understanding the concept of "it was just an accident"

[lingle]

Ooh, it's theory of mind stuff again . Can anyone help me build up towards getting this concept for DS2 (4.7) or do I just have to wait? It worries me, because it's one of the key things that can make communication between him and his peers break down.

This morning he dropped his book down the stairs, and accidentally hit DH on the head (!). DH told him to say sorry and he got really upset - he called me and cried and said "my head's hurt!"(!).

He just hasn't got the concept of someone doing something they didn't want to do. He can't say "I didn't mean to do it" or understand that someone else didn't mean to.

Anyone got ideas on how to establish building blocks for this concept or just to let me know when your spectrummy child finally "got it"?

He understands that some people like X but others don't, can "show" and "be shown" and "ask/tell" (though he mixes those up) really well now.

PS the last thread I started on theory of mind stuff to which you all made such brainy contributions keeps popping up in "editor's picks" so it's nice to know we are stretching their minds at MNHQ!

Not sure if this is going to be any help, Lingle, but ds1 now 6.6 can say 'it was an accident' very well when it's him doing it, but can't understand that other people also have accidents. He will also claim that something he has done deliberately (eg biff ds2) 'was an accident'. So he's partially got the concept, but not wholly, and still can't understand it fully in relation to other people. So he attributes deliberate motivations to other people for things that they didn't mean to do and which he has responded to(eg if I brush his arm softly and he flings his drink across the room in response he will say 'look what you made me do'). I am stumped by it and find it really hard to establish what 'accident' really means. Maybe it's just a matter of time and endless repetition of the explanation about what 'accident' means.

DS1 sounds convincing when he says it was an accident but I'm not 100% sure he truly understands. It gets said a lot here as there is a younger sibling on the loose but DS1 also gets upset if DS2 is told off (or any child beit a cartoon etc) so even if DS2 is repeatedly hitting him, he will appeal to me to let DS2 stay with him as "he doesn't mean it".

I've had vague plans to try a couple of photo strips; 1 showing boy 1 tripping and accidently falling into boy 2 and boy 2 being hurt and sad, and another with boy 1 purposely pushing boy 2 and boy 2 being hurt and sad. So shows the difference in intent naughty vs accident but also the net effect = hurt and sad boy 2. Have not yet got around to it so no idea whether it would work.

That's a good question - the only idea I have comes from how it would translate in DS's other language. It'd be something along the lines of: 'did you plan to do this', or 'did you want to do this', more than 'meaning', which is obviously more subtle but also more complicated.
'Wanting/not wanting' (deliberateness) is definitely a building block, isn't it?
Am as always impressed by how well linglet2 is doing

Dd1 (AS, 6.1) finds this very hard too, she is getting slightly better (she can have accident but no one else can). I think its hard to explain a accident as from a ASD/AS view there is always a cause of an accident (always a reason why it happened) so why could it have not been provented, for example dd1 will say " x bumped into me at school and knocked me over", i will say " well maybe it was an accident and x was not looking where they were going?" dd1 will them say " well it wasn't an accident because they should have been looking where they were going and x should say sorry" which in a way is true (if people were more careful maybe accidents wouldn't happen).

Dd1 and i spend a lot of time talking/arguing about what is an accident and what is'nt. I often have to opologise for things i have done .

lol sounds like we are in this one for the long hall.

I'm smiling at the thought of Marne apologising to DD1 -- that's a familiar scenario here, too. Hoist with my own petard, I suppose .

Yes, I've just apologise to DS2 too this afternoon. He wanted to dress up to go to school to pick DS1 up "to make DS1 laugh".

But he was wearing DH's shoes and the invevitable happened on the way back to the car: "you tripped me! you have to say sorry!" me: "no, the shoes tripped you".

wonder if little totalchaos has had this issue too?

Still, looking on the bright side, six months ago there's absolutely no way he'd have been dressing up for fun - I was still trying to coax him into sandals and wellies.

little chaos is better than he was, but can still be rather keen to claim what he does was an accident, and what others do isn't!. Lots of "silly Mummy didn't mean to do that" has been counterproductive - DS calls all sorts of people silly, including his teachers . I still apologise more than I ought as well so afraid I have no magic answers!

trouble -

it's so legalistic isn't it, this pseudo-reasoning about why a kid is or isn't on this "spectrum" based on the most indirect evidence.