theory of mind + intentionality Flashcards
what is theory of mind
capacity to understand others have own and sepaerate minds (beliefs, desires, knowledge etc)
‘socialfunction of intellect’; macchiavellian intelligence and deceptoiiin
at what age in humans does TOM develop
3-5 years old
what might be the coginitive origins of TOM?
cognitive capacity
building on from simple capacities
an emergent property of different emergent properies
how is TOM measured
self recognition; mirror test Gallup
false belief test; puppet
gaze following
perspective taking
deception
describe the mirror test
Gallup 1970; measures self awareness
mark ‘self’ with paint; see if abillity to recognize self in mirror if ‘wiped off’
who passes the mirror test
all great apes
child 2+ years
elephants; debated (but possible depending on mirror size)
cleaner wrasse fish maybe
what is related to TOM
tactical deception (woodruff and premark 1979)
macchiavellian intelligence Byrne Whiten 1988
Politics de waal
mind reading
intellect adn sociality
how might TOm might an emergent propertyu
Barrett et al 2003:
combination of
- causal reasoning
- analogal reasonign
- episodeic memory
which requires
1. control of behaviour
2, large brain capactiy
describe the extended false belief test (undrstanding qualitive differences of others)
given to 3-7 year olds
‘false belief test’; where at age 3 children can understand that different minds of people
god is all knowing, dog less able
how can primate mental state attribution be measured?
anecdotes
contiditional discrimination testing
trapping
triangulation (heyes 1993)
what is triangulation
whereby animals differenfeitae bewteen one mental state and another
how is triangulation tested
on chimps: guessor vs knower roles
guesseor leaves room and knower manipulates food container
chimps to ‘point’ out food pag
chimps + TOM (tomasello and call 2008) experiments
chimps understand goals and intentions of others
experiments:
gaze following (chimps and infants)
gestural communication (position self to a gesture; awareness of body-language connection)
food competition (pick food competition that others dont see)
chimps + TOM (tomasello and call 2008) experiments
chimps understand goals and intentions of others
experiments:
gaze following (chimps and infants)
gestural communication (position self to a gesture; awareness of body-language connection)
food competition (pick food competition that others dont see)
behavioural abstraction hypothesis
constructing categories of behaviour and making predicitons
humans added extra abillity for intentionallity
perspective taking
‘from who does ape beg?’; blindfolded individuals vs mouthfolded individual
abillity to understand body function and output
povinelli argues
chimps dont have TOM because in persective takign case they dont differentiate between bliindfoloded/nonblind folded
but tomasello: tjey dont get task! rahter gaze following
woodlice case study
shelltleworth 1994:
woodlice move to humid spots; is this because of a mind goal?
no (data); a form of emergent distribution
rats: colwill and descorla 1985 study: what does it test?
INTENTION:
1. idea must be achieved via action (GOAL)
2. there must be motivation to do so
rats given response=based stimulus
- press bar for sugar
- pull chain for pellets
response for sugar stable but extinction occurs–> value for pellets decrease over time
False Belief Test
Sally and Ann (Baron-Cohen et al 1985)
Sally—> clown
Ann—> Little girl
2 box task + a bear
asked ‘where does Sally hink the bear is?
children from 5 years + pass it
how is the false belief task tested on chimps
call and tomasello 1999:
box, reward, communicator + hider + partiicpant
do chimps pass the false belief task
at first glance (1999 call and tomasello); No.
second glance 2017 krupenlas: red dot analysis of ‘gaze’ shows chimps DO pass
what are the cognitive explanations behidn gaze following
low level: response to movement
high level: understand others see something else
social gaze following + experiment
Gossen et al 2008 long tailed macaques:
showed subjects look UP when demonstrators do; stronger when demonstrator has a social expression of fear/agggression
target of attention gaze following + experiment
povienlli/tomasso: all greap apes follow gaze of humans around barriers
overduin vreis et al: LT macaques recognize hierarhcy of others and dominance; open mouth + dominants followed (DOMINATNS FOLLOWED MORE)
perspective taking + experiment
food competition in LT macaques:
when monkeys know others can see food; gaze follow more
- if one way barier; look at food
- if two way barrier; dont look at food
what cognitive abillities do apes have
self recognition
false belief
gaze following
peserspective taking
deception
what cotnigive abillities do monkeys have
self recognition (diverse)
false belief?
gaze following yes
perspective taking yes
deception X
what are the types of deception
- strategic (0 order)
- tactical ( 1 order)
- intentional (2 and 3 order)
strategic deception
adopt anatomy via evolution to others (coincidence, automatic, conditioning)
i.e. physiology, like mimicry
tactical deception
acts from normal reperotire in atypitcal context; creation of false beliefs (to benefit of actor; unerstand what others cant see/know)
beahvioural; goal to decieve
intensified by operant conditioning and experience
goals of tactical deception
manipulate objects
manipulate people (social tools)
gain resources
types of tactical deception
visual concealment
acoustic concealment
attention inhibition
distraction
creating false images
manipulate taget with social tools
exmaples visual concealment
sneaky matings; lt macaques
safari in chimps
examples acoustic concealement
vwithold alarm calls/give false ones (i.e. geladas dont vocalize during EPP/ chimps icnrease audio to exaggerate aggression)
example attention inhibition
gorillas avoid looking at desired objects to prevent others from looign at it
manipulate target w social tools?
a ‘fall guy’ i.e. trump and obama
creating an image
injury; pretending in chmps
honest signalling
zavahi 1975 high costs of deception, response of hard to fake signals (handicaps like peacock tail)
but deception can still occur at low level (behavioural)
deceptive signalling
transmission of misinformation of one animalt o the same/different species to propogte untrue beliefs
- flexible use of multiple + novel signals and actions
- deprive information
2, dishonest signals and coercion
interspecies”anti-predator deception PREY examples
mimicry—> hawk moth like an owl/mimic octopus like lionfish
crypsis—> insects pretending to be leaves vai camoflauge
distraction—> plover display
interspecies”anti-predator deception PREDATOR examples
mimicry: male jumping spiders mimic courtship signals of females of other sepcies
imitation: male fireflies imiate femaleflaslights of prey on male of other species
interspecific (conspecific) deception examples
food competition—> TUFTED CAPUCHISN use antipredator calls to decieve dominatns for food
ravens lead conspecifics away from food
non predator deception examples
cuckoldry: placing eggs into nest of another to rase them; the cuckoo cildrne taken on audio/visual markers of adopted nest
parent-offspring communication; cuckoos vocalize extra for more food
what is intentional deception?
making a target believe something false (creating false beliefs)
understanding others mental states
how do chimps use intentioanl deception
chimps decieve humans during reward task experiment by choosing food hidden from human view (hare et al 2006)
critique of anecdote studies on deception?
not systematic
underrepresented
coincicential
might be social learning and not TD2 (so rather TD1)
