You seriously don't believe some people don't have the ability to think in the abstract?
I'm sure that some people can't abstract.
However, what that means is that those people are so mentally crippled that they do not have Theory of Mind. Theory of Mind is what happens naturally to 5 year olds. It means that they are so mentally crippled that they have 100% disability and a legal guardian.
It works like this:
Jack and Jane are having a picnic. They have picnic basket and a loaf of bread between them. Jack puts the loaf of bread in the basket. Jane leaves for a moment. While she's gone, Jack takes the bread and puts it behind a tree. Jane comes back.
Where does Jane think the bread is?
3 year olds do not have "Theory of Mind" and are therefore not able to abstract the concept of another person's perception; and will almost always say: "Jane thinks it's behind the tree."
5 year olds have developed Theory of Mind, and are capable of abstraction. They then proceed to gasp, and typically realize that they have 'hidden knowledge' about the location of the bread, because Jane thinks the bread is still in the basket, but it's actually behind the tree.
"Jane thinks it's behind the tree" is what happens when people can't abstract. Developing Theory of Mind late is a sign of significant Autism, and it means the child isn't going to develop properly. Never developing it makes the person a cripple. Someone with the intellectual capacity of a 3 year old can't function in society, let alone host a podcast, or drive a car out to the Timcast bunker.
This would be like asking, "what if Jack put it in the car?" and the response is, "but Jack put it behind the tree." Which is what you would get if someone could not understand a hypothetical.
Theory of mind and arguing a hypothetical are not the same thing.
No, but it seems to me that the only way to make that response is to not be able to have Theory of Mind. Theory of Mind requires you to be able to create an abstraction that represents a different view. Theory Of Mind is about whether or not the subject has the capacity for creating and then personifying an abstraction. A hypothetical still requires the capacity to abstract. If you can't abstract, you can't have Theory of Mind.
If you can't form a hypothetical scenario, we couldn't even test the scenario. They aren't literally showing people moving bread in the woods. They are starting with a hypothetical: "Imagine two people are having a picnic in the woods."
If someone didn't understand hypotheticals, they might respond with: "But we're not in the woods."
Without the capacity for hypotheticals, we can't even test Theory of Mind. Not only are we saying "this woman doesn't have the cognitive capacity of a 5 year old", we're saying she has far less than that. We're not talking about someone with sub standard IQ, we're talking about someone who is so developmentally disabled that they have nearly single digit IQs. We've entered the region of non-human animal intelligence.
Not to mention that if you watch longer parts of the conversation, she uses hypotheticals herself in order to deflect from the conversation; so obviously she can understand hypotheticals. She's just being dishonest.
I'm sure that some people can't abstract.
However, what that means is that those people are so mentally crippled that they do not have Theory of Mind. Theory of Mind is what happens naturally to 5 year olds. It means that they are so mentally crippled that they have 100% disability and a legal guardian.
It works like this:
Jack and Jane are having a picnic. They have picnic basket and a loaf of bread between them. Jack puts the loaf of bread in the basket. Jane leaves for a moment. While she's gone, Jack takes the bread and puts it behind a tree. Jane comes back.
Where does Jane think the bread is?
3 year olds do not have "Theory of Mind" and are therefore not able to abstract the concept of another person's perception; and will almost always say: "Jane thinks it's behind the tree."
5 year olds have developed Theory of Mind, and are capable of abstraction. They then proceed to gasp, and typically realize that they have 'hidden knowledge' about the location of the bread, because Jane thinks the bread is still in the basket, but it's actually behind the tree.
"Jane thinks it's behind the tree" is what happens when people can't abstract. Developing Theory of Mind late is a sign of significant Autism, and it means the child isn't going to develop properly. Never developing it makes the person a cripple. Someone with the intellectual capacity of a 3 year old can't function in society, let alone host a podcast, or drive a car out to the Timcast bunker.
Your example is not a hypothetical.
This would be like asking, "what if Jack put it in the car?" and the response is, "but Jack put it behind the tree." Which is what you would get if someone could not understand a hypothetical.
Theory of mind and arguing a hypothetical are not the same thing.
No, but it seems to me that the only way to make that response is to not be able to have Theory of Mind. Theory of Mind requires you to be able to create an abstraction that represents a different view. Theory Of Mind is about whether or not the subject has the capacity for creating and then personifying an abstraction. A hypothetical still requires the capacity to abstract. If you can't abstract, you can't have Theory of Mind.
If you can't form a hypothetical scenario, we couldn't even test the scenario. They aren't literally showing people moving bread in the woods. They are starting with a hypothetical: "Imagine two people are having a picnic in the woods."
If someone didn't understand hypotheticals, they might respond with: "But we're not in the woods."
Without the capacity for hypotheticals, we can't even test Theory of Mind. Not only are we saying "this woman doesn't have the cognitive capacity of a 5 year old", we're saying she has far less than that. We're not talking about someone with sub standard IQ, we're talking about someone who is so developmentally disabled that they have nearly single digit IQs. We've entered the region of non-human animal intelligence.
Not to mention that if you watch longer parts of the conversation, she uses hypotheticals herself in order to deflect from the conversation; so obviously she can understand hypotheticals. She's just being dishonest.