Sally Anne test

I think this illustration is so well known it would be difficult to use as a real test. It is there to explain to NTs who are trying to help people on the spectrum, and like a lot of illustrations it becomes blown out of all proportion or relevance.

For one thing the anecdote probably appeals more to girls than boys (simply in respect of the kinds of context). It is also rather dated.

We are at the mercy of guides to professionals that get bogged down in the relevance and universality of examples. It is meant to address theory of mind, in that a person with autistic spectrum characteristics might not know what others are thinking, and therefore only work with his/her direct observation. Seems sound enough, but is it really the case that everyone on the spectrum would reliably 'fail' this test?

Its like the other "cookies" dreamt up to define us. "Gaze aversion" is seen in children and teenagers as a response to difficulty making eye contact. As we grow older "look at me when I'm speaking", "pay attention" etc tends to sink in, and to please the rest of the world we look at or sort of at a face. We don't necessarily have eye contact though, and may be looking at other parts of the face or defocussing the face. But to the professional we appear to have eye contact, just because we don't show manifest gaze aversion.

Or social communication. To survive we have to compensate and emulate others. So many teenagers and adults manage fairly good social skills for day to day use for long enough to handle basic needs. So what do the specialists do? - oh he/ she seemed perfectly OK in a fifteen minute interview, therefore cannot have aspergers.

Because of lack of support most people on the spectrum have to try to conform at least for basic survival. But if we appear to conform, some short-sighted NT deems us not affected by autism. Little wonder some give up trying.

So I wouldn't worry about an illustration with dolls, balls and baskets - sounds like typically neurotypical naiivity to me.

I think this illustration is so well known it would be difficult to use as a real test. It is there to explain to NTs who are trying to help people on the spectrum, and like a lot of illustrations it becomes blown out of all proportion or relevance.

For one thing the anecdote probably appeals more to girls than boys (simply in respect of the kinds of context). It is also rather dated.

We are at the mercy of guides to professionals that get bogged down in the relevance and universality of examples. It is meant to address theory of mind, in that a person with autistic spectrum characteristics might not know what others are thinking, and therefore only work with his/her direct observation. Seems sound enough, but is it really the case that everyone on the spectrum would reliably 'fail' this test?

Its like the other "cookies" dreamt up to define us. "Gaze aversion" is seen in children and teenagers as a response to difficulty making eye contact. As we grow older "look at me when I'm speaking", "pay attention" etc tends to sink in, and to please the rest of the world we look at or sort of at a face. We don't necessarily have eye contact though, and may be looking at other parts of the face or defocussing the face. But to the professional we appear to have eye contact, just because we don't show manifest gaze aversion.

Or social communication. To survive we have to compensate and emulate others. So many teenagers and adults manage fairly good social skills for day to day use for long enough to handle basic needs. So what do the specialists do? - oh he/ she seemed perfectly OK in a fifteen minute interview, therefore cannot have aspergers.

Because of lack of support most people on the spectrum have to try to conform at least for basic survival. But if we appear to conform, some short-sighted NT deems us not affected by autism. Little wonder some give up trying.

So I wouldn't worry about an illustration with dolls, balls and baskets - sounds like typically neurotypical naiivity to me.