Theory of Mind

[Ylva]

Who has it? Who wants to have it?

'Mind blindness' affects moral reasoning in autism

 

[oscar2012]

Thats why we dont have it that and flexible thinking

 

[Neat Hedgehog]

My mother asked me a similar question to the box question just recently. I answered "correctly" but I've been through enough "gotcha" tests that I think about "obvious" answers and reason them out. I wish someone had asked me when I was younger, I may have answered differently.

It has always been my normal assumption that someone is responsible for outcomes, though, regardless of intent. Gave someone some poison in the sugar bowl? You should have checked to make sure it was sugar. In fact, I do that on a regular basis; if I'm in someone else's house and they ask for something I will smell it and ask "this is it, right?" even if it is clearly marked.

I will accept that things happen accidentally, but that doesnot remove fault. I judge myself on the same criteria, so it's not as if I'm being overly harsh on others, that's just how things work. The way I see it, if you don't accept fault how will you learn from it?

 

[King_Oni]

I remembered someone posted something about this subject a while ago. So after a quick search I found it. Someone blogged about it, might be worth a read as well.

http://www.aspiescentral.com/blogs/daniel/942-my-theory-theory-mind.html

 

[Ylva]

I agree with you, Hedgehog.

When I read that, I figured they'd been thinking (like I would have been thinking) who caused it to happen. Whose failure to think ahead was the reason this happened? It is my opinion that people who can't think like that, are not responsible, and cannot be trusted.

 

[Ylva]

I remembered someone posted something about this subject a while ago. So after a quick search I found it. Someone blogged about it, might be worth a read as well.

http://www.aspiescentral.com/blogs/daniel/942-my-theory-theory-mind.html

Thank you for the link, King Oni.

In response to the blogpost, I would say I haven't been very impressed with the average NT's theory of mind, either. It is clearly highly individual, who is willing to or trying to see through another's eyes.

 

[Cyanide Lollipop]

I view Mary's death as an accident.

 

[Ylva]

I view Mary's death as an accident.

Which makes sense. Might as well blame gravity as a child architect. Personally I'm more inclined to hope the girls' mothers take a lesson from it.

How about the malaria? It seems to have been unpredictable, unless there is some inherent getting-stung-by-malaria-infected-insects quality to African lakes that I really should be aware of.

Possibly there is a misunderstanding in what "blame" means, which those researchers should have taken into account. Sometimes people don't take things literally enough. And I'm pretty sure "no one was to blame for that" was not an alternative.

 

[Cyanide Lollipop]

Which makes sense. Might as well blame gravity as a child architect. Personally I'm more inclined to hope the girls' mothers take a lesson from it.

How about the malaria? It seems to have been unpredictable, unless there is some inherent getting-stung-by-malaria-infected-insects quality to African lakes that I really should be aware of.

Possibly there is a misunderstanding in what "blame" means, which those researchers should have taken into account. Sometimes people don't take things literally enough. And I'm pretty sure "no one was to blame for that" was not an alternative.

Re: the sugar - if anyone is to blame it is the person who put poison in a container labelled "sugar". It's like putting weedkiller in a soft drink bottle. Over the years I've heard many warnings about not putting poisons in soft drink bottles, but people still do it - because common sense isn't common - and other people get poisoned.

The malaria incident I view as unintentional. I am probably a product of my work experiences and education. My mother tends to blame and judge individuals harshly, rather than consider that they did the best they could with the knowledge they had at the time. We often have disagreements over that. I used to think more like her when I lived with her.

 

[Ste11aeres]

here's different degrees of blame. (did the test ask participants to assign blame on a sliding scale? Or was it just "guilty" vs "not guilty") And the degree of blame someone might or might not have depends on a lot of details which do not appear to have been given in that test.

For example, the girl did not intend that snowballs come crashing on her friend's head. But maybe at some point the thought occurred to her, "I don't know for sure if this igloo is stable enough to hold up.-Oh heck, I'll let my friend play in it anyway. It's probably fine!" (in which case she's a little bit to blame.) I would be scared to let a friend go in a home-made igloo because i'd be scared of an accident like that.
If, however, the girl really truly genuinely thought the igloo was stable, she is not to blame. But the test doesn't tell what were the exact thoughts that went through her head.

Maybe the Autistic adults blamed the person because they thought of more possibilities for what might have been going through the person;s head. But the test-administrators didn't think it through to that degree, and didn't clarify all those little details.

is someone more likely to be bit by a mosquito when swimming? In my experience, it happens more often when you're not swimming. Baby mosquitoes live underwater, not adults. These tests that are not thought through really get on my nerves. They are meant to gauge the thought processes of the people being tested. I think they should be used to gauge the thought processes of the test creators.

 

[Neat Hedgehog]

The malaria incident I view as unintentional. I am probably a product of my work experiences and education. My mother tends to blame and judge individuals harshly, rather than consider that they did the best they could with the knowledge they had at the time. We often have disagreements over that. I used to think more like her when I lived with her.

I have always had what was regarded as an "odd" idea of what it meant when someone did their best and failed. To me, it doesn't mean "well, you did you best, so it's all right." It means "You did your best, and you still failed because your best wasn't good enough. Get better." Other people have thought that was harsh, but if I did not see things so, I would have no reason to try to get better at anything.

If, however, the girl really truly genuinely thought the igloo was stable, she is not to blame.

Personally, I'd be inclined to disagree entirely. If she thought it was stable, then she should have done more load-bearing and stability tests; it's her fault for making a defective structure and not knowing how to make a better one. Would it deserve punishment? I ask rhetorically because some people seem to think blame goes hand in hand with punishment. No, of course not, that's ridiculous. But she would still be entirely to blame. I don't think there is a variation on the scenario in which I would say she isn't to blame for the incident, regardless of what she was thinking. If she doesn't acknowledge it was her poor design that caused it, how will she ever strive to make a better one? She would just continue to make crummy igloos that fell on people. :laugh:

 

[Ste11aeres]

Personally, I'd be inclined to disagree entirely. If she thought it was stable, then she should have done more load-bearing and stability tests; it's her fault for making a defective structure and not knowing how to make a better one. Would it deserve punishment? I ask rhetorically because some people seem to think blame goes hand in hand with punishment. No, of course not, that's ridiculous. But she would still be entirely to blame. I don't think there is a variation on the scenario in which I would say she isn't to blame for the incident, regardless of what she was thinking. If she doesn't acknowledge it was her poor design that caused it, how will she ever strive to make a better one? She would just continue to make crummy igloos that fell on people. :laugh:

What if she told her friend not to go inside but her friend did so anyway?

 

[Neat Hedgehog]

She'd still share some of the fault for having made it poorly, while her friend would share the rest for not being able to tell how badly it was made and not listening.

 

[Cyanide Lollipop]

What if she told her friend not to go inside but her friend did so anyway?

She should have placed a danger sign on the igloo and erected a fence around it to keep people out. :bounce:

 

[Cyanide Lollipop]

I have always had what was regarded as an "odd" idea of what it meant when someone did their best and failed. To me, it doesn't mean "well, you did you best, so it's all right." It means "You did your best, and you still failed because your best wasn't good enough. Get better." Other people have thought that was harsh, but if I did not see things so, I would have no reason to try to get better at anything.

I'm not intending to imply that people should not improve. If someone makes a serious error and realises the consequences, then continues to make the same error then there is a problem. I was thinking more about not beating people up for a mistake when they didn't know any better.

Just out of interest (anyone can answer this), if you were born prior to 1980, do you feel that your teachers stuffed up by not recognising that you have AS? Or do you accept that no one is to blame for lack of early diagnosis because teachers simply did not understand the significance of the signs?

 

[Christian T]

"The man traveling in Africa who encourages a friend to swim in a pond after seeing other tourists frolicking there is to blame for that friend being bitten by a mosquito and contracting malaria,"

To me, that says that the man might have been having doubts about whether it was a good idea to swim in the pond, but his friend was egging him on because he took the sight of other people doing it as a guarantee that it was safe, without taking the time to make his own informed decision.

I agree that the semantics of the word "blame" would have needed to be straightened out. I think the friend, Grace, the girl who built the igloo and could all have had blame assigned to them because they were partly responsible because they all played a part in the unfortunate event.

From what I've observed in NTs, this is what would be expected in situations like these. Grace, for example, even though it wasn't entirely her fault, would apologise and say she "couldn't help feeling partly responsible" and "Oh, why didn't I check that sugar more closely?" - if they work in a chemical plant, I think she should really have been able to check - and then Mary would have said, "Oh, don't worry, it wasn't your fault/ no one blames you." I think in the case of the igloo girl she really is to blame, because there would have been no igloo if it wasn't for her.

This is the NT social ritual that must be performed - (mmm, interesting, aren't we supposed the ones who need the rituals?) - it's like when a visitor comes to your front door and says "may I come in," and it's a huge face affront to answer "no."

What really caught my attention was this sentence:

"They'd better work quickly: Frith predicts that the utility of the new test may be limited. "I have no doubt that the Asperger's community will get hold of the test, study it, and learn the scenarios," she says."

It's like she can read all of our minds! I for one can't wait to get ahold of that test and study the answers so I can appear "normal" to these scientists! Nothing is more important to me! (Sarcasm of course)

One last thing:

If there is such a thing as "mind blindness" then surely that works two ways. Do psychologists really think that all NTs are immediately able to understand the mindset of any given Aspie, and that it's just us who are hopeless at understanding their mindset?

 

[Ylva]

If there is such a thing as "mind blindness" then surely that works two ways. Do psychologists really think that all NTs are immediately able to understand the mindset of any given Aspie, and that it's just us who are hopeless at understanding their mindset?

I'm pretty sure they don't always understand each other, either; but they have more social conventions in common, and that's like having a separate encrypted language. And many seem to feel that, just because they are in the majority, we should learn to communicate like them – which we already do – while they need make no such effort in return (even though they have a biological propensity that we do not (to varying degrees)).

Additionally, I get the distinct feeling that that woman (Frith) actually faults us for trying to adapt, hence the snide comment.

 

[Neat Hedgehog]

I was thinking more about not beating people up for a mistake when they didn't know any better.

Well sure, that's why I said there wasn't any reason for punishment. Accepting blame isn't an inherently bad thing, it's just accepting the responsibility. If someone feels persecuted simply because they're expected to take responsibility, I can't say I have much respect for them.

Just out of interest (anyone can answer this), if you were born prior to 1980, do you feel that your teachers stuffed up by not recognising that you have AS? Or do you accept that no one is to blame for lack of early diagnosis because teachers simply did not understand the significance of the signs?

Ignorance doesn't absolve fault, in my mind. It may not have been reasonable to expect them to know otherwise, but they still interpreted and proceeded to do things wrong.

From what I've observed in NTs, this is what would be expected in situations like these. Grace, for example, even though it wasn't entirely her fault, would apologise and say she "couldn't help feeling partly responsible" and "Oh, why didn't I check that sugar more closely?" - if they work in a chemical plant, I think she should really have been able to check - and then Mary would have said, "Oh, don't worry, it wasn't your fault/ no one blames you." I think in the case of the igloo girl she really is to blame, because there would have been no igloo if it wasn't for her.

This is the NT social ritual that must be performed - (mmm, interesting, aren't we supposed the ones who need the rituals?) - it's like when a visitor comes to your front door and says "may I come in," and it's a huge face affront to answer "no."

I got a perfect example of that whole routine after my apartment burned up. I put a pan on the stove, and a bunch of my roommates plastic containers fell on the burner and WHOOSH! up it went; the only extinguisher in the whole building was in the basement (I lived on the third floor) and the smoke alarm did not go off until the hallway was full of smoke, so I didn't even know until it was way too late.

Everyone told me "oh, it's not your fault." The look on their faces when I rather impassively replied "Of course it was my fault, I turned on the stove and was out of the room for a minute" was as though I had just slapped them with a mackerel. "But it was an accident, you didn't mean to" they would say. So I'd reply "Doesn't matter, it's still my fault." And then, with any luck, they would give up before I'd tell them to stop lying to me to try to make me feel better because it was insulting.

Of course, I place some of the fault on the lousy upkeep of the fire safety equipment, the code violation of only a single extinguisher in a 12 apartment building, and my roommate for leaving his plastic all over the kitchen, but I still end up with the largest portion.

 

[Rootless Tree]

I'm NT and it's the first time I read about "Theory of Mind" and regarding the elaborated problems in the article (malaria, sugar, etc.) I find them very odd because I think they could be considered difficult questions for NTs as well.

If I tell someone to do something (dangerous or not) and then this person dies I'm 100% sure that I would FEEL responsible for this person's death.

Then, with time and logic as well, I can understand that it wasn't my fault but only an accident, but I'd still blame myself in the first place... It's like when you make a car accident and you think "If only I got out of my house 5 minutes later this wouldn't be happening!" and you get angry with yourself for not going out 5 minutes later. It's something instinctive, I think. And you know it doesn't make sense because of logic.

It's not that uncommon to FEEL responsible when your mind knows that you're not.
So, why instinctively blaming someone else when something bad happens should be considered a "wrong" answer?

It's not that simple...

P.S.
Pardon my English if something is not clear or looks odd but I'm not a native English speaker.

 

[Ylva]

Theory of mind = making a lot of assumptions about how other people think. I don't want to do that.

Thinking in feelings... it sounds like the sort of thing that might make anyone into an unreasonable, irrational, screaming mess. (NTs and their meltdowns, huh?) It's probably something along the lines of the "different operating system" theory, that thinking in feelings is like thinking in a different language or having a different encryption or something. I don't always know how I feel, and indeed, I don't emote on a constant basis, so I can't really think in that language all the time. This must make me unrelateable to people who do emote on a constant basis, or whatever they do.