'Theory of Mind'

I'm reading a great book just now by Cynthia Kim, which resonates with me on many levels.

www.amazon.co.uk/.../1849057575

My failure to accept compliments, my study of NT's mannarisms to try and understand them, the misreading of the expressions of an Aspie; by NT's, because our facial expressions don't always pair up with the signals NT's are used to taking ques from, as I think Longman describes.

Hope, the chances are people (NT's) are staring at you, but not perhaps because they can read your mind, but more likely because of your lack of expression perhaps or because the ques are misread by them. It's described as the 'flatt or blunted affect' and can also be construed by NT's as scary. As decibed in her chapter, 'You Scare Me!'

Cynthia described a similar misreading of another facial expression when she was quizzed by her lecturer, "You have a question for me?" (her answer being) "No why?" (Lecturers reply) "Because you are frowning at me!" (to which she replied,) "I'm not frowning, this is my consentrating face!"

Sarah Hendrickx also describes this quizzical look. In fact, many with ASD have a permanant crease between their eyes where they have been using this expression in concentration. in an effort to understand NT's. She (Sarah) wants this feature (although hardy scientific) described as the 'Hendickx effect.' Frankly I think it's a great observation and although not foolproof I've realized many of my Aspie friends also possess it. (Including myself.)

Re Eves comments, I wonder whether the above issue could also be to do with expectation. In reading the chapter of the book mentioned above, Cynthia described the disparity between gifted and tallented and the expectation of others who believe that an individual must be good at everything. It's when 'a strength isn't a strength.'

As she describes, it's like throwing a child baseball star into a pool and expecting him to swim. 'What do you mean he can't swim, He's athletic isn't he?'

I may have misconstrued this, but to me it does seem possible that although people are able to understand certain theorys and processes, it doesn't necessarily mean they can either apply them in the right context or recognise them when faced with a situation. The situation may have suble variences that don't compute with the application of what someone with ASD deems as similar enough to previous occurances or situations perhaps?

Some very good points raised above and really room for loads more contribution.

Thanks for the feedback and comments. Do give Cynthia a read, especially if you are a female on the spectrum.

Coogybear xx

Re Eve's post, thanks for this.

I think the real problem lies with "not being able to see the wood for the trees". People on the autistic spectrum are flooded with information and have to work through it to make sense. NTs seem to get the key points much faster, but I wonder if they get it as accurately.

I suspect the AS subjects were partly taken up with filtering the complexity of the changing patterns, whereas the "normal" subjects (what ever that means given the extent of Theory of Mind symptoms) saw the key information quickly. Given more time the AS subjects would probably have scored full marks. So is that just information processing speed or Theory of Mind?

What your son may be experiencing is that it takes longer for him to process the information but he probably gets better results, spots anomalies and variations, and does an overall better job. Unfortunately NTs are flattered by themselves...never mind the detail, get the general impression, never mind the consequences.

Re Hope's post - yes we are being watched. NTs study people's faces at regular intervals to gauge whether friend or foe, how other people respond to them etc. They spend longer with faces on the autistic spectrum because our facial expressions may be less informative, even ambiguous, and poor eye contact, gaze aversion apparent non-attentiveness or pre-occupation. So they stare much longer at us wondering why we aren't responding the way they expect.

I was for many years very concuious of being stared at. Part of it was my height - being unusual gets you looked at - but I also probably looked a bit grim and threatening (so logically surely it would be wiser not to stare).

But then NTs have the capacity for stating the obvious - you're huge, have big sharp teeth and look as if you're going to eat me - well if so shouldn't you have started running away minutes ago?

I have to add that even when I am alone I feel as though my mind can be read, by the neighbours, for example.

I have a question ask about this subject.

Since I was a teenager I have become very very self-conscious, to the point of thinking that everyone is looking at me; and I can't help but think that everyone else can somehow see inside my head and read my thoughts. Although I know that this is not possible, I can't really emotionally believe this fact - there seems to be a disconnect between my intellect and what I actually feel.

It can feel as though people can penetrate my mind, and this means that everything I do feels unnatural because it feels as though everyone is watching. This can feel quite uncomfortable because I would like to concentrate on the outside world and take in what is going on around me instead of being so self-absorbed. I just cannot separate my mind from my ego, or really accept on an emotionaal level that other people are not looking at me all the time. What is this all about? When I was a child, I was an attention seeker and would misbehave and 'act out' in order to be noticed because I did not know how to relate to people in an appropriate way. There is still a bit of this in me and I love being on stage and people noticing me; but when I am not on stage, while I sort of enjoy being in the lime light, I also get distracted by other people because I can't distance myself from them. It is like my mind and their mind have merged and there are no boundaries. Again, I can intellectualise this and I know that most people do not have this issue, but I can't stop myself from thinking that what I think somehow becomes reality for other people.

I am not sure if this makes sense?

I found this discussion interesting. Would welcome more on theory of mind.

One thing that I find difficlt to get my head around Longman is that people with AS seem to lack the insight that is ToM but can understand the principle of it. And someone like you can argue about the relative merits of the theory, and strength or otherwise of the evidence and yet still, apparently, lack insight (ToM). I'm baffled. My son is able to be highly analytical and understand some very complex stuff, but not apply it in practice very well. Maybe in some cases it is partly about an abstractions /practice split??   (Could you pass the geometric shapes puzzles test now, or is it still a challenge? What, if anything, does that tell us about capacity for learning.)

There is another side to this, and I am asking the Moderators to ask NAS to look into it for us and "come clean".

Theory of Mind tests date back to Uta Frith and colleagues in London in the late 80s/early 90s. Theory of Mind was a diagnostic for both schizophrenia and autism, where there were differences between pattern sequences and written sequences. But at the time scientists were wondering if Asperger's Syndrome had more in common with schizophrenia, because there was less difference.

In recent years they have found that Theory of Mind is a feature of Bipolar Disorder, and most research has been on distinguishing that from schizophrenia. 

So what does that mean exactly? Well Theory of Mind is found in Schizophrenia, Bipolar Disorder, autism and a number of other conditions. So my first question to NAS is why is Theory of Mind still in the Triad of Impairments? It isn't sufficiently distinctive from other conditions.

Secondly the tests devised by Bowler and others in the 1980s use sequences where the subjects have to work out what comes next. But false information is included in the sequence which identifies different types of mental functioning. In the pattern sequences the next shape often isn't the most immediately obvious, in texts the misleading information is buried in the text.

People with autism tend to do worse on the pattern sequences than the written (which seems back to front to me, if we are more visual). But what does this prove?

Let's face it, you have to work out the next stage in a sequence within a given timescale, and subjects have to do them over and over and over. The number of times the next sequence is identified makes up most of the data. But in reality it is just autistic subjects make more mistakes, not that they cannot work out the sequences ie it might be 11 correct compared to 15 in the normal subjects, not Autism Nil: Normal 15. It is vague stuff.

Are autistic subjects less motivated by the sequences? Did autistic subjects poroperly understand what they were being asked to do? Are the sequences contributory to sensory distress? - bright light, noises etc.

We all know why this goes on. Like the MRI and electrodes research labs they need funded research projects to sustain them. So the reason for so many tests is to fund academia NOT to help people with autism. Several lead universities in the UK are unethical and immoral in the exploitation of this kind of work.

So my second question to the NAS Moderators is what evidence is there, if any, that these tests really prove anything helpful to understanding autism?

Thanks for that Longman,

 I may have to read this a couple of times to completely digest it, but I think I get it. 

Coogy X

It is an attempt to explain one aspect of autism behaviours, and is highly theoretical. So if you are having trouble seeing yourself or a child with aspergers doing it, don't worry.

It is about whether people on the spectrum can understand what others are thinking - whether we can read the collective mind.

There is a collective mind - most people seem to click to something at the same time, eg see a subtle joke, or notice something going wrong, or come up with the same solution to a problem. It is probably an instinctive survival function from the days when we were monkeys swinging in the trees. The whole community needed to understand some things collectively.

People on the spectrum don't use non-verbal cues properly, whether reading them or generating them. So it might just be that we miss very subtle cues.

But Theory of Mind goes further, into some sort of collective understanding. Tests on children at different ages - like the ones with two dolls, a box and a ball - or those geometric shape puzzles like one shown on a TV programme last year (what happens next?)- repeatedly show that normal children do it right, and people with autism get it wrong.

I'm just not sure that the deductions psychiatrists and psychologists make from these tests are really getting us anywhere.

Part of it hinges on whether puzzles are solved from memory or by intellectual analysis - people on the spectrum tend towards memory.

Another part must be social cues.Because people with autism don't develop this acuity they don't develop a collective use of it.

Also thinking in pictures rather than words might be a factor.

To put it in real everyday terms we appear insenstive to what others around us are thinking. We don't recognise when someone else needs a cuddle or an effusive thank you. We don't realise when sympathy is called for. We don't anticipate what is happening in a room full of people and need more explanations (I was always having to ask for directions to be repeated, and never can work out where everyone else is suddenly going).

But whether what the boffins think it is about really helps us in real life, goodness knows.