Theory of Mind is a lie

Post Reply New Topic

I have recently stumbled upon this link: http://scienceblogs.com/cognitivedaily/ ... taki_1.php

Apparently, the theory of mind can be tricked very easily, even for adults. You just need the classical example (Seli put the ball into the box and went away, Elis arrives and puts the ball into the bucket, then leaves, Seli returns and wants to play with the ball again. Where does Seli look first?) but have more than one alternative choice and say where Elis put the ball to trick more than 30% of the tested people into assuming Seli had the knowledge as well.

The assumption of a lack of ToM in >30% of the population explains human behavior very well to me... or am I just being a cynic?

I am near the severe end of the autism spectrum, however, I have become quite good at predicting human behavior. I think the lack of the so called "theory of mind" is just another stereotype against autistics. If autistics who don't have this so called "theory of mind" want to learn it, then I suggest enduring all of the NT TV programs. In most (not all) cases the NT behavior is patterned after characters and actions on popular TV programs and magazines.

I believe even so called NTs lack theory of mind. I think doctors have created lot of myths about us because our minds work different. I have empathy tests telling me online I hardly have it but I know that is not true and I do have it. Another mis assumption about us is not caring about people.

I've always associated Theory Of Mind with the ability to manipulate others. Your grasp of Theory of Mind predicts your success with NTs because they use it to manipulate each other with. They know what to say, and when to say it to get the results they want because they have a complex understanding of Theory of Mind and can figure out several steps they need to take before hand. Not just one thing to say, but several responses and questions depending on which way the conversation turns. They figure this stuff out before they ask someone something. "If _____ says _______ I will respond with ________ but, if _________ says this instead, I will just say __________"
There's no awkwardness or blanking out...they just do it and experience instant success. It's something I don't do very well at all.
People who have an excellent understanding of theory of mind can gauge what it is people want to hear, what they need to know, the look they expect to see, the response that will help them out the most. Theory of Mind people are able to get others to do what they want. For some reason, people agree with them more. They are less likely to agree and comply with someone who hasn't much Theory of Mind. This is who they disagree with or won't cooperate with. The person who has less theory of mind has their needs met less because they can't get people to agree or go along with them.
To me, it doesn't have much to do with empathy or profound understanding of emotional states. People can have profound understanding or superficial, either one, and still be good at TOM. Sociopaths are an example of someone with excellent TOM and a superficial grasp of what others need. Still, they have enough TOM to con people. Without the TOM, they can't con. You either have the TOM or you don't. You can't learn it. It's like an intuition that people share with each other and you either radiate it or you don't.

I'm skeptical of the theory of mind. I think many aspects, some described by o...OAnaO...o, can be explained in other ways that do not require a theory of mind at all.

For instance, probability (or luck, if you prefer). Take 100 people and ask them to guess (and I mean a pure guess, no attempt at theory of mind) what someone is thinking. Then take the ones who got the answer right (some will after all) and have that group guess what someone else is thinking. Again, a subset of the group will guess right. Repeat this process until you have one person left. If you look at this person's performance without knowing that everyone involved was simply guess, you might be tempted to conclude the person is a social genius. Of course, that person was just lucky.

Another example: studies of police detectives have shown that they are no significantly better at detecting lies than any other NT group put to the test (college students, Walmart greeters, neurologists). Despite all their training and experience, their performance is not statistically better than control groups. Thus, human beings in general are not good at lie detection, though Aspies may be worse at it than the NT population.

Last, a quick quote from Richard Feynman: "Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself. The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool."

My comment on "theory of mind" is that the Alan Parsons Project has a song titled "Psychobabble".

Here's an idea that hit me. But it involves the question, "Is there a such a thing as synchronous brainwave patterns when it comes situations involving ToM?" If there is a brainwave linkage, then it would mean that our responses to other people would be based on which brainwaves are active during these encounters and if synchronization comes into play to see if the minds are thinking alike. Has a study like this been tried before?

Wow, Drake, that sounds very interesting and worth exploring!

Can someone PLEASE explain to me why adult NTs in the research of the link in the OP tend to say bucket more than box in the second test? It doesn't sound logical at all.

I think it was to trick people. The first test is so simple but the second was harder and I had to stop and think and I guessed box and I saw thats what the majority guessed because even if the box was moved, she is still going to look in that box even if it was moved to a different spot. But my question is, how do we know that those who did the answers weren't on the spectrum? You can't tell just by looking at someone. How do we know it wasn't the ASD people who did other guesses?

Because they are too many to be all Aspies...

curse of knowledge

Oh I like that. I'll use that from now on.

I can see the curse of knowledge in my work (IT) all the time.

Let's simplify it. A complex computer system doesn't work. There could be a 1000 different things wrong with it. Engineer is familiar with only 10 different things. He'll choose to mess with only those 10 things without any evidence to suggest that that's where the problem is, and he'll most likely make the problem worse or introduce new problems. It is more likely that the problem lies with the other 990 things which he doesn't know how to work with.

This behavoir has always been plainly obvious. But I can't explain this to many people I work with. They won't accept it.

Meanwhile, an engineer unfamiliar with any part of that system will expect that the problem may exist in any of the 1000 parts. They will solicit help from someone else, usually tech support, or they will research the problem, and find a correct solution.

I have never understood what exactly Theory of Mind is, and no matter what some one tells me it is, or what I read about it, I get no lasting impressions that leave me confident of understanding what it is exactly. It really gives me a headache when I try to understand it. I know that there are certain people who manipulate me without my knowing until much later. I have always referred to these types as calculating. They suck me into what I think is an ordinary friendly conversation where I openly divulge my opinions and thoughts and then later I realize that each question or comment they put forth to me was designed in advance to obtain certain information and there were stages along the way like a road map that the calculator was using to reach their end goal which always seems to be luring me into a trap. Capturing me as if it were some kind of sport and I am a dumb animal. Does this sound familiar to anyone else and do you think it describes Theory of Mind? And what about projecting? When someone projects bad intentions or motives on you is it their ToM that is at work?

ToM to me, is understanding two things:

1) How other people think? What is important to them? What do they want? What drives them to behave the way they behave? Also, the other way around. If they are to understand me and my wants, I need to communicate myself clearly.

2) That everyone doesn't think the same way I do, and thus they may have wildly different opinions on subjects, or they may react differently to a given situation.


I'm an aspie so I didn't at all undersand any of this until I was about 30. Looking back, my peers have figured it out in high school or college at the latest.

There are other nuances of the ToM of course. To me those two are the most important.

Thanks Dilbert. Whittling it down to two things makes it a more approachable concept for me. I'll think about that for a while and see if it sinks in.

That could be true but the Theory of Mind I'm talking about is based on intuition between two people that tells them they are relatively the same. It's the foundation on which people base all their interactions with other people. It isn't predicting. It's more about knowing. People who use TOM successfully don't have to think about what to say, they just know and they say it. TOM, also helps people feel at ease with and detect subtle bits of information about other people. When one person's TOM is out of wack another person can sense it and intuitively know who has the edge and can take advantage. My theory is: the more liked someone is, the better their TOM.

That's because you cannot tell when someone is lying, not even if you have the most developed TOM on earth. TOM has more to do with convincing and manipulating people than it does figuring out when someone is not telling the truth.


People believe what they want to believe.

the basis of ToM is thinking what you would do under the same situations other people are put in, more advanced ToM involves understanding what is different between what you would do and what other people would do (mostly based of observations, including the non-verbal ones aspies miss), the first usually comes naturally because humans are by nature social, it's when children are not able to be social or are fundamentally different from there peers that this does not come into play (both situations have at least some applicability on most, if not all aspie children),