Theory of Mind vs. Neurodiversity???

Post Reply New Topic

Theory of Mind is something I read about recently, and I can't shake this thought about it. I'm under the presupposition that Neurotypicals are able to employ a Theory of Mind primarily because they share similar thought patterns. Similar thought patterns allow them to estimate inner feelings and motivations with relative ease, because it's essentially like projecting your own mind onto someone else, in different circumstances.

The problem is when the thought patterns of an individual are anomalous to those of the general population. This means when an NT tries to apply their thought patterns to the situation, it just doesn't work. An effective Theory of Mind cannot be established in either direction, leading to a need for actual communication, rather than simply assuming what's going on in the others' head.

Simply put, NTs are confused by our actions, and we never understood theirs in the first place. At this point, it's simply opening the floodgates for how people react to what they don't understand.

(Ironically, a simple integration of Theory of Mind with the presupposition and anomalous thought patterns, it cracks the diagnoses by allowing an explanation for every feature of AS as simple neurodiversity, rather than an actual disorder.)

A theory remains a theory for a reason, theoretically speaking
OTOH
A theory is considered a fact once proven, relatively speaking.

in theory

There's more to it than that. People with theory of mind (TOM) issues will also experience them among similar people; many will have deficits in reading facial expressions and body language; some who lack TOM admit they did not realise until later in life that others have minds of their own; there will often be issues determining their own mental states etc.; also, simple tests of intentionality or those such as the Sally-Anne don't depend on which neurological type the characters in the scenario are.

Isn't ToM a scientific theory?

Here's more info:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

I know, it's wikipedia..........

Strangely, I've never had problems with concepts like that. I understand others have minds of their own, but their thought patterns are so radically different it's incredibly difficult to make any predictions as to what's going on inside their heads.

Yes, and I believe "they" (or at least some of "them") are the ones needing "adjustment" or treatment or whatever. As arrogant as this sounds to some folks, the mere thought of *not* thinking as I do can cause an actual ill feeling in my gut.

Maybe it is so that all people have "deficits" in understanding the thoughts / minds of people who are not like themselves?
But when we have it towards NTs, it's called a deficit; when NTs have it towards us, it isn't - only because they are the majority. Funny thing.
If NTs were the minority, we might diagnose them with a lack of Theory of Mind too.

Theory of mind skills entail a lot of acquired learning, and I expect that given the environmental triggers at the relevant developmental stages, people without ASDs can acquire theory of mind skills towards someone with an ASD better than someone else with an ASD does in materially same circumstances/environment.

It’s not particularly relevant to whether or not ASDs are construed as a disorder anyway. Some particular researcher happens to have suggested that particular observed behaviors, impairments and deficits are best viewed as deficits in the development and use of “theory of mind” and associated skills. If that researcher’s “thinking model” is widely rejected, that does not mean ASDs are not disorders. They were considered disorders before this one particular researcher suggested that this was a good approach, from an analytic perspective, for generating further useful research and ideas.

They're considered disorders because there are things that most people can do easily that we can't. It's not just socializing; that's just one aspect of autism. There's also language and the way we tend to focus on details instead of big-picture, and have trouble with changes, and have sensory-processing difficulty.

The neurodiversity angle is very important; but it isn't synonymous with "autism is only a difference, not a disability", because something can be simultaneously a disability and an acceptable, neutral part of a human being. Accepting neurological difference comes hand-in-hand with accepting neurological disability (here, I define disability as "cannot do, or only does with great difficulty, something that is easy for most people and expected of the average person"). If you only accept neurological differences that only crop up as problems when you're interacting with someone who is different from yourself, and reject differences that cause disability under any condition, then you're basically accepting the eccentrics but rejecting any neurological difference that is also a disability. That's not what neurodiversity means, or anyway, not what most people mean when they say it.

On the other hand, there may be things that we (or some of us) can do more easily than most NTs. Eg. concentrate intensely on one thing at the time, develop special skills due to our special interests, remember certain things, read autodidactly (if that's a word), and then there are the skills that are directly savant skills.
With that in mind, we maybe could call autism an ability, as well as a disability?

I think I have good theory of mind. I've learned it after physics and math but I've learned it. I can understand NT mind like I can understand dog and cats mind. You don't need to think like someone else to understand him.

If experience tell you that:

you: A->B->D

usual NT: A->C->F

if I see someone in A I can bet that the next mind-state will be C and then F.

Unless they are Aspie or unusual NT

Still, though, people are so different from one another, even within the Neurotypical realm of things. Theory of Mind cannot be limited to the Autism Spectrum alone. I'm sure Neurotypical people have trouble understanding each other at times.

I think ToM is the same thing as being able to read and express NTs nonverbal communication, which means it should be renamed to neurotypical-ToM as it is not something general, but something very specific to NTs.

I also believe that Aspies have their own ToM (or facial expressions and nonverbal communication), that NTs are totally unaware of and cannot understand. This, by the way, is why NTs came up with the idea that odd facial expressions are "grimaces" and that stims are something that needs eradication.

So, yes, ToM goes well with the neurodiversity-concept, especially when quantified as neurotypical-ToM and Aspie-ToM.

Yes, I agree with that. Despite being disabled (at least according to the government, my school, and my doctors) I can do a lot of things other people can't do easily. It's just that I think skills, or the lack thereof, shouldn't in any way determine what you judge a person's quality of life to be; that some people get more abilities from autism and others more disability shouldn't be any reason to rank them or put them in different categories. Neurodiversity applies just as much to the person whose autism gives them only a few minor inconveniences in exchange for being able to do a hundred major things that nobody else can do, as it applies to the person whose autism means almost nothing but disability. The point is that people have a right to their lives and their minds, a right to education and acceptance, whatever their brains are like. If you prefer a person whose autism means mostly giftedness over one whose autism means mostly disability, then you're taking a position that's philosophically not very different from preferring an NT with the ability to become a doctor over an NT who has to work hard just to learn basic math and reading. You can't rank people by ability; if it's wrong to tell me I need a cure when I'm a socially awkward nerd with a knack for math, then it's also wrong to say it if I happen to be a socially awkward nerd who completely sucks at math, or for that matter a special ed kid who doesn't even know what numbers are.

I find that both my mum and I lack theory of mind for each other. She wants me to be a proud Canadian and I want to live my life the way that a Londoner would live theirs. I've been staying at my parents trailer and my mum tried to drill the Canada thing into my head and asked if it was such a hard thing for me to want to be a Canadian citizen. I've sent her an e-mail saying that yes it was, and that Canada is a cuss word to me right now, because an aquaitence that I called a "friend" that I thought that I could trust, walked off on me on Canada Day, because in my closing days as a bitter punker, I flashed the British sign for F-Off and said "Take this mainstream society!" to a bunch of kids in the park. I'm still against mainstream society. I'm just a much more pleasant person to be with, now that I'm back into my favourite part of the 60s, like I used to be. Especially the years 1964 to 1966, 1965 being my personal favourite, for obvious reasons.