3 ms·

> I'm autistic and I feel like I have pretty good theory of mind. I may have been somewhat late in developing its sophistication as a child but certainly not to

> I'm autistic and I feel like I have pretty good theory of mind. I may have been somewhat late in developing its sophistication as a child but certainly not to the point where anyone ever flagged me as dysfunctional in that way. As an adult I struggle with overly empathizing with other people, getting too involved in what I imagine their thoughts and experiences and motivations to be. I have complex models for all the individuals I interact with and have no particular problems developing them for new people. Are you saying you're well-above average in being able to read neurotypical people in ordinary social settings? If that's the case, I don't think "autistic" is the correct description for your deviation from neurotypical. It's unclear to me if you're saying you have some kind of complex analytical models for people (to compensate for the inability to intuit) or merely that you are able to intuitively read people naturally neurotypicals do, in which case I'm not sure what you mean when you say you're autistic. I'm fairly monotropic (so this is something I've paid a fair amount of attention to when observing others) but not even the least bit autistic. I also know a bunch of people on the autism spectrum as well as those that have varying degrees of monotropism. I don't see any particular correlation between the two, other than the fact that those on the spectrum tend to pay less attention to certain aspects of reality, while paying more attention to other aspects of reality, which makes neurotypicals feel that they are unusually focused.

giraffe_lady 4y ago
> I'm not sure what you mean when you say you're autistic. I mean that I have been tested and diagnosed as autistic by a doctor, and treated within the context of that diagnosis by other medical professionals for many years. I'm not sure what else would be meant by it?. I don't usually see it used as a casual adjective without an accompanying diagnosis or implying one.
- candybar 4y ago
  I don't know why you bothered to respond to literally part of a sentence without addressing the hypothetical that renders it meaningful. When you say you have a "good theory of mind" and have "complex models for all the individuals you interact with" are you saying that you have some kind of complex analytical models for people to compensate for the inability to intuit or that you are able to intuitively and effortlessly read people as neurotypicals naturally do? If the latter is what you're saying and you're correct in your self-assessment, that likely means your autism diagnosis is highly questionable. If the former is what you mean, then I think you misunderstand what people mean by "dysfunctional theory of mind" as it applies to autism.
  - giraffe_lady 4y ago
    Mostly I was just skeptical that someone was actually trying to reach through a goddamn internet comment and say a professional's diagnosis isn't correct and that they, having read some comments, have better insight. It does seem like that was the correct read though, which yes does change my relationship to the conversation sorry.
    - candybar 4y ago
      No, it's not the correct read. My point here - this has already been made clear to you - is that at least one of the following appears to be true: 1) You misunderstand what people mean by "dysfunctional theory of mind" and in particular, may be misinterpreting "theory of mind" as some sort of deliberate analysis people do with regards to people, as opposed to being able to casually and effortlessly understand other people. What you wrote isn't clear enough to establish this but this is one possible way to read what you wrote[1]. 2) You aren't wrong about what people mean by "dysfunctional theory of mind" and when you say you have "a pretty good theory mind" you're indeed talking about your own ability to effortlessly read people and situations. However, you're mistaken in your assessment of your own ability in this regard. 3) You're misdiagnosed. Also, in case it's not obvious, the implication here is more that 1) or 2) seems to be true. And if that's the case, the point here is that your focus on "monotropism" as being more fundamental to autism may be because you understand what it means, whereas you're more skeptical about the "theory of mind" explanations because you either don't understand what that means or have trouble perceiving your own deficiencies in that regard. [1] For example when you say "I have complex models for all the individuals I interact with and have no particular problems developing them for new people." - it's unclear what you mean. Most people generally do not perceive themselves having any sort of complex models for others, but under the hood, our intuitive ability to understand people and situations is powered by what effectively amounts to complex mental models for others. I don't know if that's what you're saying with regards to yourself or that this is explicitly how you perceive and function, which does support the diagnosis of autism, but amounts to a misunderstanding of the term "theory of mind" - needing to do this explicitly and saying that you have "a pretty good theory of mind" is similar to saying you're completely fluent in a foreign language when all you can do is describe various aspects of the language in English (in a sophisticated way that most native speakers of the language won't be able to) and translate sentences in that language to English and vice-versa with a ton of effort and time.

giraffe_lady 4y ago

> I'm not sure what you mean when you say you're autistic. I mean that I have been tested and diagnosed as autistic by a doctor, and treated within the context of that diagnosis by other medical professionals for many years. I'm not sure what else would be meant by it?. I don't usually see it used as a casual adjective without an accompanying diagnosis or implying one.

candybar 4y ago
I don't know why you bothered to respond to literally part of a sentence without addressing the hypothetical that renders it meaningful. When you say you have a "good theory of mind" and have "complex models for all the individuals you interact with" are you saying that you have some kind of complex analytical models for people to compensate for the inability to intuit or that you are able to intuitively and effortlessly read people as neurotypicals naturally do? If the latter is what you're saying and you're correct in your self-assessment, that likely means your autism diagnosis is highly questionable. If the former is what you mean, then I think you misunderstand what people mean by "dysfunctional theory of mind" as it applies to autism.
- giraffe_lady 4y ago
  Mostly I was just skeptical that someone was actually trying to reach through a goddamn internet comment and say a professional's diagnosis isn't correct and that they, having read some comments, have better insight. It does seem like that was the correct read though, which yes does change my relationship to the conversation sorry.
  - candybar 4y ago
    No, it's not the correct read. My point here - this has already been made clear to you - is that at least one of the following appears to be true: 1) You misunderstand what people mean by "dysfunctional theory of mind" and in particular, may be misinterpreting "theory of mind" as some sort of deliberate analysis people do with regards to people, as opposed to being able to casually and effortlessly understand other people. What you wrote isn't clear enough to establish this but this is one possible way to read what you wrote[1]. 2) You aren't wrong about what people mean by "dysfunctional theory of mind" and when you say you have "a pretty good theory mind" you're indeed talking about your own ability to effortlessly read people and situations. However, you're mistaken in your assessment of your own ability in this regard. 3) You're misdiagnosed. Also, in case it's not obvious, the implication here is more that 1) or 2) seems to be true. And if that's the case, the point here is that your focus on "monotropism" as being more fundamental to autism may be because you understand what it means, whereas you're more skeptical about the "theory of mind" explanations because you either don't understand what that means or have trouble perceiving your own deficiencies in that regard. [1] For example when you say "I have complex models for all the individuals I interact with and have no particular problems developing them for new people." - it's unclear what you mean. Most people generally do not perceive themselves having any sort of complex models for others, but under the hood, our intuitive ability to understand people and situations is powered by what effectively amounts to complex mental models for others. I don't know if that's what you're saying with regards to yourself or that this is explicitly how you perceive and function, which does support the diagnosis of autism, but amounts to a misunderstanding of the term "theory of mind" - needing to do this explicitly and saying that you have "a pretty good theory of mind" is similar to saying you're completely fluent in a foreign language when all you can do is describe various aspects of the language in English (in a sophisticated way that most native speakers of the language won't be able to) and translate sentences in that language to English and vice-versa with a ton of effort and time.