You cannot tell me that it's normal to be a mind reader!

Post Reply New Topic

Obtuse? I am unsure what you mean by this word in this particular context.
We did not have homecoming anything at my highschool. Nor prom queens/kings either (we have socials, and also for senior high schoolers balls, sometimes called "formals", no elections involved; American proms seem rather odd and exotic social institutions to me).
In my experience, social hierarchy behavior does begin very early, much earlier than high-school. It continues through high school and does not discontinue with the end of high school. This is why I am a bit confused about calling "high school" mentality/behavior.

It seems to me to be human behavior that begins before high school, carries on after high school, and more significantly, I believe it exists even where high schools do not, and is practiced by people who never went to high school.

I believe I understand what behavior you are referring to, but I'm unsure why the association with high school in particular.

Do you mean that the behavior is immature (like high school kids), or are you referring to the behavior being more excessive at high school, or perhaps just more blatant (I wonder if this is what you mean by obtuse since "blunt" is one interpretation of "obtuse")?

Do you mean high school the institution, or high school as an easy means of referring to a particular developmental stage that tends to coincide with the ages at which people attend high school (in other words, in the absence of high schools, would the same behavioral stage be passed through because it is developmentally innate in typical humans, or do you view it as being at least in part caused by the high school environment, or is it your opinion that high school is an institution that "hyperboles" the aspects of an innate developmental stage, causing the observable results to be much more marked than they would otherwise be in an alternative environment)?


Er, how is that not "intuition"?

Pandd when I say "they" I mean people that think they can mind read well and boast about it. I'm sure some can but often I find people are misled when they try to attach all social cues to all people.

Now if you really wanted me to not say they as it has apparently put you on the defense for some strange reason I could think back in my life to every single person I've seen that have tried to judge others based on their posture, if two couples aren't talking alot it must mean they aren't in happy relationship, when that person thinks someone is interested in them because of some cue they picked up on but it turned out to be wrong, all these news stations that declare people are guilty before they go to trial based on their eyes, body movements and not crying in the way that is deemed "normal".

I won't do that though as this is a public forum and I respect "their" privacy.

If you are getting defensive because you think this is something you do often, okay

I'm not sorry.

I cannot say such people are particularly common in my experience. In fact the claim that their "spirit guide" is providing information is more common in my experience than direct claims of mind reading. I've encountered autists who describe NTs as mind reading, or expecting others to read their mind, but I cannot recall when I ever heard an NT claim to literally mind read.

Are you intending to posit that this "they" are claiming to literally read minds, or are you using the phrase metaphorically to describe the much more mundane ability to interpret non-verbal cues and indicators?

I really cannot be sure what that sentence even means. I doubt many people intentionally attach social cues to people, anymore than they intentionally attach meanings to words and sentence structures. I think most people, in most instances, simply "perceive" with very little explicit or intentional analysis involved.

I have no particular inclination either way.
I have no idea why it appears that way to you. I did not feel defensive when I read your post, when I replied to it, nor do I feel defensive now. Perhaps the appearance is under the influence of the lens through which you are choosing to view.

None of which constitutes a claim to "mind reading". Comprehending non-verbal expression and indicators is vastly different to mind reading. Otherwise why stop at non-verbal communication? If comprehending non-verbal communication is "mind reading" then why not comprehending verbal communication?

Are we discussing "mind reading" or are we discussing ordinary, mundane human communication and comprehension?

None of these things you refer to are "mind reading", or claims of mind reading. They are examples of/claims about non-verbal communication and interpretation of non-verbal indicators. That is very different to mind reading, and actually a very mundane and obviously extant competency. Of course, like other human competencies, expect variations in skill and execution, and (unless you wish to be disappointed) expect a lot of fallibility.


If you think I am defensive because you happen to feel that way, it's really not an issue I feel obliged or able to help you with.

It seems obtuse to me because we attend school to get an education and yet have to endure these contests that only affect a few people and usually they are connected to the football team. I could have done just as well in a school without all this. I did like going to pep assemblies though because it was a chance to not go to class. If I could have taken the basic classes and gone home earlier I would have been happiest since I didn't want to be there anyway. I was only interested in certain things and everything else I found so unbelievably boring I struggled thru daily assignments. I couldn't discipline myself to pay close attention and make it through something I found boring and everyone just blamed me saying it was my fault because I didn't apply myself but they didn't understand I couldn't apply myself.
To get back to the point, the Homecoming process is obtuse, yes. It doesn't have anything to do with education. It's a contest and it only involves a handful of students. You know what I think some highschool somewhere should do? (it's been done in the movie Carrie with disasterous results but has it ever been done IRL?) I think one of the schools should vote the most unlikely candidate imagineable as Homecoming Queen. Wouldn't that be something? School's supposed to be about getting an education and doing something like that surely would get people to think...which is kinda the point of school...one hopes. They should get someone everyone considers to be a complete loser and vote them Homecoming Queen for just one year or maybe have more than one Homecoming Queen, one for jocks but some for everyone else too. That way more people could be included in it instead of feeling like a loser because of it.

If you are comfortable with yourself, have friends in school, aren't depressed and like to hang out with people at your school, proms can be fun. If you dislike everyone at the school, lol, then it's who wants to spend any more time there than they have to? which was pretty much my attitude. By the time I got to "prom" stage I was so fed up with it I didn't want to be around any of them any longer than I had to so there was no way I was going to a dance with any of them.

Proms should be elective. If you want to go they're there but you don't have to go. Same with yearbooks. This is going to sound weird but I had a complex about having my picture in the yearbook. I never wanted to be in the yearbook and I wondered "why can't you have a choice about this? Why do you have to be in the yearbook even if you don't want to or have a need to?" I didn't want my picture in it because I didn't want to be there to begin with, felt I had no choice. My mom told me I had to go because if I didn't she would get blamed for my truancy so that's pretty much the only reason I was there anyway which is why I should have gotten a choice about being in the yearbook. I didn't want to have a senior picture either and the faculty kept hassling me about going and I thought "there is no way I am going up there and getting a senior picture made. No way." so whenever they started nagging me about it I just brushed them off but they were persistent. I kept hoping they would forget about it if I just ignored them and didn't go. I found friends outside of school and started spending time with them so I dropped out before having to experience what I considered to be the ultimate humilation, senior picture in the yearbook of a place I didn't want to be anyway.

I did go to dances but they were raves and they were with people I actually wanted to spend time with, who were nice to me and I voluntarily went to them and enjoyed being there. So, why not get a choice about who you go dancing with instead of so much pressure to spend a ton of money on going somewhere filled with people you don't even want to be with in the first place? If I expressed not wanting to go they all acted stunned like, "How could anyone not want to be with US???" It drove me crazy!
I kind of envy the way it is for you, and other places like where you live, Pandd, because you aren't as pressured and it's easier to get a good education.


Good point, but what I meant was, it has it's cumulation in high school with all the social pressure. It's where you feel it more accutely because you have the proms (which don't just involve the dances but an expensive dress, hair, makeup, tickets, limo drivers, expensive dinners, sometimes, hotel rooms. Some people spend a lot of money on it which is alright if you actually enjoy being around the people you go to school with, but what if you don't? You are just stuck there and you are trying desperately to pass your classes so you can escape having to go with some dignity and grace ie; not the humiliation of being a "drop out") the senior pictures (all other pictures happen during the school day while the senior picture you have to go to a studio on you own time for them to take).
Social Heirarchy behaviour starts when you start dealing with the same people everyday on a continual basis, true, but high school is an easy reference because of what happens to you while there.


I wonder about that. Is it really as bad?


I used high school as an exemplification of the behaviour I was refering to.

It is immature, imo. It's obtuse because it's doesn't involve the intellect and is so obvious. It makes people look a bit shallow too.


High School "hyperboles" because of all the pressure and lack of choices. I've always been "pro choices". IMO there aren't enough choices for how people want to experience life. If somebody wants to go to a no thrills school that doesn't take as many hours out of the day shouldn't they be able to? Shouldn't there be a school for the people who like being there and another for those who just want to do the work and leave? If someone would have said "hey do you want to go to a school that has extracurricular activities or one that just has basic stuff (no prom or yearbook photos) I would have chosen the school with "basic stuff". Such a school did exist but no one offered me a chance to attend. It was a school for trouble makers and since trouble makers were the only ones who were lucky enough to have a choice about where they went, them and pregnant teenagers, the rest of us didn't get choices.


Well, yeah, it could be called intuition but I correlate intuition with something that's congenital, has it's origins in the brain's wiring.

True, but before high school, as a general observation, kids don't have the "social hierarchy" things going that severely until AFTER puberty kicks in.

Then, as they mature into adults, the whole issue of social growth becomes more focused. Sometimes you see it in Junior High (Middle School), but really, High School is an institution that is more socialized than any other academic situation. As more people "blossom" in their high school years, the whole social competition is just what goes on.

This does continue into college, but most kids have formed their sense of self and seek out others more like them. In college, the BMOC (big man on campus) or Prom Queen may or may not be as influential because college is focused more on academics and there are diverse cultures, races, beliefs, backgrounds, ages, etc. in the mix. Such "hot shots" find out they aren't that special anymore.

Pandd, I believe any animosity on this subject is due to excessive vigilance in giving a point by point response to many of the statements made here. I find it overwhelming.

I am high-functioning enough socially and linguistically that I considered it obvious that I was using the term "read minds" for exaggerated dramatic effect, that is, that compared to what I consider a reasonable and well-considered assessment, the observations which NTs expect me and my son to make is comparable to psychic ability. That is, that I think one would have to be able to read minds (which I do not in fact believe possible) in order to draw the conclusions NTs apparently draw all day, every day.

I am weary of being told it is normal when, in my experience, it is not. I grow frustrated with my inability to see how and what they are doing, especially when I feel so high-functioning. And most of my venom on the subject, resulting in the use of phrases such as "pig-ignorant", springs from years of being the recipient of outraged responses for failing to do exercise what I consider unfair and ill-informed prejudice...

Even if they consider it normal and right.

As to their actually being able to do it, I don't believe that their level of accuracy really is as high as you or they claim. Simple observation is sufficient to show you that misunderstanding is frequent and sometimes severe among people of all types, and the source is the assumption by one person that another is thinking the same thing that they are, because in that person's opinion, they should be. This is poor reasoning, and I agree, largely involuntary. And I wonder that people are so content with their rate of success at communicating that they seldom think it worthwhile to apply more thought to why they do what they do.

But whatever your view on what NTs can do, and how well, what I will not accept is that they are right to contentedly remain the way they are, giving no thought to their actions and justifying them with the argument, "Well, people usually do." This sheep's mentality is what causes me to be tailgated everywhere I drive because I only go 5 mph above the posted speed limit. Everyone drives that close, so no thought is applied to the safety of doing it. It's preposterous and occasionally deadly. And it always increases my tension while driving. So I don't tailgate. That to me is a logical line of reasoning. To many an NT, they are annoyed when they have to slow down and annoyed when they are tailgated. I suppose once in a while they picture it from the other side, but not often based upon my experience.

Don't get me wrong, I assume a lot, too. Too much. I also ask myself if it's fair to do so.

This thread is really interesting. Theory of Mind is new to me and I'm still just getting to grips with it; the idea that people pick up on thoughts and feelings instinctively was completely alien to me.

Unless I'm misunderstanding, what we're actually talking about here is NTs making assumptions about a persons feelings or thoughts based on intuition, which is fed by observed non-verbal signals. For those that developed Theory of Mind as a child, this is something that can be done with little or no conscious thought, and is an instantaneous process. It follows that people with autism, having never developed ToM, cannot do this. That's my understanding, anyway... Makes no sense to me in practice.

I find it almost impossible to decode the signals from NTs, although I get a rough idea of their feelings if I concentrate solely on their body or face. This leaves me unable to even think about how to show some kind of reciprocity of their feelings, which I guess stems from difficulties with multi-tasking.

irishwhistle, I think understand your frustration. I'm slowing learning that no matter how alien or illogical these unwritten rules are that NTs live by, not just with the rules of communication, but everything else, such as the necessity of establishing the hierarchy of people in a room illustrated so well by oOoAnaOoOo's post (why do they do that??), they ain't gonna change. No matter how mad it makes me when people look at me incredulously because I've missed all their cues, or am being disrespectful because, unaware, I'm looking at them from the corner of my eyes while they're talking to me, I still know the world and it's ways ain't for changing. I think it's unlikely that awareness of autism will ever get to the point where we can behave naturally and not be frowned upon and cast out of social circles because we break the rules. I think if you want to play the game of life and be included, then you can only do the best to learn the illogicalities, accept them, and try to live by them. I guess for the vast majority of autistic people, this isn't possible to a point where one would be considered 'normal'; or perhaps even to a point where they can take part at all in the social charades of life.

I completely get the point about the tailgating though – it's so damned primitive and territorial of them to behave like that, isn't it? You can't win for trying. I enjoy watching TV programmes about nature and wildlife with all of the 'jungle' rules that lions, apes, etc., live by. It helps me to understand humans so much better.

Ok, I think I understand now which meaning of obtuse you were employing (I was confused because I was not sure if you meant obtuse-blunt, as in that highschool students make no attempt to veil their social hierarchy as adults do, or if you meant obtuse in the sense of being intellectually dull/slow, because both can make sense in this context).

I understand that motivation very well.

It sounds to me like you applied yourself. You say you couldn't discipline yourself, not wouldn't, and I believe you.

You can use discipline to convert potential to reality, thus influencing the expressive manifestation of your developmental trajectory, but you cannot discipline yourself into an entirely different trajectory. Indeed, if that was possible, then ASDs could be cured at whim, by the simple expedient of "applying ourselves".


The problem is that if this occurred everyone knows the person with the most votes, is the person who is most considered to be a loser by their peers. Whatever the award is called, in the minds of students (voters and "winners"), the election is for "worst loser in the school". I think I might be somewhat hurt to "win" that election.

The reason I found your post so interesting in the first place was because I happened to be thinking about the whole Prom popularity vote thing (with the King/queen stuff), wonder if these institutionalized popularity activities would influence students to be more competitive and socially aggressive, or whether this was an over-hasty knee-jerk interpretation (maybe at high school age, most people are at developmental stage where they already tend toward their maximum social aggression capacity). I started to wondering about after re-reading "Carrie a few days ago (I was thinking about the prom scene in the book when I typed that comment about proms seem odd and exotic).



Are they compulsory in US high schools?
Our balls/formals are optional (in fact you have to pay to go, and can be banned for discipline reasons, or even denied a ticket if you owe the school money).


I agree. It's a privacy issue.
There might be good reasons to have a photo record of students (I do not know either way), but even if there is, that does not necessitate inclusion in a book intended for distribution to the student body. The school could always have a master year book that was not publicly accessible if they (for some obscure reason) do need a photo record, allowing students to opt-out of the publicly distributed copy. To me it seems a privacy issue. If people do not want a photo of them published such a book, this should be respected.


Actually, I left school the year before I would have been eligible to attend the formal balls (only the seniors which is third to fifth year of high school where I live, are eligible to buy tickets to the balls; I left high school before the end of my second year there).

Attendance should always be optional. While I find the whole King/Queen type popularity activities odd and intriguing from a distance, I would not feel comfortable about my local schools doing the same at our balls/formals.

Organizing institutionalized popularity votes among a group of peers, is somewhat more "in your face" than the generally more subtle social signaling that occurs outside US high schools.


Perhaps that is circumstantial.

Interference from other students was much more intense for me personally before high school. In high school, most interference was non-physical (verbal ridicule, rumor-mongering, inappropriate exclusion during class room activities, etc), whereas before high school, physical interference was pervasive.

Pervasive physical bullying and non-physical bullying/social aggression/exclusion, eased off into regular non-physical bullying/social aggression/exclusion, with only very rare physical interference (from other students) when I entered into high school, and additionally I experienced more positive social outcomes at high school than prior.

Work places in my experience are highly variable in this regard, some work places are toxic with social politics/competition. It's generally more subtle than actually organizing a popularity vote though, so arguably US high schools at least are more explicit in signaling everyone's social standing than the average work place.


More variation in educational options (beyond choices in subject matter) is desirable, not just for individuals, but because education is a considerable investment. It is in a society's interests to seek to maximize returns by facilitating best outcomes for everyone.


These skills (non-verbal expression and social cue/body language comprehension) are learned/acquired behaviors, but the typical human propensity to learning/acquring them is congenital, and does have its origins in the brain's "wiring", just as is the case with verbal communication skills.

I communicate as best I can irishwhistle; if people choose to feel animosity because of features of my communication that cannot be avoided without resulting in an insurmountable barrier to my participation, then so be it.


I interpreted your use of the phrase consistently with your described intent; it is latter uses of the phrase that I am somewhat less clear about.

On the contrary, it is the norm though. If it were abnormal, then it would be rare rather than pervasive.

And your use of "mind reading" does convey a sense of this (it reminds me of the quote about sufficiently advanced technology being indistinguishable from magic).

Your frustration is understandable because the normality not only of these abilities, but also of their pervasive use in day-to-day inter-personal interaction and communication, further complicated by the conceptual obscurity of these abilities and their implications, to most of those who do possess them, results in excessively trying circumstances for those without these abilities.

I have no problem understanding that intellectually, and no problem empathizing emotionally. Feel as an angry as is productive to you.

Well it is "normal". As reality is sometimes stranger than fiction, so too normality is sometimes freakier than aberration.

If by right you mean "morally right", of course you are not morally wrong or blame-worthy for not being able to perform just as though you had particular abilities that you actually you do not have. Are others morally wrong for not comprehending this? Well, perhaps those who are competent to acquire sufficient expertise, and have had but refused a viable opportunity to acquire the expertise, but I suspect that's a very small minority of people.


I am very confident that it is as high as I claim. As for "they", this is confusing to me.

If "they" means "experts" of some kind, then I'd want to examine the claims and their substance before even considering forming an opinion on the veracity of the claims.

If "they" means those with the ability, the premise to me is incoherent because it assumes, contrary to reality, that this very large group of people all make the same or consistent claims about this.


Misunderstanding is frequent in verbal communication, including text mediated.
Fallibility is a pervasive characteristic of human competencies; in addition, the competency of human owner-operators of skills/abilities varies both from one human to another, and from one time/circumstance to another for a particular individual, as does intent.

My claim about the accuracy of these competencies is that they are close enough often enough to produce a net reproductive advantage when compared to the absence of these competencies. I can claim this very confidently because there is a species typical biological propensity to acquire and utilize these competencies, and net reproductive advantage is necessary condition for this to have occurred.

Both the non-volitional/non-aware, and the volitional/aware aspects of employing these competencies can be poorly executed, and can even fail when properly executed. This is not an unusual quality for a human skill/competency though.

Many people do think it worthwhile to apply thought (among other tools) in an attempt to improve their communication competency. But that's very not likely to lead to much understanding about the absence of these competencies because the focus in such endeavors is on acquiring expertise in the competencies rather than imagining their absence.

I am not convinced it's accurate to describe non-autists or NTs as all being content to remain the way they are, or of giving no thought to their actions; I will not claim that they disinclined to "status quo as an argument" fallacy.

What I can tell you is that for most humans, there is no relevant utility in comprehending what they would need to comprehend to realistically appreciate your circumstances and experiences, insufficient stimulus for it to be remotely likely that they will form an intent to pursue such comprehension, and next to no chance whatsoever that they will randomly stumble on such comprehension.

That's not true. Thought has gone into the danger to the extent of education campaigns about exactly this issue.
At some time, no one tail gated. It did not start because everyone else was doing it. The initial cause is the reason why people do it, that everyone else does it is a self-serving justification, and plays a causal role in perpetuating the behavior because it influences perception about both the danger and the acceptability/morality of the behavior. "Sheep mentality's" role is limited to being a surmountable barrier to change.


There are certainly many good reasons to not tail gate, and no good reason to tail gate.


Assumptions are effectively necessary, so making some is unavoidable.

Because I am forgetful to the point of forgetting what exactly sparked my anger, it took a little time to recall the specific impetus. I was frustrated with being told my son failed to drawn conclusions others supposedly did naturally, while my husband sat silent and I listened and responded, "They do? That's normal?" in utter bafflement. I'd never heard such a thing. I knew my family spent years chewing me out for not drawing conclusions that I considered to be sweeping generalizations. So there's a back story of frustration at being belittled for being observationally blind. Doesn't it seem like mocking the blind for not being able to see even though they have eyes? If someone had never heard of the concept of blindness, they might have trouble getting a handle on the idea, I guess.

I can manage a grudging comprehension, but it's hard to be understanding. It's also maddening to be told repeatedly that something is before you when you can't see it, and to be treated with contempt for the failure... and then to watch your offspring running flat out down the same road, unable to see the same things. You pity the child, and you feel angry toward him for doing what you did because it's like doing it yourself all over again. And after a while, you get so you just don't want to have to hear about it anymore. You're sick of providing them with entertainment, or with an imagined nemesis. You can't see it, you don't really care about it, but the rest of the planet thrives upon it, and loathe you for your indifference. I don't know what they want from me and I'm still expected to provide it. Do I really have any expectations of change? I would truly be "blind" if I did.

The "it" by the way refers to the ever-changing things that I miss and they don't, that they see and I don't, and that they have no inkling it is possible to miss. And when I say "they" in this context, it sums up everyone I've butted heads with over the years, or everyone who has chatted with another about me and how rude I am, and finally, it refers to counselors who make assessments of bewildered little boys and girls who are expected to do boring work as though it's interesting and who astonishingly resist.

Having children in public school has stirred up more personal issues and unresolved matters than I knew I had, and that's a lot. I've been finding it harder and harder to deal with it. This is why I tend to say the same thing over and over. I tell a lie. I always do that in search of the perfect phrasing. But it is why I am so driven to put it into just the right words.

For the record, though, notwithstanding all these clear explanations, I still find it hard to swallow the idea of guessing at what someone means if they fail to make themselves clear and feeling that my guess is good enough to require no clarification. I'd hate to live like that. I've tried, back when I thought I was just like everyone else. I'd say it would be a disservice if we did carry on that way. The muddled NT existence would be still more bewildered.

Sweet topic and a bunch of great replies, too!

Here's my two cents...

...first off, I think that AS folks who learn how to slip in between "both worlds" (NT and AS) are about as close to mind readers as just about anyone can get. People who know me will confirm that I can "call it" 9 times out of 10 with a whole host of issues/people. Not all of them, mind you (which is why deep down I don't believe in mind reading or predicting the future, etc). BUT...enough of them that I scare myself and others just about evey week at the very least. I think that it comes down to learning to become aware of all those unspoken "cues and clues" that are out there, whether micro (eg the woman next door) or macro (this swine flue thing), together with being able to tie it all together in one's brain (consciously or unconsciously) with past events, event markers, etc.

That having been said, here's why I think that NT's "allow" one another to get away with murder (as far as I'm concerned) when it comes to bad predictions/profiling/judging/mindreading by other NT's but NOT by AS folks...because for whatever reason(s), NTs aren't so threatened by one another as they are by "non-one-another's" if that makes sense the way that I've (poorly) articulated it.

I think that we as AS folks are generally perceived as way too intense and wound up by NTs, so everything that we say/do stands to spook them...

Put more succinctly, it seems like it just comes down to who you will allow you to tell you anything, and who you won't allow, according to who you feel threatened by. Sometimes we do it to ourselves as AS folks (though we can't usually help it or mean anything hostile by whatever 'signal' we are apparently giving off), other times it doesn't matter what we say/do, we have already been found wanting and therefore 'dismissed.'

NT's do it to each other, too..and really, if we were honest, we also do it to one another.

It took me YEARS to start cluing in on NT "signals" and learning what "notes" to play according to their metronomes, so to speak, if I wanted to be heard or accepted at the moment.

BUT...even with all of that, at least half of the time my mode of interaction with NTs is purely "blind" IE truth be told, I have NO IDEA what to do/say except by what amounts to practically Pavlovian response--"When A occurs you are supposed to do B: don't think about it or ponder it, just do it. "

I used to think that NTs were pathetic and easy to manipulate because of how I can do this "blind response" thing on their 'social skills tests' but now I think it's just kind of sad that they are mostly so shallow and easy to predict that once you pick up on the pattern you can play their music even if you can't read their notes, so to speak.