I really don't understand about Theory of Mind

Post Reply New Topic

Not entirely true. I can understand that a rock falls when I drop it. Have I discerned the rocks thoughts?

I have many times been able to "calculate" how a person might respond, but it had nothing to do with understanding or intuiting their state of mind.

Theory of mind is not just about understanding what someone else might do, but what their state of mind is while doing it.

I thought that your question about why the people at the job search center were picking on your friend was an indicator of ToM and a socially appropriate response. I don't think that I could have come up with that if my friend had been the one ranting and raving to me. I would have come up with something that I thought was appropriate, but it would have totally offended her.

Yes, I would say "what's miserable?". Seriously, how do you know that they're talking about the weather?

Sometimes I think people are yelling at me when I agree but now I think they were just angry.

I must put a stop when peoples complaints become racist though because I'm usually half that nationality they are complaining about. Anyway, I would stand up for any race.

I'm not sure. I think I might have assumed they are talking about the weather because I don't like being out in the rain. I find that miserable. If I had just walked inside from being out in the rain and a cashier said to me "Miserable isn't it?" I would have said 'yeah" because I had just walked out of the rain. I think it would depend on my state of mind too. I have goofed up before and then I go "oh, I thought you meant..." after they say what they were talking about. I think it would depend on the situation too. If I were at work and I was doing my work and someone walked by me and said miserable isn't it and I might go "huh?" and not even think they were talking about the weather. I don't know who would know that.

But what if they said "Miserable day isn't it?" Now would you know they were taking about the weather.

or what if they said "Miserable out there isn't it?"

Note: These questions are directed at all members here.


I had no idea this was a TOM thing. I thought this was more reading between the lines and connecting the dots.

The USA hasn't gone quite as far as the UK has gone in hiring ATOS and lying on their reports, but it is hard to get benefits even when you're really obviously unable to function.

What kind of amazes me are the people I know in England - very liberal - believe the idea that a lot of people are scamming the system for free money when there's no actual evidence of such a thing happening on a widespread scale.

(sorry about the serial posting)

I got into an argument here several months ago with someone in Australia who seemed to think that the UK austerity measures were all about getting disabled people involved in the community and getting them to work. Given I also know more than a few people who have been through ATOS' process, I know this isn't the case. People who can't work at all are being kicked off benefits and told to find jobs that don't exist.

The thing is that there should be support and assistance to get people off of benefits, but they should not be required. I think a lot of people would take advantage of programs to get them through university or back to work, but I also think that many people would not be able to get back to work even with support whether they can't work at all or getting accommodations they need to be able to work is impossible.

Plus in the US a lot of people believe in a kind of mythology where anyone can succeed by virtue of their own efforts - if they want something enough, they can get it, and not getting it means that one is lazy and unwilling to work, and probably just wants handouts. Not unique to the US, obviously, but definitely prevalent here.

Exactly. I came here to say this. I treat people and animals and rocks the same: I don't see any evidence for a difference other than complexity. Theory of mind rests on the assumption that mind exists. Or rather, that a human mind is different from a cat's mind or an atom's mind, other than in complexity and context.

If a doorway hits me on the head (as it often does) do I feel the doorway's hatred of me?

The "theory of mind" that underpins the mental functioning of someone that has one is a different thing from that which is conjectured about by an aspie who doesn't.

Theory of mind, in the classical sense, has its origins in that first "see a smile, make a smile" response in babyhood. We - the aspies, that is - don't do that, don't make that response, and construct our model of the world in different ways. Classical TOM underpins the whole of behavioral development and the entirety of sensory experience - that's why its lack in us is seen as a big deal by them.

That makes a lot of sense. Thanks.

I would like to counter with a TOE: a Theory Of Eyes. I hypothesize that an AS person sees things that the NT child does not see. The NT smiles, the AS does not smile, but notices the shoes, the clock, the bird outside the window, the muscles of the face.

The low functioning AS sees incredible correlations and details in his collection of orange peel, the high functioning AS sees programming solutions, patterns, and in the case of Paul Dirac the foundations of all reality. A Theory of Eyes can thus create a Theory Of Everything. The great breakthroughs come from the people who see things differently. Even if only one in a thousand aspies can do that, that is of equal or greater value to society than a thousand sociable NTs who are hard wired to follow others.

I find the word "lack" problematic: it implies a fundamental problem. Yes, when a person smiles I lack the automatic "follow" response. I lack the distraction. I lack the chains that bind. I am free. This is only a problem insofar as everyone else is NT.

Things are bad with Workman's Comp in the US. A friend of mine went to a doctor they sent her to, and I drove her to get her X-rays first, then to her appointment next. So, I know what she took in there with her, and I know her. She went in alone, then came out happy and relieved. She said the doctor had looked at the X-rays and told her he could see the problem. He kept apologizing for the terrible pain she was in as he touched and moved her knee slightly to examine it. He told her he could see how bad the damage was and that she needed the surgery she was trying to qualify for. But then her case was denied anyway, and they claimed the doctor's report said he'd seen no X-rays and that he'd decided a few physical therapy sessions would be all she needed to get better. She eventually won the fight for her surgery (though her struggle continues in new ways now), but the question remains: Who lied? Did the doctor lie in his report, or did Workman's Comp lie about what was in it?

I have an example of reading a face badly. I was watching a season three episode of Big Bang Theory in which Sheldon hugs Penny. She then says something like, "Look, Leonard! Sheldon's hugging me!" I couldn't tell how she felt, because I thought her facial expression looked disgusted. But I considered that she could either be finding his hug unpleasant, as another strange behavior out of him when she didn't really like him, or she could be happy because she appreciated the hug as a rare and unexpected thing for him to do, showing how much he liked his Christmas gift. I decided on happy, because I suspected that's what the writers had intended to show. I turned out to be right, because she mentions it in one of the special features at the end of the disk. She says then that she was so touched by that moment that she cried after they were done making the episode. What I don't get is why she would cry, though, because she and the guy playing Sheldon are really just actors. But I guess they get so into their roles that they can have some of those feelings carry over into moments beyond the scenes they play.

Some people cry when they are happy.

But why was she happy? They were done shooting the scene. Unless you're saying she was happy in the scene, as the character, and then she got overwhelmed by the time they were done and began to cry by then. Is that what you mean?

Congrats, you have just disproved SBC and Theory of Mind by the fact that you were able to understand your friends emotions (you have empathy!).

I am very anti-TOM, because it's an NT theory that attempts to put all Autistic people in a neat and orderly little box labeled, "no empathy."

No. She said she was so touched by that moment so she cried. Why did that make her happy? I don't know.

The point I'm trying to make in this thread is, does a person with TOM ''read between the lines'', so if someone said, ''it's horrible ain't it?'' on a dull rainy day, and the other person automatically knew what they meant even with no proof that they could be talking about the rain but still answered correctly, does that mean they have TOM?