Theory of Mind and Folk Psychology, Misc

In J. Prinz (ed.) The Oxford Handbook on Philosophy of Psychology. New York: Oxford University Press.

Does self-control require willpower? The question cuts to the heart of a debate about whether self-control is identical with some psychological process internal to the agents or not. Noticeably absent from these debates is systematic evidence about the folk-psychological category of self-control. Here, we present the results of two behavioral studies (N = 296) that indicate the structure of everyday thinking about self-control. In Study 1, participants rated the degree to which different strategies to respond to motivational conflict exemplify self-control. (...) Participants distinguished between intra-psychic and externally-scaffolded strategies and judged that the former exemplified self-control more than the latter. In Study 2, participants provided various solutions to manage motivational conflict and rated their proposals on effectiveness. Participants produced substantially more intra-psychic strategies, rated them as more effective, and advised them at a higher rate than externally-scaffolded strategies. Taken together, these results suggest that while people recognize a plurality of strategies as genuine instances of self-control, purely internal exercises of self-control are considered more prototypical than their externally-scaffolded counterparts. This implies a hierarchical structure for the folk psychological category of self-control. The concept encompasses a variety of regulatory strategies and organizes these strategies along a hierarchical continuum, with purely intra-psychic strategies at the center and scaffolded strategies in the periphery. (shrink)

Decades of research conducted in Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, & Democratic (WEIRD) societies have led many scholars to conclude that the use of mental states in moral judgment is a human cognitive universal, perhaps an adaptive strategy for selecting optimal social partners from a large pool of candidates. However, recent work from a more diverse array of societies suggests there may be important variation in how much people rely on mental states, with people in some societies judging accidental harms just (...) as harshly as intentional ones. To explain this variation, we develop and test a novel cultural evolutionary theory proposing that the intensity of kin-based institutions will favor less attention to mental states when judging moral violations. First, to better illuminate the historical distribution of the use of intentions in moral judgment, we code and analyze anthropological observations from the Human Area Relations Files. This analysis shows that notions of strict liability—wherein the role for mental states is reduced—were common across diverse societies around the globe. Then, by expanding an existing vignette-based experimental dataset containing observations from 321 people in a diverse sample of 10 societies, we show that the intensity of a society's kin-based institutions can explain a substantial portion of the population-level variation in people's reliance on intentions in three different kinds of moral judgments. Together, these lines of evidence suggest that people's use of mental states has coevolved culturally to fit their local kin-based institutions. We suggest that although reliance on mental states has likely been a feature of moral judgment in human communities over historical and evolutionary time, the relational fluidity and weak kin ties of today's WEIRD societies position these populations' psychology at the extreme end of the global and historical spectrum. (shrink)

The empirical study of belief is emerging at a rapid clip, uniting work from all corners of cognitive science. Reliance on belief in understanding and predicting behavior is widespread. Examples can be found, inter alia, in the placebo, attribution theory, theory of mind, and comparative psychological literatures. Research on belief also provides evidence for robust generalizations, including about how we fix, store, and change our beliefs. Evidence supports the existence of a Spinozan system of belief fixation: one that is automatic (...) and independent of belief rejection. Independent research supports the existence of a system of fragmented belief storage: one that relies on large numbers of causally isolated, context-sensitive stores of belief in memory. Finally, empirical and observational data support at least two systems of belief change. One system adheres, mostly, to epistemological norms of updating; the other, the psychological immune system, functions to guard our most centrally held beliefs from potential inconsistency with newly formed beliefs. Refining our under- standing of these systems can shed light on pressing real-world issues, such as how fake news, propaganda, and brainwashing exploit our psychology of belief, and how best to construct our modern informational world. (shrink)

Positing implicit social cognitive processes is common in the social cognition literature. We see it in discussions of theories of mentalizing, empathy, and infants' social-cognitive capacities. However, there is little effort to articulate what counts as implicit social cognition in general, so theorizing about implicit social cognition is extremely disparate across each of these sub-domains. In this paper, I argue that Michael Brownstein’s account of implicit cognition promises to be a fruitful, unifying account of implicit cognition in general, and it (...) is well suited to explain implicit cognition in various sub-domains of social cognition. (shrink)

From antiquity through the twentieth century, philosophers have hypothesized that, intuitively, it is harder to know negations than to know affirmations. This paper provides direct evidence for that hypothesis. In a series of studies, I found that people naturally view negations as harder to know than affirmations. Participants read simple scenarios and made judgments about truth, probability, belief, and knowledge. Participants were more likely to attribute knowledge of an outcome when framed affirmatively than when framed negatively. Participants did this even (...) though the affirmative and negative framings were logically equivalent. The asymmetry was unique to knowledge attributions: it did not occur when participants rated truth, probability, or belief. These findings show new consequences of negation on people’s judgments and reasoning and can inform philosophical theorizing about the ordinary concept of knowledge. (shrink)

Phillips and colleagues convincingly argue that knowledge attribution is a faster, more automatic form of mindreading than belief attribution. However, they do not explain what it is about knowledge attribution that lends it this cognitive advantage. I suggest an explanation of the knowledge-attribution advantage that would also help to distinguish it from belief-based and minimalist alternatives.

The leading reductive approaches to shared agency model that phenomenon in terms of complexes of individual intentions, understood as plan-laden commitments. Yet not all agents have such intentions, and non-planning agents such as small children and some non-human animals are clearly capable of sophisticated social interactions. But just how robust are their social capacities? Are non-planning agents capable of shared agency? Existing theories of shared agency have little to say about these important questions. I address this lacuna by developing a (...) reductive account of the social capacities of non-planning agents, which I argue supports the conclusion that they can enjoy shared agency. The resulting discussion offers a fine-grained account of the psychological capacities that can underlie shared agency, and produces a recipe for generating novel hypotheses concerning why some agents do not engage in shared agency. (shrink)

Approximation involves representing things in ways that might be close to the truth but are nevertheless false. Given the widespread reliance on approximations in science and everyday life, here we ask whether it is conceptually possible for false approximations to qualify as knowledge. According to the factivity account, it is impossible to know false approximations, because knowledge requires truth. According to the representational adequacy account, it is possible to know false approximations, if they are close enough to the truth for (...) present purposes. In this paper, we adopt an experimental methodology to begin testing these two theories. When an agent provides a false and practically inadequate answer, both theories predict that people will deny knowledge. But the theories disagree about an agent who provides a false but practically adequate answer: the factivity hypothesis again predicts knowledge denial, whereas the representational adequacy hypothesis predicts knowledge attribution. Across two experiments, our principal finding was that people tended to attribute knowledge for false but practically adequate answers, which supports the representational adequacy account. We propose an interpretation of existing findings that preserves a conceptual link between knowledge and truth. According to this proposal, truth is not necessary for knowledge, but it is a feature of prototypical knowledge. (shrink)

According to perceptual accounts of mindreading, we can see, rather than cognize, other people's mental states. On one version of this approach, certain mental properties figure in the contents of our perceptual experiences. In a recent paper, Varga has appealed to empirical research to argue that intentions and emotions can indeed be seen, rather than cognized. In this paper, I argue that none of the evidence adduced to support the perceptual account of mindreading shows that we see mental properties, as (...) opposed to non‐mental properties. (shrink)

호프스타터 목사에 의해 근본주의 자연주의 교회의 최신 설교. 그의 훨씬 더 유명한 (또는 그 끊임없는 철학적 오류로 악명 높은) 작업 고델, 에셔, 바흐처럼, 그것은 피상적 인 타당성을 가지고 있지만, 하나는 철학적 인 것들과 실제 과학적 문제를 혼합 만연 한 사이언티즘것을 이해한다면 (즉, 유일한 진짜 문제는 우리가 재생해야하는 언어 게임이다) 다음 거의 모든 관심. 나는 진화 심리학과 비트겐슈타인의 작품에 기반한 분석을위한 프레임 워크를 제공합니다 (이후 내 최근 글에서 업데이트). 현대 의 두 시스템 보기에서인간의 행동에 대한 포괄적 인 최신 프레임 워크를 원하는 (...) 사람들은 내 책을 참조 할 수 있습니다'철학의 논리적 구조, 심리학, 민d와 루드비히 비트겐슈타인과 존 Searle의언어' 2nd ed (2019). 내 글의 더 많은 관심있는 사람들은 '이야기 원숭이를 볼 수 있습니다-철학, 심리학, 과학, 종교와 운명 행성에 정치 - 기사 및 리뷰 2006-2019 3 rd 에드 (2019) 및 21st 세기 4번째 에드 (2019) 및 기타에서 자살 유토피아 망상. (shrink)

Америка и мир находятся в процессе краха от чрезмерного роста населения, большинство из них за последнее столетие, и теперь все это из-за третьего мира людей. Потребление ресурсов и добавление еще одного-двух миллиардов, около 2100 года, обрушит индустриальную цивилизацию и приведет к голоду, болезням, насилию и войне в ошеломляющих масштабах. Миллиарды погибнут, и ядерная война почти наверняка. В Америке это значительно ускоряется за счет массовой иммиграции и воспроизводства иммигрантов, в сочетании со злоупотреблениями, которые стали возможными благодаря демократии. Развратная человеческая природа неумолимо (...) превращает мечту о демократии и разнообразии в кошмар преступности и нищеты. Коренной причиной краха является неспособность нашей врожденной психологии адаптироваться к современному миру, что заставляет людей относиться к неродственным людям так, как будто у них были общие интересы. Это, а также незнание базовой биологии и психологии, приводит к заблуждению социальной инженерии частично образованных, которые контролируют демократические общества. Немногие понимают, что если вы помогаете одному человеку, вы вредите кому-то другому – нет бесплатного обеда, и каждый предмет, который кто-то потребляет, разрушает землю не подлежит ремонту. Следовательно, социальная политика во всем мире является неустойчивой, и один за одним все общества без строгого контроля над эгоизмом рухнет в анархию или диктатуру. Без драматических и немедленных изменений нет надежды на предотвращение распада Америки или любой страны, которая следует демократической системе. Отсюда мое эссе "Самоубийство демократией". Кроме того, теперь ясно, что семь социопатов, которые правят Китаем, выигрывают мировую войну 3, и поэтому мое заключительное эссе о них. Единственной большей угрозой является искусственный интеллект, который я кратко комментирую. Ключом ко всему о нас является биология, и это забвение к нему, что приводит миллионы умных образованных людей, как Обама, Хомский, Клинтон, Демократическая партия и Папа поддерживать суицидальные утопические идеалы, которые неумолимо привести прямо в ад на Земле. Как W отметил, это то, что всегда перед нашими глазами, что является самым трудным для просмотра. Мы живем в мире сознательной совещательной лингвистической системы 2, но это бессознательное, автоматическая рефлексивная система 1, которая правила. Это источник всеобщей слепоты, описанной Ферлом В Феноменологическая иллюзия (TPI), Пинкера Пустой шифер и Tooby и Cosmides'Standard Social Science Model. Первая группа статей пытается дать некоторое представление о том, как мы ведом, что достаточно свободной от теоретических заблуждений. В следующих трех группах я комментирую три основных заблуждения, препятствующие устойчивому миру – технологии, религии и политике (кооперативные группы). Люди считают, что общество может быть спасено ими, поэтому я привносив некоторые предложения в остальной части книги о том, почему это маловероятно с помощью коротких статей и обзоров последних книг известных писателей. Другой раздел описывает религиозное заблуждение - что есть какая-то сверхдержава, которая спасет нас. В следующем разделе описаны цифровые заблуждения, которые путают языковые игры Системы 2 с автоматизмами System one, и поэтому не могут отличить биологические машины (т.е. людей) от других видов машин (т.е. компьютеров). Другие цифровые заблуждения в том, что мы будем спасены от чистого зла (эгоизма) системы 1 компьютерами/ИИ/робототехнической/нанотехнологией/генной инженерией, созданной Системой 2. Нет Бесплатный обед директор говорит нам, что будут серьезные и, возможно, фатальные последствия. В последнем разделе описывается «Одно большое счастливое семейное заблуждение», т.е. то, что мы выбраны для сотрудничества со всеми, и что эвфониозные идеалы демократии, разнообразия и равенства приведут нас в утопию, если мы просто правильно справимся с вещами (возможность политики). Опять же, нет свободного обеда Принцип должен предупредить нас, что это не может быть правдой, и мы видим на протяжении всей истории и во всем современном мире, что без строгого контроля, эгоизм и глупость получить верх и вскоре уничтожить любую нацию, которая охватывает эти заблуждения. Кроме того, обезьяна ум круто скидки в будущем, и поэтому мы сотрудничаем в продаже наследия нашего потомка для временного комфорта, значительно усугубляя проблемы. (shrink)

Ameryka i świat są w trakcie upadku z nadmiernego wzrostu populacji, większość z nich w ostatnim stuleciu, a teraz wszystko to ze względu na 3-cia ludzi świata. Konsumpcja zasobów i dodanie jednego lub dwóch miliardów więcej około 2100 upadnie cywilizacji przemysłowej i doprowadzić do głodu, chorób, przemocy i wojny na oszałamiającą skalę. Miliardy umrą, a wojna nuklearna jest pewna. W Ameryce jest to znacznie przyspieszone przez masową imigrację i reprodukcję imigrantów, w połączeniu z nadużyciami możliwymi przez demokrację. Zdeprawowana ludzka natura (...) nieubłaganie zamienia marzenie o demokracji i różnorodności w koszmar przestępczości i ubóstwa. Główną przyczyną upadku jest niezdolność naszej wrodzonej psychologii do przystosowania się do współczesnego świata, która prowadzi ludzi do traktowania osób niepowiązanych tak, jakby mieli wspólne interesy. To, plus nieznajomość podstawowej biologii i psychologii, prowadzi do złudzeń inżynierii społecznej częściowo wykształconych, którzy kontrolują demokratyczne społeczeństwa. Niewielu rozumie, że jeśli pomożesz jednej osobie, skrzywdzisz kogoś innego — nie ma darmowego lunchu, a każdy przedmiot, który ktoś zużywa, niszczy ziemię nie do naprawienia. W związku z tym polityka społeczna na całym świecie jest niezrównoważona i wszystkie społeczeństwa bez rygorystycznej kontroli egoizmów popadną w anarchię lub dyktaturę. Bez dramatycznych i natychmiastowych zmian nie ma nadziei na zapobieżenie upadkowi Ameryki ani żadnego kraju, który podąża za systemem demokratycznym. Stąd mój esej "Samobójstwo przez demokrację". Jest również teraz jasne, że siedmiu socjopatów, którzy rządzą Chinami, wygrywa 3 wojnę światową, a więc mój esej końcowy na ich temat. Jedynym większym zagrożeniem jest sztuczna inteligencja, którą krótko komentuję. Kluczem do wszystkiego o nas jest biologia, i to jest niepamięć do niego, że prowadzi miliony inteligentnych wykształconych ludzi, takich jak Obama, Chomsky,Clinton, Partii Demokratycznej i papieża do espouse samobójcze utopijne ideały, które nieubłaganie prowadzić prosto do piekła na Ziemi. Jak zauważył W, to, co jest zawsze na naszych oczach, że jest najtrudniejsze do zobaczenia. Żyjemy w świecie świadomego deliberacyjnego systemu językowego 2, ale rządzi nieświadomy, automatyczny system refleksyjny 1. Jest to źródło uniwersalnej ślepoty opisanej przez Searle's The Phenomenological Illusion (TPI), Blank Slate Pinkera oraz Tooby and Cosmides' Standard Social Science Model. Pierwsza grupa artykułów próbuje dać pewien wgląd w to, jak się zachowujemy, że jest w miarę wolny od teoretycznych urojeń. W kolejnych trzech grupach komentuję trzy główne urojenia uniemożliwiające zrównoważony świat: technologię, religię i politykę (grupy spółdzielcze). Ludzie wierzą, że społeczeństwo może być zapisane przez nich, więc podam kilka sugestii w pozostałej części książki, dlaczego jest to mało prawdopodobne poprzez krótkie artykuły i recenzje ostatnich książek znanych pisarzy. Inna sekcja opisuje religijne złudzenie – że jest jakaś super moc, która nas uratuje. W następnej sekcji opisano cyfrowe urojenia, które mylą gry językowe Systemu 2 z automatyzmami Systemu Pierwszego, a więc nie mogą odróżnić maszyn biologicznych (tj. ludzi) od innych rodzajów maszyn (tj. komputerów). Inne cyfrowe urojenia są takie, że zostaniemy zbawieni od czystego zła (egoizm) systemu 1 przez komputery / AI / robotyka / nanotech / inżynieria genetyczna stworzona przez System 2. No Free Lunch główny mówi nam, że będą poważne i ewentualnie śmiertelne konsekwencje. Ostatnia część opisuje "The One Big Happy Family Delusion", czyli to, że jesteśmy wybierani do współpracy ze wszystkimi, a eufonialne ideały Demokracji, Różnorodności i Równości doprowadzą nas do utopii, jeśli po prostu dobrze zarządzamy rzeczami (możliwością polityki). Ponownie, No Free Lunch Zasada powinna ostrzegać nas to nie może być prawdą, i widzimy w całej historii i na całym współczesnym świecie, że bez ścisłej kontroli, egoizm i głupota zdobyć przewagę i wkrótce zniszczyć każdy naród, który obejmuje te urojenia. Ponadto małpi umysł gwałtownie dyskontuje przyszłość, dlatego współpracujemy przy sprzedaży dziedzictwa naszego potomka dla tymczasowych udogodnień, znacznie pogłębiając problemy. (shrink)

Uma vez que os problemas filosóficos são o resultado de nossa psicologia inata, ou como Wittgenstein disse, devido à falta de perspicuidade da linguagem, eles correm ao longo do discurso e comportamento humano, por isso há necessidade infinita de análise filosófica, não apenas no 'humano ciências' de filosofia, sociologia, antropologia, ciência política, psicologia, história, literatura, religião, etc., mas nas "ciências duras" da física, matemática e biologia. É universal misturar as questões do jogo de linguagem com as reais científicas sobre quais (...) são os fatos empíricos. O cientismo está sempre presente e Wittgenstein, indiscutivelmente o maior psicólogo intuitivo de todos os tempos, o colocou diante de nós há muito tempo, começando com os Blue and Brown Books no início dos anos 1930. A linguagem é programada em nossos genes e está envolvida em quase todo o nosso comportamento social. Filosofia no sentido rigoroso (ou seja, filosofia acadêmica), é como Wittgenstein nos mostrou, o estudo da forma como a linguagem é usada (jogos linguísticos) e eu a considero como a psicologia descritiva do pensamento de maior ordem (ou seja, praticamente tudo envolvendo linguagem que muitas vezes é chamado de Sistema 2 ou pensamento lento). No entanto, como espero ter mostrado em meus escritos ao longo da última década, comportamento não linguístico ou Sistema 1 ou pensamento rápido também é descrito com linguagem e isso leva a uma confusão sem fim que eu tentei esclarecer aqui e que é resumida nas tabelas que eu apresento . É minha afirmação que a tabela da intencionalidade (racionalidade, mente, pensamento, linguagem, personalidade etc.) que apresenta proeminentemente aqui descreve mais ou menos precisamente, ou pelo menos serve como um heurista para, como pensamos e nos comportamos, e por isso engloba não meramente filosofia e psicologia, mas tudo o resto (história, literatura, matemática, política etc.). Note especialmente que a intencionalidade e a racionalidade como eu (juntamente com Searle, Wittgenstein e outros) a vêem, inclui tanto ações ou reflexos automatizados inconscientes do Sistema 1. Eu forneço uma pesquisa crítica de algumas das principais descobertas de dois dos mais eminentes alunos de comportamento dos tempos modernos, Ludwig Wittgenstein e John Searle, sobre a estrutura lógica da intencionalidade (mente, linguagem, comportamento), tomando como meu ponto de partida A descoberta fundamental de Wittgenstein – de que todos os problemas verdadeiramente "filosóficos" são os mesmos — confusões sobre como usar a linguagem em um contexto específico, e assim todas as soluções são as mesmas — olhando como a linguagem pode ser usada no contexto em questão para que sua verdade condições (Condições de Satisfação ou COS) são claras. O problema básico é que se pode dizer qualquer coisa, mas não se pode significar (COS claro pelo Estado) qualquer expressão arbitrária e significado só é possível em um contexto muito específico. Analiso vários escritos por e sobre eles da perspectiva moderna dos dois sistemas de pensamento (popularizados como "pensando rápido, pensando devagar"), empregando uma nova tabela de intencionalidade e nova nomenclatura de sistemas duplos. Eu mostro que este é um heurístico poderoso para descrever o comportamento com críticas dos escritos de uma grande variedade de cientistas comportamentais (ou seja, todos). O primeiro grupo de artigos tenta dar alguma visão de como nos comportamos que é razoavelmente livre de ilusões teóricas. Nos três grupos seguintes, comento três das principais ilusões que impedem um mundo sustentável: tecnologia, religião e política (grupos cooperativos). As pessoas acreditam que a sociedade pode ser salva por elas, então eu forneço algumas sugestões no resto do livro sobre por que isso é improvável através de artigos curtos e resenhas de livros recentes de escritores conhecidos. (shrink)

アメリカと世界は過剰な人口増加から崩壊し、そのほとんどが前世紀に及び、現在は第3世界の人々のために崩壊しています。資源の消費と1または200以上のca.2100の追加は、産業文明を崩壊させ、驚異的な規 模で飢餓、病気、暴力と戦争をもたらすでしょう。何十億人もの人が死んで、核戦争は確実です。アメリカでは、これは大規模な移民と移民の生殖によって非常に加速されており、民主主義によって可能になった虐待と組み 合わされています。堕落した人間性は、民主主義と多様性の夢を犯罪と貧困の悪夢に変えます。崩壊の根本的な原因は、私たちの生来の心理学が現代世界に適応できないことであり、人々は無関係な人を共通の利益を持って いるかのように扱う。これは、基本的な生物学と心理学の無知に加えて、民主的な社会を支配する部分的に教育を受けた人々のソーシャルエンジニアリングの妄想につながります。一人の人を助けた場合、誰かに危害を加え る人はいませんが、無料のランチはなく、誰もが消費するアイテムが修復を超えて地球を破壊することを理解している人はほとんどいません。その結果、至る所の社会政策は持続不可能であり、利己主義に対する厳格な統制 なしに、すべての社会が一つ一つ無政府状態または独裁に崩壊する。劇的かつ即時の変化がなければ、アメリカの崩壊や民主主義システムに続く国を防ぐ望みはありません。したがって、私のエッセイ「民主主義による自殺 」。 また、中国を支配する7つの社会主義者が第三次世界大戦に勝っていることも明らかであり、私の結論エッセイも明らかです。唯一の大きな脅威は、私が簡単にコメントする人工知能です。 私たちについてのすべてに関する鍵は生物学であり、オバマ、チョムスキー、クリントン、民主党、教皇のような何百万人もの賢い教育を受けた人々が、地球上の地獄に無尽蔵にまっすぐにつながる自殺ユートピアの理想を 提唱するのは、それに気づかない。 Wが指摘したように、見るのが最も難しいのは、常に私たちの目の前にあるものです。 私たちは意識的な審議言語システム2の世界に住んでいますが、無意識の自動反射システム1がルールを定めています。これは、サールの表現型錯覚(TPI)、ピンカーのブランクスレートとトゥービーとコスミデスの標 準的な社会科学モデルによって記述された普遍的な失明の源です。 記事の最初のグループは、理論的な妄想のない私たちがどのように振る舞うかについての洞察を与えようとします。次の3つのグループでは、持続可能な世界を妨げる3つの主な妄想(技術、宗教、政治(協力グループ)に ついてコメントします。人々は社会が彼らによって救われると信じているので、私はこれが有名な作家による最近の本の短い記事やレビューを通じて起こりそうにない理由について、本の残りの部分でいくつかの提案を提供 します。 別のセクションでは、宗教的な妄想について説明しています – 私たちを救ういくつかの超能力があります。 次のセクションでは、システム2の言語ゲームとシステム1の自動化を混同するデジタル妄想について説明します。 他のデジタル妄想は、システム2によって作成されたコンピュータ/AI/ロボティクス/ナノテク/遺伝子工学によって、システム1の純粋な悪(利己主義)から救われるということです。 ノーフリーランチ校長は、重大でおそらく致命的な結果が起こる可能性があることを教えてくれます。 最後のセクションでは、私たちが皆と協力するために選ばれたこと、そして民主主義、多様性、平等のユーフォニアの理想が、物事を正しく管理するだけでユートピアに導くという大きな幸せな家族の妄想(政治の可能性) について説明します。 繰り返しますが、ノーフリーランチ原則は、それが真実であるはずがないと警告する必要があり、厳格なコントロール、利己主義、愚かさがなければ優位に立ち、すぐにこれらの妄想を受け入れる国を破壊することを歴史と 現代世界全体で見ています。さらに、猿の心は未来を急激に割引するので、私たちは一時的な快適さのために子孫の遺産を販売することに協力し、問題を大きく悪化させます。 .

Comincio con alcuni commenti famosi del filosofo (psicologo) Ludwig Wittgenstein perché Pinker condivide con la maggior parte delle persone (a causa delle impostazioni predefinite della nostra psicologia innata evoluta) certi pregiudizi sul funzionamento della mente, e perché Wittgenstein offre approfondimenti unici e profondi sul funzionamento del linguaggio, del pensiero e della realtà (che ha visto come più o meno coetantana) non trovati altrove. Ilre è solo riferimento a Wittgenstein in questo volume, che è più sfortunato considerando che era il più (...) brillante e originale analista del linguaggio. Nell'ultimo capitolo, utilizzando la famosa metafora della grotta di Platone, riassume splendidamente il libro con una panoramica di come la mente (linguaggio, pensiero, psicologia intenzionale) – un prodotto di egoismo cieco, moderato solo leggermente da altruismo automatizzato per parenti stretti che trasportano copie dei nostri geni (Inclusive Fitness)- funziona automaticamente, ma cerca di finire in una nota ottimista dandoci la speranza che possiamo comunque impiegare le sue vaste capacità di cooperare e rendere il mondo un posto dignitoso. Pinker è certamente a conoscenza, ma dice poco sul fatto che molto di più sulla nostra psicologia è lasciato fuori di quanto incluso. Tra le finestre della natura umana che vengono lasciate fuori o che richiedono un'attenzione minima ci sono la matematica e la geometria, la musica e i suoni, le immagini, gli eventi e la causalità, l'ontologia (classi di cose o ciò che sappiamo), la maggior parte dell'epistemologia (come lo conosciamo), disposizioni (credenti, pensare, giudicare, intendere ecc.) e il resto della psicologia intenzionale dell'azione, neurotrasmettitori ed espiogeni, stati spirituali (ad esempio, satori e illuminazione, stimolazione e registrazione cerebrale, danni cerebrali e disturbi comportamentali, giochi e sport, teoria delle decisioni (inclusi la teoria dei giochi e l'economia comportamentale), il comportamento animale (molto poco linguaggio ma un miliardo di anni di errori genetici condivisi). Molti libri sono stati scritti su ognuna di queste aree della psicologia intenzionale. I dati di questo libro sono descrizioni, non spiegazioni che mostrano perché i nostri cervelli lo fanno in questo modo o come viene fatto. Come facciamo a sapere di usare le frasi nel loro modo diverso (cioè, conoscere tutti i loro significati)? Questa è la psicologia evolutiva che opera a un livello più elementare – il livello in cui Wittgenstein è più attivo. E c'è una particolare attenzione al contesto in cui vengono usate le parole, un'arena che Wittgenstein ha aperto la strada. Tuttavia, questo è un lavoro classico e con queste precauzioni è ancora ben vale la pena leggere. Coloro che desiderano un quadro aggiornato completo per il comportamento umano dalla moderna vista a due systems possono consultare il mio libro 'La struttura logica dellafilosofia, psicologia, Mind e il linguaggio in Ludwig Wittgenstein e John Searle' 2nd ed (2019). Coloro che sono interessati a più dei miei scritti possono vedere 'TalkingMonkeys--Filosofia, Psicologia, Scienza, Religione e Politica su un Pianeta Condannato--Articoli e Recensioni 2006-2019 3rd ed (2019) e Suicidal Utopian Delusions nel 21st Century 4th ed (2019) . (shrink)

आनुवंशिक गड़बड़ी हमारे करीबी रिश्तेदारों ("परोपकारिता"), जो अफ्रीका के मैदानों पर हमारे पूर्वजों में अस्तित्व के लिए महत्वपूर्ण था हजारों की दसियों हजारों साल पहले की मदद करने के लिए, एक भीड़ दुनिया में एक घातक दोष है जहां हमारे पड़ोसियों अब बारीकी से संबंधित है और अस्तित्व के लिए एक जीवन और मौत के संघर्ष में लगे हुए हैं । मैं ' के रूप में एक बड़ा खुश परिवार भ्रम ' का उल्लेख किया है और यह राजनीतिक छोड़ दिया (...) है, जो संसाधनों और सापेक्ष शांति की अस्थाई बहुतायत के कारण पैदा की आत्मघाती काल्पनिक भ्रम के लिए केंद्रीय है पृथ्वी के बेरहम बलात्कार से संभव बनाया । उदार राजनीतिक विचार है कि अतीत में समझ में आया आधुनिक लोकतांत्रिक समाजों के पतन और शायद सभ्यता के ही ला रहे हैं । हालांकि यह नेट या यहां तक कि उपग्रह टीवी के लिए उपयोग के साथ किसी भी उज्ज्वल दस साल पुराने करने के लिए स्पष्ट है, यह पूरी तरह से उदार/लोकतांत्रिक/neomarxist/neofascist/तीसरी दुनिया वर्चस्ववादी/20,30,40 कुछ Googloids और iPhoners, जो जल्द ही ले जाएगा और अमेरिका और ब्रिटेन में समृद्धि और शांति को नष्ट करने के लिए अपारदर्शी है, और फिर दुनिया, दोनों सीधे, और यह मैक्सिकन उत्पादक संघ, इस्लामी जिहादियों और दूर से ऊपर और सभी से परे विनाश के लिए खुला छोड़ कर, सात समाजपथजो चीन शासन । अमेरिका और दुनिया अत्यधिक जनसंख्या वृद्धि से पतन की प्रक्रिया में हैं, यह सबसे पिछली सदी के लिए, और अब यह सब, 3 दुनिया के लोगों के कारण । संसाधनों की खपत और 2 अरब अधिक सीए के अलावा औद्योगिक सभ्यता का पतन होगा और भुखमरी, बीमारी, हिंसा और युद्ध को चौंका देने वाले पैमाने पर लाएगा। पृथ्वी हर साल अपनी टॉपसॉइल का कम से कम 1% खो देती है, इसलिए जैसे ही यह 2100 के पास है, इसकी अधिकांश खाद्य बढ़ती क्षमता चली जाएगी। अरबों मर जाएगा और परमाणु युद्ध सब लेकिन निश्चित है । अमेरिका में, यह बेहद बड़े पैमाने पर आव्रजन और आप्रवासी प्रजनन द्वारा त्वरित किया जा रहा है, लोकतंत्र द्वारा संभव बनाया गाली के साथ संयुक्त । भ्रष्ट मानव प्रकृति निष्ठुरता से लोकतंत्र और विविधता के सपने को अपराध और गरीबी के दुःस्वप्न में बदल देता है । मैंबुनियादी जीव विज्ञान और मनोविज्ञान के gnorance आंशिक रूप से शिक्षित जो लोकतांत्रिक समाजों को नियंत्रित के सामाजिक इंजीनियरिंग भ्रम की ओर जाता है । कुछ समझते हैं कि यदि आप किसी व्यक्ति की मदद करते हैं तो आप किसी और को नुकसान पहुंचाते हैं - कोई मुफ्त दोपहर का भोजन नहीं है और हर एक आइटम किसी को भी मरम्मत से परे पृथ्वी को नष्ट कर देता है। नतीजतन, हर जगह सामाजिक नीतियां अधारणीय हैं और स्वार्थ पर कड़े नियंत्रण के बिना एक-एक करके सभी समाज अराजकता या तानाशाही में ढह जाएंगे । सबसे बुनियादी तथ्य, लगभग कभी नहीं उल्लेख किया है, कि अमेरिका या दुनिया में पर्याप्त संसाधनों के लिए गरीबों का एक महत्वपूर्ण प्रतिशत गरीबी से बाहर उठा और उंहें वहां नहीं हैं । ऐसा करने की कोशिश अमेरिका को दिवालिया कर रही है और दुनिया को तबाह कर रही है । पृथ्वी के भोजन का उत्पादन करने की क्षमता दैनिक कम हो जाती है, के रूप में हमारी आनुवंशिक गुणवत्ता करता है । और अब, हमेशा की तरह, अब तक गरीबों का सबसे बड़ा दुश्मन अंय गरीब है और अमीर नहीं है । नाटकीय और तत्काल परिवर्तन के बिना, अमेरिका, या किसी भी देश है कि एक लोकतांत्रिक प्रणाली के बाद के पतन को रोकने के लिए कोई उंमीद नहीं है । . (shrink)

How do we know about other minds on the basis of perception? The two most common answers to this question are that we literally perceive others’ mental states, or that we infer their mental states on the basis of perceiving something else. In this paper, I argue for a different answer. On my view, we don’t perceive mental states, and yet perceptual experiences often immediately justify mental state attributions. In a slogan: other minds are neither seen nor inferred. I argue (...) that this view offers the best explanation of our deeply equivocal intuitions about perception-based mental state attributions, and also holds substantial interest for the epistemology of perception more generally. (shrink)

Character-trait attribution is an important component of everyday social cognition that has until recently received insufficient attention in traditional accounts of folk psychology. In this paper, I consider how the case of character-trait attribution fits into the debate between mindreading-based and broadly ‘pluralistic’ approaches to folk psychology. Contrary to the arguments of some pluralists, I argue that the evidence on trait understanding does not show that it is a distinct, non-mentalistic mode of folk-psychological reasoning, but rather suggests that traits are (...) ordinarily understood as mentalistic dispositions. I also examine several ways in which trait attribution might also serve regulative, ‘mindshaping’ functions by promoting predictable norm-governed behavior, and argue that mindreading plays several important roles in these cases as well. I conclude that an appreciation of the relationship between trait attribution and mindreading is crucial to understanding the role it plays in our folk psychology. (shrink)

In How We Understand Others: Philosophy and Social Cognition, Shannon Spaulding develops a novel account of social cognition with pessimistic implications for mindreading accuracy: according to Spaulding, mistakes in mentalizing are much more common than traditional theories of mindreading commonly assume. In this commentary, I push against Spaulding’s pessimism from two directions. First, I argue that a number of the heuristic mindreading strategies that Spaulding views as especially error prone might be quite reliable in practice. Second, I argue that current (...) methods for measuring mindreading performance are not well-suited for the task of determining whether our mental-state attributions are generally accurate. I conclude that any claims about the accuracy or inaccuracy of mindreading are currently unjustified. (shrink)

The aim of this paper is to offer a version of the so-called conversational hypothesis of the ontogenetic connection between language and mindreading (Harris 1996, 2005; Van Cleave and Gauker 2010; Hughes et al. 2006). After arguing against a particular way of understanding the hypothesis (the communicative view), I will start from the justificatory view in philosophy of social cognition (Andrews 2012; Hutto 2004; Zawidzki 2013) to make the case for the idea that the primary function of belief and desire (...) attributions is to justify and normalize deviant patterns of behaviour. Following this framework, I elaborate upon the idea that development of folk psychological skills requires the subjects to engage in conversationally mediated joint and cooperative activities in order to acquire the conceptual capacity of ascribing propositional attitudes. After presenting the general version of the hypothesis, I present several testable sub-hypotheses and some psychological studies that give empirical plausibility to the hypothesis. (shrink)

Why do we engage in folk psychology, that is, why do we think about and ascribe propositional attitudes such as beliefs, desires, intentions etc. to people? On the standard view, folk psychology is primarily for mindreading, for detecting mental states and explaining and/or predicting people’s behaviour in terms of them. In contrast, McGeer (1996, 2007, 2015), and Zawidzki (2008, 2013) maintain that folk psychology is not primarily for mindreading but for mindshaping, that is, for moulding people’s behavior and minds (e.g., (...) via the imposition of social norms) so that coordination becomes easier. Mindreading is derived from and only as effective as it is because of mindshaping, not vice versa. I critically assess McGeer’s, and Zawidzki’s proposal and contend that three common motivations for the mindshaping view do not provide sufficient support for their particular version of it. I argue furthermore that their proposal underestimates the role that epistemic processing plays for mindshaping. And I provide reasons for favouring an alternative according to which, in social cognition involving ascriptions of propositional attitudes, neither mindshaping nor mindreading is primary but both are complementary in that effective mindshaping depends as much on mindreading as effective mindreading depends on mindshaping. (shrink)

In recent years, a number of philosophers and cognitive scientists have advocated for an ‘interactive turn’ in the methodology of social-cognition research: to become more ecologically valid, we must design experiments that are interactive, rather than merely observational. While the practical aim of improving ecological validity in the study of social cognition is laudable, we think that the notion of ‘interaction’ is not suitable for this task: as it is currently deployed in the social cognition literature, this notion leads to (...) serious conceptual and methodological confusion. In this paper, we tackle this confusion on three fronts: 1) we revise the ‘interactionist’ definition of interaction; 2) we demonstrate a number of potential methodological confounds that arise in interactive experimental designs; and 3) we show that ersatz interactivity works just as well as the real thing. We conclude that the notion of ‘interaction’, as it is currently being deployed in this literature, obscures an accurate understanding of human social cognition. (shrink)

I am very used to strange books and special people, but Hawkins stands out due to his use of a simple technique for testing muscle tension as a key to the “truth” of any kind of statement whatsoever—i.e., not just to whether the person being tested believes it, but whether it is really true! What is well known is that people will show automatic, unconscious physiological and psychological responses to just about anything they are exposed to—images, sounds, touch, odors, ideas, (...) people. So, muscle reading to find out their true feelings is not radical at all, unlike using it as a dousing stick (more muscle reading) to do “paranormal science”. -/- Hawkins describes the use of decreasing tension in the muscles of an arm in response to increases in cognitive load thus causing the arm to drop in response to the constant pressure of someone’s fingers. He seems unaware that there is a long established and vast ongoing research effort in social psychology referred to by such phrases as ‘implicit cognition’, ‘automaticity’ etc., and that his use of ‘kinesiology’ is one tiny section. In addition to muscle tone (infrequently used) social psychologists measure EEG, galvanic skin response and most frequently verbal responses to words, sentences, images or situations at times varying from seconds to months after the stimulus. Many, such as Bargh and Wegner, take the results to mean we are automatons who learn and act largely without awareness via S1 (automated System 1) and many others such as Kihlstrom and Shanks say these studies are flawed and we are creatures of S2 (deliberative System 2). Though Hawkins seems to have no idea, as in other areas of the descriptive psychology of higher order thought, the situation regarding “automaticity” is still as chaotic as it was when Wittgenstein described the reasons for the sterility and barrenness of psychology in the 30’s. Nevertheless, this book is an easy read and some therapists and spiritual teachers may find it of use. -/- Those wishing a comprehensive up to date framework for human behavior from the modern two systems view may consult my book ‘The Logical Structure of Philosophy, Psychology, Mind and Language in Ludwig Wittgenstein and John Searle’ 2nd ed (2019). Those interested in more of my writings may see ‘Talking Monkeys--Philosophy, Psychology, Science, Religion and Politics on a Doomed Planet--Articles and Reviews 2006-2019 3rd ed (2019), The Logical Structure of Human Behavior (2019), and Suicidal Utopian Delusions in the 21st Century 4th ed (2019) . (shrink)

A major flaw of the book is its failure to note Wittgenstein’s role in destroying the mechanical or reductionist or computationalist view of mind. These continue to dominate cognitive science and philosophy, in spite of the fact that they were powerfully countered by W and later by Searle and others. -/- There is much talk of W’s use of terms like “grammar”, “rules” etc. but never a clear mention that they mean our Evolved Psychology or our genetically programmed innate behavior. (...) There are references to Baker and Hacker's works and to Malcolm Budd, but none to many standard W refs such as ter Hark, Johnston, and especially to the searchable Intelex CDROM and online sites of his complete works, nor to Searle, and none to the vast literature of evolutionary psychology. -/- Many sections of the book are reasonably successful in describing W’s work but there is much aimless wandering and many mistakes and confusions. These will hopefully be obvious to those who read the above and my other reviews as I cannot recount more than a few of the hundreds of critical comments I made in my two readings of this book. A major flaw, common to most writing in the behavioral sciences, is the lack of awareness of the S1/S2 two selves or two systems of thought mode of describing personality that W pioneered (though nobody noticed) and a failure to be clear about nature/nuture issues. The fast, automatic perceptions, ‘rules’ and behaviors of S1 are mushed together with the slow conscious dispositional thinking, believing and rule following of S2 and neither are clearly or consistently distinguished from arbitrary cultural behaviors. -/- Like all authors until very recently, they fail to give Wittgenstein’s last work “On Certainty” the prominent position it deserves, and likewise fail to take advantage of the powerful dual systems of thought framework. Nor have they adopted the useful extensions of Wittgenstein’s work made by John Searle. So, I first lay out a framework for intentionality (behavior) and then provide some detailed comments. This book is a reasonable first attempt to bring W’s pioneering work on higher order thought to the attention of psychology but it has many failings and needs a thorough rewrite. -/- Those wishing a comprehensive up to date framework for human behavior from the modern two systems view may consult my book ‘The Logical Structure of Philosophy, Psychology, Mind and Language in Ludwig Wittgenstein and John Searle’ 2nd ed (2019). Those interested in more of my writings may see ‘Talking Monkeys--Philosophy, Psychology, Science, Religion and Politics on a Doomed Planet--Articles and Reviews 2006-2019 3rd ed (2019), The Logical Structure of Human Behavior (2019), and Suicidal Utopian Delusions in the 21st Century 4th ed (2019) . (shrink)

Proporciono un estudio crítico de algunos de los principales hallazgos de Wittgenstein y Searle sobre la estructura lógica de la intencionalidad (mente, lenguaje, comportamiento), tomando como punto de partida el descubrimiento fundamental de Wittgenstein, que todos los problemas verdaderamente ' filosóficos ' son los mismos — confusiones sobre cómo usar el lenguaje en un contexto particular, y por lo que todas las soluciones son las mismas — observando cómo se puede utilizar el lenguaje en el contexto en cuestión para que (...) sus condiciones de verdad (condiciones de satisfacción o COS) sean claras. El problema básico es que uno puede decir cualquier cosa menos que uno no puede significar (el estado claro COS para) cualquier enunciado arbitrario y significado es solamente posible en un contexto muy específico. Empiezo con ' On Certainty ' (‘En Certeza’) y continúo el análisis de los escritos recientes por y sobre ellos desde la perspectiva de los dos sistemas de pensamiento, empleando un nuevo cuadro de intencionalidad y nueva nomenclatura de sistemas duales. Aquellos que deseen un marco completo hasta la fecha para el comportamiento humano de la moderna dos sistemas punta de vista puede consultar mi libro 'La estructura lógica de la filosofía, la psicología, la mente y lenguaje En Ludwig Wittgenstein y John Searle ' 2nd ED (2019). Los interesados en más de mis escritos pueden ver 'Monos parlantes--filosofía, psicología, ciencia, religión y política en un planeta condenado--artículos y reseñas 2006-2019 3rd ED (2019) y delirios utópicos suicidas en el 21St Century 4TH Ed (2019) y otras. (shrink)

Since philosophical problems are the result of our innate psychology, or as Wittgenstein put it, due to the lack of perspicuity of language, they run throughout human discourse and behavior, so there is endless need for philosophical analysis, not only in the ‘human sciences’ of philosophy, sociology, anthropology, political science, psychology, history, literature, religion, etc., but in the ‘hard sciences’ of physics, mathematics, and biology. It is universal to mix the language game questions with the real scientific ones as to (...) what the empirical facts are. Scientism is ever-present and Wittgenstein, arguably the greatest intuitive psychologist of all time, has laid it before us long ago, beginning with the Blue and Brown Books in the early 1930’s. Language is programmed in our genes and is involved in nearly all our social behavior. Philosophy in the strict sense (i.e., academic philosophy), is as Wittgenstein showed us, the study of the way language is used (language games) and I regard it as the descriptive psychology of higher order thought (i.e., pretty much everything involving language which is often called System 2 or slow thinking). However, as I hope I have shown in my writings over the last decade, nonlinguistic behavior or System 1 or fast thinking is also described with language and this leads to endless confusion which I have tried to clarify here and which is summarized in the tables that I present. It is my contention that the table of intentionality (rationality, mind, thought, language, personality etc.) that features prominently here describes more or less accurately, or at least serves as an heuristic for, how we think and behave, and so it encompasses not merely philosophy and psychology, but everything else (history, literature, mathematics, politics etc.). Note especially that intentionality and rationality as I (along with Searle, Wittgenstein and others) view it, includes both conscious deliberative linguistic System 2 and unconscious automated prelinguistic System 1 actions or reflexes. I provide a critical survey of some of the major findings of two of the most eminent students of behavior of modern times, Ludwig Wittgenstein and John Searle, on the logical structure of intentionality (mind, language, behavior), taking as my starting point Wittgenstein’s fundamental discovery –that all truly ‘philosophical’ problems are the same—confusions about how to use language in a particular context, and so all solutions are the same—looking at how language can be used in the context at issue so that its truth conditions (Conditions of Satisfaction or COS) are clear. The basic problem is that one can say anything, but one cannot mean (state clear COS for) any arbitrary utterance and meaning is only possible in a very specific context. I analyze various writings by and about them from the modern perspective of the two systems of thought (popularized as ‘thinking fast, thinking slow’), employing a new table of intentionality and new dual systems nomenclature. I show that this is a powerful heuristic for describing behavior with critical reviews of the writings of a wide variety of behavioral scientists (i.e., everyone). The first group of articles attempt to give some insight into how we behave that is reasonably free of theoretical delusions. In the next three groups I comment on three of the principal delusions preventing a sustainable world— technology, religion and politics (cooperative groups). People believe that society can be saved by them, so I provide some suggestions in the rest of the book as to why this is unlikely via short articles and reviews of recent books by well-known writers. (shrink)

Both mindreading and stereotyping are forms of social cognition that play a pervasive role in our everyday lives, yet too little attention has been paid to the question of how these two processes are related. This paper offers a theory of the influence of stereotyping on mental-state attribution that draws on hierarchical predictive coding accounts of action prediction. It is argued that the key to understanding the relation between stereotyping and mindreading lies in the fact that stereotypes centrally involve character-trait (...) attributions, which play a systematic role in the action–prediction hierarchy. On this view, when we apply a stereotype to an individual, we rapidly attribute to her a cluster of generic character traits on the basis of her perceived social group membership. These traits are then used to make inferences about that individual’s likely beliefs and desires, which in turn inform inferences about her behavior. (shrink)

I defend a Mengzian version of the Social Intelligence Hypothesis, according to which humans think about one another’s beliefs and desires—and reasons for action—in order to solve our social living problems through cooperation, rather than through competition and deception, as the more familiar Machiavellian version has it. Given this framework, and a corresponding view about the function of belief attribution, I argue that while apes need not attribute propositional attitudes to pass the “false belief task,” we should not conclude that (...) apes may be behaviorists. Rather, the Mengzian Social Intelligence Hypothesis perspective offers another interpretation of ape behavior, intermediate between behaviorist and propositional attitude schemas. I argue that the false belief task can be solved by individuals who have an agency schema which takes others to be minded beings who have goals, emotions, and perceptions, but who fail to consider propositional attitudes or reasons for behavior. I then argue that a true test of belief attribution in great apes would be one that shows they seek explanations in terms of reasons for behavior. However, no such test yet exists. (shrink)

I motivate and articulate a dispositional account of aversive racism. By conceptualizing and measuring attitudes in terms of their full distribution, rather than in terms of their mode or mean preference, my account of dispositional attitudes gives ambivalent attitudes (qua attitude) the ability to predict aggregate behavior. This account can be distinguished from other dispositional accounts of attitude by its ability to characterize ambivalent attitudes such as aversive racism at the attitudinal rather than the sub-attitudinal level and its deeper appreciation (...) of the analogy between traits and attitudes. (shrink)

Disagreeing with others about how to interpret a social interaction is a common occurrence. We often find ourselves offering divergent interpretations of others’ motives, intentions, beliefs, and emotions. Remarkably, philosophical accounts of how we understand others do not explain, or even attempt to explain such disagreements. I argue these disparities in social interpretation stem, in large part, from the effect of social categorization and our goals in social interactions, phenomena long studied by social psychologists. I argue we ought to expand (...) our accounts of how we understand others in order to accommodate these data and explain how such profound disagreements arise amongst informed, rational, well-meaning individuals. (shrink)

Traditionally, theories of mindreading have focused on the representation of beliefs and desires. However, decades of social psychology and social neuroscience have shown that, in addition to reasoning about beliefs and desires, human beings also use representations of character traits to predict and interpret behavior. While a few recent accounts have attempted to accommodate these findings, they have not succeeded in explaining the relation between trait attribution and belief-desire reasoning. On my account, character-trait attribution is part of a hierarchical system (...) for action prediction, and serves to inform hypotheses about agents’ beliefs and desires, which are in turn used to predict and interpret behavior. (shrink)

Mindreading (or folk psychology, Theory of Mind, mentalizing) is the capacity to represent and reason about others’ mental states. The Simulation Theory (ST) is one of the main approaches to mindreading. ST draws on the common-sense idea that we represent and reason about others’ mental states by putting ourselves in their shoes. More precisely, we typically arrive at representing others’ mental states by simulating their mental states in our own mind. This entry offers a detailed analysis of ST, considers theoretical (...) arguments and empirical data in favour of and against it, discusses its philosophical implications, and illustrates some alternatives to it. (shrink)

U radu analiziram realisticki, eliminativisticki i instrumentalisticki pristup prema mental­nom diskursu pucke psihologije. Temeljna ideja razmatranje je pucke psihologije kao teorije koja objasnjava i predviđa ponasanje. Ako je pucka psihologija teorija, onda se mora moći reducirati na ili inkorporirati u dobro ucvrscene znanstvene fizikalne teorije, neuroznanost prvenstveno. Pitanje je, je li tako nesto barem principijelno moguce? Trebamo li ocekivati znanstvenu redukciju entiteta pucke psihologije ili je realno za ocekivati njenu eliminaciju iz znanstvenog objasnjenja i predviđanja ponasanja utoliko, ukoliko se ne (...) moze uspostaviti veza s fizikalnim znanostima? Ili pak, treba li pucku psihologiju tretirati kao apstraktnu teoriju koja je opravdana u upotrebi, ali nema znanstveno fizikalnih relacija između njenih entiteta i entiteta fizikalnih znanosti? Rad zapocinjem sa svakodnevnom zdravorazumskom upotrebom pucke psihologije u objasnjenju i predviđanju ponasanja, zatim ukratko izlazem realisticku poziciju i njene poteskoce. U sljedecem dijelu iznosim eliminativisticku poziciju i njezin doseg u raspravi te prelazim na obecavajuću poziciju instrumentalizma. U konačnici, zalazem se za transformaciju instrumentalističke pozicije u blazi oblik realizma na nacin da se uvede pojam razasute uzročnosti. (shrink)

We accomplish three things in this paper. First, we provide evidence that the motivational internalism/externalism debate in moral psychology could be a false dichotomy born of ambiguity. Second, we provide further evidence for a crucial distinction between two different categories of belief in folk psychology: thick belief and thin belief. Third, we demonstrate how careful attention to deep features of folk psychology can help diagnose and defuse seemingly intractable philosophical disagreement in metaethics.

This paper argues that mind-reading hypotheses, of any kind, are not needed to best describe or best explain basic acts of social cognition. It considers the two most popular MRHs: one-ToM and two-ToM theories. These MRHs face competition in the form of complementary behaviour reading hypotheses. Following Buckner, it is argued that the best strategy for putting CBRHs out of play is to appeal to theoretical considerations about the psychosemantics of basic acts of social cognition. In particular, need-based accounts that (...) satisfy a teleological criterion have the ability to put CBRHs out of play. Yet, against this backdrop, a new competitor for MRHs is revealed: mind minding hypothesis. MMHs are capable of explaining all the known facts about basic forms of social cognition and they also satisfy the teleological criterion. In conclusion, some objections concerning the theoretical tenability of MMHs are addressed and prospects for further research are canvassed. (shrink)

How we narrate our lives can affect us, for good or ill. Our narrative practices make an undeniable difference to our psychosocial well-being. All so-called "talking cures" – including traditional psychoanalytic and psychodynamic approaches to therapy and newer techniques – are motivated by this insight about the power of personal narratives. All therapies of the discursive ilk make use of narratives, in one way or another, as a means of enabling individuals to frame, or reframe, and to manage their life (...) circumstances in richer or new ways.Narrative Therapy, an important sub-class of talking therapies, breaks faith with more traditional psychodynamic approaches in adopting a... (shrink)

In this paper, I show how theoretical discussion of recent research on the abilities of infants and young children to represent other agents’ beliefs has been shaped by a descriptivist conception of mental content, i.e., to the notion that the distal content of a mental representation is fixed by the core body of knowledge that is associated with that mental representation. I also show how alternative conceptions of mental content—and in particular Ruth Millikan’s teleosemantic approach—make it possible to endorse the (...) view that infants have the ability to track beliefs by as early as 6 months while failing to understand some of the ways in which beliefs combine with each other and with other mental states in contributing to inferences and actions. In articulating this view, I will draw upon Millikan’s recently developed notion of ‘unicepts’. Unicepts, according to Millikan, are the basic representational vehicles that underpin our abilities to identify objects, properties, relations and kinds. When applied to research on mindreading in infancy and early childhood, Millikan’s approach generates fruitful new questions about the development of belief reasoning, and about the functions of belief reasoning in infancy and at different stages of childhood. (shrink)

Could animals behave morally if they can’t mindread? Does morality require mindreading capacities? Moral psychologists believe mindreading is contingently involved in moral judgements. Moral philosophers argue that moral behaviour necessarily requires the possession of mindreading capacities. In this paper, I argue that, while the former may be right, the latter are mistaken. Using the example of empathy, I show that animals with no mindreading capacities could behave on the basis of emotions that possess an identifiable moral content. Therefore, at least (...) one type of moral motivation does not require mindreading. This means that, a priori, non-mindreading animals can be moral. (shrink)

According to the socio-cognitive revolution hypothesis, humans but not other great apes acquire language because only we possess the socio-cognitive abilities required for Gricean communication, which is a pre-requisite of language development. On this view, language emerged only following a socio-cognitive revolution in the hominin lineage that took place after the split of the Pan-Homo clade. In this paper, I argue that the SCR hypothesis is wrong. The driving forces in language evolution were not sweeping biologically driven changes to hominin (...) social cognition. Our LCA with non-human great apes was likely already a Gricean communicator, and what came with evolution was not a raft of new socio-cognitive abilities, but subtle tweaks to existing ones. It was these tweaks, operating in conjunction with more dramatic ecological changes and a significant increase in general processing power, that set our ancestors on the road to language. (shrink)

The unobservability thesis states that the mental states of other people are unobservable. Both defenders and critics of UT seem to assume that UT has important implications for the mindreading debate. Roughly, the former argue that because UT is true, mindreaders need to infer the mental states of others, while the latter maintain that the falsity of UT makes mindreading inferences redundant. I argue, however, that it is unclear what ‘unobservability’ means in this context. I outline two possible lines of (...) interpretation of UT, and argue that on one of these, UT has no obvious implications for the mindreading debate. On the other line of interpretation, UT may matter to the mindreading debate, in particular if we think of it as a thesis about the possible contents of perceptual experience. The upshot is that those who believe UT has implications for the mindreading debate need to be more specific about how they understand the thesis. (shrink)

In this paper I argue that the detection of emotional expressions is, in its early stages, informationally encapsulated. I clarify and defend such a view via the appeal to data from social perception on the visual processing of faces, bodies, facial and bodily expressions. Encapsulated social perception might exist alongside processes that are cognitively penetrated, and that have to do with recognition and categorization, and play a central evolutionary function in preparing early and rapid responses to the emotional stimuli.

Overall, it is first rate with accurate, sensitive and penetrating accounts of his life and thought in roughly chronological order, but, inevitably (ie, like everyone else) it fails, in my view, to place his work in proper context and gets some critical points wrong. It is not made clear that philosophy is armchair psychology and that W was a pioneer in what later became cognitive or evolutionary psychology. One would not surmise from this book that he laid out the foundations (...) of the modern concept of intentionality (roughly, personality or higher order thought) which has been further advanced by many (most notably in philosophy by John Searle in “The Construction of Social Reality” and “Rationality in Action”). There is no clear explanation of how W defined the class of potential actions, which he called dispositions or inclinations, (now often called propositional attitudes), differentiating them from perceptions, memories and actions and showing how they lack truth value. He notes that W spent much of his time discussing the foundations of mathematics but fails to provide any explanation as to how this relates to his work on language and logic. In fact, as W came to realize, they are all names for groups of functions of our innate psychology with many differences and none are dependent on the others. It is not really made clear that all our behavior depends on the unquestionable axioms of our evolved psychology and thus differs totally from the testable empirical facts which they enable us to discover. It is not explained that W’s frequent references to “grammar” and to “language games” refer to our innate psychology. All these failings are the norm in behavioral studies. -/- He notes that W described thinking and other dispositions or inclinations (W’s terms)-- (ie, judging, feeling, remembering, believing etc)-- as behaviors and not as mental activities but I don’t see that he really makes it clear that another pioneering discovery of W’s was that dispositions describe public actions and cannot be mental phenomena for the same reason that he so famously rejected the possibility of a private language. -/- He repeatedly and correctly notes (eg, p176) that the core of W’s work is the nature of language but (again the universal failing) does not make it clear that language is for humans (as opposed to animals) almost coextensive with thought (public behavior as W insisted) and thus with our evolved psychology. Like most people, philosophers or not, Kanterian has not followed W and taken the final step towards understanding and describing behavior from an evolutionary standpoint, the only viewpoint that makes sense of it, or indeed of anything. -/- Those wishing a comprehensive up to date framework for human behavior from the modern two systems view may consult my book ‘The Logical Structure of Philosophy, Psychology, Mind and Language in Ludwig Wittgenstein and John Searle’ 2nd ed (2019). Those interested in more of my writings may see ‘Talking Monkeys--Philosophy, Psychology, Science, Religion and Politics on a Doomed Planet--Articles and Reviews 2006-2019 3rd ed (2019), The Logical Structure of Human Behavior (2019), and Suicidal Utopian Delusions in the 21st Century 4th ed (2019). (shrink)

On Certainty was not published until 1969, 18 years after Wittgenstein’s death and has only recently begun to draw serious attention. I cannot recall a single reference to it in all of Searle and one sees whole books on W with barely a mention. There are however xlnt books on it by Stroll, Svensson, McGinn and others and parts of many other books and articles, but hands down the best is that of Daniele Moyal-Sharrock (DMS) whose 2004 volume “Understanding Wittgenstein’s (...) On Certainty” is mandatory for every educated person, and perhaps the best starting point for understanding Wittgenstein (W), psychology, philosophy and life (no I am not joking!). However (in my view) like all analysis of W, they fall far short of grasping his unique and revolutionary advance in describing behavior, suffering from the near universal tunnel vision and failing to put behavior in its broad evolutionary and contemporary scientific context, which I will attempt in skeletal form here. After doing this I will give brief comments on each article in this book of varied perspectives on W’s work. -/- Those wishing a comprehensive up to date framework for human behavior from the modern two systems view may consult my book ‘The Logical Structure of Philosophy, Psychology, Mind and Language in Ludwig Wittgenstein and John Searle’ 2nd ed (2019). Those interested in more of my writings may see ‘Talking Monkeys--Philosophy, Psychology, Science, Religion and Politics on a Doomed Planet--Articles and Reviews 2006-2019 3rd ed (2019), The Logical Structure of Human Behavior (2019), and Suicidal Utopian Delusions in the 21st Century 4th ed (2019). (shrink)

Horwich gives a fine analysis of Wittgenstein (W) and is a leading W scholar, but in my view they all fall short of a full appreciation, as I explain at length in this review and many others. If one does not understand W (and preferably Searle also) then I don't see how one could have more than a superficial understanding of philosophy and of higher order thought and thus of all complex behavior(psychology, sociology, anthropology, history, literature, society). In a nutshell, (...) W demonstrated that when you have shown how a sentence is used in the context of interest, there is nothing more to say. I will start with a few notable quotes and then give what I think are the minimum considerations necessary to understand Wittgenstein, philosophy and human behavior. -/- First one might note that putting “meta” in front of any word should be suspect. W remarked e.g., that metamathematics is mathematics like any other. The notion that we can step outside philosophy (i.e., the descriptive psychology of higher order thought) is itself a profound confusion. Another irritation here (and throughout academic writing for the last 4 decades) is the constant reverse linguistic sexism of “her” and “hers” and “she” or “he/she” etc., where “they” and “theirs” and “them” would do nicely. Likwise the use of the French word 'repertoire' where the English 'repertory' will do quite well. The major deficiency is the complete failure (though very common) to employ what I see as the hugely powerful and intuitive two systems view of HOT and Searle’s framework which I have outlined above. This is especially poignant in the chapter on meaning p111 et seq.(esp. in footnotes 2-7), where we swim in very muddy water without the framework of automated true only S1, propositional dispositional S2, COS etc. One can also get a better view of the inner and the outer by reading e.g., Johnston or Budd (see my reviews). Horwich however makes many incisive comments. I especially liked his summary of the import of W’s antitheoretical stance on p65. Horwich is first rate and his work well worth the effort. One hopes that he (and everyone) will study Searle and some modern psychology as well as Hutto, Read, Hutchinson, Stern, Moyal-Sharrock, Stroll, Hacker and Baker etc. to attain a broad modern view of behavior. Most of their papers are on academia.edu but for PMS Hacker see http://info.sjc.ox.ac.uk/scr/hacker/DownloadPapers.html. -/- Finally, let me suggest that with the perspective I have encouraged here, W is at the center of contemporary philosophy and psychology and is not obscure, difficult or irrelevant, but scintillating, profound and crystal clear and that to miss him is to miss one of the greatest intellectual adventures possible. -/- Those wishing a comprehensive up to date framework for human behavior from the modern two systems view may consult my article The Logical Structure of Philosophy, Psychology, Mind and Language as Revealed in Wittgenstein and Searle 59p(2016). For all my articles on Wittgenstein and Searle see my e-book ‘The Logical Structure of Philosophy, Psychology, Mind and Language in Wittgenstein and Searle 367p (2016). Those interested in all my writings in their most recent versions may consult my e-book Philosophy, Human Nature and the Collapse of Civilization - Articles and Reviews 2006-2016’ 662p (2016). -/- All of my papers and books have now been published in revised versions both in ebooks and in printed books. -/- Talking Monkeys: Philosophy, Psychology, Science, Religion and Politics on a Doomed Planet - Articles and Reviews 2006-2017 (2017) https://www.amazon.com/dp/B071HVC7YP. -/- The Logical Structure of Philosophy, Psychology, Mind and Language in Ludwig Wittgenstein and John Searle--Articles and Reviews 2006-2016 (2017) https://www.amazon.com/dp/B071P1RP1B. -/- Suicidal Utopian Delusions in the 21st century: Philosophy, Human Nature and the Collapse of Civilization - Articles and Reviews 2006-2017 (2017) https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0711R5LGX . (shrink)

Recent work has shown that knowledge attributions affect how people think others should behave, more so than belief attributions do. This paper reports two experiments providing evidence that knowledge attributions also affect behavioral predictions more strongly than belief attributions do, and knowledge attributions facilitate faster behavioral predictions than belief attributions do. Thus, knowledge attributions play multiple critical roles in social cognition, guiding judgments about how people should and will behave.

According to the two-systems account of mindreading, our mature perspective-taking abilities are subserved by two distinct mindreading systems: a fast but inflexible, “implicit” system, and a flexible but slow “explicit” one. However, the currently available evidence on adult perspective-taking does not support this account. Specifically, both Level-1 and Level-2 perspective-taking show a combination of efficiency and flexibility that is deeply inconsistent with the two-systems architecture. This inconsistency also turns out to have serious consequences for the two-systems framework as a whole, (...) both as an account of our mature mindreading abilities and of the development of those abilities. What emerges from this critique is a conception of context-sensitive, spontaneous mindreading that may provide insight into how mindreading functions in complex social environments. This in turn offers a bulwark against skepticism about the role of mindreading in everyday social cognition. (shrink)

I offer a new argument for the elimination of ‘beliefs’ from cognitive science based on Wimsatt’s concept of robustness and a related concept of fragility. Theoretical entities are robust if multiple independent means of measurement produce invariant results in detecting them. Theoretical entities are fragile when multiple independent means of detecting them produce highly variant results. I argue that sufficiently fragile theoretical entities do not exist. Recent studies in psychology show radical variance between what self-report and non-verbal behaviour indicate about (...) participants’ beliefs. This is evidence that ‘belief’ is fragile, and is thus a strong candidate for elimination. 1 Introduction2 Robustness and Fragility2.1 A historical example of robustness2.2 Fragility and elimination3 The Received View4 Evidence for the Fragility of Belief4.1 Contamination and fragility4.2 Implicit association tests and fragility5 Attempts to Preserve the Belief Category for Cognitive Science5.1 Beliefs and aliefs5.2 Contradictory beliefs5.3 In-between beliefs and the unity assumption5.4 Belief sub-classes5.5 Self-deception6 Alternative Mental States7 Conclusion. (shrink)