Mind blindness and Theory of Mind

[Kevin1968]

Always? What about an insane person, a mentally ill person, a very young child?

Someone should have been supervising them?

 

[Kevin1968]

...and I am sure I would/have had the 'but she should have known better' or 'but she should know I meant that' sort of reaction that isn't always reasonable or logical.

Yes!

This is what I meant in the first post!

The realisation that I must depend more on logic than the "instinct" others seem to be able to use.

 

[Clueless in Canada]

Yes!

This is what I meant in the first post!

The realisation that I must depend more on logic than the "instinct" others seem to be able to use.

It's a fairly new revelation to me that others are not trying to logic their way through life like I am. LOL When someone tells me a joke I have to work out logically why it is funny but at least I can sometimes avoid doing that out loud.

 

[Oldlady]

Blame is the thing you project at the owner of the fault?



Maybe you're right. We can't tell by looking at Grace's body language whether she meant to do it, so she might as well have.

So ... blame is when an individual assigns responsibility for a perceived error.

 

[Oldlady]

Someone should have been supervising them?

So these individuals should be supervised 24/7?

 

[Ylva]

So these individuals should be supervised 24/7?

If they are inside plants, yes. But if Mary is their supervisor and asks them to get sugar, it's on her.

 

[Oldlady]

My point is that I'm not sure how useful it is to assign blame. It seems that 'there but for the grace of god' is really what's at work out there.

 

[Tesseract]

Always.

Even when it involves an accident? For there to be blame there must be the intent to do harm. Motive matters, but sometimes bad things just happen, because life is far from perfect.

 

[Fino]

Even when it involves an accident? For there to be blame there must be the intent to do harm. Motive matters, but sometimes bad things just happen, because life is far from perfect.

Blame can exist in the absence of intent: negligence.

 

[Kevin1968]

Even when it involves an accident? For there to be blame there must be the intent to do harm. Motive matters, but sometimes bad things just happen, because life is far from perfect.

Insurance companies and/or the police will usually assign blame or liability to someone, that person rarely intended to cause the accident.

A few months ago I was stopped at a junction and the car behind me damaged my bumper, I know he didn't "intend" to do it but even he admitted he was to blame.

Accidents don't just happen, there are always causes. The reason why air travel is so safe is the amount of time spent analysing accidents and devising procedures to prevent recurrence.

 

[Oldlady]

Insurance companies and/or the police will usually assign blame or liability to someone, that person rarely intended to cause the accident.

A few months ago I was stopped at a junction and the car behind me damaged my bumper, I know he didn't "intend" to do it but even he admitted he was to blame.

Accidents don't just happen, there are always causes. The reason why air travel is so safe is the amount of time spent analysing accidents and devising procedures to prevent recurrence.

What if his brakes let go?

Is your argument that the insurance companies do it so we all should do it?

Causes of accidents are often equipment failure.

But, all of this is moot to the point I'm trying to make and that is that assigning blame may not be the best way to deal with one another regardless of intent, deed, or consequence.

 

[Kevin1968]

What if his brakes let go?

Is your argument that the insurance companies do it so we all should do it?

Causes of accidents are often equipment failure.

But, all of this is moot to the point I'm trying to make and that is that assigning blame may not be the best way to deal with one another regardless of intent, deed, or consequence.

If his brakes failed there are really just a few causes which are all due to someone even if it might just look like "equipment failure": he didn't get the car serviced when it was due (or failed to allow enough stopping distance etc. ), the mechanic didn't fit them correctly, the quality person in the factory that made the brakes didn't check them before they left the factory etc.

But as your point is that we should not blame anyone, I think the circumstances and losses involved should dictate whether or not someone faces consequences for their actions.

However the original post is more about the allocation of blame than whether or not it is correct to blame anyone.

(in my own case I could say that I was also to blame for not "covering my a.." but I didn't think I needed to at the time, I'm more careful now)

 

[Oldlady]

Yes ... facing the consequences vs. being blamed and punished. So, if someone is negligent in some capacity, let's say he/she was talking on their cell while driving, then what should we do with this person? What would bring the better outcome overall?

I realize that there is no known answer to this question, but I think that blaming and punishing them is not the most effective means of bringing about change. That doesn't mean that there should be no consequences, it just means that those consequences would not revolve around blame and punishment. This may seem like semantics, but I do think there is a difference.

 

[Tesseract]

Insurance companies and/or the police will usually assign blame or liability to someone, that person rarely intended to cause the accident.

Maybe they do, but this certainly isn't right. Insurance companies and the police usually go looking for someone to pin the blame for an accident on, because it makes their job so much easier (and in the case of the insurance company, they can then avoid having to pay for damage done).
We cannot reasonably be expected to think of every possible eventuality that may lead up to the occurrence of an accident. That just isn't humanly possible.

 

[Gracey]

It beggars belief why Mary drunk it.

Surely if something doesn’t taste exactly as it should or usual,
One would either question it or stop drinking. At least investigate the ingredients?

Are there completely tasteless toxins out there that kill within a few hours?

 

[All-Rounder]

Apparently theory of mind is automatically runned like a program by most NTs and while aspies can solve the Theory of Mind problem once given, their brains don't necessarily automatically run it given a situation.

A similar thing happens in psychopathy, but while they largely don't automatically run it and they can answer the problem once asked, they can't often do it correctly. It depends on whether it benefits them or it is solved math-like, such as thinking of people in numbers and sparing more objects vs less. They also don't feel remorse or worry about the choice itself and the way it affects others, but more so about the way it affects themselves.

 

[Kevin1968]

Apparently theory of mind is automatically runned like a program by most NTs and while aspies can solve the Theory of Mind problem once given, their brains don't necessarily automatically run it given a situation.

Exactly my thoughts too, once I recognise it's a theory of mind situation (usually if given sufficient time to reflect) I can react appropriately.

But if I don't then my reaction can be wrong. Also despite "knowing" to apply theory of mind to the situation a primative part of me wants to ignore that "program" anyway.

 

[shysnail]

I'm curious how the reaction of recognizing a TOM problem and then responding appropriately is differently to what NTs do? Especially with your next bit about wanting to ignore it sometimes. I have seen a lot of instances of NTs doing exactly that when they want to be angry and aggrieved about someone else's behaviour and they most definitely don't want to think about factors that may have caused the other person to act that way.

 

[Kevin1968]

I usually try to figure out someones motivation for their actions, but it is a learnt behaviour in that I consciously do it and not nearly as automatic as using the pedals etc in a car.
From talking to my wife, some people take advantage of me and I am completely oblivious to it.

The difference between NTs and those on the spectrum is that NTs do it more instinctively, it's not a learned behaviour.

 

[All-Rounder]

Hm does that mean when using normal theory of mind on aspies it usually goes wrong? But its more accurate on nts but generally it is just a guess cause you can never really know what others think and can get tricked easily if you trust your theory of mind too much.