Language and Aspergers

[andrewducker]

This very much sums up how I feel, on a semi-regular basis.  It's an article about how people with Aserpgers interpret language differently to people without, and how they find it difficult to deal with the subtleties that many people strew into language quite happily.

It's not a problem I have nearly as often as I used to - but I do run into people reading more into my language than I put there, or putting things into language that I don't spot.

It also sums up the sense of kinship and familiarity I felt on reading The Curious Case of the Dog in the Night-Time - not that I'm anywhere near that bad - but it reminded me quite a lot of how I felt as a child.

cheers to randomchris for the link.

Comments

[the-mendicant.livejournal.com]

I fall into the language trap all the time, especially when trying to get to know a new date, it can be very frustrating.

Aspies unite!

[interactiveleaf.livejournal.com]

God yes. Except that I know people who are further along the spectrum than I who can easily translate from "what people say" to "what people mean." It just doesn't make sense to me.

[supergee.livejournal.com]

Great icon!

[interactiveleaf.livejournal.com]

Thank you!

[doctorpsycho60.livejournal.com]

I concur with Supergee on the excellence of your icon.

[interactiveleaf.livejournal.com]

I like this journal. I get flattered a lot in it.

Thanks. :)

[channelpenguin.livejournal.com]

in the smoothie example given, I had distinct hesitation deciding about the 2nd case... and decided in the end that it was not-intentional.

Dunno whether I 'naturally' think them the same and initially tried 'correcting' as a coping mechanism, or whether I 'naturally' thought the 'typical' way but the logical inconsistency bugged me enough to change my mind.

I actually cannot tell.

[channelpenguin.livejournal.com]

and I regularly ask for 'everything but tomatoes' with a kebab, and get exactly that every time.

[pgdudda.livejournal.com]

OTOH, my universal experience when I say "everything except tomatoes" is that they give me the tomatoes anyway, and then proceed to ask me individually for each item whether I want it or not.

What is so difficult about (a) "everything" and (b) "except tomatoes"? GAH!

[dougs.livejournal.com]

Me too, both with kebabs and with subs in Subway.

And me too with the views expressed in the top post.

[red-phil.livejournal.com]

Everything? Including oil tankers and dung beatles?

[dd-b.livejournal.com]

"Intentional" is a weird question to ask especially about the second (extra dollar) case. If you asked me, was he surprised when they charged him an extra dollar, then the answer is clearly no. He had consented to spending the extra dollar.

Hmmm; the first one works the same way, too. He didn't "intend" to get the commemorative cup as I understand the term, but he was not surprised that he got the commemorative cup.

Actually, what I was thinking reading both those cases was "Wait, is the Mega-Sized Smoothie actually the biggest? Nothing has said so yet."

[novapsyche.livejournal.com]

They might be the same size. However, I doubt it. I think the clerk got a bonus for every commemorative cup s/he sold.

[drainboy.livejournal.com]

I chose that both times it was not intentional, but I'm not sure it's for the same reason the article mentioned. My issue hinges on this sentence in the post-amble "Therefore, his intention is to obtain the Mega-Sized Smoothie".

It wasn't. He wasn't told explicitly he would be getting the Mega-Sized Smoothie when he ordered "the biggest smoothie you have". He might have guessed that was likely, but there was no certainty based on the information we're fed in the script. There could have been a super-mega sized smoothie.

Now if the script had said "the biggest smoothies we have are now a dollar more/come with a commemorative cup" then my answer for both would have been "what do you mean by intentionally?" I'd probably still answer no for both but it would be a much softer no.

[endless-psych.livejournal.com]

The article seems to be a bit of a red herring, it's taken me some time to work out why the explanation (which seems very elegant and fitting with the findings) is problematic.

Certainly the article is correct in pointing out that obviously the two groups measured differed in how they percieved the statements.

However language alone isn't really the key thing here peoples reactions to it are. Ergo in order to understand the differences its perhaps inappropriate to try and explain them in terms of the understanding of words.

As the words experienced are the same for those with Aspergers and "NT's" I would contend that unless you can show that folk with aspergers have a different meaning for "intentionality" from "NT's" then yeah red herring.

Which could be done by getting a random sample of folk with ASD and randomised controls and asking for their definition of the term intentionality.

[endless-psych.livejournal.com]

Actually it occurs to me know that another potential, and perhaps more satisfying, explanation then mind-blindness or language would involve schema-theory.

By looking at how the vignettes are constructed it's clear they are designed to be answered in the same way. However "NT's" could invoke a schema of actions in the situation of buying a smoothie and those on the ASD spectrum might not. By which I mean those on the ASD spectrum could treat the situation as a novel example and answer it as it is presented and the NT's could be invoking experience and ignoring the bit where Joe says he doesn't care about paying a dollar more. As experience (or their schema) will tell them that if someone is going to buy something they will intend to pay for it...

[andrewducker]

I think that's kind of the point. "Normal People" don't live in a logical world where inentionality is carefully explained - they live in a world of experience, where they "just know" what the intentions of people are. Thus something that appears the same to AS people (because logically it is) seems obviously different to them.

[endless-psych.livejournal.com]

But then, really, both the article and the article that prompted it are just saying the same thing. Doesn't language, under that interpretation, just become a stepping stone to an idea of mind blindness (abeit a more pleasing one perhaps to people with ASD spectrum diagnoses (struggling to think of a word to put there that didn't have loaded negative connotations diagnoses was the best I could come up with ;) ))

[andrewducker]

See, I'm not convinced it's "Mind Blindness" - because many AS people have theories of mind - but they're _logical_ theories of mind, rather than intuitive theories of mind.

Mind Disintuition doesn't have the same ring to it though :->

[endless-psych.livejournal.com]

Thing is because "normal people" or "NT's" don't generally (or rarely) operate on logic a logical theory of mind is a kind of "mindblindness" or could be seen as a lack of a "theory of mind".

I agree the terms may not be the best, in that they are somewhat loaded and imply some sort of correctness, but I do think the theory (and most of the research that backs it up) is fairly sound.

"Theory of mind is the ability to attribute mental states—beliefs, intents, desires, pretending, knowledge, etc.—to oneself and others and to understand that others have beliefs, desires and intentions that are different from one's own."

That said I think it would probably be reasonable to interpret a theory of mind and mindblindness as being on a continuum. Afterall I'm sure anyone can think of masses of fiction which relies on keeping the audience "mind blind" in order to build suspense (or if not to keep the audience mind blind then to misdirect their theory of mind if you like) I'm thinking of crime fiction in particular.

[endless-psych.livejournal.com]

I may be tempted to blog on the idea of a theory of mind continum or mind blindness and speculate on how crime fiction exploits it actually...

[andrewducker]

There almost certainly is a continuum.

But that definition indicates that AS people have no ability to recognise that others have beliefs - rather than what seems (from my experience) to be the case - that they are capable of understanding, but that understanding what those beliefs are is not intuitive to them.

[endless-psych.livejournal.com]

I suppose literally it does but I meant to use that definition in the context that if people on the AS have a theory of mind predicated on people acting logically then their theory of mind is, when applied to non AS types, essentially wrong most of the time. Not always because human beings do on occassion act rationally and logically (just rarely ;) ).

Thus in summation I would say having a theory of mind based on logic isn't literally the same as having no theory of mind but, conversely, I'd argue it does fit with the end of the definition "to understand that others have beliefs, desires and intentions that are different from one's own.". Of course I have always taken the idea that this doesn't mean that folk on the AS believe everyone thinks the same as them at any given moment but that they believe people act in a logical fashion.

I think I should blog this (if I can actually put it through the babble filter and make it readable!) ;)

[andrewducker]

I shall look forward to reading it!

[redbird]

I'm neurotypical, and I wouldn't say the imaginary person "intended" to get the commemorative cup, because if it was me I might say "I don't care if I get the commemorative cup" to indicate that if they're trying to save them, fine, give it to me in paper, just give me the great big drink. Some of us NTs don't care about commemorative cups.

The scenario also doesn't allow for distraction: "okay, yea, I'll pay a dollar extra" in the same way as if I, a regular customer, walked into the coffee shop and ordered the same hot chocolate I always get there, and they said "by the way, the price has gone up fifty cents" so I won't yell at them once they make it and charge me the higher price. "I don't care, I want the hot chocolate" is as plausible a response, for me, as "That's okay, I still want it" or "Never mind, that's too much."

[darkoshi]

Neither example says if Joe knows whether or not the Mega-size is the largest beforehand or not. The cashier does not mention whether it is or not. Therefore, when he makes his order, he is not intentionally getting the Mega-size, he is intentionally getting the largest, whichever that may be. So he is neither intentionally getting the commemorative cup nor paying a dollar extra, before the cashier tells him how much to pay.

That said, my first response on the 2nd example was that it was intentional... he is told how much it costs, and he hands over the money, intending to pay the amount which happens to include the extra dollar. Giving something of known quality away seems like it has to be intentional, whereas receiving something of unknown quality is not...

Yet his intention is not really to pay the extra dollar, it is to get the drink.

Both answers seem to have merit to me.

[0olong.livejournal.com]

Thanks for that.

I've been thinking a lot recently about some epicly bad consequences that have followed in my life from things being read into things I've said (usually without my realising this at the time) or me failing to understand things that haven't been explicitly stated. It's truly remarkable how badly these things can screw you over.

As a side note, without having read the original paper through, interpreting it as a failure of mind-reading without even considering questions of definition and literality (which they don't seem to have - certainly the word 'literal' appears nowhere) strikes me as really remarkably silly.

[khbrown.livejournal.com]

John Austin's Three Ways of Spilling Ink, and Aspergers?