Chap wrote:Res Ipsa wrote:When folks do this kind of exercise in trying to determine the motives and thinking of others, I always worry about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundament ... tion_error. Just relying on my own experience, I find that when people tell me what my motives are and what my thinking process is, it is rarely accurate. And I have no reason to believe I'm any better at figuring that stuff out than anyone else. If I stop and think about it, if I try and do it, I'm really creating a caricature of the person in my own mind, and then reacting to the caricature instead of the real person. Perhaps that's unavoidable to some degree, but I don't think it helps us communicate with each other.
It is impossible to relate to other human beings in a rational way without trying to work out what is going on inside their head. We all do it, all the time.
One of the problems that autistic people have is that they are unable to do this, and as a result other people seem to them to be opaque 'black boxes' who may react in an unpredictable and potentially scary manner.
For normal people, making a 'mental model' of the person with whom one is interacting is more or less indispensable. Of course all mental models are provisional and subject to correction at any moment, depending on the latest information about a person's words or actions. Everything is provisional.
But my model of MG's motivations is based on long observation, and so far it is entirely consistent with his actions. So I think that until he begins to act in some truly different way, I am justified in sticking with it. I'm glad to see that others find that my model is consistent with their own observations and experience.
Thanks, Chap. I think that's what I was trying to get at when I said that perhaps it is unavoidable to a degree. But could you draw other mental maps that fits with the behavior? I think I could.