Revisiting theory of mind

In this presentation, Uta Frith gave a much more in-depth description of the theory of mind.  She gave examples of various stages of life in which one could assess an individual for theory of mind.  This including identifying joint attention during infancy, a school-age child's understanding of "sabotage" and "deception", and she also used the example of a person's ability to attribute agencies to animated shapes, which I found very interesting.

She described many characteristics that are both consistent with autism as well as being consistent with a lack of a "theory of mind".  These characteristics include in inability or difficulty in articulated one's own thoughts or emotions, deficient pretend-play skills, and delays in joint attention.  As Frith discussed, many of these skills can be taught.  That is, "explicit mentalizing" can be taught.  "Intuitive mentalizing" cannot be taught.  In other words, compensationary methods can be learned in order to come to the appropriate conclusions regarding the thoughts and feelings of others.  But the automaticity of reaching those conclusions cannot be taught. 

The results of the various experiments discussed by Frith does seem to show evidence that there is a lack of awareness of the consciousness of other individuals.  As I mentioned earlier, characteristics that are consistent with lacking a "theory of mind" are also consistent with having Autism.  In that event, I do think it's appropriate to assess individuals in order to determine if they have the characteristics that are typical of "having a theory of mind"- should it be defined that way.  However, for those who are determined not to have a theory of mind, it's inconclusive has to how to correct it.  While one can learn "explicit mentalizing via compensation", it's unclear if these individuals will really understand what it is they're supposed to understand.  In other words, an individual can observe the narrative situation in which one character leaves a room and the other character hides that character's ball in a basket, the individual observing this narrative could be asked where the character who had left the room thinks the ball is and can be trained to give the correct answer.  But are they giving the correct response by rote or do they truly understand why that is the correct answer?