Which way to your mind?

theories of mentalising… and how they run into trouble

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!

to have or not to have?

Object Location

False Belief

Location

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?

the curse of salience knowledge

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