• Welcome to Autism Forums, a friendly forum to discuss Aspergers Syndrome, Autism, High Functioning Autism and related conditions.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Private Member only forums for more serious discussions that you may wish to not have guests or search engines access to.
    • Your very own blog. Write about anything you like on your own individual blog.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon! Please also check us out @ https://www.twitter.com/aspiescentral

A new website's view on "Theory of Mind"

AgentPalpatine

Well-Known Member
I found this website through links, the author (not me) has a different view on Theory of Mind (ToM) than the "commonly accepted view".

ASDCulture - home

I'm still reading through the website, does anyone else have any thoughts?
 
The Author's position on theory of mind makes sense to me. I would think that at least from an evolutionary perspective, a human being without theory of mind is unlikely to remain in the population. That's my personal take anyway because I'm just assuming that human beings have TOM as a crucial element of their survival.
Author's statement that self-awareness as part of a functional ASD TOM is what I'm wondering about. Is this equivalent to having a different TOM, or is it just a re-working of a less developed TOM? I don't think the author is suggesting that people with ASDs are as refined. From my own experience I have to agree... I still have to fight urges to respond to situations strangely and I've had years of behavioral therapy. I don't think the language used to describe ASD deficits in TOM is fair though. There is some flexibility to ASD thinking styles, and I'm certain that we deliberately focus effort on changing our TOM as we age. At least that's obvious in verbal Autistics. I suspect that non-verbal Autistics must as well given that they often adopt hobbies that allow them to communicate on some level with others... they must be taking in the behaviors of others and to some extent making meaningful extrapolations about what people think because they do manage to reach people.
 
I think the idea that autistics lack Theory of Mind is ludicrous, but I can understand why NTs feel that way (see what I did there?). I'm more than aware that people have different beliefs and opinions than I do, and I actually DO care quite a lot about not stepping on toes without due cause. I try my best not to come off as rude or selfish in conversations, but I have no way of knowing what this or that particular person would view as rude behavior, because it's different for everybody. As I do not posess the capacity to read minds (or faces, for that matter), it ultimately comes down to a guessing game, and when I don't know the answer, I default to my upbringing of "doing unto others as I would have them do unto me." The issue being that what I want and what an NT wants are often polar opposites. C'est la vie.

Although really, any person who jumps from "you failed the Sally-Ann test" to "therefore you must be an uncaring, unfeeling sociopath" should be viewed with pretty intense suspicion anyways.
 
This is great. Thanks for finding the website. I just found this quote and it is spot-on.

"If you want to thrive, you need to become an anthropologist so that you can actually understand the other person’s perspective. This site and its contents are all about setting up the ASD person to thrive, not just survive, in a majority NT world."
 
Last edited:
I've bookmarked the site--it has piqued my interest and I want to read more!

I'd never heard about the "Sally Ann Test" before. So I watched a YouTube video where a lecturer described how the Sally Ann test works. For fun (underline--for fun), I thought about it like this...

She mentions, as part of the description, that Ann is not a very good friend, and that (assuming based on the lecturer's sentence construction that conclusion follows premise) is the reason why Ann steals the marble.

What they leave out is whether or not Sally knows that Ann is not a good friend (I'll be charitable--maybe the lecturer left this out). Without that piece of data, we don't really know what's going on in Sally's mind. The lecturer also neglected to mention how old Sally and Ann are, though perhaps we can assume that because they wear cartoon children's clothing, and commune in a world of boxes, baskets and marbles, that they are in some sort of nursery school, daycare, kindergarten, or early grade school setting (and not a psychiatric hospital or something like that), so we'd probably have to assume for both children that they've not totally outgrown a fairly narcissistic worldview, or rather, given that we are not even asked to consider Ann's point of view in this situation, we'd simply have to make an assumption about Sally. (That little thief can rot for all we care.)

If Sally is old enough to develop judgments of character about others and is distrustful of Ann, knowing that Ann has issues that lead her to act out in instances of kleptomania, maybe she would reasonably arrive at the conclusion that Ann would steal her marble the minute she had the opportunity, and look in Ann's box first. I remember being in grade school, and it was quite well known who the kid in class was who had the sticky fingers.

However--maybe Sally hasn't heard the peer judgments about Ann. Or maybe she's still in a narcissistic, early-childhood-type phase due to neglect on the part of her parents. Or maybe she has been raised to assume the best of others, despite what her gossiping classmates have said. Or maybe she's so advanced that even though she knows that Ann is "not a good friend" and steals stuff, she doesn't want to give Ann the impression that no one trusts her, because she knows everyone else automatically jumps to the conclusion that Ann would steal their stuff, and maybe she wants Ann to feel that despite the marginalization she experiences from her classmates and her probably her parents and teachers too, that someone else has faith in her, because deep down, Sally knows Ann acts out because she has been labeled "not a good friend" and has internalized this judgment and ultimately has no sense of self-worth. So maybe for of one of these reasons, Sally looks in her own basket.

(If you answer the question like this, I would have to guess that a psychologist, given his or her presumed body of knowledge and career path that brought him or her to such a juncture that he or she would be administering a facile test like this one and believe wholeheartedly in its validity, would assume that you are on the spectrum. :p)
 
Last edited:
(If you answer the question like this, I would have to guess that a psychologist, given his or her presumed body of knowledge and career path that brought him or her to such a juncture that he or she would be administering a facile test like this one and believe wholeheartedly in its validity, would assume that you are on the spectrum. :p)

I wrote in the past on another forum that I think "Sally Ann" should be retired. It just doesn't make any sense on a stand-alone basis, and some of the other tests that are used with it appear to be just as bad.

I have very mixed views on the whole "Theory of Mind". I read something somewhere that basically said "The term is so vague that any two people talking about the topic may be talking about two completely different concepts", and I'd have to agree with that.
 
I have very mixed views on the whole "Theory of Mind". I read something somewhere that basically said "The term is so vague that any two people talking about the topic may be talking about two completely different concepts", and I'd have to agree with that.

I agree about the vagueness! I like the statement on the home page of that Wikispaces site: "I am very fond of the article referenced above (Cultural Constitution of Cognition), which very clearly states that ALL people lack perspective taking abilities BUT that we can best open our minds when we view perspectives from a cultural context." I'd say that's a pretty good "Theory of Theory of Mind"! :)

I've said in the past that what NTs see as ToM is actually their fortune to be able to project themselves onto similar others and be able to make judgments based on superficial signs.

In my experience of NTs, if they do have the ability to read another's mind, they don't use it very often. For example, I'd say the cultural communication gulf between men and women is pretty darn wide, and ToM seldom gets used to bridge it. If ToM was a standard part of typical neurology, Men Are From Mars, Women Are From Venus wouldn't have sold so many copies!
 
If ToM is as it stands, then I suggest I do better than most NTs. The gulf between men and women is a valid one to highlight, and one I have worked on to see things from a male perspective. Maybe it is because I'd give anything to have that sense of connection with another human that I've attempted to treat others as I'd like to be treated. That is, stand in another's shoes. I rarely experience NTs doing that. More aspies do, in my view.
 

New Threads

Top Bottom