'Theory of Mind'

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?

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?