Do You Hate The Way The Mainstream Media Explains Theory of

Post Reply New Topic

Theory of Mind Deficit is usually described as "an inability to understand that people have minds of their own."

Taken literally this would mean that we are not even aware of the bare fact that people have minds of their own. I'd like to point out that for a person to really not know that they either have to have adopted a philosophical position of solipsism which NTs are perfectly capable of doing too, or they have to be completely ignorant of any language(otherwise they will get around to reading about the fact that other people have minds of their own).

Furthermore beyond an understanding at a bare fact level most of us are capable of considering other people's needs removed from the actual moment, working it out analytically. The phraseology that is most commonly used does not bother mentioning that theory of mind deficit only applies to intuition and not to the process of deliberate, reasoned interpretation. That leaves the reader to assume that we can't consider others even if we deliberately contemplate it.

This annoys me, because of the misconceptions this leads people to about us.

It follows the whole "either you know it or you don't know it" fallacy. I hate it when people say that. NO, sometimes I know something only if there aren't too many distractions. Sometimes I can tell I have a piece of knowledge in my mind but I can't fully access it because people won't shut up to allow me to look into my mind and pull it out. "Working memory"=/="Long-Term Memory".

This sounds like political correctness but I think people should all get into the habit of specifying whether someone's ability/disability applies within an intuitive or rational context to avoid perpetuating the assumption that a deficit in intuition necessarily implies a deficit in reason.

Is it too much to ask for those journalists to start describing theory of mind deficit as "an inability to intuit information about other's mental states"? I don't know anything about what the stars and planets that exist in other galaxies look like or how many there are or what life looks like and how it lives in those galaxies, but that doesn't mean I don't know they exist in the first place. I suppose if they defined it down to a problem with intuition it wouldn't seem that sensationalist. More people would read it and think "hey I know someone like that at work/school/etc." or "that totally describes my friend,__ he's always mixing up what people say." God forbid we normalize autism and cost the media its cash cow!

I suppose some autistics, the ones who haven't learned a language or have but have never been exposed to a psychology textbook might literally fit the way theory of mind is described. That might be worth mentioning that some of us don't know other minds exist until we read about it and that this is really just a period in early childhood that NT children go through that is sometimes extended in our case, but leaving the reader to assume that a lack of intuition also means a lack of factual knowledge is not fair for us and only perpetuates discrimination and stereotypes. Language like they use makes it easy for people to think of us as non-persons.

Redacted.

Last edited by Willard on 01 Oct 2011, 9:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.

This bothers me as well. It's ludicrous.



This is an excellent point. Does it really matter how a person develops their understanding of others--shouldn't the most important thing be that they develop an understanding?

I often wonder if the biggest difference in theory of mind between people with autism and NTs is simply a matter of the speed or efficiency of information processing. I don't believe that NT "intuition" is some sort of magical process or innate understanding of others that didn't have to be learned. I think that it's essentially the same kind of rational thought process used by a person on the spectrum. With an NT, though, I think that both the process of learning about other people and applying one's knowledge happens so efficiently that it's automatic and largely subconscious.

I can't simultaneously process all of the information available to me during an interaction with someone. I can pay attention to someone's words or I can pay attention to something nonverbal like their tone of voice or facial expression--but I can only pay attention to one thing at a time. This means that I miss important indicators of what another person thinks/feels, and have to consciously put together every bit of information I do have.

My inability to process multiple verbal and/or non-verbal messages simultaneously means that the cognitive process I use to form theories about other minds will never be efficient enough for it to become wholly instinctive or "intuitive.".....It does not mean that I lack the ability to understand that others have minds different from my own--nor does it mean that I lack the ability to use information (the same kinds of information NTs use) to make inferences about another person's thoughts/feelings.

I also think it's unfair to say that intuition is "better" than conscious deliberation--this seems to be insinuated by every author who links theory of mind and its components with "what makes us human." Intuitive theory of mind may be much more effective than conscious deliberation in situations where "reading" another person must happen quickly (i.e. assessing threat) and I'm sure that intuitive theory of mind also allows for much quicker and smoother interactions between people in many (not all) situations....but that doesn't mean that intuition has no downsides, nor that conscious deliberation has no upsides.

A lot of what is called "intuition" is actually based on "assumption" and "generalization"--people's "intuited" knowledge about the thoughts and emotions of others is often completely incorrect. For practical purposes, being able to develop a completely incorrect theory about what someone else thinks and feels is generally no better than being unable to develop a theory at all. In many situations, developing an incorrect theory about others is actually problematic--far more problematic than having a limited or nonexistant ability to form a theory in the first place.

I actually failed that one at the age of 15.....and I'm "cognitively high functioning."

I read an interesting research article wherein (among other things) the authors question the validity of using that particular test to determine the presence or absence of theory of mind. They present evidence that passing said test seems to be dependent on language development--as opposed to theory of mind, per se. Apparently the question that's asked of the child is one of the most complex in the English language.

Last edited by animalcrackers on 26 Sep 2011, 10:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I think that this difference only exists in the context of discussions about ASD - nobody makes that distinction in common language (and, in my maternal language, don't even work that way - "empatia" is caring about others and sharing their emotions, and "simpatia" is more being nice, friendly, agreeable...)

I still don't really understand what Theory of Mind actually is.

If you take the literal interpretation which I want to do in this case, it just means someone understands other people have their own minds. I have my mind, they have theirs. We each have our own. I get that without any problem.

I don't understand what the big deal is. I don't get why people over complicate such a simple concept. Don't most people understand ToM when that's the definition? If you ask ten thousand people if they believe everyone is capable of having their own minds, aren't most of those people, if not all, going to reply "why yes, yes I do!" I mean, who is going to reply, "I don't think it's possible?" In all earnestness. Of course, a few smart asses might respond that way just to be funny but the serious folk are all going to answer they believe everyone is capable of having their own mind. Right?