#theory of mind

[five-thousand-loaves-of-bread]

be constantly in own world for me (level 2/3 autism) mean like. think pretty much only about self. understand only self. entire world just me n special interest, sometimes/often times not even include own basic needs, like “hair greasy clump body itchy need shower” (unconsciously feel bad sensory, n make very uncomfortable annoyed easily frustrated, but don’t consciously know am feeling extra irritated or that am feel this way because need shower). n world often limited to thing in front of me. n sometimes not even include thing in front of me. see it (as in physically capable of vision) but not see it. n thing, people, any that not put infront of me for while, stop realize they existed in first place.

n be in own world, only think only able know self, mean that, see self as normal, as norm. everyone (this abstract concept of other people that have memorized like you memorize history fact for test), everyone like me. not even “am like everyone,” but that everyone is like me. everyone same ability as me. everyone think like me.

“everyone think like that to extent”

right. to extent. thing is am far greater than that normal “extent”

to point that average day, ask me, n would only able explain that, “think everyone same ability as me, everyone think like me. everyone exist like me.” stay at vague generalization because not able think any deeper not able think of examples. to give example in this situation mean on some level need have ability understand “am think this normal but others may think it abnormal for them”. n. most times not have ability to second part, because in own world theory of mind.

sometimes try force it. try really hard force it. try really hard think, look at other people, try make sense try find what exact different. but can’t force something not have ability. so go back rely on scripting. sometimes advanced scripting n rephrased scripting.

special interest in something social-related let me cheat little bit. appear more capable. like break down complex autism community disability community dynamics. but am videotaping camera. computer analyzing research data. not participant. it thankfully happen, but it only happen because special interest allow it be part of own world, n it only part of own world because can only see these (supposedly very humanly n organic n messy) interactions as flow charts, maps, equations, inanimate objects. closest metaphor may be, with this special interest lens that allow these social dynamics enter own world, am looking at these “people” these social dynamics similar to regular person playing the sims n thinking of sims character made out of code that they control.

rare rare times able suddenly realization of outside world. usually happen in flash. n then end. n then left to chase that feeling trying so hard remember what it felt like so can memorize it like another history fact to memorize for test removed from source removed from emotion, to make self appear know what am talking about know more than am capable of, next time someone ask, “isn’t everyone like this?”

just had flash of that that lead to write this whole thing. but already gone. something about… “those funny ‘gen z fix up work force’ stories. they actually people same age as me?’” something about sudden realize what people my age my life stage expected do usually do. something about think am so normal but actually am missing out “so many” things (what things?).

friend tell me “by be young person who severely disabled you missing out so much on same age activities”. n. inside think, (i am but) “don’t know. …am i?” n for it be genuine question, or disbelief question.

n respond with “haha, yea.”

it not lying. it just script. am don’t know what my script means.

don’t follow up by ask me “so what you think you missing out on?”

don’t know. don’t have that script (a script am don’t know meaning to) yet that make other people think am understand, either.

[please don’t say you “relate” or “feel same” “this me” or similar unless am know who you are.]

[perplexingluciddreams]

When I was younger, the concept that other people could have different interests to me was completely baffling.

"What do you mean, you don't even know what Merlin is?? How do you not know what a clarinet looks or sounds like?!"

"And what on earth could you like if you don't like the most perfect things in the world, the things that make everything else feel safer and make a tiny bit more sense?!? How could anyone like anything other than my own interests!?!"

I used to wonder why so many things even existed, they seemed to have no purpose to me if I was not personally interested in them.

[krumpkin]

Ralph Waldo Emerson Quote . I think the need to feel accepted can shape a lot of peoples public opinions. Not caring is a step in the right direction 😎

[mbti-notes]

Anon wrote: INTP here. I have read through your blog and it has helped me a lot on reflecting myself and resolving my past issues. I do have one concern that I hope you can address. I tend to realize I mindread a lot as per your blog description (I’ve read through the entire tag), and am actively trying to prevent judging and assuming people’s intention too early/quickly.

However, I cannot tell the difference sometimes between when I understand a person well, vs when I mindread. I want to try to understand people so I can interact with them better. I also have past experiences with being misunderstood before and want to try to give everyone a chance. I believe this is due to inferior Fe issues along with my ego thinking that I am kind. I also want to believe that I understand people, because I can tell if someone is a red flag but maybe that does not have to do with understanding people.

I came up with some solutions such as paying attention and communicating to other people to clear up misunderstandings, but even then people tend to be indirect in what they say and it turns out they are hurt by what I said or secretly angry at me for a while (I did not realize this until they are actually angry at me).

From writing this, I do notice my contradiction: how would people be hurt/angry at me if I “supposedly” treat them right? I admit that I am wrong for doing so, that I have hurt them, and I hope to address my ego in order to be better as a person for myself and other people around me.

I mindread because I am afraid of people potencially being angry/hurt because of me, even when that did not happen, because my social skills are not that well developed, but I acknowledge there might be more underlying reasons to this that I am not fully aware of.

I noticed that you have great perpection skills when understanding people, and I would like to learn the positive aspects. If possible, can you help shine a light on how I should start? Plus, if you can advise me why why people are indirect when communicating that would be great because I am almost always direct in my communication and do not fully understand the nuances of social context, and I wish to understand and treat other people better

--------------------

Socializing and communication are complex topics, so there's a lot to unpack in your question.

(1) Mindreading: Ne development should help with the mindreading problem. Healthy Ti doms have a reputation for being sharp and adaptable because i) dominant Ti only accepts factual information and rises to the challenge of systematizing it for effective judgment/decisions, and ii) the auxiliary function actively monitors and processes any and all changes in factual information.

But when functions remain underdeveloped, Ti-Si always gets stuck working with a very limited and unchanging set of facts, and Ne-Fe is too small in scope to alert you to other possible ways of looking at situations, ways that might get you closer to the truth.

In other words, healthy INTPs always leave room for error. They proceed through life confidently based on the facts they have on hand but always with the awareness that knowledge is provisional and might need to be updated at a later date. They never believe that they know everything, they always keep themselves open to more information, and they take the extra step to gather information that might contradict or disprove what they already know.

However, being P, the tendency to "prospect" for information can go awry when Ne is unhealthy enough to give rise to Ti-Si loop. The above healthy qualities I just listed can easily turn negative and express hidden ego issues, e.g., by making you feel insecure in not knowing, anxious about getting blindsided, and obsessive-compulsive in needing to know more (due to having no clear goal, unrealistic goals, or constantly moving the goalposts).

Contrasting healthy and unhealthy Ne expression, what is the lesson? If you hope to be a healthy INTP, you have to learn how to sit comfortably in ambiguity and uncertainty. If you hope to be a mature INTP, you have to love a challenge and go the extra mile to welcome and embrace ambiguity and uncertainty as vehicles for learning and growing into a more intelligent person.

(2) Theory of Mind: How does the above apply to social life? Relationships are full of ambiguity and uncertainty, are they not? Sure, in theory, solving relationship problems should be a simple matter of good communication and clearing up misunderstandings.

However, in reality, good communication is very hard to come by. Why? Because… people. Human psychology is messy AF. People contain multitudes, and in some cases, multitudes of contradictions. They often don't know themselves well enough to know what they really need/want/like, let alone communicate these things clearly to another person.

What's worse, what people think they know about themselves can sometimes be false, which leads them in all sorts of wrong directions. You brought up a good example of thinking that you are a kind person, yet you keep getting feedback to indicate that you aren't as kind as you believe. Human perception can be very flawed, so how you see yourself and others can get very distorted. This raises the question of how to navigate the messiness.

The first step is to see and accept people as what they really are (Ti). Humans are complicated. They are not programmed or programmable machines. They can want contradictory things. They can change their mind on a whim. They can say one thing and do another. They can believe wholeheartedly in complete falsehoods. They are capable of reprehensible acts. They can also be resilient, steadfast, honest, loyal, noble, passionate, inspired, innovative, determined, dedicated, empathetic, loving, and altruistic. If humans weren't so complicated, social life would be terribly boring.

If you really want to understand people better, you have to exercise better imagination (Ne) and recognize the full scope of their potential, both positive and negative. When you have a very full view of humans, you'll be quicker to recognize the truth of each individual. But when you have a very small and limited view of humans, you'll find yourself constantly confused or blindsided by their behavior.

Some of this fuller view simply comes with life experience, but the majority of it should come from making an effort to expose yourself to different kinds of people and creating opportunities to expand your understanding of human nature.

(3) Ego Development: What does this mean for improving your social skills? Firstly, on your part, you have to see and acknowledge your own complexity. One reason I emphasize the importance of self-awareness is that, without it, you'll never come to see or appreciate your own complexity.

The way you view yourself at age 20 will be very different than age 40. It's not necessarily because you've changed a whole lot in that time, in fact, most people don't change very much throughout life, objectively speaking. What really happens is that you gradually learn more and more about who you really are over time, and that changes your self-perception.

When you're young, ego development is still in early stages, which means the ego is still in a fragile state. As you build a personal identity, you get heavily invested in seeing yourself a certain way, and it can hurt the ego when that self-image gets contradicted. This leads people to become defensive of their self-image and avoid situations that disturb it.

What they have yet to realize is that taking down the false self-image is precisely how one gets closer to knowing the truth of oneself. One must surrender to the pain of that takedown in order to grow. Are you willing to surrender to the pain of realizing that you are not the person you've always believed yourself to be, that you're possibly a much worse person than you thought?

Until you can recognize the truth of your own complex humanity and the full scope of your own positive and negative potential, you will always struggle to understand others, because it is likely that you will remain stuck in a state of projection. Projection means that your perception of others is always tainted by your own unconscious ego issues, i.e., you don't see the world as it is but as you are.

For example, you are a person who prefers to communicate directly, and this unconsciously sets up an expectation that others should do it too or be capable of doing it. Whenever others prove to be very different from you, you get confused or flustered. Your mind isn't open enough to gather the whole truth about people when your first instinct is to assume people are or should be just like you.

Secondly, on the part of the relationship, you have to acknowledge the reality that, at this moment, not everyone is within your capability to understand and is therefore not going to be very compatible with you. There's a reason why we seem to click with some people better than others. While relationships do require work to maintain, there's a certain point at which the expenditure of effort starts to bring diminishing returns. At that point, it might be time to throw in the towel and admit that the relationship isn't going to work in its current manifestation.

For example, if you're looking for someone who is capable of having a mature, honest, and authentic discussion about relationship issues, then you have to weed out the people who haven't yet developed that capability. It's not about being mean or critical; it's about recognizing the facts of what someone can or can't do and making a smart choice about whether it's possible to have a healthy relationship with them.

(4) Exercising Good Judgment: Making evaluations of people and relationships isn't easy because there are a variety of factors to take into consideration. One problem Ti doms often run into is that they don't take enough factors into consideration (inferior Fe), i.e., they are too undiscerning and often just passively take whatever relationships come their way.

When you approach relationships too abstractly or intellectually or flexibly, you can easily fall into the trap of thinking that any relationship can work in theory, if only you did this or they did that. In reality though, the effort it would take to implement those changes wouldn't be worth it due to diminishing returns, or those changes are simply infeasible (and you might slowly destroy yourself or the relationship by trying to force the change).

An important step in acknowledging your own complex humanity is to admit that you have needs, preferences, and desires... AND be okay with them changing over time, as you learn more about yourself. Needs, preferences, and desires should be informing you of what kind of person is best suited to being your friend or partner.

There are billions of people in this world. If you want a positive, enriching, and fulfilling social life, you have to be proactive and selective in finding the right people for you to keep company with. There are only a few basic criteria that need to be present in every relationship, such as: kindness, trust, empathy, etc. But what about the other qualities of the person? What does your ideal friend/partner look like?

(5) Navigating Conflict: An important aspect of having good social skills is accepting the fact that conflict is necessary for relationships to grow over time. A relationship without disagreements and problems isn't a real relationship. The question is whether the two people involved are: i) committed enough to the relationship to make things better, ii) equipped with the relationship skills required to resolve problems properly, and iii) on the same page and want the same things out of the relationship.

To the first point, not everyone you meet will be as committed as you, so you have to use your best judgment about whether it's worthwhile to continue with them. Also, reflect on how committed you are to a relationship and whether it is accurately reflected in your everyday behavior. Remember that Fe is an extraverted function that requires taking action and cannot only be about empty words or silent intentions.

To the second point, as long as both individuals are willing to learn and improve their relationship skills, there will continue to be hope for the relationship to get better. Although, keep in mind that the learning process isn't always linear and smooth. There will inevitably be steps forwards and backwards.

To the third point, you can discuss with people what they want out of the relationship, what their goals are, or what they hope the relationship can become in the future. A relationship has a greater chance of success when there is agreement about which direction to go. If people refuse such discussions or don't take them seriously, then it casts serious doubt over their commitment, which circles back to the first point.

It sounds like you are motivated to improve your social skills. If people aren't being honest with you, you have to get to the bottom of why. Perhaps the problem lies mainly in you not really hearing what people need from you because you keep failing to address the feelings they are communicating, which is a common communication problem. If that's the case, you need to work on your listening skills and communication skills in general. Perhaps the problem lies mainly in the other person not being able to express themselves honestly for whatever reason. Or it could be a combination of the two.

The best you can do is welcome people to be honest with you, by guaranteeing to them that you can handle the truth and encouraging them to speak directly. However, you have no control over whether they can do it. It's their issue to deal with and there's no forcing it.

[isaacsapphire]

I used to be surprised by how little theory of mind that some people, especially the self-identified mentally ill, possess.

On the other hand, when my father told my siblings and I a story about how he, a latelife surprise who was functionally an only sibling for purposes of this story, was in like 4th grade when he thought he would try out being a bully and beat up the little red-headed girl a year younger than him who lived with her Irish family of 7 older brothers in a house that my father had to walk past on his way to school.

She kicked the crap out of him, as one would anticipate of a girl with 7 older brothers. My siblings and I immediately told our dad, "You're lucky she beat you." He of course was all ??? so we explained; if you had beaten her, she had 7 older brothers and they'd have all beaten you twice a day for beating up their little sister. He immediately saw that we were correct and came to a new understanding of his childhood neighborhood dynamics.

[antlerkitty]

Sorry that I totally ghosted you when you didn’t text me first, I live in my own little world where I don’t understand that other people are real.

[majestativa]

Mood.

[blood-orange-juice]

Also this line. ASDFGH.

Childe: Hahaha, not bad at all. You were testing to see whether there were still missing fragments from Shiki Taishou's memory... You've grown, Traveler.

He keeps track of what his favorite opponents can and cannot do, and it's not just about combat. Notices pretty subtle things too.

[spooksforsammy]

My autism experience

Part three: social communication

When it comes to my social interactions difficulties, it can’t really be annoyed

I have a communication disorder/ speech impairment. I stutter, speak unusually loud/soft, usually fast and it’s really unrecognizable. On top of my speech related issues, my brain moves faster then the thoughts can leave, so what I actually want to say is usually different from what I say. This goes for text and person.

When it comes to people, I often forget they exist. I have a low sense of awareness and low theory of mind. I forget people don’t like what I like, think what I think, feel how I feel and this makes connection with others nearly impossible. I have low sense of danger and my awareness that people around me are actually people isn’t high.

When it comes to people, have to constantly remind self they real. Because I’m brain, they not, only I real.

I don’t understand body language, including my own. My body can tell people I’m mad but I’m not actually, so naturally tell people don’t bother reading my body language because not usually right. A lot of my stims are also taken as body language, but it’s not related half the time.

I don’t make eye contact. It’s not fully that hate, more like forget real person, so why do interact looking makes harder remember actual. On top of that not aware when look when turn away so if try make eye contact turns out am staring.

When around people am quiet. Because speech and low awareness and low theory of mind. Can’t interact even if want because even if one thing fine, another thing wrong.

I’m often see as “stuck in mind” or “mentally not there” and while somethings does hurt hear, is true so not often hurt. I’m imaging or thinking most the time and because forget other people, not only one it appears like body there but thats it. And that’s how it feels for me aswell.

[apesoformythoughts]

[sunder-the-gold]

Ranking "Theory of Mind" according to a person's ability to understand contradiction and opposition

Absolute Mind-Blind: Individuals at this stage exhibit no Theory of Mind (ToM), meaning they cannot attribute mental states, intentions, or perspectives to others; their perception remains entirely self-referential, lacking any awareness of independent thoughts beyond their own, rendering interaction with others purely reactive and devoid of understanding.

Partial Mind-Blind: At this level, a minimal ToM emerges, limited to immediate, practical needs—such as attributing basic sensory-based mental states like “they need to see it”—but individuals assume others share their context or knowledge, interpreting disagreement or misunderstanding as malice or defiance rather than a difference in perspective, which restricts their ability to model others’ minds beyond surface-level assumptions.

Argumentative Switcher: People here rapidly shift between contradictory models to achieve short-term goals, like winning arguments, using a shallow ToM to adopt others’ views tactically without depth or commitment; their flexibility serves immediate advantage rather than genuine understanding, resulting in a superficial grasp of perspectives that lacks conviction or consistency.

Doublethink Practitioner: This stage involves actively maintaining belief in at least one model, and maybe as many as two. The individual can maintain two contradictory “true” models—such as a taught ideology and personal experience—suppressing internal conflict through conviction, allowing for deep reasoning and persuasive articulation within at least one model; however, the focus remains inward, with little capacity to construct or engage with external “false” models, limiting broader perspective-taking.

Strategic Pretender: At this level, individuals demonstrate a high ToM that allows them to accurately model the minds of people whose beliefs contradict their own, and thus to understand disagreements as a difference in values or beliefs, rather than simply assuming all opposition is driven by irrationality or malice. Furthermore, being able to accurately model the "false" beliefs of others gives Strategic Pretenders the ability to persuade or deceive others according to their own logic. However, they assume external “false” models are inherently untrue, avoiding abstract questioning of their own “true” model(s).

Reflective Hedger: At this level, people can hold contradictory models while both acknowledging the contradiction and considering the possibility that either might be true or false. They keep the competing models in mind while seeking to refine or resolve them through evidence and testing. They use an advanced ToM to deeply engage with others’ perspectives while questioning the validity of their own “true” model(s); they remain open to adopting elements of another’s worldview at an abstract level, showing introspective flexibility to test and adjust beliefs, though they do not necessarily display the ability to fully integrate seemingly contradictory models into a unified framework.

Transcendent Synthesizer: This stage features exceptional ToM and cognitive integration, where individuals can begin with a robust but incomplete “true” model, encounter a contradictory model that explains unresolved experiences, and synthesize them into a single, cohesive paradigm by reconciling their core truths and adjusting peripheral assumptions; this creates a unified truth that withstands scrutiny, transcending initial contradictions to form a holistic understanding.

[perplexingluciddreams]

i don't know who i am or what i am or what words to use to describe and explain and express.

i doubt everything i ever think might be true about myself, every word i decide to describe myself with, every single little thing i momentarily feel an identification with.

i want to know myself. and at the same time i am aware i simply can't. my brain has too many limits and restrictions and barriers up to allow me to have any sort of sense of self.

the walls are up too high and too strong, i can only explore within the limits that are set by my brain. and those limits have only moved mere inches over my entire lifetime. i know they won't ever move enough to let me learn about myself in the way i want to.

i wish i felt like a real person.

[void-galaxy-shenanigans]

if I/we made a blog to share terms and infodumps¹ from our major-related classes², ¿would y’all be interested & follow it?

(¹ and potentially ¿list some research papers/informational books on certain topics?)

(² which are Psychology & Human Development; ✨scary social sciences✨ (/lighthearted))

clarifying, we can’t legally share PPT slides or disclose stories with other students’ or professors’ identifying information.

but we can synthesize, share snippets/quotes, & infodump about what a topic of discussion led us to wonder / research, or what sparked a desire to add to research/what we want to research because of what we learned³.

(³ we want to, eventually*, be a researcher. there is a massive gap in HD/psych on neurodivergent & LGBT+ development & differences, & with the current research we don’t know where Complex-PTSD and ADHD begin/end with one another. I/we have so many unanswered questions that need new researchers to answer, so we’re gonna become a new researcher)

(* here/now to & through grad school is a long time 😭 so much schooling, so far to go— but like...the chance to add to the research... 👀🥺)

(** ¿is there actually overlap (or significant overlap), or is it because our society/societies currently don’t produce non-traumatized ADHDers/neurodivergent folks? what does neurodivergence look like without trauma? we don’t know yet.)

✨🎵🎶✨

¿why is this coming up now? here’s some shares/infodumps of what sparked it today 😅💜

🎵

quotes that stand out:

“Humans are not thinking creatures that can feel; we are feeling creatures that can think.” (Dr. R)

“You can sacrifice morality for membership.” (Dr. R)

“We never stop becoming who we are.” (Dr. R)

“We nurture nature.” (Dr. R and Dr. W, at separate times & in different contexts)

“Just because a relationship doesn’t last doesn’t mean it was pointless or it failed. It still meant something; it still influenced who you are and who you want to become.” (Dr. R)

“I don’t believe you were ever so bad that you deserved to be hurt.” (Dr. W)

((yes most of these are Dr. R, as she is more likely to go on tangents (/affectionate), but both of them say impactful things. I’m also leaving out a couple quotes from both of them; these hit me/us the hardest.))

🎶

~~~~

🎵

some concepts/curiosities from this week (cutting off because this part will be long):

(1) Theory Of Mind. ¿Is this why “neurotypical” people say we (neurodivergent, especially autistic/ADHD) lack empathy? ¿Because we struggle with Theory Of Mind?

(2) Theory Of Mind seems to be an almost automated process for mid-adolescents up (about 14 or 15 onward), if they are “neurotypical”/“normative”. In my experience as an auDHDer, this is a manual process I have to walk myself through, and it’s a lot of steps. ¿Do neurodivergent folks typically do this manually/slower, or is that a me thing (or disability impact)?

(3) (this week) From the conversations I’ve had with older classmates & our parents, it seems like people roughly 40+ years old were told “you are [insert identity]” as a concrete, non-negotiable fact. This especially applies to gender identity¹ and sexuality². This leads to what psych/HD call “identity foreclosure”, which means you are highly committed to an identity but haven’t explored other options. In this case, we see it manifest as defensiveness or even aggression if their gender identity &/or sexual/romantic orientation are called into question. The people who felt comfortable disclosing said they feel the need to panic because that was “the one thing [they] didn’t have to question” as they navigated identity formation, so it was the only thing they felt they could count on even when everything else changed (e.g. transition to parenthood).

I don’t have a question or direction to this, but I find it fascinating. ¿Maybe this is a future avenue of study (& maybe future trauma therapy for older adults)?³

(¹ as tied to biological sex - e.g. “you’re a man because you were born male”)

(² you are straight because that is the only option/the only safe option; you are bad/need to panic if you find someone of the same biological sex attractive)

(³ I’m not saying this applies to every single human to live across all cultures & time. But it’s a trend I’ve noticed, & I’m curious to see in which populations & under what circumstances this occurs most.)

(4) One of our professors today made an important distinction that little kids* sometimes “say something factually incorrect”, but cognitively lack the foundations to lie. (In order to lie, you need Theory of Mind. Defining that is a separate tangent.)

(* barely speaking to around 5yo in “normative” development)

This led to a definition of lying (by the social science community) that I’ve never heard before, but made so much sense afterwards: “Lying is when you say something factually incorrect because you understand the other person will act on the incorrect information. You lie in the hopes of eliciting a particular response.”

Usually little kids lie because they are learning & testing Theory Of Mind. ”¿Do you really not know what I do?”

Older kids, teens, adults tend to lie when they don’t trust someone. “If I tell the truth, you might...” (abandon me, hurt me, laugh at me, etc.). That can be because they actually have reason to worry (maybe that person has established an unsafe pattern), or because trauma or because PTSD or another mental illness (anxiety, etc.) makes it difficult to trust people.

That’s not to say that people don’t lie to manipulate (/neg) others. Some people do lie because they see relationships as transactional and want something out of you, or because they want to benefit from or use something you are/have. Some people lie about their income so they can splurge on a fun new toy**, or lie about how much money/resources they have so you’ll hand over some of yours. Some people do lie to hurt others or to unfairly gain from them.

(** or, personal anecdote from my family, lie about the amount of a paycheck so they can secretly spend $300 on a small business license)

But the people I/we know who lie the most are lying because they feel unsafe.

They lie to their romantic/sexual partner because they feel like love will be rescinded if they tell the truth. They lie to a friend that they’re okay because they feel like they will be criticized/a burden if they open up.

The expectation of harm/abandonment, the anticipation of pain, the emotional response of feeling unsafe, these are valid. The conclusions based on them may or may not be true.

(In simpler terms, their emotions are real & their trauma is valid, but the people they apply this experience/these emotions to may be different. They may feel like their romantic partner will rescind love if they admit they’re struggling, but later find out their partner wants to support them through that struggle & begin to heal through/grow out of those expectations.)

🎶

~~~~

✨🎶🎵✨

That was quite a long one but,, yeah. I’m thinking a lot about Theory of Mind today, & its role in trauma/neurodivergence & lying, as well as lying as a concept.

If anyone got this far/enjoyed this, please let me/us know.

I may still make a blog anyway, but wanna assess potential interest throughout the hellsite (/affectionate) & especially among my followers/mutuals (who will likely see some of those posted reblogged/engage more often than most).

[liskantope]

Three not-so-great takes I've heard since the bombshell of Biden dropping the nomination that I want to grumble about here and may as well roll into a single post.

The first one was in the wake of the breaking news on Sunday, within literally the first minute of Cenk Uygur's immediate comments:

I will say this: as the self-appointed leader within the rebel forces of the Democratic party to oust Joe Biden, I declare victory.

Okay, Cenk, I get it: you ran for president in the Democratic primaries (sort of, and you would have had to win some court cases even to be deemed eligible due to your national status) explicitly to get Joe Biden off the ticket. But this isn't about you or your tendency to talk as though your role in the national discourse and political battleground is more central than it is. This is a product mainly of prominent Democrats pressuring Biden to quit and donors pulling out, not your crusade that ended a good while back and barely seemed to garner attention anyway.

(Sorry, but this is the guy who -- to take just one example I recall from 4+ years ago back when I used to watch The Young Turks all the time -- reacted to Bernie Sanders making the old "Republicans believe in small government only until it's something intimate like your own body" point that I'd been hearing since high school with "Oh my God, he must have been listening to our channel, because that's the exact point that I was the one making recently!")

I'm probably being uncharitable toward Uygur, as he may have been speaking a bit tongue-in-cheek. But still, can you think of a far more prominent figure in current politics who loves making himself sound like the center of every new movement or idea, but might be speaking trollishly or tongue-in-cheek?

The second take, which I'm much more bothered by, is one I heard in person a few hours later, by a mother to her 13-year-old son, in a confident tone: "We're still going to lose with Kamala Harris, because there are a lot of racists in this country and a lot of people in this country who think a woman shouldn't be president."

I don't think she was entirely wrong about racism and sexism giving Harris certain disadvantages (although that's ignoring that her race and gender will directly work to her advantage as well among a different set of potential voters, and I'm not sure it won't cancel out). But, casting aside racism for a moment, this whole "America still isn't ready for a woman president" thing I hear from time to time from feminists is really frustrating, and in my opinion it's not the greatest thing to children (especially not to girls, arguably, but not to any children). I find it both defeatist and reductive in a way that doesn't reflect evidence coming from reality. Hillary Clinton basically did win the presidency eight years ago, in that she got several million more votes than her opponent and would have probably won the electoral college if something James Comey announcement something something. In fact, I bet that if Hillary had won the Democratic primary eight years before that, in 2008, she could have beaten John McCain given the circumstances and current unpopularity of neoconservatism, even if she couldn't have won as handily as Obama did. And while I personally suspect that a lot of the anti-Hillary hatred that seeped through too many of the voters has to do with misogynistic biases that warp people's perceptions, there's a difference between acknowledging that and making out like some major portion of the country doesn't believe that women should be presidents (I would explain sexism the latter way to a 6-year-old maybe, but not to a bright 13-year-old).

(Of course, the "America isn't ready for a woman president" thing is an uprightly feminist thing to say until it's said by Bernie Sanders, and then it's obviously sexist.)

As far as I'm concerned, Harris has at least a substantial, if less than 50%, chance of winning, and a lot will be up to chance circumstances that tip things one way or the other over the next three months.

And the final take I want to gripe about this evening is this fairly popular Tumblr post. Note particularly:

If you continue to argue for anyone other than Kamala, you want Trump to win.

My tentative position on the spectrum of ways of dealing with picking our nominee is that I think there should be some sort of actual contest (at least on the level of open debate) but that I think Democrats should have the nominee picked out (who in turn will have a VP pick) by the time of the convention. I definitely not down for decreeing within a couple of days of Biden's dropping out that, okay, there's only one viable candidate, there is because I say so, we must all fall in line with total unity immediately, anyone who disagrees with me is not only declared wrong by my own authority but declared to be in league with the enemy. Why do so many people struggle so much with theory of mind to not understand (or performatively appear not to understand?) that "those people are in favor of X, which is a thing that I believe will lead to undesirable outcome Y" does not imply "those people are in favor of Y"? I'm pretty sure I've ranted about this before, when it came to rhetoric surrounding a much more contentious cluster of issues, but it applies to a very wide variety of struggles.

[omegaphilosophia]

The Philosophy of the Problem of Other Minds

The "Problem of Other Minds" is a classic issue in philosophy, particularly in epistemology and the philosophy of mind. It addresses the question of how we can know that other people have minds and mental states similar to our own. This problem challenges our understanding of consciousness, perception, and intersubjectivity, raising profound questions about empathy, communication, and the nature of human relationships.

Understanding the Problem of Other Minds

At its core, the problem is about the epistemic gap between one's own direct experience of their mind and the inference that others have similar mental experiences. While we have direct access to our thoughts, feelings, and sensations, we do not have the same access to the minds of others. We can only observe their behavior and make inferences about their mental states.

Key Questions and Issues

Epistemological Challenge: How can we justify the belief that others have minds? Our knowledge of other minds is indirect, based on the observation of behavior and the assumption that similar behavior implies similar mental states.

Analogical Argument: One common response is the analogical argument, which posits that since other people exhibit behavior similar to ours and we know that our behavior is caused by our mental states, it is reasonable to infer that their behavior is caused by similar mental states. However, this argument is often criticized for its reliance on analogy, which may not provide a solid epistemological foundation.

Behaviorism: Some philosophers, particularly behaviorists, argue that mental states are nothing more than behavioral dispositions. According to this view, to ascribe a mental state to someone is simply to describe a set of behaviors and tendencies. This approach attempts to sidestep the problem by redefining mental states in terms of observable behavior.

Phenomenological Approach: Phenomenologists focus on the direct experience of intersubjectivity, emphasizing empathy and the shared human condition. This approach suggests that we can understand other minds through a direct, empathetic engagement with others, rather than purely inferential reasoning.

Philosophical Skepticism: Some argue that the problem of other minds leads to a form of skepticism. If we cannot have direct access to other minds, how can we be certain they exist? This skeptical view challenges the certainty of our knowledge about other people's mental lives.

Theory of Mind: Developmental psychology and cognitive science explore how humans develop the ability to attribute mental states to others. The "theory of mind" posits that humans naturally develop an understanding that others have beliefs, desires, and intentions that may differ from their own. This cognitive ability is crucial for social interaction and communication.

Functionalism: Functionalist theories in philosophy of mind suggest that mental states are defined by their functional roles rather than by their intrinsic properties. According to functionalism, if an entity (human or artificial) behaves in a way that fulfills the functional role of a mind, it can be said to have a mind.

Philosophical Implications

Ethics and Morality: The problem of other minds has significant ethical implications. Recognizing that others have minds is foundational for empathy, compassion, and moral consideration. If we doubt the existence of other minds, it undermines the basis for ethical behavior and interpersonal relationships.

Artificial Intelligence: The problem of other minds extends to the realm of artificial intelligence. As we develop more advanced AI, questions arise about whether these entities have minds and how we should treat them.

Intersubjectivity: Understanding other minds is crucial for communication and social interaction. The problem highlights the importance of shared experiences and common understanding in building social bonds and communities.

The Problem of Other Minds remains a central issue in philosophy, challenging our understanding of consciousness, perception, and intersubjectivity. While various approaches attempt to address this problem, it continues to provoke deep philosophical inquiry into the nature of mind and our knowledge of others.