People with Asperger's less likely to see purpose behind the

Post Reply New Topic

Consider a situation
We enter our room and see some changes, let's say a book has changed its place, we are less likely to see a human mind behind it as we just do not think of people/mind all the time unlike neurotypicals. This severely ret*ds our ability to pick out the culprit. NTs subconciously know that mind exists and their spontaneous actions are same in the absence or in the presence of people. I believed this even before I came across this article.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/ ... 2010-05-29
Similarly we don't get body language because we are not able to associate a mind with that. In other words we are unable to see that they are being actuated by a mind and there is a message for us, rule 1.
For more on language rules
See this link http://www.wrongplanet.net/postxf135648-0-90.html for edited version of rules to understand the non-literal "local meaning" and not the one based upon mind reading(pragmatics). I believe these are two different aspects.

Interesting, but very much common sense.

I like that article, I do similar things actually. The idea of saying that an illness came from a god or because it was meant to be is just irritating and anybody who says such a thing should be dragged to the dungeons for severe punishment. I've even considered where my dogs tumours have come from, and why they're so odd (some growing, some not growing, some just dying, etc.)

I won't ramble. Thanks for the article.

I agree with the article.

I find the part about people with AS not even considering teleological thinking as opposed to atheists taking an anti-teleological stance, of especial interest. I find this is so in many areas of life. While a "normal" person is considering events in this teleological sphere, I just don't even see the sphere. Thus an atheist is actively opposing, while I am simply oblivious.

I think of it also as extreme objectivism, which is probably also why we make good scientists and artists. This is an advantage in those areas, but in socialization it is a death sentence. I believe this is why we can be so gullible and trusting, unable to pick up on deception and motive. It is so difficult for me to understand why other people act in seeming illogical patterns. I'm certain if I understood all aspects of their motives (and if those motives were logical) then I would understand their behaviour, but subtle hints are just over my head. I see the hint in terms of fact, "this happened or changed," not "this happened for a reason, as motivated by an agent."

The contrast reminds me of the movie, "The Messenger" which I highly recommend. If you haven't seen it and you want to, I suggest you skip to the next paragraph. In the end, Joan gives all of her proof of how G-d (yes, I'm Jewish, ethnically not religiously) was speaking to her, and for every "sign," Dustin Hoffman's character (who actually can agree on who this character is?) gives the objective and logical explanation for the occurrence, rendering her arguments silly and unfounded. It's a great illustration in the contrast of thinking styles. She sees a sword in a field and applies an agent to it, (G-d put it there for her with a reason, that of delivering a mission), while Hoffman's characters says, "No, that was a sword in a field" (and he then goes through the myriad of logical explanations for why a sword might make its way to a field.)

I am personally deeply disturbed by any irrational or illogical thinking, which is why teleological thinking frustrates me. Luckily, I have the good sense not to call it that to people's faces, and I have the sense to realize that what people want to believe is what they'll believe, no matter how much I point out the gaps in logic. Thus argument only results in loss of possible friends.

Recently I was discussing the topic of love with a friend. He was under the strict (and I admit, traditional Jewish belief), that for every individual there exists a soulmate. The opportunity of finding and keeping the soulmate can be lost, yes, (as in, if you never leave the house and thus never meet them, or if you kill their brother and they hate your guts for the rest of eternity.) I just can not agree with this notion. People are not "meant for each other" they just exist, meet, chemicals do a little dance, they mate, they procreate, they convince their children that life and love has a reason, the cycle continues. It's all random. I also do not understand why "normal" people are so depressed by this logic. It's not depressing folks, there may not be a purpose, but that doesn't mean we can't enjoy life.

Frankly, the non-teleolocial thinking is liberating. I see so many people who are so miserable in contemplating how they look in G-d's eyes, overthinking everything, they can not stop to smell the roses. I, however, do. In fact, long before I was diagnosed, a deeply religious friend wrote a poem for me about how I taught him the "stop and smell the roses", to notice the details. It's been a defining trait of my personality, to enjoy the little things, because in my opinion, that's all that life is: a chain of little things, a concatenation of moments. So I might as well enjoy each of them.

Thus, there is no powerful overbeing, planning my life and giving it purpose. Why would I matter to such a being anyway? Rather, I am the creator of my own purpose, which could be whatever I choose it to be.

Just don't ever try convincing a teleological thinker of this sort of thing. Another movie reference: Herzog's 1979 version of Nosferatu, Lucy says (in my rough translation from German) "Faith, yes, faith. Faith is the ability of humans to believe in what they know to be false." In other words, people who believe in all this illogical stuff, can very well know it's illogical, and still believe in it. They live in the same world we do, see the same facts, they just process it all differently. With this deeply religious friend, I was constantly the antagonist, pointing out all the flaws in his religious thinking, proving to him again and again, how what he believed in was logically impossible, pointing out every paradox.

You know, it didn't change a thing. He knew I was right, and just chose to keep on believing. The only outcome of such arguments in the loss of a friend. We each have our place. He will make an infinitely better religious advisor to someone and I will make an infinitely better scientist. I think the truth is that no matter how much teleological and non-teleological thinkers may disagree with each other, we each have our strengths. I'm just glad to be of the latter group of thinkers, that's all I can say.

So...
So someone exercising Theory of Mind...
Doesn't care to find the most rational/logical explination for events?

I think it might've been adaptive, back before large-scale civilization. If you have to react in a split second to save your life from a saber-toothed tiger, you don't have time to think about why the cat is there and why it's eating you and not a primitive antelope. It doesn't particularly matter what reason you ascribe to things just so long as the conclusion is "Run!" Or, "Poke it with a sharp pointy object!" Whatever will save your life.

Thinking quickly but not so accurately is no longer so adaptive now because, dealing with things like technology and engineering, the reasons something happened are much more important than they used to be. It could be that this is part of the reason why AS genes are hanging around--they're part of what give humanity its ability to ask how the world works.

Where they found the subjects for the study? In Iran? In Guantanamo prison?

I have very difficulty to believe that anybody in Western Civilization think that an "higher power" made them sick (even the religious people usually don't consider that God acts in day-to-day life).

EDIT: "Why do we often attribute events in our lives to a higher power or supernatural force?"; asks the author; answer - we don't; no sane person in Wester world attribute events to a higher power or supernatural force.