Guess Hue?
It is a Wednesday night which means it’s time for Collin to sit down and watch his favourite game show, Guess Hue?
The rules are simple.
Three teams of six compete in the first round. Teammates are separated to where they cannot see each other but they can hear each other.
Player 1 from each team has one colour card in front of them. A colour card has a square colour in the centre which is surrounded by another colour. Without describing the outside colour they have to get the next person in line to guess the correct colour in the centre. The next player is the only one allowed to hear the descriptions of the previous player. Player 2 can only hear player 1, player 3 can only hear player 2 and so on and so forth. What number player you are also correlates to how many options you have in front of you so it gets progressively harder. Teams do not know if they have guessed correctly until the round is over.
The team with the most correct guesses advances to the final round. If there is a tie, points are calculated. For example; if team one had players 2, 3 and 5 guess correctly 2, 3 and 5 points will be added up. And if team two had players 2, 3 and 6 guess correctly 2, 3 and 6 points will be added up, this example makes team 2 the winner which means they will advance to the final round. (If it is still a tie, then another round will be played until there is a winner.)
In the final round, all six players have six colour cards in front of them. Player 1 picks one of the six cards and the game continues as it did in the first round. Once player six has made their guess. The team then decide amongst themselves if they want to play double or nothing.
If they think they have every single space correct or are close they have one minute to make as many changes as they want. Everyone can now communicate together. If, at the end of the minute everyone has the same answer they walk away with the top prize of $10,000. If anyone in the team is wrong, they walk away with nothing. If the team decides to not play double or nothing, they will receive $1000 for every matching answer.*
A poor theory of mind.
Media has a massive say in what Plato defines as our true beliefs . More often than not its influence is so great that we mistake it for knowledge as there is often a continual confirmation bias that occurs.
I want to explore this in film and television. Specifically characters in works of fiction.
There are two types of characters I wanted to discuss, characters that are stated as either Autistic or ADHD and characters that are either autistic or ADHD Coded.
These coded characters show traits and behaviours associated with either autism or ADHD but aren’t labelled by the creators as such.
Some autistic characters include Raymond Babbitt from Rain Man and Quinni from Heartbreak High. Autism-coded characters include Sheldon Cooper from The Big Bang Theory and Vanellope von Schweets from Wreck-it-Ralph. With all of these characters, there appears to be quite opposing opinions on the accuracy of the representation.
In both non-coded and coded examples, the initial example in each is considered substandard representation, whereas the subsequent example in each is deemed as more effective representation.
When it comes to ADHD there are even fewer examples.
ADHD characters include Bart Simpson from The Simpsons and Phil from Modern Family. The ADHD-coded characters include Emma Woodhouse from Jane Austen’s Emma and, I can’t believe I’m writing this, Hammy, that squirrel from Over the Hedge.
So what makes good representation?
Simply put; diversity.
Including one kind of autistic person, is not good representation. Yes, it does represent that autistic person, but as the saying goes, if you’ve met one autistic person, you’ve met one autistic person.
Good representation is relative. In my previous post, Collin’s story is a good example of this. Claude, Ivan and Knuckles have clearly all seen a shelled animal before but have all met different shelled animals. When you’ve only ever met one kind of shelled animal, you can understand why they all thought what they did. When it comes to people, it’s the same. By understanding that example, it becomes quite clear how only seeing one kind of ADHD or autistic person on screen can make it confusing for people when they are presented with someone who doesn’t fit that mould. Having lots of one kind of shelled animal does not accurately represent all the shelled animals that are out there.
True beliefs are real in thought but not in reality. Knowledge can exist both in thought and in reality. But that does not stop knowledge from being twisted. When knowledge enters the mind we have no control of what it is being placed next to. The same colour might be being passed around but everyone has their own background on which the colour is placed.
Equally, knowledge is associated with the mind. If there was no mind to hold the knowledge does it still exist? Is knowledge something that exists out there on its own? Yes and no.
It goes to show how ‘knowledge’ or ‘fact’ can have multiple truths. The same shade of grey can indeed look both light and dark. One ADHDer may relate heavily to an ADHD character and another ADHDer may not. As much as we would like to think it so, knowledge is not linear.
This is where the Theory of Mind comes in. Wikipedia defines Theory of mind as;
In psychology, theory of mind refers to the capacity to understand other people by ascribing mental states to them. A theory of mind includes the knowledge that others’ beliefs, desires, intentions, emotions, and thoughts may be different from one’s own.
This is also an excellent example of a true belief. It is important that we treat it so. You cannot enter someone else’s mind, therefore it cannot be knowledge. Treating theory of mind as knowledge is harmful.
A 1985 study of autistic children by Simon Baron-Cohen is a perfect example of this. Baron-Cohen claimed that the unifying trait of autism was how they struggled with theory of mind. The main way this was conducted was by doing false-belief tasks. Numerous studies have since come out to disprove this theory, saying that false beliefs and poor theory of mind are not unique to the autistic brain and therefore should not be treated as such. An article published by the National Library of Medicine comments on the price we have to pay for the damage done by this research.
But the erroneous claim that only autistic people, “together with robots and chimpanzees” lack a theory of mind … and therefore “biologically set apart from the rest of humanity in lack the basic machinery” … echoes throughout psychological literature, practice and instruction …
Or more simply, as Alexander Avila put it in his video essay on madness and reason;
The theory of mind sucks shit.
No one can think in ways outside of their own thinking. I can only understand you, in the ways that I understand. Everyone understands differently because we all think differently. Some people have no voices and no pictures in their heads, yet they can still think. I have many voices and very vivid images in my head when I think. I can understand that someone has different thinking patterns than me, but I cannot adjust my own thinking to think like them. The only way we can think like someone else is by thinking in our own patterns.
It is hard to be knowledgeable about someone else’s beliefs, desires, intentions, emotions, and thoughts but I believe it is more important for us to understand and connect to others than for us to be accurate guessers. Even if you can’t comprehend, you can always find a way to understand.
*If you don’t quite understand the game there is actually a board game that exists that is quite similar to this concept; Hues and Cues. Here is a link to the YouTube channel No Rolls Barred who played the game. Their video encapsulated how easily miscommunications can occur.