Issue with Theory of Mind.

Post Reply New Topic

It's difficult because you're not seeing anything at all. It's all invisible. I don't know ahead of time how someone is going to interpret what I say so sometimes I'm rude without meaning to be. And how can you really know someone unless you understand how they understand your words/actions? Communication isn't a case of one word -> one meaning, you need ToM to interpret the intentions of other people and to be sure that you're intentions are being interpreted correctly. Or incorrectly, if you want to lie.

Actually yes I see the tension and movements in people, so its no fantasy, I actually build the knowledge on facts. But its not just observing, its also affecting me to a point that I cant describe other than as art. Expressions are art. Mostly I receive an info when somebody has a problem with something or tries to be/express something he/she is not. Then it starts...

I don't really follow you mate, sorry. I don't understand what "expressions are art" means for example.

I never said anything was a fantasy, so I don't know what you mean by that.

What does "Then it starts..." mean?

Also, do you understand what I'm saying? About the importance of interpretation in communication.

There was something like this about a week ago in the parents forum. This one was also about knowing what another person knew and didn't know. I got the wrong answer as well, but it would be rather pointless to take the test again, because now I've memorized that logical pattern. I can screw up most psychological tests if I've taken anything similar in the past by using such techniques.

Sorry, Ill try to explain. I think expressions are art because any expression of anything is art. If something affects me I see art.

Just because you said that its "invisible", I was thinking that its not, because I see the tension and understand the intension of it with all my senses. So it is not invisible, its very clear.

Then it starts: I start questioning, setting up theories/hypotheses if the person either is affected by this or that, I notice everything that affects the person and how the person is affected by the different inputs (how intense, important/if its positive or negative etc.) I also notice what does not affect the person and what the person is trying not to be affected of and when the person acts and is not conscious. If the person puts on an act its easy to see which role model he/she is following, and so on. Its not my intension to do it, and sometimes I have to turn away from people if I really dont want to know the details!! !

I think the key issue is what triggers the empathy or the response to it. I believe that NT's have a direct brain link between sensory input and emotional parts of the brain... in short, they can see someone in distress and the empathic reaction kicks in... and its then processed by the higher cognition areas of the brain (logic, speech,etc).

AS apparently (this is just my wild guess) have the sensory input linked to the higher cognition areas first and then passed on to the emotional areas. So for those with AS, they can see someone in emotional distress and not get the instant empathic kick unless the higher functions in the brain 'decide' its emotional distress and only then its passed in a rather diluted form to the emotional areas.

My impression is that you're talking as an observer of social interactions rather than as an active participant. Is that fair?

You are right. Im observing the human being in its natural environments.

But next to that I have a life, and a different understanding of whats normal.
I participate a whole lot, in the things that I find interesting. That means in the wrong company, I dont participate because its boring, so I seek the right company, where I have a lot of fun.

Fair dos. Myself, I want to be able to interact with the average person with confidence, for practical reasons mostly. After all, I'm a human being too.

BTW, remember to check out that book if you're interested.

Thank you for the tip, Ill see if I can get it

Jordan Peterson (some people hate him, but he has good psychology advice sometimes) gave me a good tip, which was to try to figure out what people's aim was. It's an active sort of curiosity... like are they dropping any clues with body language, facial expression, or tone of voice? Everything outside the face-value words? Peterson warns that people's mere words are often a subterfuge where deeper motives are actually the plot, as it were.

I think a key aspect of Theory of Mind is to really accept that people are complex, and can be assumed to hold many of their cards close to their chest (will almost certainly remain somewhat of a mystery); then having accepted this, watch what emerges, eschewing prediction and assumption.

I've gotten a lot from Mr. Peterson as well, tough I find him to have dropped the metaphorical ball a bit as of late. He is going counter to his own advise in some cases; weter or not he realizes it but I think his echo-chamber got to restrictive and he is pushing heavy on the differentiators between people where as a younger doctor Peterson would have shunned away from this and tried to turn us towards our similarities. imho...

Your (CapedOwl) remark on theory of mind is interesting, but, and please correct me as I would not want to straw-man your point, it seems to point to us humans always having a 'hidden agenda'? (keeping our card close to our chest) where I am more of the opinion that we're all just stumbling blindly in the square meter of insight we have.
"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by incompetence (or stupidity)." - Hanlon's razor (might even be attributed to Napoleon)
The above is a quote I mentally refer to often (very often)
A point/lesson that still holds up for me, from prof. Peterson's courses is that many people that openly act in a generous, holier than thou manner have deep dark sides to themselves which they are 'compensating" with by their social behavior. So perhaps this is what you were referring to...

Kind regards,
Kada