Mind blindness and Theory of Mind

[Kevin1968]

Perhaps it's because I am aware of ASD traits now, that I am finding them in myself, but I recently became aware that there is a variation of the "Sally Anne" test Sally–Anne test - Wikipedia that is more applicable for adults. The problem with the Sally Anne test is that many of those who are HFA use logic to give the correct answer.

The variation is 'Mind blindness' affects moral reasoning in autism | Spectrum | Autism Research News

One test is
"Two friends take a coffee break at a chemical plant. Mary asks Grace to pass the sugar, and Grace hands her a dispenser clearly labeled ‘Sugar.’ Unbeknownst to either woman, however, the dispenser contains not sugar, but a poisonous chemical that looks like it. Mary drinks her toxin-sweetened coffee and dies a few hours later.

Is Grace to blame?"

Spoiler: answer

(If you are NT you probably say no, if you are ND then you are likely to say yes)

I had a slightly less dramatic version of it happen to me several months ago that I was reminded of when I read that test. My boss was told lies by a co-worker of mine that at the time got me into a lot of trouble, In my eyes my boss was to blame for believing the co-worker. Of course my logical mind now realises that perhaps I shouldn't have blamed him, but logic aside he should have trusted me not the new guy!!

So another tick in the ASD traits list for me, but being aware of it hopefully will mean I can spot it when it happens again. (I hope)

 

[Ylva]

The thing is, Grace is to blame, and so is your boss. Just not for having ill intent. If I were Grace I would beat myself up every day after that. Why should blame only mean "you're evil"? Your boss is probably NT, but even if he's not, he knows that people lie to get ahead.

Grace and Mary, regardless of neurotype, should try not to trust so much. Who's supposed to be naive again? You can't just put things in your coffee.

 

[Ylva]

The person who exchanged the sugar with the poisonous substance that looks like sugar is the culprit. No one else.

Even if they made a mistake? Because Grace made a mistake.

I suppose it's meant to be implied that Grace and Mary work at the chemical plant. However, it is not, except to allistics, making it kind of pointless to use it to test autistics.

If they work at a chemical plant, why aren't they more careful? Shouldn't they be able to tell whether or not something is sugar? If they are just dropping by for coffee, perhaps for the first time, maybe they know someone there, why aren't they more careful? Grace may be partially to blame, but so is Mary. If they were at home it would be reasonable for them to expect things to be where they are supposed to.

 

[the_tortoise]

To me that TOM test seems to evaluate logic, language processing, attention to detail, and something else I have no word(s) for at least as much as it tests theory of mind. (Although, seriously, what is theory of mind without those things....at best it would be nothing more than the assumption that everyone else in the world thinks exactly like you do, and projecting your thoughts/feelings and perspective onto other people....which seems quite paradoxical since you aren't exactly theorizing much about anyone else's perspective if you just assume everyone is exactly like you.)

I guess it's supposed to be testing whether or not you think to consider and examine intent, and/or whether or not you care about intent? (A person could have great theory of mind and not care about intent.....)

 

[Ylva]

To me that TOM test seems to evaluate logic, language processing, attention to detail, and something else I have no word(s) for at least as much as it tests theory of mind.

I guess it's supposed to be testing whether or not you think to consider and examine intent, and/or whether or not you care about intent? (A person could have great theory of mind and not care about intent.....)

Are you TOMing about the test makers' intent? Or their TOM? This is so meta.

 

[the_tortoise]

Are you TOMing about the test makers' intent? Or their TOM? This is so meta.

I'm trying to understand how the test works, what the reasoning is for concluding stuff about the test-taker based upon their answer..... thinking about what skills come into play when a person takes the test, what could make a person answer one way versus another....

TOM as a conceptual entity confuses me. I think that either I just don't get it or it's not a very well defined thing.

 

[Judge]

Interesting. I'm just wondering how the authors would view my uptake of such a hypothetical situation. Where I'd likely explain the legal nuances of liability from the perspective of a possible civil suit. Likely void of all that humanity I suppose they're looking for to so easily identify Neurotypicals.

If so, would they be right? Would my moral reasoning be compromised with a cold, clinical answer?

I gave up trying to explain it all in writing here. Didn't want to bore y'all. The test itself IMO strikes me as stupid given real-life considerations and demands of civil law and liability.

The person who exchanged the sugar with the poisonous substance that looks like sugar is the culprit. No one else.

Close Mia, but no cigar. At least not in the US given how difficult it can be to evade fundamental premises liability. However the "test" doesn't explain all the circumstances required to make a real judgement in the first place. Was the proximate cause of the death a deliberate criminal act by an intruder and not an employee? A circumstance that could mitigate the employers's premises liability, but not likely omit it in its entirety. Especially if the perpetrator has no assets to take in a civil suit.

When civil suits can be far more about compensation than justice.

 

[tlc]

The proper answer would be the person who put poison in the sugar container, or labeled the poison container as sugar.

But in today's world, the party to blame would be whichever has the highest ratio of deepest pockets vs protection of those pockets.

 

[Kevin1968]

@Judge and @tlc it's not a legal question but simply your opinion of who is to blame and how NTs and NDs may decide differently.

 

[Progster]

This is an accident, and the reason for the accident is that someone had put poison into a jar that says sugar, which Mary then ingested. This is the reason for the accident. Who is to blame, if anyone at all. depends on the exact circumstances which are not revealed in this scenario. Perhaps there was a big sign saying "DO NOT USE - POISON" above the jars. Perhaps company rules state that one must bring one's own sugar, and never use substances lying around regardless of what it says on the jar. Perhaps company safety policy states that one should never consume substances within the building without verifying their source - so if Grace just handed Mary the jar, perhaps Mary is to blame for accepting it without checking because that is against safety policy. Perhaps someone was supposed to relabel the jars, but failed to so so, and so is negligent? Really, there's not enough information to say that one person is to blame or another.

 

[Monachopia]

Legally, I assume, the employer is to blame in this case, they have a duty of care over their employees in the course of their employment, and as they were having a tea break on the premises, this would be that situation. The employer should know that dangerous chemicals are present and should have more checks in place to ensure the health and wellbeing of their staff. So I answered 'No', Grace is not to blame, she did not know. She reasonably expected that the employer would be able to uphold a safe environment (especially in the cafeteria (presumably)) for the staff. So it's a case for Negligence. Or if someone could prove that there was malicious intent from someone who refilled those jars, well, that's just murder then

I don't believe that test is a good measure of AS and only believing that an NT would answer 'No' and an ND would answer 'Yes'. We all learn not to take things at face value like that. So whoever designed those sorts of questions assumes we're stupid and take things literally ONLY. That is extremely flawed thinking.

 

[Kevin1968]

Perhaps its that NTs just say no, and NDs analyse it more? (Generalising of course)

 

[Ylva]

Perhaps its that NTs just say no, and NDs analyse it more? (Generalising of course)

In this thread, at least.

 

[Tom]

I am not familiar with either of those concepts. I always heard it was just best to deny everything and blame somebody else if possible.

 

[Judge]

@Judge and @tlc it's not a legal question but simply your opinion of who is to blame and how NTs and NDs may decide differently.

When you are asking about whether or not someone has any culpability in whole or in part of an event that results in the death of another human being, rest assured that it's a legal question of civil or criminal law, or even both depending on the circumstances and jurisdiction.

There is no other conclusion one can draw from such a flawed question, particularly if they have a professional background in criminal and civil law, or general liability.

Where in the case of my opinion, it will be anything but simple. Which just happens to fit the reality of the situation in my country. Much like our legal system, where jurors are asked for a verdict at the end of a trial- not its beginning. Asking me to do otherwise is simply unconscionable.

I'm all for ways of assessing Theory of Mind, but not in such an inherently flawed manner.

 

[the_tortoise]

Perhaps NTs can more easily/quickly guess what context is intended, and then alter what they factor in or disregard.

 

[Kevin1968]

@Judge Not sure if you intended it or not, but the legal issue does raise an interesting scenario if Grace had a panel of NT jurors she would probably get acquitted, however if she had a panel of ND jurors she might get hung!!

Okay, I'm exaggerating but the point is really about how NDs and NTs view situations differently, not whether Grace is guilty or not.

In my case, should I have told my boss that I blame him for letting himself be deceived? He might have apologised to me, but would he have felt he really was wrong? If he had felt to blame surely he would have apologised when he found out but he didn't. It's not a legal situation, but I have condemned him whereas someone else might not have. I can put on a mask and say it wasn't really his fault...but in my mind it was.

What I am really interested in doing now is using my knowledge that I may misattribute blame to avoid problems in the future.

 

[Judge]

@Judge Not sure if you intended it or not, but the legal issue does raise an interesting scenario if Grace had a panel of NT jurors she would probably get acquitted, however if she had a panel of ND jurors she might get hung!!

When you talk about acquittals and capital punishment, this is strictly in the realm of criminal law. Where one is innocent until proven guilty of murder with aforethought.

If it was ascertained that Grace had no prior knowledge that the container of sugar was tainted, there isn't even the slightest establishment of motive for murder. Then factor in that guilt in such an instance must be established beyond a reasonable doubt.

Under the circumstances this flawed argument set about to begin with, there's nothing a civil or criminal court would likely do against Grace at all. At least not in this country. The one issue that would remain constant is the premises liability of the employer. It would still be a potential issue whether there was an unlawful killing of a human being or not.

 

[Kevin1968]

@Judge you missed this bit

"Okay, I'm exaggerating but the point is really about how NDs and NTs view situations differently, not whether Grace is guilty or not."

 

[Judge]

@Judge you missed this bit

"Okay, I'm exaggerating but the point is really about how NDs and NTs view situations differently, not whether Grace is guilty or not."

Yes- you are exaggerating. To a point beyond the reality of the situation. This we agree upon.

But is it logical to attempt to establish an explanation of a thought process based on a premise that is bogus to begin with?

This isn't about questioning Theory of Mind, but simply a criticism of how they are going about it with this particularly flawed example.