Theory of Mind in Neurodiverse Communication
One profound element shaping human interaction is our “theory of mind”. This psychological concept refers to our innate human capacity to attribute mental states, beliefs, intents, and emotions to ourselves and others. It is the bedrock of empathy, social reasoning, and communication. It allows us to understand that another person’s perspective is different from our own, and to predict or interpret their behavior based on that understanding. However, it is crucial to recognize that the development and application of theory of mind is not a monolithic experience. It varies significantly across neurotypes, and these differences are often at the root of miscommunication and relational strain between neurodivergent and neurotypical individuals.
A common scenario illustrating this difference might involve a neurodivergent employee, let’s call him Alex, who is autistic. Alex’s manager states in a team meeting, “If anyone has concerns about this project deadline, please come see me.” Alex, who processes language in a very literal and direct manner, takes this statement at face value. He has no concerns about the deadline because he knows his own work is on track. He does not infer the manager’s underlying mental state, which may include anxiety about the project’s overall status, a hope that team members will collaborate, or an unspoken worry that someone is struggling. Later, when the project encounters a delay that another team member knew about, the manager is frustrated, believing Alex must have known and willfully withheld information. Alex is confused and hurt, having accurately responded to the direct question asked of him. The mismatch occurred not in intention or capability, but in the theory of mind applied. The manager assumed her indirect prompt would be interpreted as an invitation to share any relevant concerns. Alex applied a literal theory of mind to her words, missing the inferred request. Neither is wrong, but the communication failed.
For neurodivergent individuals who may find such social inference challenging, conscious exercises can be developed to build more adaptable theories of mind. These are not about masking one’s authentic neurology, but about expanding one’s cognitive toolkit to facilitate smoother interactions. The first exercise is the Three Channel Check In. During a conversation, make a conscious effort to note three channels of information, not just the words spoken. These are the words themselves, the tone of voice used, and the person’s body language or facial expression. Briefly pause to ask yourself if these three channels are aligned. If they are not, for instance if someone says “I’m fine” in a sharp tone while crossing their arms, it is a signal that their internal state may not match their literal words. This practice builds awareness of nonverbal cues that signal others’ emotions.
The second exercise is The Curiosity Pause. Before concluding you understand another person’s motive or intention, especially if it seems negative, institute a mandatory pause. In this pause, generate two to three alternative, benign explanations for their behavior. For example, if a friend seems to ignore you in a hallway, instead of concluding they are angry with you, consider, “They might be late for an appointment,” “They could be deeply preoccupied with a problem,” or “They may not have seen me.” This practice actively challenges automatic attributions and fosters a more flexible and generous theory of mind.
The third exercise is The Clarification Loop. This is a direct communication strategy that mitigates the need for guesswork. When you sense potential for misunderstanding, simply state your observation and ask for clarification. For instance, you could say, “When you said X, I took it to mean Y. Is that what you intended?” Or, “I want to make sure I understand correctly, are you feeling Z?” This tool externalizes the process of building a theory of mind, inviting the other person to explicitly share their internal state and thereby creating a shared understanding. It is a proactive and respectful way to ensure communication remains clear and effective for all parties involved.
