Theory of mind

longman, that's interesting about 'pecking orders', and I've wondered about it myself. Speaking purely personally, I don't relate to the concept at all. I don't feel any need to 'fit myself in' to any such hierarchy. in fact I find I dislike the idea. Nevertheless, it does seem to be important to NTs. Is this general? is a 'pecking order' important to NTs, but pointless to autists?

Another thing, going back to losing track of convos. I've noticed - I think - that NTs often try to test the veracity of the person they are talking to, even in fairly trivial matters. They do this by throwing out a statement and looking for a response. Such statements are not well connected to the preceding convo track; this, it seems, is intentional; the person is trying to catch you out. My problem is that it does indeed catch me out, but because I'm trying to work out where the convo is suddenly going. I hesitate. This hesitation is taken as an admission of guilt of some kind.. 

..or am I just getting paranoid??

I know what you mean. My friends sort of end in physical contact outside of school, other than that I only talk to them through Facebook, which confuses and scares me. I tried getting a friend to explain the relevance of the 'poke' button.... why not just poke them when you meet them???

I try my best to avoid the hierachy in school at all costs, the only time I dabble in their social spectrum is when the 'Queen Bee' (most popular girl) asks for help with her homework. I think I've been given the rank of 'Know-it-all', they don't know it, so I should, or I'll at least narrow down the search for them. Its good because when I do make attempts at social contact they don't call me out on mistakes, they just ignore them politely.

Luckily for me theres a small group of people (my friends) who are what we've dubbed 'the social rejects'. They aren't into mainstream conversation material and find my sometime eccentric or in depth explainations funny or interesting. By having this small 'pack' as it were, it seems to strengthen each individuals confidence, and as we don't concern ourselves with ranking and all the little formalities we're all ready to jump to the others defence against the 'normals' without arguing who talks first.

I think the reason I get on with them so well is because we all know the rules, we can acknowledge the rules, but we have the ability to kick them out the window and laugh about it for a while, or even make fun of the normals for just being normal.

I take your point entirely JDW. Theres little obvious benefit to a lot of NT dialogue. If you can manage without it well and good. My only reservation is that you end up lacking people you can call on for help, especially as you get older (I'm 61 so I know this all too well - I really do have to do everything for myself).

I'm classed as on the mild side (leastways what my diagnosis says is "has developed good coping strategies", but it was suggested to me I was mild) so obviously I cannot say this is a way out for people with more marked ASD. 

However I was getting very depressed and erratic/loopy by my early thirties and was advised and eventually drove myself to get out more (I didn't have a diagnosis until 55 so my problems were deemed "Immaturity/inadequacy"). So I've always forced myself into situations, at least on a formal communication basis - committees particularly, societies, and some sort of social scene.  That way I've got better at some sort of acted out communication. It was assisted though by being in a teaching role, and being a good writer (and not affected by dyslexia).

When I got a diagnosis I was able to refine my complex system of avoidances, narrow pathways, self-made rules, and other baggage by reading up on the subject, and developing workable strategies. That has got round the undermining effects of social gaffs, not fitting in at work and having groups of people trying to get me sacked based on tenuous claims my face didn't fit (which I suffered from almost continuously together with a lot of workplace bullying).

However I still experience a rapid decline between formal situations and informal, and forming close friendships or relationships remains virtually impossible.  So I exist in a strange world where I have lots of outside contact but no close friends.

But at least I experience little depression much better self esteem and confidence, probably on account of trying. I say so reservedly because I might be a lot better off in terms of traits than other poople, so the trying may have been easier for me.

Hello,

Perhaps being newly diagnosed at the age of 41 I am still in some millitant stage tired of spending my formative life not fitting in and being unable to see the merit in 'social chit chat'. Do I really need the acceptance of a selfish largely unsympathetic world. Please understand that I am not being argumentative its just that I, like many, am weary of trying to conform to socially engineered norms that we can never hope to assimilate with, not in any natural, genuine or believable way.

Thanks

James

That advice sounds good to me. You can carry off an air of confident authority simply by keeping involvement to essentials and checking with someone afterwards.

The last bit I found hard in the workplace because people deduce that if you need clarification you aren't up to the job. But in a school situation I reckon that asking someone afterwards if there was anything important in the conversation makes very good sense.

As to whether a conversation is really worth having - that is the big question. Part of fitting in is about having many pointless conversations. It is how the group rehearses and exercises the "pecking order" (dreadful metaphor) - who is the alpha male, who are the main supporters, who are the adoring hangers on, and who are just there "for the ride".

I agree you're not missing out on much content. But it does prevent acceptance in a peer group. They have to be confident you'll stay in the position the group has assigned to you - henchman, hanger on, loser whatever. That's all the dialogue is about - playing out life's little hierarchies and role plays - and it will carry on right through education, work, marriage (oh yes husband and wife - who is the boss?) and even (what I now dread) the pecking order in the old folks home. You have to do these dreadful chat routines in order to be accepted.

Of course if you can manage without being accepted well and good. My only regret is I lack close friends who can help out when I cannot manage on my own. I know lots of people to say hi to, and I do a great deal of community and voluntary work but know hardly a soul to ask a favour.

But yes, with aspergers - you remain unresolved in relation to the group because you can never follow the rules.

How to appease the 'normals'.

Sit still, look mostly at the one speaking. Nod occassionally, offer something to the convo if they all get stuck. Wait more, nod more, let converstaion die out.

When everyone leaves, ask someone else if anything important was said XD

Fortunately at my age (in 6th form) I can use this tecnique for all peer conversations, and with my friends we're all just as random so irregular information simply makes us all laugh while anything of significance is discussed in detail so everyone knows whats going on.

I think the real problem is, how can you tell if a conversation's worth having? No point in going to all that effort for something that'll end up leaving you 'high and dry' like some sort of beached whale for people to poke with sticks.

I think it is a good reference for people supporting people on the spectrum to read and I have recommended it to colleagues. Having followed a higher education career I was a disability coordinator for a decade either supporting colleagues to do so or working directly with students on the spectrum, as a learning tutor. Personal experience isn't necessarily a good thing so I try to keep read up, so my perspective is well informed.

The communication issue is two way, which seems to be overlooked. It is what subtext you fail to generate properly as well as what subtext you fail to read. I have found I can "read between the lines" to use that metaphor, to piece together what I'm not picking up. However what I cannot do (certainly not at the same time as listening) is to generate the correct facial expression and nods and acquiescences that are expected. Nor can I judge correct speaking proximity or volume. 

That may be what NTs most sense. They cannot identify my lack of comprehension, unless I look blankly or ask for something to be repeated or better explained (which annoys NTs). What they can and do detect is my not making the right changes to facial expression that indicate I'm following. I can fake eye contact by watching mouths, and I've learned to play act a bit to make up most of the expected gestures.

Interestingly this most likely upsets your peer group. Students put my eccentricities down to age, as far as I can tell. The problem is living up to the expectations of your peer group - particularly work colleagues and social circle. Also I find I'm a bit basic - one style serves all - so get disapproval for not appearing to show sufficient respect to someone whio should receive it. This is not ignorance about deference but a tendancy to be fairly rough spoken and not as intellectual as I ought to sound.

The other thing I find is that my concentration on trying to follow conversation is read by others as my being a good listener. The trouble is I experience fade outs when listening, and my concentration is about gap filling and catching up. I have had to learn to nod intelligently through conversations I've not the least comprehension about.

It is worth remembering that most NTs are not necessarily that smart.

Kalo, I sympathise with you about convo content, I can't do 'small talk' either. I get the impression, though, that no matter how meaningless such idle chat seems to be to us, there is a lot going on under the surface - the subtext of a convo. This subtext seems to carry a lot of significance, but it tends to go straight over my head. I'm told that subtext is partly body language, partly cultural background (stuff you're assumed to know about). If we can't read the former and haven't absorbed the latter, no wonder we get lost!  

longman, I'll have to look at that book. Should NTs be encouraged to read it, to find out how *our* minds work?

I have found Digby Tantam's book "Can the World afford Autistic Spectrum Disorder - Non-verbal communication, asperger syndrome and the interbrain" useful in understanding these things. Though primarily about gaze (eye contact) and social communication it builds on theory of mind. The book seems to explain the processes very well in relation to what I experience. Possibly it could help others 

Sounds a lot like me in terms of the conversation. I struggle really hard to keep up with other kids my age when they talk because by the time I want to say something next thing I know the converstations' moved from animals to hair products, which makes me stop to try and figure out a) WHEN that happened b) how on earth it happened and c) what can I say now? Of course by the time I hit c) the convo's gone off in a completely different direction again, making me repeat the whole process.

In this way I think that maybe its not so much theory of mind, but the actual thought process. 'Normal' people don't seem to really give much thought to conversations, just adding bits of random information as and when they can (which to me makes them sound like birds twittering away) but for me, when I want to say something I want it to have relevance and meaning (because otherwise, where's the point in saying anything?) meaning I get left behind literally and figuratively. i.e. they leave and I just sit in my chair doing a good impression of a goldfish while I'm still processing the changes in the conversation.

Thanks Kalo! I should have thought of Wiki myself - will have a look.

I'm not so sure, though, that NTs have a ToM either, or at least only some do, certainly not when it comes to knowing that other people think differently. How many NTs take this into account when dealing with autists? I've found that when I try to explain myself to relatives, they just get irritated, and they seem to interpret my words quite differently to how I intended them.

However, something interesting happened to me earlier this year (at my son's wedding!) I was talking with his new BiL, who also has AS, and at one point he seemed to get stuck. He didn't respond straight away, his face seemed to freeze. I recognised the signs, and I knew that something I'd said didn't seem to be what he expected, and he was having difficulty following me, needing a little time to catch up, which often happens to me!

So - perhaps it's not so much that we have no ToM at all (without one, communication might be completely impossible!) but that we *do* have one, and NTs have their own ToM, and the two are different?

Wow, thats realy helpfull thanks. I had totaly misunderstood what that meant when the pshchologist had said it, and just had a chat with my son and it makes a lot of sence now.

sam

x

If in doubt, google it:

Theory of mind is the ability to attribute mental states—beliefs, intents, desires, pretending, knowledge, etc.—to oneself and others and to understand that others have beliefs, desires and intentions that are different from one's own.

Can always rely on Wiki ;)

I think it basically means we don't have the instinct that others do when it comes to giving the other person a chance to have their say and can't quite understand why they think differently to us. I mean, I know other people have different opinions, but without sound facts or reasoning I don't understand the thought process.