Is Theory of Mind a set of conventions?

Post Reply New Topic

I don't know how to explain what I mean, so I'll just give examples.

1. In the "Sally and Anne Test" they give kids, if the girl that went out of the room knows that the one that remained inside always moves her stuff around when she goes out of the room, she would've automatically gone look for the candy in a different place. So there isn't just one interpretation possible. The interpretation that examiners assume to be the only correct one would then just be the conventional interpretation, not necessarily the logical one but the "generalized logic", the "agreed upon logic", the "common sense", i.e. the convention.

2. If someone keeps saying they're busy, the convention is to understand they don't want to hang with us. But it's not always the logical interpretation, as there's always the possibility that the person is being honest. The convention is to say one is busy when one doesn't want to meet someone, and the convention is to understand they don't want to hang with us, but apart from convention I don't see any other logic.

If ToM is a set of conventions and not law of human nature, then our problem is not with grasping the laws of human state of mind but of grasping conventions, i.e. artificial constructs...

Sorry, Moondust, it's not like that. At least, as far as I understand it it's not.

For a neurotypical, non-verbal communication with other people starts happening really early, and everything else gets built on top. Theory of Mind collects some architectural rules for that building.

For us, assuming you're a bit like me, that didn't happen. We grew up in a world with one person in it, and our machinery is constructed differently in consequence.

Implying that autism is determined during the first years of life
according to most theories however, you are autistic before you are born and it's a physical thing(genes, different brain structure, damaged reflexes, etc) not psychological one.

It isn't implying that exactly. You can be born mentally ret*d and thus never learn to read, but everyone else still has to learn to read. Similarly, with autism, you can be born with difficulties learning to read social cues etc., but NTs still have to learn the intricacies of ToM and so forth.

I think you may be using too much adult intelligence on the Sally Ann test. You're correct, but it would be much more common for a young child to just imagine the simplest scenario, i.e. that the one who left the room didn't expect anybody to move the item. The autistic child sees that the item did get moved, and cannot understand that the doll hasn't seen what they saw. The autistic child fails to get into the other person's shoes. But, as with many tests, one can be too intelligent to get the right answer. My answer would be "Dolls don't think."

Conventional people sometimes say they're busy as a white lie. If they were really busy, they'd probably explain more details of what they're busy with, to show they were telling the truth, and they might suggest another time. But so much depends on the individual........some folks lie very convincingly, others get flustered when they really are busy, and forget to hand out any reassurances. I'm afraid there's no substitute for knowing the person. But with unknown people, it's useful to keep in mind that the convention is to avoid directly rejecting anybody with words. Most people won't say "I don't want to be with you." It's really confusing sometimes when they say they're busy and I don't know if they mean it. Probably good to be proactive and put it to the test in some small way......perhaps ask them to meet and see if they make another excuse. Or even question their excuse mildly, and withdraw if they seem to get uncomfortable (such a response would indicate a lie). Eventually you have enough information to work out who's interested in you and who isn't. The ones who aren't don't seek you out, and mostly don't show when you ask them to.

I don't think ToM is a set of conventions. I think it's just a basic grasp of what the other person is thinking. But tests have some assumptions built into them which aren't always true for everybody.
Just my 2 cents.

I don't think it's exactly that. More like, as they say, "putting yourself in the other person's place", except that NTs are similar enough that this actually works for them, and if they do personally differ from the norm they still have picked up a sense of what the norm is and so can expect each other to send messages that way. The norm might vary according to culture, but it isn't a set of rules for them so much as something they actually internalize: they don't remember there was ever a time when looking down did not signal sadness or 50% eye contact didn't show someone was friendly. I think that many of them are barely even aware of it if they feel or experience anything outside of what they have learned it is normal to feel.

Incidentally, I failed that Sally and Anne test because I reasoned that if the second doll knew where the first doll hid the object (as she apparently did) then there was some reason (like spying or being psychic), and the second doll could very well have done the same. Besides, I figured, if the answer was as obvious as having the first doll look where she'd left the item, why would there be a test at all? That's a pretty good reflection of how I look at social situations, though. If one little thing doesn't make sense to me I over-think everything ("that compliment came from nowhere. It can't be true, so it must be sarcasm. They're all laughing at me.") or I don't generalize as much as I probably should but actually put myself in the other person's place ("She's looking down. If I was looking down I'd be thinking and want to be left alone, so I'll just leave her alone.") That is, I'm perfectly capable of "imagining" what other people might be thinking, I just lack the common sense to do it accurately.

As an adult, I failed the Sally-Anne Test, because I didn't think about what others were thinking. Instead, I answered the location of the marble. I think that this is how most autistic children fail the test. They don't think about what others are thinking. They answer the location of the marble. When I was a child, I didn't think about what others were thinking. As an adult, I still don't. I don't have a natural instinct to think about what others are thinking. NTs do. My natural instinct is to focus on objects instead of people, so I answered the location of the marble on the Sally-Anne Test.

Yes, this is exactly my question. Having ToM is of course an ability, but its object is convention, not natural law.

We don't have the ability to pick up norms. As opposed to we don't have the ability to pick up natural states of mind. This is, for me, a hugely important distinction. We're not blind to what there is, we're blind to what there should be.

One important implication is that people want you to assume the conventional assumption, even if it's wrong, rather than not assume anything and expect to be told / ask directly / assume from something other than convention. There have to be many other implications.

Another implication would be that NTs are no better than us at picking up the real state of mind of another, they just assume the commonality.

I think the convention seems like natural law for them. That is to say, it becomes their reality, and they lose awareness that there is anything else. If they are actually busy and can't hang out, they don't think "hm, I can't say it like that or she will think that I'm blowing her off because that's the convention" - it would never even occur to them to say "I'm busy" in that case. They just do it the way it's "done" without a thought. So I guess I'm saying I think you're right but it isn't the same as when we consciously learn a set of rules, and trying to adopt it that way still doesn't necessarily let us blend in.

I mean, I make a conscious effort to figure out the conventions and rules of any social situation I find myself in, but even when I have a sense that I know (some of) them, I can't naturally modify my behavior to fit them. I still react based on my understanding of the specific situation, actual feelings in the moment, conscious thoughts about what will work, etc., so I end up with a reaction that ranges from slightly delayed and stiff to completely off. The social reality doesn't become my own reality, it just gets kind of awkwardly pasted over it and I'll be hung up on the fact that I'm "acting" or even "lying". I think that takes place, for NTs, out of their conscious awareness.

And does NTs' ToM remain as functional then? Or does it continue interpreting another's state of mind according to the rules / norms of their culture of origin, until they learn the new culture?



Same as my reasoning for 4 decades was "why would someone want another to call and call rather than get rid of them by saying the truth? It wouldn't make sense." So I figured they were truly busy. Actually, they didn't want me to call again, but they were expecting me to know the convention as well and thus figure they were blowing me off.

If ToM is about assuming the "normal" assumption rather than the logical one, then relating seems to be a net woven by the assumptions of both people about one another, and any similarities to reality, pure coincidence.

I think I heard something about autistic people getting along well with foreigners, or when they are foreigners, because of the similarities. In another culture some of the aspie quirks are written off as cultural differences.

Of course ToM is an innate ability they have and we don't, and it's totally unconscious and can't be imitated. No question about that. But I had always thought NTs could pick up the REAL thing, and now I'm starting to think that they just pick up clues and interpret them according to a pre-conceived mold that can fit the situation or not. A lot less fascinating than I thought.

I once won a scholarship that was extremely hard to win because they were looking for very rare people who could insert themselves in a new culture and learn it without pre-conceptions. Someone without ToM like me, makes sense I won.

Well, if they really could pick up on the real thing, they'd be able to understand us. Lately I'm feeling very resentful about that, actually: they expect me to go out of my way to understand them, but my whole life consists of being misunderstood. I'm supposed to spare them the pain that is my normal reality. I'm inclined to do as they do for a change, and criticize them for failing to read my mind.

And yeah, lately it's starting to look less fascinating to me too, and less powerful. It's actually kind of stupid. No wonder I get along better when I'm too drunk to think about what's actually true or not instead of just accepting the nonsense people are saying and running with it.

Theory of mind is how NTs think about each other. It doesn't work when applied to the minds of people who are not NTs, eggspecially autistic people who are born different and develop differently. Most of what NTs are thinking about what autistic people are thinking is wrong, because NTs are using NT theory of mind to think about what autistic people are thinking, and autistic people are not thinking like NTs.

Exactly, that's what I was thinking too.

If so, then no wonder relating is so impossible for me. All that I am, say and do being interpreted according to a set of rules that I don't even know, much less follow! If their programming told them "Error: can't read the signs" it'd be less bad, but their programming tells them I'm signaling something totally different from what I'm signaling.