Do we have a more comprehensive Theory of Mind than NTs?

Post Reply New Topic

I am a self-diagnosed aspie* and have been officially diagnosed with Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder, General Anxiety Disorder, and Dysthemia (chronic depression, usually not as severe as Major Depressive Disorder). I have a well-developed Theory of Mind, but often have difficulty articulating what someone is thinking or what s/he will do in a timely fashion.

I don’t think that it is true that many or most autistics, particularly aspies, lack a Theory of Mind.

Rather than our lacking a Theory of Mind, of being unable to understand how another might think and behave, I think it is more likely that we have a deeper and more comprehensive Theory of Mind than most neurotypicals.

I have used the phrase ‘anticipatory coverage’ to describe how I approach modeling many situations. I usually obsessively project off in all directions, exploring simultaneously and dartingly, in a fragmented fashion, along a frontier. This process does not always end of its own accord, even when I think I have found an understanding that I was looking for.

I think that the same process occurs when I try to understand and model a person’s thinking and predict that person’s behavior.

I suspect that most neurotypicals do not engage in such a comprehensive exploration of this space. As a result, they are more likely to efficiently resolve questions related to predictions of someone’s behavior.

Many aspies and other autistics report that they think they have a Theory of Mind and are unable to understand why they are thought not to have one.

I think it is a mistake for researchers to conclude that we do not have a Theory of Mind merely because it doesn’t appear to function in many of us as they expect it to. We may not resolve a ToM question as readily as many NTs; we often do not respond in the way an NT expects us to. Whether our different answers are the result of taking the question too literally, or being one of many still under consideration, or the result of a valid but non-NT way of modeling is unknown; perhaps all three may come into play.

Some autistics/aspies may have a low-functioning Theory of Mind, but I find the suggestion that most autistics/aspies lack a Theory of Mind to be laughable.

What I have learned of Theory of Mind suggests that the people who have come up with this theory and the tests haven’t thought things through well enough, haven’t talked enough to autistics and aspies able to articulate their thoughts on this issue, and may be walking around with a hammer looking for nails.

I get along particularly well with non-human animals, treating them with respect and often feeling that I have some understanding of them. I suspect that many other autistics and aspies share this experience. I suspect that the same mental operations that can give us some deep understanding and empathy with people, however oddly we may express it, are also at work in our relationships with other animals.

* Aspie: 176/200, NT: 37/200; AQ: 41; HSP: 24; EQ: 13, SQ: 100, Extreme Systematizer; BAP: Aloof: 126%, higher than 92% of peers, Rigid: 132%, higher than 99% of peers, Pragmatic: 103%, higher than 75% of peers, Diagnosis: 6%, higher than 55% of peers

Wow! Now that is interesting.

Maybe we were the ones who domesticted wolfs ?

I am autistic and I definitely lack ToM. Until in my 20s, I didn't even know other people thought differently than I did, and I still cannot fully grasp it. I can never properly interpret what they might be thinking or feeling. No, my ToM is definitely not more comprehensive.

I understand. I surely didn't mean to suggest that every autistic has the same level of Theory of Mind - we are a remarkably diverse group of people sharing a common identifier. I would have made this clearer in the title but the editor limited the title length.

Thanks for weighing in.

Last edited by AlanTuring on 24 Jul 2011, 6:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Very interesting but reading about ToM for the first time in Attwood's book was probably one of the most important moments of my entire life, as I finally had a name for something that had affected me for over twenty years, and I realized I was not alone.

My ToM is very definitely impaired. I did not understand embarrassment until almost twenty years old (you can imagine how my behavior must have been), did not understand jealousy/envy until age 27, and still have enormous difficulty with facial expressions (and a great deal of difficulty knowing how to respond to a particular facial expression like furrowed brows or narrowed eyes suggesting I've irritated someone). Impaired ToM is probably why I withdrew into my own world in high school and never came back out.

I felt that way about reading about Asperger's a few years ago and many people's comments on this blog. So much that has been odd about my life suddently fell into place and was so very resonant with what so many people had to say. I've spent my whole life thinking that I was alone and truly apart from others, that no one could understand what my world is like.


Thanks. I've always been fairly good at reading people and at imagining what is going on in their heads, but not so good at acting on this knowledge. My deficits and quirks seem to lie in several other areas.

I think Hacking makes a significant point , that if you learn to rollerskate you don't need to unify the theoretical field of physics to do it, nor use it explain how you can rollerskate, you just do it.

I think NT's just do it when it comes to certain aspect sof communciation. May we all just do it to a ceratin degree. Over a boundary there are those who have to figure it out , again to degrees , and in doing so we probably develop a different ToM, or at least a different sens eof what ToM is to those who are on autopilot.

Now what this leads to is two generic groups of ToMs and like different OS they are not always compatible. I think these can be crudely defined as when one perceives the other as differnt and can label it as differnt to other member sof the sociial group , it is different.

Most of the debate concerns the differences not the similarities and I think this pushes us further apart.
Some of us, myself included woul arge for a synthesis of our ToM with NT ToM at an acccademic level to create a more unified model, combined that would have more meaning than a unilateral model to all of us.

One other thought is that social exclusion may , in a feedback cycle, result in us not being able to automatically engage in relationship/group ToM and our minds are tying to fill the gaps that should be there in normal converstaion ie the absence of received communication from others, by talking to ourselves?



Meme