What does it mean, to not 'have' a theory of mind?

Post Reply New Topic

I was reading someone's description of their utilization of logic and they said it's because of the above. What exactly does it imply, that aspies aren't aware that others are similarly conscious? I mean, surely every single person assumes that the way they operate is the way most others operate, and this isn't simply what not 'having' a theory of mind implies? Or is it to do with mirror neurons?

(I am, in fact. arguing that NTs are just like people on the spectrum in this case... because it's the nature of being a singular entity. A simple example: in my interaction with people last year I became very tired after walking identical distances to them... but they couldn't comprehend how that could tire me out - this isn't even anything to do with what's not physical, but it seems that unless they can see that I'm diagnosed with something that drains my energy, or have a broken leg etc. they can only assume I'm lazy.)

According to the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy: "Theory of Mind is the branch of cognitive science that investigates how we ascribe mental states to other persons and how we use the states to explain and predict the actions of those other persons. More accurately, it is the branch that investigates mindreading or mentalizing or mentalistic abilities. These skills are shared by almost all human beings beyond early childhood. They are used to treat other agents as the bearers of unobservable psychological states and processes, and to anticipate and explain the agents’ behavior in terms of such states and processes. These mentalistic abilities are also called “folk psychology” by philosophers, and “naïve psychology” and “intuitive psychology” by cognitive scientists."

You say that "surely every single person assumes that the way they operate is the way most others operate", but this is not true for everybody, and certainly this is not true for young children (search for the Sally–Anne test in Google).

Theory of mind has two parts: first, understanding that others thoughts and perceptions are different from one's own, and second, being able to use that understanding and knowledge of others to make an approximation of said others' thoughts and perceptions.

1. I understand that your thought processes may lead you to different conclusions than mine would lead me to.
   
2. Because of that understanding, I can attempt to consider what I know about you to come up with a theory of what you are or were thinking.

That was how I was as a young child. I thought people were... things. Not like me. Irrational things that did unexpected things and made little sense unlike me who had all those plausible if... then... thoughts. Why apologise to a child I kicked but not to the table that gets kicked all the time when the other children sit down at it to have breakfast or to draw pictures?

I was utterly confuzzled by being redirected from apologising and soothing/patting the poor table when I'd just thought I had mastered what had been explained in length to me (being forced to remain in place and listen was annoying which was why I tried to do my best to comply to "learning to apologise").

Nowadays, I rather like to think I have TOM but occasionally puzzling incidents hint at that it's not functioning all that smoothly.

A few months ago, I was doing sports with a friend and was just about to put away my drink when that friend asked me if she could have it. I handed it to her, she drank from it and grimaced, then exclaimed that "there's water in it!". Well, yeah, there was.

I had refilled the bottle with water. What was up with her reaction? It was puzzling me.

At that moment, I didn't realise that she couldn't have known what I knew but that most likely, she had expected it to be the original drink based on what the label of the bottle said. She couldn't have known about that and while the label read that it's her favourite drink which I totally know (her thinking it was her favourite drink probably was why she asked me to share it with her), I didn't think to myself that an expectation might have motivated her request and that she most likely expected anything but water and that I should have pointed it out to her that there was water in the bottle.

I figured the reasons to her reaction out only several weeks later.

Maybe my intuitive TOM's a failure after all. My "analytic TOM" is fine usually.

That analytic one is ways better than that of "normal" people actually (really, I'm very perceptive when it comes to environmental stuff because of my sensory processing disorder and totally detail-orientated which is why I'll now start to study educational science and plan to work with children) as long as I can manage to pay attention or have taken my meds to help me stay focussed.

Intuitively it's like = people are furniture (and then like:) wait, got to remember that they are humans like me who have thoughts of their own.

What does it mean? It means you're different from most other people because you think differently. That when you view life, you view it only from your limited perspective and never consider anybody else's. That at some point in your life, most likely in your 20s, other (normal) people will say, "You know, most people don't think like you" or "Most people aren't as smart as you." You will grow up selfish because you never think of other people's needs, thoughts, feelings, wants, considerations, etc. Your single-minded focus on yourself will cause you not to make friends for life and miss out on the joys and activities that other, normal-minded folk enjoy, like loving another person and making babies. Because you'll be spending most of your time alone and not minding it one bit. Oh, once and a while you'll think you're lonely. But then the thought will go away after your mind finds something else to focus on.

Looks to me like another case where aspies have difficulty with something (in varying degrees) and people oversimplify that and say "no aspie can do this thing at all or even understand what it is".

I mean, maybe there are some who have absolutely no ToM, but it seems to me it's more common to simply have difficulty with using it consistently while actually interacting with people. For that matter, some NTs seem to have a weak ToM in certain circumstances or if they're immature.

It is common for autistic children to have no theory of mind. They don't have any social intuition, and they don't know any social stuff eggsplicitly either. Autistic adults can learn social knowledge eggsplicitly and apply it the same way. Autistic adults can also have intuitive theory of mind in a form that is different from the typical theory of mind, like one scientific theory is different from another about the same topic. In cases of autistic and NT people communicating with each other, the problem is these different theories that make the different people not make sense to each other.

I have come to realise that my ex husband, and father of my son, has no theory of mind. Because the first part of matt's description doesn't apply then the second part can't, or at least not without a degree of self-awareness which my ex husband lacks.

His lack of TOM led to a number of problems within the marriage and still has an impact on our continuing relationship as we share responsiblity for our son, who is diagnosed with Asperger's.

I'll give a few examples.

When we were married he would get disproportionately angry about a range of issues. For example, one time there was a massive row because I let the cat jump up onto my lap when we were in bed one morning. I was shouted and sworn at, and I was extremely upset about this. I was out with family that afternoon, and when I came back I was apprehensive and still upset about being shouted and sworn at earlier. He was calm, friendly and behaved as if nothing had happened. I was still quite traumatised and upset, which he couldn't understand. He had calmed down and it was all in the past, for him, so to his way of thinking I should also be calm and happy. The way he felt should be the way I felt.

He also assumes that if he has particular knowledge then I should also have that same knowledge and information.

A very recent example of this happened a few weeks ago at the end of the school summer holidays. He is a teacher so has similar, but not exactly the same, holidays as our son. The holiday routine is that I collect our son from him on a Friday afternoon, and my ex husband collects him from me on a Tuesday afternoon. On the last Friday of the holidays I picked my son up as usual and my ex said, "What's happening on Tuesday?" I said, "What do you mean?" and he repeated his question. I had to ask a few more questions before he told me that he went back to work on the Tuesday so wouldn't be able to pick our son up as usual. Now, anyone with typical theory of mind would simply have explained that they were at work on Tuesday and asked if I could help out as the usual routine wouldn't work. My ex didn't do that as his lack of theory of mind meant that because he knew he would be at work, I should also know that he'd be at work.

It is very difficult, almost insanity-inducing in fact, to live with someone who has no theory of mind. They assume that their emotions are your emotions, and that what they know, you also know.

I don't know how different it would be if the individual concerned knows that they lack theory of mind. The lack of theory of mind in itself would make it difficult to comprehend, but not impossible I would think.

Without Theory of Mind, you'll always be wondering why Sally keeps looking for her marble in that darn basket.

Lol!

Yep!

Without theory of mind, I don't think that you would be wondering why Sally looks for her marble in the basket. You wouldn't be thinking about Sally, what Sally is doing, or why Sally is doing what Sally is doing at all.

The thing is, what if you tested an adult on the Sally-Anne Test? Will they pass or fail? Cos I feel that there's a bit of logic involved here, so a person with a logical mind, theory of mind or not, should be able to pass the test.

It IS an aspie trait, though, to wonder about stuff?

You could think about the marble, the box, and the basket instead.

I failed the Sally-Anne Test by focusing eggsclusively on the objects and having zero thoughts about the faux people and what they are doing and why they are doing it. It was the same way when I was a child without theory of mind. I did not wonder why people did what they did. I focused on objects even moar moar moar.

I just thought of something. (I'm new to being Aspie and still realising new things about myself every day!)

I have this thing about treating people how I want to be treated, believing in respect and justice and all that. So, for example, I hate when I'm working, someone turns on the TV or music. So I assume that everyone must be the same way, and I wouldn't turn on the TV or music if someone were studying or working.

(I know many people like working with music on but that doesn't really cross my mind when I make decisions. It's always based on what I would like for myself.)

So is that lack of theory of mind or in fact the opposite, since I kind of respect people's feelings and needs?

How old were you when you failed it?