which way to your mind?
DESCRIPTION
Which way to your mind?. theories of mentalising… and how they run into trouble. own/other. imitation. infants. adults. asd. maxi task. do we have to learn theory?. - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
do we have to learn theory?
• Science is built up with facts, as a house is with stones. But a collection of facts is no more a science than a heap of stones is a house. maxi task
own/other
infants imitation
adultsasd
like a closed book...
thoughts, knowledge, ...., the mind are not observable
so how could we possibly know?
like a closed book...
mental states inferred from behaviour
as other unobservable particles are inferred from observables
or do we simulate: imagine ourselves in that situation?
Does Lizzy think Does Lizzy think these examples are these examples are
grammatical?grammatical?
the contenders
• theory theory*
stance towards agent as object of investigation
rules/ initial conditions ➜ explain/ predict behaviour
simulation theory
place in the position of the agent
proceed as though our mental states are roughly congruent with those of target
*so good they named it twice
how fast is your car?
how fast would how fast would your car go up this your car go up this
hill?hill?
theory theory on caron car
road in road in questiquesti
onon
power power of of
engineengine
transmistransmission of sion of powerpower
surface surface resistanresistan
cece
every time... all the time...?
first time you see unexpected transfer
next 20 times you see that a person did not see something moved
familiar vs. unfamiliar conditions
what do we need
how can we know what someone else is thinking?
theory:
charting development
testable predictions
is development gradual or a radical conceptual shift?
Wellman, Cross & Watson, 2001:178 studies
what’s the shift?
children below 4 give wrong answer?
why?
lack of rule:
seeing = knowing
not seeing = not knowing
do children understand that seeing = knowing
I’ve taken one of the I’ve taken one of the things out of this bag things out of this bag and put it in this box.and put it in this box.
I walk, I walk-ed, I run, I run-ed
Sodian & Wimmer, 1987
cannot see, but
children aged 5: it was an m&m
would someone else (with the same info) know it was an m&m?
no
inference neglect
does this rule explain fb failure?
Robinson & Mitchell, 1995
which twin had stayed outside?
85% 3-year olds give correct answer
but only 30% correct predictions
early seeing - knowing link, but no FB passing
Robinson & Whitcombe, 2003
3 y.o. change statement depending on who looked in the box
what’s in here?
No, it’s No, it’s something something
else!else!
from wrong to right: step or curve?
Wellman et al.
data supports a radical conceptual shift
but: change from wrong to right is gradual
children give systematically incorrect responses
if you do not have a rule responses should be unsystematic
Age%
corr
ect
FB
Wellman et al.rule-based
from wrong to right: step or curve?
development explained:
from desire theorist
Maxi wants the chocolate
to believe theorist
Maxi’s desire will be thwarted
what about Smarties?
do you want Smarties or a pencil?
Age%
corr
ect
FB
Wellman et al.rule-based
explaining systematically incorrect answers
default: my own mental state
report the more salient default
gradually get better at setting aside own and take on other perspective
my own mind as model of the world
default - my set of beliefs
deceptive box test
Gopnik and Astington (1988)
When you first saw this tube, before we opened it, what did you think was inside?
children aged 3 cannot acknowledge own prior FB
assumption: run simulation based on own mental processes
must understand own mental states firstmust understand that *I* can have a FB
access to current mental states
access to prior mental states through
simulation?
so... which one is it?
development is gradual
salience matters
children understand that seeing = knowing without understanding FB
....
but they do overapply some rules
adults influenced by own knowledge on jug content
children are not
rules and imagination
Laura was sitting in her room when Tony
came/ went into the room.
The toy car was spinning on the floorwhen Julia came/ went into the room.
Ziegler et al. 2005
ontogeny of mentalising
neural mapping between observed and executed movements
Meltzoff (2005): first person experience creates a map linking their own mind and behaviour.
map can be used to understand other minds
because others are ‘like me’
imitation simulation rules
how can we explain asd?
no one cognitive theory can explain pattern of success and failure
documented problems with imitation
some pass FB tasks
can use rules, but not take empathic stance
imitation simulation rules
two routes... summary
simulation is primary
children have to use this early in development
rule-based shortcuts for familiar problems
revert to simulation when faced with novel problem
my my mindmind
your your mindmind
at least one small problem...
how does infant competence fit into this?
is imitation in ASD really impaired (Hamilton, 2009)
key references
Mitchell, P., Currie, G., & Ziegler, F. (2009). Two routes to perspective: Simulation and rule-use as approaches to mentalizing. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 27(3), 513-543
Hamilton (2009) Goals, intentions and mental states: Challenges for theories of autism Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry