Replying to Uta Frith's views, one by one.
-
@KatyElphinstone
.
I find the "We need subtypes," idea a bit funny - we need more spectra
@punishmenthurts I'm on the "color from space" spectrum!
-
@SecondUniverse @KatyElphinstone @adelinej Why do these highly-educated academics always get Theory of Mind wrong? ToM is not the ability to read minds. It is the awareness that other individuals have their own thoughts and perceptions that will be different from your own, not the ability to know what those are.
@joshsusser @SecondUniverse @KatyElphinstone @adelinej
theory of mind is an example of what i call "bucket concepts" (still working on a better term). one research team coins it to mean one thing--particularly, in chimpanzees, the ability to recognize goal directed behavior by humans and infer their desired outcome--and that meaning goes in the bucket. then someone asks 'what does this look like in children?' and chooses the ability to understand that others can hold false beliefs. so that goes in the same bucket. over time, other people have different ideas about what theory of mind means: perspective-taking; inferring others' beliefs, intentions, and desires; assessing your _own_ beliefs, intentions, and desires; predicting others' behavior; having a mind at all; recognizing that others have minds; and of course our favorite "reading minds". all of it goes in the bucket, because each contributor thinks their addition is just more of what's already in the bucket.
now the whole bucket gets passed around, under the label "theory of mind", and treated as a coherent concept, despite the fact that it's actually half a dozen (at least) concepts thrown together in a bucket. most people don't look inside the bucket anymore, because they’re convinced their preferred definition is the only one inside. if there's a disagreement, nobody finds themselves in the wrong because their preferred definition is, after all, actually in the bucket.
trying to take anything back out of the bucket would give us a different problem, because once we nix one of the definitions (like that ridiculous "mind reading" one) we invalidate an unknown number of past usages of the term. honestly, i'd go for it, but academia surely would not, because people wouldn't be able to reference any prior work on theory of mind without examining whether it relied on an extra bit of meaning we're getting rid of. so the bucket never shrinks, only grows. the term can only become more overloaded and less meaningful.
but for some reason, certain areas of research love these bucket terms. i've seen a number of them and i wonder if anyone really considers how deleterious to the advancement of science when people unknowingly use the same terminology for different things.
(edit: punctuation)
-
@punishmenthurts I'm on the "color from space" spectrum!
-
@joshsusser @SecondUniverse @KatyElphinstone @adelinej
theory of mind is an example of what i call "bucket concepts" (still working on a better term). one research team coins it to mean one thing--particularly, in chimpanzees, the ability to recognize goal directed behavior by humans and infer their desired outcome--and that meaning goes in the bucket. then someone asks 'what does this look like in children?' and chooses the ability to understand that others can hold false beliefs. so that goes in the same bucket. over time, other people have different ideas about what theory of mind means: perspective-taking; inferring others' beliefs, intentions, and desires; assessing your _own_ beliefs, intentions, and desires; predicting others' behavior; having a mind at all; recognizing that others have minds; and of course our favorite "reading minds". all of it goes in the bucket, because each contributor thinks their addition is just more of what's already in the bucket.
now the whole bucket gets passed around, under the label "theory of mind", and treated as a coherent concept, despite the fact that it's actually half a dozen (at least) concepts thrown together in a bucket. most people don't look inside the bucket anymore, because they’re convinced their preferred definition is the only one inside. if there's a disagreement, nobody finds themselves in the wrong because their preferred definition is, after all, actually in the bucket.
trying to take anything back out of the bucket would give us a different problem, because once we nix one of the definitions (like that ridiculous "mind reading" one) we invalidate an unknown number of past usages of the term. honestly, i'd go for it, but academia surely would not, because people wouldn't be able to reference any prior work on theory of mind without examining whether it relied on an extra bit of meaning we're getting rid of. so the bucket never shrinks, only grows. the term can only become more overloaded and less meaningful.
but for some reason, certain areas of research love these bucket terms. i've seen a number of them and i wonder if anyone really considers how deleterious to the advancement of science when people unknowingly use the same terminology for different things.
(edit: punctuation)
Absolutely!
I'm in the middle of a really interesting book by Paul Bloom called 'Against Empathy' which talks quite a bit about the concepts - theory of mind, and so-called 'cognitive empathy' (which I had also found issue with, and mentioned in my article about empathy).
-
Absolutely!
I'm in the middle of a really interesting book by Paul Bloom called 'Against Empathy' which talks quite a bit about the concepts - theory of mind, and so-called 'cognitive empathy' (which I had also found issue with, and mentioned in my article about empathy).
@KatyElphinstone I think the problem is "theory of mind" is a poetic term. It resonates with researchers. It SHOULD mean something. It attracts emotional engagement. But it doesn't mean anything specific.
-
@KatyElphinstone I think the problem is "theory of mind" is a poetic term. It resonates with researchers. It SHOULD mean something. It attracts emotional engagement. But it doesn't mean anything specific.
Yes!!
I think you have hit the nail on the head.It is suitably ambiguous (and sciencey sounding) and suitably resonant at the same time.
-
@KatyElphinstone I think the problem is "theory of mind" is a poetic term. It resonates with researchers. It SHOULD mean something. It attracts emotional engagement. But it doesn't mean anything specific.
I wrote this thread about theory of mind
️K.J. Elphinstone (@KatyElphinstone@mas.to)
"Theory of mind" And why it isn't all it's cracked up to be. A thread. 🧵 #Autistic #ActuallyAutistic #Neurodivergent #AuDHD #ADHD #Neurodiversity #TheoryOfMind #Psychology #DoubleEmpathy
mas.to (mas.to)
-
@KatyElphinstone I think the problem is "theory of mind" is a poetic term. It resonates with researchers. It SHOULD mean something. It attracts emotional engagement. But it doesn't mean anything specific.
@SecondUniverse @KatyElphinstone
There is one researcher who was explaining it as this brick wall feeling that I feel…
-
@SecondUniverse @KatyElphinstone @adelinej Why do these highly-educated academics always get Theory of Mind wrong? ToM is not the ability to read minds. It is the awareness that other individuals have their own thoughts and perceptions that will be different from your own, not the ability to know what those are.
@joshsusser @SecondUniverse @KatyElphinstone @adelinej
Well… considering how and why I would get punished….
-
The Times article: https://www.tes.com/magazine/teaching-learning/general/uta-frith-interview-autism-not-spectrum
Her podcast with Naomi Fisher: https://substack.com/@naomicfisher/note/p-189989936?r=ql236
I read it and I actually feel this. I was in special ed… its tough not having a label anymore where most of the other people are dealing with more similar barriers… people are increasingly…. Not similar circumstance to myself… and that is unhelpful for me…
-
I read it and I actually feel this. I was in special ed… its tough not having a label anymore where most of the other people are dealing with more similar barriers… people are increasingly…. Not similar circumstance to myself… and that is unhelpful for me…
Unhelpful for advocacy. Unhelpful for strategies. Unhelpful because of increased social expectations.
-
Unhelpful for advocacy. Unhelpful for strategies. Unhelpful because of increased social expectations.
Im fine with having an entirely different label.
But I don’t really wanna share with those who are so much more capable than me… im comfy being separated from both the main buckets so I can find more similar people….
-
Im fine with having an entirely different label.
But I don’t really wanna share with those who are so much more capable than me… im comfy being separated from both the main buckets so I can find more similar people….
Its hard to set reasonable expectations…
-
@KatyElphinstone @SecondUniverse @adelinej Uta #Frith was a coauthor, with Simon #BaronCohen, on the original 1985 paper introducing the hopelessly muddled "theory of mind" concept, the phlogiston of autism science. She certainly doesn't have any legitimate claim still to be taken seriously in 2026.
-
@joshsusser @KatyElphinstone @SecondUniverse @adelinej This is sort of why I started calling it neuroconvergent instead of neurotypical after reading the Double Empathy paper.
@simondassow @joshsusser @KatyElphinstone @SecondUniverse @adelinej neuroconvergent
-
@KatyElphinstone I think the problem is "theory of mind" is a poetic term. It resonates with researchers. It SHOULD mean something. It attracts emotional engagement. But it doesn't mean anything specific.
@SecondUniverse @KatyElphinstone i wish a had a mind to base a theory on /j
-
@SecondUniverse @KatyElphinstone @adelinej Why do these highly-educated academics always get Theory of Mind wrong? ToM is not the ability to read minds. It is the awareness that other individuals have their own thoughts and perceptions that will be different from your own, not the ability to know what those are.
@joshsusser @SecondUniverse @KatyElphinstone @adelinej i am able to read minds, it works like wifi /j
-
Its hard to set reasonable expectations…
I do see what you're saying. Yes. And that must be hard actually. I was disadvantaged at school, but not like that.
Hm I guess, regarding this, I think it may be time to support people with what they need in the ways that they need it? That is, the support should centre around their needs, and not round their diagnosis.
I think her commentary is designed to be divisive... which is exactly what it's doing
-
I do see what you're saying. Yes. And that must be hard actually. I was disadvantaged at school, but not like that.
Hm I guess, regarding this, I think it may be time to support people with what they need in the ways that they need it? That is, the support should centre around their needs, and not round their diagnosis.
I think her commentary is designed to be divisive... which is exactly what it's doing
PS and just to say good on you for saying this... I realise that might have taken some courage in the context.
-
@SecondUniverse @KatyElphinstone i wish a had a mind to base a theory on /j
