take this test. im not too sure it's indicative of aspergers

Post Reply New Topic

I honestly can't see why this test is important or relevant to "real life".

All that matters is where the ball is in physical space.
That's how I used to observe things in Science lessons.
I was told that observing things in the physical environment free from bias was very important.

It's none of my business what Sally and Anne do with their ball as far as I'm concerned: it's triviality. They live their lives as they want to: I honestly don't mind if they get married or whatever, it's their choice. I was told from a young age not to go interfering in other people's lives: only to help people if they asked for help.

If either of them came up to me and asked me where the ball was, I'd tell them: I wouldn't waste time trying to figure out what each them might be thinking about it: the ball is where it is!

This test is almost as stupid as saying tracking where each student thinks every individual test-tube is in a lab rather than where the test-tubes actually are: it's utterly meaningless and irrelevant to the experiment.

My family don't gossip or try to figure out where people think they might have left their objects: we have better things to do with our time.

I would love to know how I would have responded to this test as a child.

I really MUST have AS, but I don't know if I would ever have "failed" this test. The wording IS wrong though. I agree with what at least one person here said. Assuming she remembers it, and trusts, she would look in the basket a likely then the box. As for how she feels, it can be stupid, gullible, or betrayed. That depends on her attitude and beliefs.

Basket.

Didn't find that question hard but I'm an adult.


Anyone else find yourself thinking about how the cover in the baskets didn't really match up especially in the fourth frame and fifth frame? The fourth frame the cover is neatly tucked in but the last frame the cover isn't.




And- http://www.mugsy.org/asa_faq/issues/tom.shtml

2. The Sally-Ann Test
The Sally-Ann test is a famous test used to judge whether a person has T.O.M. or not, and the test itself probably explains what T.O.M is, better than I can. Children are supposed to be able to do this test by around 6-8 years old.

The procedure goes thus:

You introduce the child to two dolls, Sally and Ann, and show the child that each doll has her own box, with a marble hidden inside. Then you tell the child that Sally is going out for a minute, and remove the doll from the scene, leaving her box behind.

Next, you tell the child that Ann is going to play a trick on Sally: she opens Sally's box, removes the marble, hiding it in her own box. Sally returns, unaware of what happened and you ask the child where Sally would look for her marble.

A child with Theory of Mind will realise that Sally doesn't know that Ann has played a trick on her, and will therefore look in her own box for her marble, and discover it missing. But a child lacking in Theory of Mind will only see the situation from her own point of view, and suggest that Sally look for the marble where it actually is: in Ann's box.

Very small children will not be able to guess correctly in this test, since Theory of Mind takes time to develop, but most children should be able to do the test by 6 or 7 years old at the latest and some as young as three years old can. However, it is thought that most children with ASDs will not be able to complete the test, and many AC adults cannot.

But, this test should not be taken as an infallible test for ASDs. Some intelligent ACs can do the test simply by logical deduction, without truly having this mysterious ability of "Theory of Mind". Most people of low intelligence will not be able to do the test, even though they may be otherwise very sociable, such as people with Down's Syndrome. People with another disability, William's Syndrome are exceptional in their ability to do this test, despite apparently low, functional intelligence.

So, whilst this test may be interesting, it doesn't necessarily tell us anything we couldn't tell by observation. But you are welcome to your own opinions - this discussion is one which will run and run!

and thats the problem.

my instant answer was the basket. i too am not sure what my answer would have been as a child. and the other question i then have is would i have argued the point if someone corrected me after i wrongly answered. wold i say "ahh, now i get it" or ''no, the ball is in the box, she would look in the box''.

some people are reading too far into this though, you're not supposed to guess how she would feel about the ball being moved from the basket.

Or confused or annoyed.

Good point.

And why doesn't Sally have a shadow at all?

Shouldn't the question be where will Sally look first? Since the question is "where will she look for the ball," both answers would be correct, because if you said the box, she'd look for the ball first in the basket, and then when it wasn't there (which we all know it's not there), she'd start with the next closest place to look for the ball, and in this case, the box. Everybody looks for stuff in many different places, but the two places that are most probable for them to look at some point is A, where they last had it, and B, where it actually is when they find it.

I also think this is confusing to kids because it's not that Aspie people would look first in the box because they didn't realize little Sally had no idea that the ball was moved. I think it's more that an Aspie person would be thinking that Sally needs to or should look in the box. I notice a lot of "This is how it should be" type mentality from myself and my nephew, and I see it on this forum a lot too.

I would say how she feels would be a good question because I think the biggest difference here is that AS people think betrayed type answers. We are all concerned that poor Sally can't find her ball because the evil Anne moved it. The posts here seem to indicate that we don't think it's fair for Sally. NT's, on the other hand, would probably think Anne is funny. Like in their mind, Sally is going to look in the basket, and I can't wait to see the look on her face when the ball isn't there.

Yeah, that's true, actually.

And then the problem is, there could be different suggestions what Sally could feel about it. Even an NT could guess wrong.

It's also a question about whether you'd know Sally personally or not. Human beings are not machines that react or feel the same way if only a specific thing is done to them.
It could also depend on Sally's actual mood that day, or what else she had experienced that day.
Maybe she actually wouldn't mind because she would think, aw, the ball isn't very important just now anyway.
See, that would be Theory of Mind, if you took the different possibilities into consideration... or how...? (Maybe that would be a "thinking out of the box" thing, really?)

Even NTs can't predict a person's reactions all the time. And they ought definitely not to give us the impression that they can!
Like they shouldn't give us the impression that they are able to feel the exact same feeling as the person they empathize with. Or that they can put themselves in "others'" shoes without specifying which "others" - it's definitely not "every person" they mean; mere experience shows that!
Why not just admit that? It's a human thing.

And what they also forget to say is that it's possible to practice empathy, and that NTs can need that too. So it's not just a black-and-white issue of "having" or "lacking".

No, 'people' who fail the test are not stupid or incapable of using logic.

Various deficits with for example imagination and/or visual spatial processing and and/or memory and/or language and/or problems with sequences can be the reason why people of whatever age (but especially children) fail this test.

These deficits can appear in people with any IQ - the gifted, the average folks and the mentally ret*d.

The thing is, neither would have some of my physical science teachers!

Their world views simply wouldn't have allowed for it.
According to them processes occur and matter moves around.

It simply wouldn't have occurred to them that others had different points of view/agendas to them. Things just happened and they observed these things happening. They believed that it was the job of human beings to observe things in the physical environment.

I remember getting into trouble several times for following the instructions of one teacher to the letter. I was told to go around the corridors doing a survey by one teacher only to be told off by another for not working in the library. This was odd because I usually had good reports from the teacher that was telling me off.

I tried in vain to explain to the teacher who was cross with me the details of the assignment, that his colleague had set, but he just wouldn't listen. It just didn't register to him that I was upset and was only following instructions of his colleague to work in the corridor. He told me in a monotone voice and expressionless face that I was at fault and was being deliberately defiant by disagreeing with him.

I wasn't: I was a victim of circumstance and was only following instructions of his colleague. It was a shame: he was a brilliant teacher and I admired him.
I think that he'd have failed the "Sally-Ann" test even though he was very academic.

Wait...
Maybe thinking about how other people feel and their perspectives isn't as trivial after all: maybe I was just told that it was by other people.

I think I just failed that test. At first I wasn't sure how this was related to AS but now I'm sure some NTs would struggle with this test too.

I would look in the basket first, because I didn't know it was moved while I was away. If I didn't see it in the basket, I would ask Anne what she did with it, or where it went, if Anne didn't tell me I would check the box. Seriously though I see NT people do that all of the time too, so I don't think it is a good test. Anyone would look to where they left something first, before looking else where.