Is this correct and is it a reason for bullying?

My thoughts, it's the sort of game I refuse to play and it is a game, a thought experiement to which there's no right answer although it's often presented in a right/wrong way. Real life human interactions are much more complicated and nuanced and not easily reduced to such a binary level

Thank you very much for those kinds words, but I was not looking for sympathy and am at peace with it. And again, I totally agree with you, A. I could not live with myself. 
(I like “Em” by the way, thanks for the nickname, sounds nice!)

Hi Pixiefox   

re: the scenario  the "facts" as presented are that Janet had read that jellyfish aren't dangerous - if Janet genuinely believed that then she is not her fault although I concur that she would perhaps feel guilty that she gave incorrect advice, albeit inadvertently, thus accidentally involved in the death.  As the story is presented there is no indication that Janet intended to cause harm.  Furthermore a little research indicates that in the original scenario jellyfish "in the area" were reported to be harmless therefore even the suggestion that general knowledge would normally be expected to be that jellyfish can sting can be excluded from the analysis.  She could be guilty of not fact checking tho' :-)

Personally - I think that it's an old study of uncertain quality by people who may have been keen to find fault... (hehe ASD so prone to see the worst in people oops! case proven... :-) )  However I'm not alone in concluding that the whole thing about autism and no theory of mind has not got strong evidence.  See :Gernsbacher, M. A., & Yergeau, M. (2019). Empirical failures of the claim that autistic people lack a theory of mind.Archives of Scientific Psychology, 7(1), 102–118.    if you're into it....

That said I do know about myself as an autistic person and I do know with a high degree of confidence there is something different about me in comparison with "normal" people in respect of how I understand other people's intentions - I seem to have to work harder at it than them and am especially poor at the instinctive interplay that most other people appear to me to engage in. 

To explain more if that's OK?

well...  From what I understand of it there are a variety of theories relating to theory of mind :-)  The approach I personally favour based on personal experience is that there are 2 systems.   1 fast and implicit/intuitive and 2 explicit/slow and deductive.  That I explained my reasoning with quite some effort for the scenario indicates that I am using a "cognitive processing" slow and explicit deductive process here.  From what I currently understand of autism (please put me right if I'm wrong :-) ) that I do so does is more characteristic of autism in such circumstances.  Where I lack skills is in the fast implicit intuitive bit - seems I'm just not "wired-up" to do so :-( .   So as regards implicit intent... well perhaps I am missing something however there is nothing in the story to indicate Janet's guilt in this...

(For this same difference I can end up permanently distrusting and even disliking people  because I "worked out" cognitively the need to do so at some point and can struggle to let it go...  Possible missing the subconscious pointers that it may be appropriate or a good idea to do so.) 

Does this fit a pattern for you or others too I wonder?

As regards bullying and the intention to hurt.  Well... I have to admit that I have and probably still do subconsciously bully people.  I find that I also consciously bully people especially friends and family out of a sort of spiteful sense of humour.  However like yourself I would be bereft to learn that I had been so badly out of tune to do so in such a fashion that caused the person lasting actual physical, psychological or social harm.  This is behaviour that I am not proud of but seems to be a normal human flaw -  I'm no saint! :-(   The crux of this is that if it was "just a bit of fun" then it should be fun for all concerned... A joke that plays a social role.  My experience of bullies is that they "get something out of it" that is about their desire/need for dominance in the situation that goes above and beyond social ethics and indicate that their personal morals may be coming up short in ability to prevent them from doing an "evil" act.  Our subconscious can have us do evil before we are aware of it and perhaps behaving like that is less reprehensible than doing so as an act of conscious free will.  Personally I can't judge easily which of these is worse suspecting that one should "naturally" know the difference.  Maybe this is an autistic trait of the sort that studies into autism and morality explore.  I wonder what you and others think?

This is really interesting. My kneejerk reaction was yeah, it's Janet's fault. But then I wouldn't say so if I were on a jury or something unless it somehow came out that Janet wanted to harm the friend and lied about the jellyfish being safe. But where I really think this lands is why would you take the gamble and assure someone that they'll be fine if you really don't know? Janet clearly didn't know enough about the jellyfish to tell her friend that she would definitely be okay. Over-confidence might border on recklessness, right? In grad school I think the biggest thing I learned was, even if you're supposedly the expert in your field, if someone asks you a question and you are not sure of the answer, you MUST say "I don't know, but I can find out and get back to you." 

I'm not sure how to relate that vignette to bullying because imo the term bullying implies intent. If someone inadvertently hurts your feelings then I wouldn't call that bullying. I think moreso that bullies are driven by catharsis, trying to relieve their own pain in some way. People who are crass and say it's just a joke might want to hurt others, or they might be unable to understand the other person's feelings. Personally, I find that sort of emotional manipulation super scary (like physiologically anxiety inducing to even think about lol) so idk maybe I can't wrap my mind around it. 

Ok Pixiefox. So I got a bit lost in all this intent thing… I get it until I didn’t got it - but I get it - i think…

so, jelly fish - if Janet hadn’t have said it , friend doesn’t receive death by jellyfish (how influenced was the friend?? A lot). If Janet was a normy the study says that they’d not struggle for all eternity with guilt.,,, if their intent was to get friend to go swimming , with knowledge Jelly fish could kill - well that’s murder. If no such intent it’s a sad mistake. Autistic/or not. 

that’s actually all irrelevant!

I think what I initially got from what you said was that autistics focus on results. If we do something and result (often a reaction from someone) is negative then in our eyes we are to blame.. That’s what I think I’ve understood from what you’ve said - and if we were ‘neuro typical’ we’d realise we’re not to blame for responses/consequences? 

I don’t have the social savvy to navigate/negotiate others reactions to thing and have always found it easiest to either a) dig my heels in against all else or b) take the blame/fawn/placate 

c) usually murder is off the list (joke!)

That's terrible, I'm sorry you had to experience that. Like you, I just don't understand how people can do that to each other. If I did that to someone i would spiral into a pit of self loathing.

Hi Em….

I’m sorry that happened. It shouldn’t have - the bench : the memory : your parents dismissing it : you dealing with it on your own. It’s one of those ok:not ok - both things being true - things. 

Sarah x

Thanks for the input, I wouldn't take a chance swimming where there were jellyfish!

I think Janet and her friend were both guilty of stupidity. Virtually all jellyfish (a few do not) have stinging cells called nematocysts that inject toxins. At the very least many jellyfish are capable of causing painful lesions and possible anaphylaxis, while some (box jellyfish and the Portuguese man-o-war etc.) are very capable of killing a human outright. Don't swim with jellyfish!

The Portuguese man-o-war is in fact a colonial creature with component animals/cells performing different functions, rather than a single jellyfish.

Autistic info. dump!

I agree, bullies are oftentimes trying to compensate for something else by making others suffer, but like Pixiefox I find it hard to grasp that there are people who actually just want to hurt others. 
I experienced pretty much the opposite of what you described. Although I’m an easily affected person, I don’t respond adequately to insults and actions I don’t understand because they’re just not true. I also refuse to stay silent about something like that since my mind constantly tells me how unjust it is. 
Thus, when two boys started to pick on me daily, I told on them. It didn’t change anything for me and so I always came back to my favourite place where they would eventually pick on me again. Not willing to let them take over my spot, I told on them again, but nothing was done against it. The verbal insults evolved into hitting and kicking. And since I didn’t react by being frightened they continued to escalate. It ended with me being momentarily unconscious because my head hit a plank on the ground while being pushed down. Finally, the teachers did something to prevent that.

It still didn’t leave a lasting effect on me, because I still didn’t understand why they were bullying me. I brought it up in front of my parents years later and they said, I never told them anything. It was irrelevant for me.

Sorry, that was not topic related, just an interesting observation.

I absolutely relate and agree. The thought that I hurt someone is one of my biggest trigger and I think I even wrote in that previous thread that I would have felt terribly guilty if I was Janet. It’s extremely hard for me to read other people’s intentions, so I kinda have to rely on what they tell me their intentions are and then I often find myself being used, lied to etc. Neurotypical people don’t have this struggle, they usually know what the intentions of the other person are, because they see it in the expression, tone etc. 

Thanks for your input.

It seems that way.

It seems to be a cliche that most bullies are people who feel powerless themselves and make themselves feel better by making others feel powerless.

I’ve never been susceptible to physical bullying (my emotions are very slow to react so I never give them the satisfaction of appearing frightened), but I have definitely been taken advantage of or been the butt of “humour” by people who really should have known better (eg “friends”). I still don’t truly understand their motivation.

Incidentally, my instinct when I read your first post was that Janet was indeed to blame.

I'm sure you are right, but it's a mystery to me why people want to do that. I suppose the intent is to make themselves feel more powerful?

I can think of many examples of bullying where there is no possibility of any intent other than making the other person suffer.