What is Sally Anne Thinking?

A recent study published in Science theorizes that in AS the capability for understanding mental states exists, just not spontaneously. This conclusion is drawn because study subjects only "passed" a Sally Anne False-Belief Test when verbally prompted, and not spontaneously with their eye gaze.

Deconstructing assumptions a bit (and admitting I have not had time to read the primary source), there are, of course, some questions. How is it known that eye gaze in AS subjects means the same thing as eye gaze in subjects who do not have AS? Particularly as eye gaze is something that often marks people on the spectrum as visibly different? Particularly as movement and perceptual differences are also often noted? How is it known that eye gaze in AS subjects means the same thing as eye gaze in subjects who do not have AS in relation to this particular false-belief task?

If the verbal prompting appears to refute the idea of "mind blindness," then why is it not possible that it does, in fact, simply refute the idea of "mind blindness?" Why is it necessary to hang onto the notion that mind blindness must exist, there is no other explanation for "social deficit?" The fact that "mind blindness" is often a given when talking about autism does not make "mind blindness" itself a fact.

In fact, there is an interesting paper Does the Autistic Brain Lack Core Modules? that deconstructs the "mind blindness" idea further, including discussing language-based versions of the false-belief test. That paper not only discusses deep issues with the concept of mind blindness, but also some issues with assumptions about eye gaze.

Building on existing theory is an essential in science. But also essential is questioning the existing theory itself.

"Mind blindness," regardless of what the press may say, is not a done deal. The question remains open. There are other equally (more so?) plausible reasons for both differences in social communication and for autistic responses to false belief tests.