Re: [tips] Theory of Mind

2008-10-20 Thread K. H. Grobman, Ph. D.

Hi Carol  Everyone,

At it's broadest, Theory of Mind (ToM) is encompassed by Naive  
Psychology.  According to the Theory-Theory perspective on  
development, children are born with broad ways of categorizing  
objects (into ontological kinds) and they have different ways of  
organizing information and responding to entities within each  
domain.  We have a naive physics for artifacts, like desks, and a  
naive psychology for people.  We explain people as moved by causes  
like feelings, desires, beliefs, and hopes (i.e., mental states) and  
we explain artifacts with causes like gravity.  Aside from joking,  
nobody would respond to the question, Why did she fall down? with  
gravity.


Different developmental psychologists suggest we start with a  
different number of theories.  They hypothesize different ways that  
theories combine together.  For example, is our naive biology (for  
non-human animals) its own theory or does it come out of fusing naive  
psychology with naive physics.  Some developmental psychology  
theorists whose research includes the topic are: Henry Wellman, Susan  
Gelman, Alison Gopnik, John Flavell, and Frank Keil.  Naive  
psychology also includes a wider range of topics, like attributions  
in social psychology (but ToM is a more popular term among  
developmentalists).


In a more narrow sense, some researchers use the term Theory of  
Mind as synonymous with False-Belief Tasks.  For example, a boy  
Maxi puts a toy in a cabinet and goes outside to play.  His mom moves  
the toy to a basket elsewhere.  When Maxi comes in, where will he go  
to get the toy?  At 3 years of age nearly all children will say the  
basket because that's where the toy is.  But by 5 years of age nearly  
all children say the cabinet because that's where he put it (i.e.,  
Maxi has a belief that he acts on even though that belief is false)  
(e.g., Perner  Wimmer, 1983, Flavell, 2000).  Tim mentioned Simon  
Baron-Cohen.  Baron-Cohen et al. (1995) suggest that those with  
autism lack a ToM (as though its a missing module in the mind)  
because they fail this task, and even fail this task when they have a  
mental age above 5.  In his original study, an IQ-matched sample of  
those with downs syndrome and mental ages over 5 understood that  
others could have false beliefs.  Historically, ToM research is often  
traced back to Premack and Woodruff's (1978) classic research on non- 
human primate understanding of mental states.  Chimpanzee Sarah  
showed a remarkable awareness that her trainers had internal mental  
states like having knowledge but lying about it.  Hope this helps!


Kevin
http://www.DevPsy.org/



On Oct 17, 2008, at 7:44 PM, DeVolder Carol L wrote:
Can someone give me a concise definition of Theory of Mind? Please  
feel free to suggest readings as well. I believe I understand the  
premise, but I'd really like to know more, including where it  
stands vis a vis child development and autism, and non-human  
animals (other primates, for example).

Thanks,
Carol


---
To make changes to your subscription contact:

Bill Southerly ([EMAIL PROTECTED])


RE:[tips] Theory of Mind

2008-10-17 Thread Shearon, Tim

Carol-
Here is a Psychology Today blog:
http://blogs.psychologytoday.com/blog/aspergers-diary/200805/empathy-mindblindness-and-theory-mind

It discusses the Simon Baron-Cohen theory as he put forth in several papers and 
books. Most notably, at least in terms of publicity etc. were:
Mindblindness: An Essay on Autism and Theory of Mind in 1997 (probably the best 
starting place for the theory)
The Essential Difference: Male And Female Brains And The Truth About Autism in 
2004

I found students very receptive to the ideas in The Essential Difference. But 
he is a bit of a salesman and sometimes getting them to be careful or critical 
in their thinking about the ideas is a bit difficult. But in teaching neuro/bio 
psychology courses I think it is worth the effort to do so. Oh. There are gobs 
of videos of Autistic kids on YouTube, etc. (not that some don't require pause 
for ethical reasons). Is there a Munchausen syndrome of exhibitionism or is 
this just another place where technology has raced ahead of thoughtfulness?  

That's really about as much as I've done with it though.
Tim


___
Timothy O. Shearon, PhD
Professor and Chair Department of Psychology
The College of Idaho
Caldwell, ID 83605
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

teaching: intro to neuropsychology; psychopharmacology; general; history and 
systems

You can't teach an old dogma new tricks. Dorothy Parker



-Original Message-
From: DeVolder Carol L [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Fri 10/17/2008 6:44 PM
To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)
Subject: Theory of Mind
 
Can someone give me a concise definition of Theory of Mind? Please feel free to 
suggest readings as well. I believe I understand the premise, but I'd really 
like to know more, including where it stands vis a vis child development and 
autism, and non-human animals (other primates, for example). 
Thanks,
Carol


Carol L. DeVolder, Ph.D. 
Professor of Psychology
Chair, Department of Psychology 
St. Ambrose University 
518 West Locust Street 
Davenport, Iowa 52803 

Phone: 563-333-6482 
e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
web: http://web.sau.edu/psychology/psychfaculty/cdevolder.htm 

The contents of this message are confidential and may not be shared with anyone 
without permission of the sender.




---
To make changes to your subscription contact:

Bill Southerly ([EMAIL PROTECTED])winmail.dat