Things YOU Understand (but Don't Understand) About NTs

Post Reply New Topic

Oh. there is more to it than "non-verbal communication differences." You have heard of the Sally-Anne test? ( if not Goggle it- I dont feel like explaining it )
I'll say that this is another pin of the underpin difference: in gauging the intention of another mind, (aka Sally - Anne).

Some young autistic pass this test; but I get the impression that at the core, the fundamental difference, is a lack in interest in ToM- in other words emotions are involved in naturally gauging "ToM" that typical people do emotively.



The "rules" that are followed are all related to the human conscience - right /wrong and are emotive in nature. They are all related to the unconscious "social pact,"(the actual legislation being a more conscious): mores or morals follow these. It's highly symbolic, and in some cultures it's immoral for a woman to step across a man. In Rome, infanticide was "moral" by exposing infants that appeared to be defective. See -- very reprehensible - abhorrent by our lights - but why not by their lights?
I dont think it is a stretch to say that the "unconscious pact" isn't embraced by each and every individual -- think about slavery. Some people rejected that social construct, but most did abide by that. See how emotions play on us? See -- what do we do today that would be reprehensible by a future observer?

Unsolicited advice, "No I didn't ask you for your opinion and advice!" also people thinking i am stupid because of the way I talk.

First, the Sally-Anne test is for young children, so I'm not sure how applicable it is in this case. From my perspective, pure logic would be more than enough to realize that she's going to look for her marble where she left it if she's unaware that it's been moved. And if one can observe that she wasn't present when the deception occurred, it should be self-evident that she wouldn't know any better. Is that really a ToM issue? Regardless, young children don't really have much life experience to question the why of what they're taught regarding social responses.

Now what you're saying about relative moralism is interesting. You see, if different societies have different rights and wrongs, it would indicate that certain "morals" are subjective. In other words, there's no universal (or at least in many cases a disagreement) as to what is or isn't moral. But you're saying to an NT, understanding the morals themselves are somewhat irrelevant. Whatever they are, they are. Clearly they're not universal if an NT from one culture could disagree with the NT of another culture about what was moral. But that fact that the two NTs, within their respective societies, chose to abide by whatever their social rules are is indicative of NT behavior? An NT, regardless of his society's definition of "morals," will never question them?

It would seem that many say aspies can't fathom these morals in the first place, or don't know they're supposed to abide by them without question. I'm saying that I feel I'm not unaware or in the dark, but I still have this inner propensity and desire to question them, whether they're right or wrong. Why do NTs lack this desire? Or is it true that autists are just clueless? Where does that leave the person who understands but questions? Why doesn't anyone else question?

That's funny, because who the hell asked for your opinion, chtucker18??

JOKE!

Most autistics miss the question at 5. It develops later, but some, way into adulthood will miss it - cant work it, or work the steps out.



No - I'm sure we know intellectuals that do this day to day. But, how many people do you know that value thinking? What percentage consider their societal underpinnings? Is there a need here when one exists on the fat end? There is the tendency to what others are doing, and if the value of thinking is impoverished -- guess what?

What do you think of the link in my signature?

I am curious if NTs just know the answer automatically/intuitively. I can answer it correctly, but I have to think it through to be sure.

LOL! I've never got the religious thing either. I respect that people go to church but its all too much for me.

And they think I'm the freak...!

With the Sally-Anne test, I honestly can't say how I would have answered at age 5. I still stand by the idea that logic alone is more than enough to figure it out.

With the question on NTs, I wasn't talking about NT intellectuals, but all NTs. I didn't think one had to be an intellectual to ever ask these questions, but maybe I was mistaken. I don't want to sound arrogant, but I guess my disappointment came from expecting too much from people. Do aspies ask these questions naturally, or in response to being out-of-step with the majority? How can one distinguish aspie from NT intellectual?

Now, as for the link, my God, that's some great stuff. I totally identify with Persona A. Is Person A an aspie? As far as dealing with B types, I'm not oblivious to them entirely. That's why I always feel I have to walk on eggshells and make sure I clarify what it is I'm saying. If someone seems to misunderstand, I'm always quick to try to erase any confusion. It's exhausting, and I wonder what gives them the right to be so presumptuous? For them to assume they're correct when they're misperceiving me. For them to feel their incorrect assumption must be the correct one, and justify their emotional reaction based soley on their opinion. How can they be so "confident" in themselves, especially when they're mistaken? And how can they never see any of this, ever?

And if person B is an NT, then this link seems to suggest the Person B lacks ToM in regards to person A. But it seems most of what I hear of ToM is only said to be lacking in the Person A when such miscommunication happens.

http://www.paulcooijmans.com/psychology ... quest.html

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QjkTQtggLH4[/youtube]

On the spectrum^
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I0zTg65aaCY[/youtube]

Typical ^

It's pretty quick.

That doesn't really answer my question.

I dont know what you are specifically looking for V., but:
I wonder what mental imagery flashed through his head when he imagined "Grandma." Was the answer intuitively generated? Probably. This same boy, at 4, misses the test. Somewhere, sometime, a social imagination was unconsciously created - between 4-5.

The actual thought processes. Is it simply a flash of "intuition" or a conscious processing of information, like a flowchart? Or something else?

Since you called me "V" I'm tempted to switch to using an Order of the Stick avatar.

Mydar, I was looking forward to hearing your take on my response to your link with Person A and Person B.

In regards to seeing the Sally-Anne Test in action, three possibilities go through my mind:

1) The boy couldn't put two-and-two together and realize that in Sally's mind, the marble is still where she left it. This would be ToM.

2) The boy may have understood what happened, but failed to understand the question, confusing "where will Sally look for the marble" with "where should Sally look for the marble." I've noticed a lot of kids TV shows today involve the main character "breaking the 4th wall" and asking the TV audience where something is, to allow the viewing children to feel like they're interacting with the character. I wonder if this would impact a child's ability to take a test today.

3)The boy has very poor short-term memory and couldn't distinguish Sally from Anne by the end, thinking that Sally was actually Anne. Meaning he'd know that Anne knows where the marble is, but unable able to realize he's being asked about Sally.

The second test actually seemed much better at testing ToM, and should probably be used over the Sally-Anne Test.

We are looking at a 'concept' of human behavior/relations, of people relating/communicating to other people- aka "ToM." You can split the hair on all mental health conditions: schizoid, schizotypal, borderline personailty disorders, etc. You can even apply ToM to the intellectually challenged or intellectually deprived via culture, as what I believe to be the case in the link.

If it's a flash of intuition( what I believe it is), then that intuition is a feeling.. The choice made is a surety, without doubt, about his judgement with Grandma.

He quickly deliberated on that scenario with conscious input, gauged against a flow chart already in place - an instinct. He projected himself into her persona and felt that for a surety, that to imagine what another person ( Grandma) would do, reading a chocolate bag.
The flow chart instinct: "It would be impossible for her to think anything but 'chocolate.'"

This is a fascinating thread though I've struggled to follow through all the arguments so I hope what I'm about to post now is not completely off topic (if it is please ignore me and carry on... )

I'm not quite sure what is being meant by NT in this discussion, so I'll use the term mainstream society (by which I mean the vast majority of people and not me as I don't think of myself as mainstream and behaving and thinking like most people) and hope this is close enough to what everyone else is talking about.

So 2 things I wanted to mention

1) Practical Jokes

Ok so, I don't get practical jokes AT ALL. Why is it funny to humiliate someone else, who you like, in front of others, and why do they find this funny too, why is this seen as playful?

I realise there can be a fine line between a practical joke and a deliberate malicious intended humiliation, but I NEVER find ANY practical jokes funny even the fairly gentle ones which cause no harm accept to make a person look a bit silly, they always just make me uncomfortable.

I appreciate that lots of people find practical jokes very funny and appear not to find them malicious at all - but I just don't get why.

2) Automatic reading of body language / other non-verbal cues and the degree to which people in the mainstream intuitively do this
{this bit goes on for a bit ignore if you don't like long posts}

This automatic (intuitive) reading of body language discussion is confusing me, as I'm really not sure if I do this or not.

I'm not sure whether I can't do this intuitively AT ALL, I think I may struggle with it, but I do have an awful lot of rules stored in my head which I have built up over the years which I use to facilitate social interaction.

Let me try and elaborate a bit...

I cannot imagine exactly how someone else is understanding me based on how I am physically presenting to them, and I don't automatically intuitively understand them from non-verbal cues as such, but I can do the following:-
- Makes sure I do not use rude and offensive words
- Not use a harsh tone of voice, if I don't know someone well, I make an effort to keep my voice inflections calm and level as this seem to prevent any musunderstandings
- Try not do anything someone might find weird or offensive while talking to someone.
(e.g. I don't pick my nose, scratch myself in weird places and I try to make at least some level of eye contact - not too much (as staring freaks people out, but no eye contact also freaks people)
- Make sure I try and explain what I want as clearly and succintly as possible
- Ask for clarification if I don't understand what someone has just said or asked (if it seems important otherwise I might just leave it)
- I also try to listen carefully and give someone my full attention (else I may forget what they are saying halfway through).
- If some-one looks distressed, e.g. their face has gone a bit weird (colouring, tears, scrunching up) or they're starting to fidget a lot or raise their voice, I will take a moment to observe them and try to understand why they are distressed / excited by paying attention to how they look and what they've just said, tone of voice etc - again this is deliberate not automatic (it is helped if at this point I pause briefly to give myself time to process all of this). I will then try and respond appropriately from the big store of rules I now have in my head about general human behaviour I have onserved over the years.

I am uncertain exactly how long I have been doing this but I would say that over the last 35 years (not sure if I did this at all before 5) I have built up a library in my head of appropriate and not appropriate behaviours, and what people's body language tends to mean etc.

It's almost like a stored set of logic statements or equations that can be relied on to interpret other people
e.g. - if red in face might be embarrassed or angry
- was the redness something that flushed and then subsided - probably embarrasment
- are they quiet? - probably embarrassed then but are they clenching fists etc - might be angry
- are they shouting and/or using offensive language? probably angry
and so on...

(I'll then keep modfiying my understanding as new inputs come in and so on...)

I'm not at all sure I get the subtle nuances of social interactions, but I have no problems making myself understood, or (I think) understanding the main points of what someone is trying to say. And I generally don't seem to offend people (unless very stressed and unable to pay full attention to the interaction).

I have no idea if this is a more autistic like or NT like way of handling social interactions...as there is both a semi-automatic and also a very conscious element to it.

I generally feel quite tired when I have been having a long conversation (more than 30 minutes) with anyone. Or if I have had to have a lot of short (5-10) minute interactions within one day. Social interactions can be quite hard work and wearing for me- they are definitley NOT relaxing.

So I guess I think this might link in some way to Theory of Mind (ToM) discussion above

Any thoughts...