Mind blindness and Theory of Mind

[Kevin1968]

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.

Out of interest do you know a better way?

The mind is difficult to analyse, what interests me is how things are viewed differently by different people, leaving aside "that once you've met one ND you have met one ND" (The same must logically apply to NTs too), then understanding how NTs and NDs view things differently may help me.

 

[Judge]

Out of interest do you know a better way?

The mind is difficult to analyse, what interests me is how things are viewed differently by different people, leaving aside "that once you've met one ND you have met one ND" (The same must logically apply to NTs too), then understanding how NTs and NDs view things differently may help me.

For starters to keep the scenario from reflecting extremes such as the commission of a crime or an overtly immoral act. To take a subject with a lot of ambiguities and range and see if people make conditional or non-conditional conclusions from it.

Even then however, NTs must concede the possibility that not all people on the spectrum automatically default to a certain mental process on the spot. That in fact they may have some form of intense training that alters their thought processes beyond merely their own neurology.

That in itself wouldn't make me Neurotypical. It just means I'm trained in certain ways to be able to go beyond what my thought processes might normally default to.

 

[Kevin1968]

Even then however, NTs must concede the possibility that not all people on the spectrum automatically default to a certain mental process on the spot.

No test will ever be 100% anyway

That in itself wouldn't make me Neurotypical. It just means I'm trained in certain ways to be able to go beyond what my thought processes might normally default to.

It's my aim too, use whatever brainpower I can to overcome potential weaknesses..but in order to overcome them I need to recognise them.

I knew I could pass the Sally Anne test, as can most adults I expect, it was only reading the "flawed" example and overlaying that on a real life incident that I could see that I may still be mind-blind.
I expect it means I need to carefully consider a wider variety of options when trying to see someone else's point of view, difficult..not impossible.

 

[Ylva]

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.

Okay, but do you think it's Anne's fault that Sally looks in the wrong place for her Thing? What if Anne feels she's just putting the Thing in its proper place? What if she wasn't trying to give Sally an anxiety attack at all?

 

[Judge]

No test will ever be 100% anyway

Indeed. You'll find many of us have echoed that sentiment in a number of threads in this forum. To use tests as a tool, but most decidedly not as a method to categorically diagnose autism.

 

[Judge]

Okay, but do you think it's Anne's fault that Sally looks in the wrong place for her Thing? What if Anne feels she's just putting the Thing in its proper place? What if she wasn't trying to give Sally an anxiety attack at all?

All my existing comments and criticisms so far are relevant only to the example given regarding Grace and Mary. An example that puts real-life considerations of crime and liability at the forefront of the situation in question.

 

[Ylva]

All my existing comments and criticisms so far are relevant only to the example given regarding Grace and Mary. An example that puts real-life considerations of crime and liability at the forefront of the situation in question.

I know, that's why I tried an example which was about guilt, but not criminal liability. My sister studies law, and she refuses to discuss things like this too. I suppose it depends on Anne's TOM whether she was being a sht or not.

 

[WildCat]

Give me Grace's actions prior to this. Intent, was there any and what was it? Was Grace even to blame in the first place? Did someone else do it? Who else was involved? What? I need details here.

If there's no further details here, the question is pretty stupid indeed. Frith can shake her head all she wants for all I care.

 

[Judge]

I suppose it depends on Anne's TOM whether she was being a sht or not.

Now you're closer to establishing a more reasonable conclusion. Where neither crime or liability is an issue.

 

[Progster]

I don't think that it's the case that we don't possess theory of mind - of course I know that other people might have different thoughts to mie, or see things in a different way, and it is insulting to suggest otherwise. Of course I can work out that if a person doesn't know something, then they can't be blamed for an accident arising from that (though it would occur to me that they should have known better). What's going on here is that NTs are better at assuming and filling in implied information, so most NTs will assume that Grace didn't know that what was in the jar wasn't sugar, and therefore conclude that Grace wasn't to blame. Likewise, they will assume various things about the background - details which aren't actually given - that they both work there, that they are in a kitchen, whereas ASD people won't necessarily do this, they tend not to automatically fill in and need more information, and various alternative scenarios occur to them which might not occur to NTs.

 

[HidinginPlainSight]

I blame whomever came up with the scenario. It's a simple-minded (at best) attempt to make broad generalizations.

 

[Tesseract]

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?"

No one is at fault here, because on the part of Grace there was no intent to cause harm. It was an accident.

 

[Ylva]

No one is at fault here, because on the part of Grace there was no intent to cause harm. It was an accident.

No blame, but responsibility.

I wonder how much of this type of thinking is ASD and how much is learned from a childhood of getting blamed for random stuff.

 

[Tesseract]

No blame, but responsibility.

I wonder how much of this type of thinking is ASD and how much is learned from a childhood of getting blamed for random stuff.

How can anyone be held responsible for something they're not even aware of? If anyone is to blame here, it would have to be whomever it was who put the poison in the sugar container.

 

[Ylva]

How can anyone be held responsible for something they're not even aware of? If anyone is to blame here, it would have to be whomever it was who put the poison in the sugar container.

What if they thought it was sugar too?

 

[Mary Terry]

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.

I think the death would be a workers compensation claim rather than a premises liability claim. The exclusive remedy of workers comp would preclude civil liability for a premises liability issue.

 

[Mary Terry]

I've known NTs who fail the Sally - Ann test. They fail to analyze the facts solely from the point of view of Sally and inject into their analysis the false assumption that Sally knows that Ann hid the marble.

 

[Judge]

I think the death would be a workers compensation claim rather than a premises liability claim. The exclusive remedy of workers comp would preclude civil liability for a premises liability issue.

Granted it would ultimately depend on a great deal of legal minutia and jurisdiction associated with the case. I'm just thinking of the possibility of applying the dual capacity doctrine, which could effectively provide an exception to the exclusive remedy of workers' compensation. Something I've seen occur in California that cost our company much more than with a mere workers compensation claim.

Allowing (under California law) an employee to sue his or her employer when the injury caused by the employer to the employee is unrelated to the employee's capacity as an employee. But yes, agreed that in more conventional circumstances it's quite conceivable that workers compensation would be primary.

As always, the devil remains in the details...

 

[Fino]

All I want to know is if this is a realistic scenario.. Do chemical plants often have poison labeled "sugar"? Why is poison labeled "sugar"? Is that a euphemism for a kind of poison? And what kind of poison looks identical to sugar? And what kind of poison kills someone within a few hours with such a small amount? Unless she has a sugar problem and used a ridiculous amount. And the poison that looks just like sugar also smells and tastes just like sugar? So there's a poison that tastes like sugar? That would have to be engineered with the intent to murder. Why else would poison be made to taste good? What is the name of this poison?

*dies*

Did I pass the test?

 

[Mary Terry]

Granted it would ultimately depend on a great deal of legal minutia and jurisdiction associated with the case. I'm just thinking of the possibility of applying the dual capacity doctrine, which could effectively provide an exception to the exclusive remedy of workers' compensation. Something I've seen occur in California that cost our company much more than with a mere workers compensation claim.

Allowing (under California law) an employee to sue his or her employer when the injury caused by the employer to the employee is unrelated to the employee's capacity as an employee. But yes, agreed that in more conventional circumstances it's quite conceivable that workers compensation would be primary.

As always, the devil remains in the details...

Those devilish details are what kept you and me employed for decades. Nothing like an underwriter and an attorney to analyze the devil out of everything!