Issue with Theory of Mind.

Post Reply New Topic

I was listening to a Psychology podcast and the topic of Theory of Mind and the whole (moving the item/ball) study was mentioned. I understand this,but was curious if something else related to it. For example not having empathy or understanding how someone feels about an issue is this theory of mind? (It's a little more complicated than moving some item or ball) For example if someone is upset over something I am expected to understand they are upset and yet I don't understand that they are (or am I off?)

I find that Sally Ann test to be inaccurate. It works on aspie kids but not on adolesesant (sp) and adults. It always shocks me when they do fail it because where's the logic in how would Sally know Ann moved the ball if she wasn't in the room? It's more of a logical test than a TOM test.

I do think the rest you mentioned has to do with TOM. It's more complexed than a moved item and the person not seeing it. Also another example of TOM is knowing how another person is going to feel if you say X to them. Even if you suspect they may get upset over that comment, is that still TOM? Maybe.

I couldn't understand the TOM thing until I read the satirical explanation on http://isnt.autistics.org/

The basic difference seems to be:
NT Theory of Mind = Everyone thinks like me, except when shown to be otherwise.
Autistic Theory of Mind = Everyone thinks differently from me -- vastly and mysteriously -- except when shown to be otherwise.

My understanding is that we have our own version that develops in a different way.

I believe the those who theoretically lack this theory of mind..notice I say "theoretically" as it has not been shown this idea is correct, is when a person lacks the realization that other individuals are sentient beings who are trying to communicate with them. The person who lacks theory of mind would not realize they are not alone in the world.

This differs from a sociopath, in that a sociopath realizes the other person is a sentient, thinking being (though has no ability to empathize with them) and realizes they can interact with this person.

The person who lacks theory of mind basically is born into the perception that the world is filled with themselves and automated unthinking "machines" (other people)

I disagree, as it has been my observation that with AS at least, many individuals seem to expect others with AS to think like them.

I have certainly had the problem that there is a "right" answer to some things, and I expect other people to see the same answer. It is an expectation that reason alone will always result in the same rational outcome for all people given the same facts. This has become really obvious at work in at least two kinds of situation:

1) My knowledge of the situation has changed, perhaps because someone phoned me. I expect that everyone else will share my state of knowledge, without even thinking about sharing it, so we have a discussion where neither side understands what the disagreement is about, until that "missing piece" comes to light. I suppose that is exactly like the Sally Ann test.

2) We all share the same knowledge, but some parts of it have a heavy emotional weighting. We had a disaster involving the wrong labels on envelopes, which would never have occurred if we used windowed envelopes (where the address on the letter shows through), but the office manager had some unspoken emotional revulsion for windowed envelopes. Equally, try clearing out the unwanted junk from somebody else's room.

you're probably right, and even so it can only work with someone of a certain age / level of development.

theory of mind is much more complicated than that. i notice now things like gut instinct to get infuriated at the driver next to me (who probably can't see, or in reality isn't paying attention) not slowing down to let me into their lane. neighbor being too loud, obviously knowing she's bothering me! so then i might do something like: storm into hallway and yell at neighbor, because she obviously knows - she's been bothering me for an hour and hasn't stopped!

then, i can pick it apart later and realize it's irrational.

same, reading here on wp posts dissenting from my own opinion - first instinct is "you're wrong!" and to take it as a personal offense, even if it's a discussion i haven't been involved in. so, my understanding is exactly what Chronos said, i initially expect everyone thinks like me, or has the same preferences / intolerances.



yes. i even have my own set of "social rules" (more like ethical guidelines) whereby it is unfathomable to me if someone does something i wouldnt do, such as driving after more than two drinks, staying in a relationship when their partner has done something i deem intolerable, putting on a happy face when discussing something (i'm privy to) they are actually distressed about, not finishing a plate of food at a restaurant, at laundromat folding socks in half instead of turning one inside out or tying in a knot, etc etc etc etc etc ...

when i think about these things i even dislike my own rigidity, but there it is. not really rigidity as much as preferences, and failing to understand other people having different ones. first instinct is to be shocked / appalled. then after pondering i find i am actually quite tolerant, but cannot immediately understand the differences in thought, or expect people to consider my way of thinking as the correct one before deciding to act on theirs.

Ah........... I think I can agree with both of you

In my opinion MOST people THINK that 'everyone thinks like me' (especially married men in relation to their wives)

HOWEVER for Autistics, this assumption is almost certainly wrong in almost every case

With NTz, I think the success rate is probably MUCH higher

My impression is that "theory of mind" can mean two slightly different things:

1 - Understanding that other people have their own thougts, emotions, ideas, etc

2 - Understanding what that thougts, emotions, ideas, etc are (in this meaning, is more or less the same thing as "cognitive empathy")

There are different things - a person with Paranoid Personality Disorder, who thinks that everybody is conspiring against him, has TM 1, but not TM 2.

I feel like nobody thinks like me, but like I can't truly connect with what other people are thinking. I don't project my thoughts on other people but I guess my TOM still isn't intact if I can't feel truly connected to someone. I'm usually able to gauge other people's thoughts enough to keep myself out of trouble but sometimes I completely miss things, and do things that make me seem like an ass when I think about them later. I don't think I ever could have failed the Sally Anne test, though.

IDK if I truly understand this TOM deal, either.

Hope you dont mind that I refresh this old tread. By the way: maybe somebody can explain me how that [POLL] thing works?

First I want to say that I guess Ive learned theory of mind to a high level because Ive noticed since childhood that people are more unconscious than me, and not because I was missing empathy (which Ive read somewhere else).
People can approach me without perceiving my presence and without being conscious that he/she approaches me. When I share a moment with a conscious person, the person is only conscious for a couple of seconds at a time. Im not saying that I am constantly conscious, but Im often and for long moments conscious when most people are not. Most people have a natural need to destroy consciousness by any means of distraction.

I have a lot of empathy, but I cant share nothing with somebody who is unconscious. It would be the same as being alone.
I experience that people suddenly expect of me to share empathy with them, I mean; being unconscious and at the same time demanding of me to support them. Its egoistic. What do I gain out of that? I decide when and what I will share, and with who, and if people think I don’t like them if I don’t support their feelings whenever they need it, they are wrong.

My mindset in general differs from the standard, as I e.g. have completely different themes to speak about when I have watched a movie with an NT, or that I e.g dont experience happiness over superficialities and feel something is inconvenient in other situations than NTs do. Therefore our feelings also hardly ever match.
I have close contact to other aspies, and they have the same humor, themes I think are interesting and have the same problems regarding misunderstandings with NTs. If Im affected by something myself, I can glance in their direction and I know they have noticed the same, and Im talking about things no NT notice. Therefore I will say that we have a common theory of mind, like NTs. I instinctively understand both different patterns in thinking.

When it comes to empathy between me and other aspies, it usually works fine, we understand each other and that our emotions are honest and so we can encourage each other.

I think this is right, but both 1 and 2 belong together, and something is missing; 3: its possible to fake.
A person with paranoid personality disorder is maybe missing TM2 when he/she is paranoid, but nobody is constantly paranoid.

You can put the creatures on this planet in a consciousness scale, where humans are the most conscious, cats more conscious than dogs etc. I havent made a detailed scientific research, so if somebody has one, I would be interested.

I learned early in school that we can understand animals because they are more primitive. This is wrong because animals also understand us, and sometimes they trick us (my cat is good at it), so it has nothing to do with primitiveness that we can/cannot predict each other. It is natural and the most conscious wins in the end because he/she can see that the other being is missing the moment.
Animals can like humans fake that they are affected in a different way or not affected at all by something thats e.g. embarrassing. I can laugh tears when I see an animal in that situation.
Theory of mind is how to define if somebody is fantasizing/learning/being affected/having a need for something etc. etc. etc. -> or is faking this. If you're good at this, you understand why people behave like they do, next to the message people want to convey. There is no hocus pocus about this. Its based alone on ability to be conscious about every little detail that could be important for the story.
Consciousness is more than just being intellectual aware. Its understanding a whole moment, stretching a second of time and giving place to every detail to see and feel as much as possible. Some peoples presence is painful because of their inner stress, and it can give me serious physical pain to converse with them, because the tension affects my body. There is no way I can choose not to be affected by somebody like that, even if Im mental unaware in the moment.

One important thing is that other people of course feel differently than myself, so I cant really know what they feel or think, just that they feel/think. Anyway, I can see/hear/guess what triggers it and automatically compare to myself and what Ive learned about others; so this, including being aware that I might be wrong in one or more points, (having a bunch of unfinished theories) makes me actually almost know what they feel/think. If I e.g. sense somebody is insulted by the words of somebody else, but wants to hide it, I notice in the next moments, regarding how the persons natural general behavior is having a touch of it, without the person knowing that he/she is giving obvious signs about it, how severe the issue is or if he/she doesnt take it so seriously, so that the issue even may be gone by the next moment. There are also degrees of how good people hide their true feelings, and a lot of people fake feelings.

Everything that a person is processing can be seen, no matter if it is an unconscious process, an attempt to hide something or open as can be.

I can also see what people do to each other and for which primitive reasons, and mostly they don’t know what they do. People are just not conscious about what they cause/how they affect the world and move brutally around everywhere with mostly egoistic intentions. This is just the bad side of the picture, so don’t misunderstand me and think I have a negative view of things, because the good side of the picture sure is fantastic.

One difficult thing is the pungent detailed understanding of things that are unpleasant to think about. Im having strong experiences about everything I think about. Its hard to take, but if I manage to go through it with a scientific curiosity I survive (and sometimes its so heavy that I have to laugh) and after, but only after, I can think of something else.

The definite and only big problem (for me) is the possibility of experiencing a painful environment which can set my organism out of order.

When I think about this, I wander why so many aspies on WP say that they have problems understanding people. One of the aspies I know (he is diagnosed AS) has a problem knowing if he annoyes his conversation partners or not, so that he often asks: "shall I keep going or is it enough?" or something like that. Well... it just seems like we are extreme in different directions here, so what is going on? Anybody relate, understand or the opposite? Any input please!

What about understanding that other people understand that you have thoughts etc. Or understanding that someone else understands that other people have thoughts etc. Theory of mind can get very complicated in groups of people.



Maje, there's a pop science book that contains something like this, I've posted about it before. It's called The Human Story by Robin Dunbar.

I'm 52 and fail this test if I slip into visual processing. If I process it symbolically I get it right.

Yes what about it? Is it overly difficult to see that a person is observant of another? You cant see how people are affected by each other? That somebody e.g. is adoring somebody else because of what the person does/says/wears or how he/she moves or whatever reason?

You think it is difficult to see that also another person notice the same (that the person is affected by another) information?

I have absolutely now difficulties in this. But it also can never be perfect because the brain can never be 100% online, so sometimes I get more, sometimes less, also depending on how much I "choose" to be conscious in the current moment.

Anyway I dont do it on purpose, I just understand it and have no choice but to take into consideration what I know. I cant just not care about it as soon as I know it, so sometimes I just know too much and then I feel kind of sneaky for knowing it.

Well I'll be damned... I'm a borderline ol' fart and I still got it wrong.