man argument to support your cognitive bias,

Autism is associated with more language abnormalities than just delays, literalness is part of that. I know other groups with language problems also perform poorly on Sally-Ann, most famously deaf people.

It's well known that there are a few groups of people that fail the false truth test, autism being but one of them. Are you suggesting that SBC doesn't know the difference between a deaf person and someone with ASD?

It looked wrong, I lingered, my connection timed out, it took me three times to prove I was not a web bot. Thus, the disclaimer.



But, this part came through, clearly enough. Is she having a meek, introverted sort of meltdown, or does it make her appear physically dangerous.

Of course not! If you were paying attention to context, you'd know the implication is failing the Sally-Ann test may be due to language confusion rather than lack of ToM, as seen with other groups.

But let's assume both groups are failing the test because of ToM impairments rather than language problems. So the theory I heard is that deaf people fail the test as deafness makes social interaction hard, and thus it takes longer for them to develope ToM. Well that applies just as easily to autistic people, it's more reasonable there to believe their ToM is impaired due to lack of social interaction because of autism than to believe they are autistic because they lack ToM.

Clearly this is a thorny topic. That's a shame, because a calm, respectful discussion would be much more interesting than the way it's going.

Yes. It would have been interesting to me for the thread to venture a stage beyond the academic critiques and consider the cui bono question dispassionately: who are the main beneficiaries of unquestioned or dominant narratives in autism, (in this case TOM) and how are alternative voices /critiques muted or deflected by the defenders of dominant narratives?

Derailment is a fact of life on most social forums it seems to me, and it comes in many familiar forms - perhaps the most common ones are the persistent question asker, where the questions are not meant for elaboration; and the strawman tactic, and so on. It's rare to be able to continue discussing a controversial theory after the first couple of pages (and often before) without interjections that don't really take the actual discussion focus any further. By that yardstick, perhaps this one did better overall than might be expected!

offtopic-ish note to self
RL foudings confirmed by online-experiences, people who ask questions usually don't care for answers but to ask more without considering replies, hence distraction from subject while rejecting your answers (& you, irl) (it's another expression of passif-agressiveness, and public shame&blame) (trollingOnline& gaslightingIRL)

why the world's upside down
words are used as shields
to not learn, nor recieve the signals coming in
i, as a probably asp, but the doubtingothersdiscussion is re-opened, again
have a problem with blocking "IN", I see others' strategy
using the mouth, effectively blocks the hearing, to me that's the NT (-strategy)
at least, to me that makes sense,
but maybe it's only me who percieves this

Let's call it: communication

So you're saying that autistic people don't have delayed or impaired "theory of mind", the issue is actually that autistic children (all of them) don't understand what "look for" means?