Talk:Theory of mind

Connection to ADHD

I see that there is a connection mentioned to ADHD in the introduction, but it is not discussed in the entry. Alliwalk (talk) 22:13, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Connection to Dystopia

The article on Dystopia is linked at the bottom of this one, but these two topics have very little, if anything, in common. Should the link be removed, perhaps? DiabloMan8890 20:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Confusing "Social Disorder" with "Disordered Society" ? --195.137.93.171 (talk) 22:38, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Cartoon image

Can someone explain what the cartoon image is supposed to mean? I don't see how it is related to Theory of Mind. -- Kimiko 12:04, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Looks like a brain trying to understand how another brain works. Apokrif 11:32, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

ToM and schizophrenia

ok, i dont know if anyone will know but im currently doing some coursework and was wondering if anyone could answer a question for me, based on the mind?

I read that certain cognitive deficits, including lack of ToM, are common to PDDs and schizophrenia. Apokrif 11:18, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

For a psychology writing course, a classmate and I edited the article to include more information on schizophrenia, in the Deficits section and in Brain Mechanisms. (KateHL (talk) 01:15, 22 February 2015 (UTC))

Autism and Theory of Mind

Does anyone know a reference for the assertion in the article that: "autistic people who develop a workable theory of mind tend to be aware not only that other people have different knowledge from themselves but also that other people have a different way of thinking." 24.26.98.245 (talk)

The sentence at the end of the autism section seems to be erroneous opinion.: "These researchers’ findings are important to understanding the social disorder, because they suggest that autism’s abnormalities, which may initially appear to be unrelated to theory of mind, such as communication challenges, in fact result from theory of mind deficits." Even if all autistic individuals had testable theory of mind deficiencies, would one say that autism was caused by theory of mind deficiencies, or just that the two were correlated. I will change "result from" to be "correlated to" unless someone has objections or references. 24.26.98.245 (talk) 07:44, 18 December 2007 (UTC)BP

Actually, does that sentence convey anything additional? It is basically restating that the two might be related, and saying its important, but this doesnt add anything scientific/factual.... 24.26.98.245 (talk) 07:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)BP

It think it's more complex than that !

Autism’s abnormalities result from theory of mind deficits.

does not necessarily mean that

Theory of mind deficits cause autism.

Rather

Autism causes theory of mind deficits which, in turn, cause further abnormalities.

No ?

Isn't it ironic that we're striving to know what someone else means, in an article about 'theory of mind' !

--87.194.174.252 (talk) 13:49, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Or am I mistaken in considering autism to be a disease, rather than a syndrome (collection of symptoms) ? Or a perfectly valid and healthy personality style ? Or even a completely different Theory of Mind ? (same contributor, different IP!)--195.137.93.171 (talk) 22:32, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

This bit does not make sense to me now:

... sugges that a person with autism deficits in theory of mind result from a distortion in understanding and responding to emotions.

Is 'deficits' meant to be a verb or a noun ? How about 'result' ? It just doesn't parse as English language !

Using "autism-related deficits" would result in a phrase that 'boils down' to " ... a person ... result from a distortion ..."

How about making the nouns and verbs explicit:

... suggests that, in a person with autism, any deficiency in theory of mind may result from a distortion in understanding and responding to emotions.

But isn't that just a truism - precisely the definition of ToM !

To be honest, I think the original sentence quoted above was best ! Meaning "Autism may include theory of mind deficits which are noticeable as communication difficulties." Or "Theory of Mind may help to explain communication and awareness difficulties that are often present in autism." Not implying cause-and-effect.

This remarkable study appears to show that Theory of Mind leads to the wrong interpretation of a person's intentions. By projecting themselves into a character rather than listening they misread the situation. Strong evidence that Theory of Mind is a not a problem of autism but a problem of non-autism, misnamed simply due to being a feature/bug of the majority 86.143.58.116 (talk) 10:18, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

If you simply think about it, both autists and non autists have an ability to consider other person's feelings and have a general idea of what other people are like. I this way both have a theory of mind, be it different. here's a study proving that all people have a theory of mind: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6959478/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by DenniZr (talk • contribs) 15:51, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

--195.137.93.171 (talk) 00:18, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Clinical Psychologist here. I'd say the relationship between theory of mind and autism is thus - autism, where there are extreme language acquisition delays, which can be due to symptoms but just as easily be due to a maladaptive environment or some combination of both, lead to lack of language/conceptual skills within a certain timeframe (I'm not 100%, but I would say by around the age of 7) of neurocognitive development, which then inhibits permanently the ability to understand others and that their perspectives and knowledge are discreet from your own. I actually take issue with the initial sentence of the article as a whole, and was coming here to complain, because there isn't enough justification to say that theory of mind is an inhibition of empathy, as empathy itself is somehow poorly defined, and can refer to reflexive sharing of emotional experiences (like emotional contagion, or even yawning) or projective identification, or compassion.

Please note, this isn't isolated to autism - in situations where people haven't acquired language for other reasons within that particular neurocognitive timeframe, the result is the same. A great example is how, in Nicaragua, due to socio-political issues, Deaf people were prevented from being schooled together and from learning sign language. The result was adults who didn't understand concepts like deceit or limitations of another's perspective, depending on what ages they were effected by this phenomenon from. In fact, as I recall, this is where all our early theory of mind research really came from, and it started not with psychology but with linguistics before we all caught onto the psychological ramifications. Sorry I can't provide references as I wasn't prepared - but I wanted to provide enough information that somebody who has the time and energy might be able to find the necessary information. 2601:244:1:4580:1C0B:D33F:6D22:D710 (talk) 22:29, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out, I've removed the reference to empathy in the introductory sentences and added another sentence later on to mention their relation, besides a few other changes. Phlsph7 (talk) 05:12, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

I think I found that study on Nicaraguan deaf students, at https://acamh.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2006.01621.x . I'll take a read through, but thank you for referencing that! Patrickpowns (talk) 18:03, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

This seems to mirror what an Autism advocate/researcher told me. Found other studies which also corroborated it and changed the section pertaining to autism.

I also think it justified to remove the Baron-Cohen study and general of autists failing these tests as later it was shown they were based on false assumptions that autists had a comparable language understanding level. If a paragraph starts with a sweeping statement and later it stands "However this assertion could not be replicated by later studies." it makes the entire paragraph moot

Instead this could be moved to some history of autism diagnosis section. BikingFish (talk) 08:34, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Needs work

This article needs work. In particular, it says nothing about 'theory of mind' as a vast area in philosophy - perhaps it shouldn't be covered here at all, so for now I've added a disambig link at the start. Ben Finn 21:46, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

We should be content with that disambig link. In philosophy, "theory of mind" is just a description of a wide and general area of interest. In psychology, "theory of mind" is a proper name for a particular body of literature. Nevertheless, this article does indeed need work. It especially needs more information about criticisms of the theory (of which there are plenty). KSchutte 18:34, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

KSchutte, do you mind providing those links? I found this article several months ago, while reading about animal intelligence, and found it to be a very intriguing subject. In the process, I actually became friends with an autistic woman who seems to lack this theory of mind, yet is very aware of her lack thereof. Particularly of interest to me is the recent study about the neurons in the brain that are allegedly devoted to developing theory of mind in individuals. Raphael 19:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I've tried to divide the page up into subcategories, and I removed an irrelevant link to a PNAS paper which talks about Self, not Theory of Mind. I'm sure more work could be done to expand and reference each subcategory. AFdeCH 00:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

A Functional Model of the Mind

This functional model of the mind is a metaphysical philosophy based on subjects and relations. Since anything can be a subject, it is the highest of all possible systems. (There is a little more information in this description than is in the diagram. Not everything can be drawn.)

Subject - a cross-utilized unit of a relation

Relation - more than one subject combined together

Extrinsic Subject - subject given to a relation

Intrinsic Subject - subject contained in a relation

Right - if a subject is within an extrinsic subject

Wrong - if a subject is not within an extrinsic subject

Possession - if an intrinsic subject is within a subject

Good - what increases a relation

Bad - what hinders or decreases a relation

Happiness - occurs if subjects combine and form a relation. There are five different types of happiness. In order to include non-social relations in these definitions, the generic term combination is used symbolized with the letter 'C'.

1stC - occurs when a relation is formed. Here the extrinsic subject is created.

2ndC - occurs when subjects are combined to an existing relation. Here the extrinsic subject already exists.

3rdC - occurs as the back and forth dynamics between relations. Here more than one extrinsic subject is involved.

Leverage - resembles a lever, the relative lowering of a subject in a relation causes the relative increase of the other related subjects. This also is known as apathetic happiness. Subjects on opposite sides of the lever are apathetic to each other. An examples of this is teasing.

Contentment - is a relative position a subject has in a relationship. This position is what we mean when we say we are "happy". Here the word "content" can be used interchangibly.

Unhappiness is, of course, the converse but with separation instead of combination. Hate is excessive apathy.

Nervousness - anticipation of a combination

Worry - anticipation of a separation

Shyness - excessive Nervousness

Fear - excessive Worry

Pride - above Contentment

Shame - below Contentment

Dignity - empathetic Pride

Arrogance - excessive Dignity

Honor - the action toward Dignity

Jealousy - apathetic Pride

Envy - the action toward Jealousy

Modesty - empathetic Shame

Humility - the action toward Modesty

Pity - apathetic Shame

Disgust - the action toward Pity

Expectation - future Contentment

Standard - past Contentment

Surprise - empathetically or apathetically above Standard or Expectation

Embarrassment - empathetically below Standard or Expectation

Disappointment - apathetically below Standard or Expectation

Elation - excessive Surprise

Sadness - excessive Disappointment or Embarrassment

The name of this system is Subjations which is a blend of words subjects and relations. What is especially interesting is that even though it is a system of emotions it also conforms with evolution. After all, every living thing has relatives. Also, although emotions have no substance they do invoke physical changes in the body. This leads to the question, is this science or not? One more thing I'd like to add is something I call the Base Rule. The Base Rule states that "Related subjects do not combine for the same reason that unrelated subjects do not separate". That doesn't sound like much but it is a significant factor with morality. I welcome any feedback. I'm the author. My name is John Huber and my email is jhn_hbr@yahoo.com

Crows know what other Crows know

I guess this should be added to the Non-Human Theory of Mind section:

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/mg19426091.700-the-scheming-minds-of-crows.html

Sry, for not having a better link. 13 Sept 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.124.3.108 (talk) 13:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

= The reference to "Premack, D. G. & Woodruff, G. (1978). Does the chimpanzee have a theory of mind? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 1, 515-526." is made several times in the references

Nicky Clayton, who features in the New Scientist article, cited above, was the interviewee in a [v programme] in the the BBC Radio 4 Series "The Life Scientific" November 2011. See also http://www.psychol.cam.ac.uk/ccl/ Vernon White ^{. . . Talk} 20:13, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

also, see below under "Western scrub jays and food pilfering" Vernon White ^{. . . Talk} 20:15, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Theory of 'nasty' minds

Somebody needs to post up about this.

I dont know enough about it.

194.83.93.11 (talk) 12:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Neil

Theory of Mind - General Comment

The comments about functionalism and mind brain identity at the beginning of the page have very little specifically to do with theory of mind (maybe the author thought that 'theory of mind' was a synonym for 'philosophy of mind'?) and should be dropped. [I have now removed this section]

The section on 'philosophical roots' conflates 'theory theory' with 'folk psychology' whilst ignoring genuine philosophical parallels between 'theory theory' and proposed philosophical solutions to the 'problem of other minds' such as the 'argument from analogy' (see e.g. Mill 1889.)

This section also argues that, unlike 'theory theory' "simulation theory suggests ToM is not, at its core, theoretical." However this conception of simulation theory as non theoretical has been vigorously contested in recent literature. e.g.

"The presupposition both theories [TT and ST] share is that mind reading is primarily a ‘spectatorial process' of explanation and prediction. On this way of thinking self and other stand in relation to each other as observer and observed…This view of intersubjective relations seems distorted."

(Thompson, E. (2001) Empathy and Consciousness in Thompson, E. (Ed) Between Ourselves, Imprint Academic, 2001. p.12)

Paul

Social Neuroscience papers

Here are some sources about theory of mind published in Social Neuroscience that might be used to improve this article (which I find to be a bit dated):

• Silani G, Bird G, Brindley R, Singer T, Frith C, Frith U (2008). "Levels of emotional awareness and autism: An fMRI study". Soc Neurosci. 3 (2): 97–112. doi:10.1080/17470910701577020. PMID 18633852.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
• Kana RK, Keller TA, Cherkassky VL, Minshew NJ, Adam Just M (2008). "Atypical frontal-posterior synchronization of Theory of Mind regions in autism during mental state attribution". Soc Neurosci: 1–18. doi:10.1080/17470910802198510. PMID 18633829.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
• Stone VE, Gerrans P (2006). "What's domain-specific about theory of mind?". Soc Neurosci. 1 (3–4): 309–19. doi:10.1080/17470910601029221. PMID 18633796.
• Hobson RP, Lee A, Hobson JA (2007). "Only connect? Communication, identification, and autism". Soc Neurosci. 2 (3–4): 320–35. doi:10.1080/17470910701376852. PMID 18633821.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
• Ronald A, Viding E, Happe F, Plomin R (2006). "Individual differences in theory of mind ability in middle childhood and links with verbal ability and autistic traits: A twin study". Soc Neurosci. 1 (3–4): 412–25. doi:10.1080/17470910601068088. PMID 18633802.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
• Leslie AM, Mallon R, Dicorcia JA (2006). "Transgressors, victims, and cry babies: Is basic moral judgment spared in autism?". Soc Neurosci. 1 (3–4): 270–83. doi:10.1080/17470910600992197. PMID 18633793.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

Eubulides (talk) 16:08, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Edits to "Brain Mechanisms" section

I've replaced the first paragraph of the "Brain Mechanisms" section with four paragraphs that are far more informative and comprehensive. Further comments/questions on this edit are welcome.

I also removed the sentence "They [mPFC and TPJ] are involved in many other functions, drawing on executive attention" from the subsequent paragraph. The extent to which mPFC and TPJ are selectively involved in social cognitive processes is a very contentious matter, and we by no means know that they are involved in "many other functions." Also, "executive attention" is an unclear term. mPFC is seemingly NOT involved in working memory or attentional reorienting, insofar as it deactivates during such tasks, although the TPJ may be involved in the latter.

I've also added a section on neuroimaging studies of theory of mind impairment in autism.

Bdeen (talk) 19:43, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

appearance-reality tests

This section is a bit muddled, what is currently described in this section is actually another false-belief study. Appearance reality tests are those which evaluate a childs capability of discerning when the appearance of an object is concurrent with what the object actually is. An example of this would be Flavell, Flavell and Green's (1983) study. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.234.146.251 (talk) 16:21, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

criticism section

I'm temporarily moving here a paragraph just added by Anonywiki (talk · contribs), because it is weasel-worded in a way that absolutely requires a source. Here is the paragraph:

Criticism of Theory of Mind: Some argue that "theory of mind" is too vague and arbitrary to really mean anything and is simply a way of putting humans at some kind of higher level than animals for all but a few exceptions. This view maintains that humans and animals can have the same thought processes, it's just that humans have a far larger brain and can go at problems in a way that is hugely more complicated. In other words there is no big jump between supposedly more simple learned behaviour and theory of mind because they are both the same thing, there is just a continuum of understanding rather than one discrete jump to "theory of mind".

I'm not rejecting the assertions -- I actually have a lot of sympathy with them -- but you just can't put this sort of thing into an article without specifying who the "some argue" refers to. Looie496 (talk) 16:53, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the deletion - I think that critic has not read the article - it seems more of a criticism of philosophy of mind !

Remove from WikiProject Philosophy ?

... and the categories below. This is Psychology - you want philosophy of mind, not Theory of Mind ?

In a nutshell, it says "I know what you know".

--195.137.93.171 (talk) 00:29, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, I think it's relevant to philosophy too. At any rate, this should be a decision for WikiProject Philosophy to make. Looie496 (talk) 02:03, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Massive changes

An IP editor has just made major changes to several sections of the article, with an edit summary saying "ToM Spring 2009". Changes on such a scale are always difficult to follow, but on scanning through the revisions, most of them look like improvements to me, so I'm not going to revert at this time. In future, though, please discuss before making such major changes to an article, or they are likely to be reverted just for the sake of stability. It would also be very helpful for editors who make such major contributions to register an account, so that it is possible to contact them for discussion. Looie496 (talk) 19:11, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Help to translate in to russian "Theory of mind"

In russian theory is system of organisation scientific knowledge about fact ...etc. and mind is human's ability to understand, to comprehend, to ratiocinate and etc. summation: Theory of mind is system of organisation scientific knowledge about human's ability to understand, to comprehend, to ratiocinate and etc.

Also in english theory is 'a formal statement of the rules on which a subject of study is based or of ideas which are suggested to explain a fact or event or, more generally, an opinion or explanation' [1] and mind is 'the part of a person that enables a person to think, feel emotions and be aware of things' [2]

But. This article conceive under "Theory of mind" something another. --Aia philosophia (talk) 14:52, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

"Theory of mind" is a very poorly chosen term even in English, but is too well-established in the literature to be changeable. Translating it part by part into Russian might not be the best choice. I expect there is a standard translation, but have no idea what it is. Looie496 (talk) 00:42, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

"Theory of mind is the ability to attribute mental states" - how theory may be ability? Theory of mind is not theory of consciousness, is't it? --Aia philosophia (talk) 06:13, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

As I said, you are right, the concept is very badly named. The blame goes to Premack and Woodruff, who invented the term in their article "Does the chimpanzee have a theory of mind?" in 1978. After 30 years and hundreds of publications, even if we agree now that the term is wrong, it is too late to change it. Anyway, since the Premack and Woodruff article was very widely-read, you could try looking for a Russian translation, to see what wording was used in the title there. Looie496 (talk) 16:02, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks :) Premack's article was't translated in russian, and it had't very widely-read... Attempts translate "theory of mind" left it in quotation mark. --Aia philosophia (talk) 18:06, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

   Perhaps the term just hit Looie's consciousness at an awkward angle; in any case, it's hardly constructive to try to fix blame. Aia ph., on the other hand may have faced a quite specific barrier: unless i fail to appreciate the exceptional cases or my sparse knowledge of the Russian language is misleading me, "the theory" and "theory" are translated to the same single Russian word. But "the theory of mind" is clear to all native English-speakers, and the phrase "theory of mind" will alert most of them (and probably native speakers of nearly all West-European languages) that "something exceptional is going on here", and that there's a somewhat subtle distinction being made:

• A theory of mind means one (purportedly) well-tested account of how minds work and/or why they work as they do.
• "The theory of mind" means a theory of mind that someone is claiming explains and predicts all the mental phenomena that any other plusible theory of mind does.
• But "theory of mind" is not a theory but a unified set of phenomenon where an individual behaves (or many individuals of a species do so) in some ways that best make sense on the hypothesis that they "at least implicitly act as if they have a theory that others have minds -- as if they know" that one or more others, with whom they interact, have a mind or minds.

Any creature that entertains, at least figuratively, such a theory about another will behave toward that other as if she either hopes that the other will understand what she intends (and thus cooperate with her), or hopes that the other will "be fooled" about her intentions (and present her with an opportunity to cheat them). In a line, "theory of mind" is the mental capability of an individual that enables him to plans to affect others' behavior.
   I'm not so far inclined to jump into editing that understanding into the article (or even try to see if its already been done) but it hasn't been done, it should be.
--Jerzy•t 22:50, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Schizophrenia?

The article mentions that some schizophrenics has impairments in their theory of mind. I strongly suspect that those are actually people with autism spectrum disorders which has been misdiagnosed as schizophrenics. Also, I don't think schizoid personality disorder exists, people with that diagnosis actually has Asperger syndrome. And yes, I am an Aspie myself.

2009-08-18 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden.

The article needs to go with what the literature says, but for what it's worth, I have personally seen people with definite paranoid schizophrenia who had great difficulty understanding what other people were thinking, and constantly attributed the wrong motives to their actions -- this is a major feature of what we call "paranoia". Looie496 (talk) 17:07, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I don’t think paranoia has anything with this to do. If I have understood it correctly persons suffering from paranoid schizophrenia imagines themselves to be persecuted by people which really doe not exist. Persons with paranoia imagine that they are persecuted by real people: it is just the persecution which is imaginary. Please correct me if I am wrong!

2009-08-24 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.247.167.70 (talk) 10:56, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

That isn't quite true -- people with paranoid schizophrenia imagine themselves persecuted by real people as well as imaginary people. That's actually one of the biggest problems with the disorder. Looie496 (talk) 18:07, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

New Title: Animal ToM

This really should be titled "Animal Theory of Mind." It very much reads like an Ethology article, almost like something written by Povinelli (or someone who's read too much Povinelli). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.33.35.132 (talk) 03:21, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Most of the article is about humans, so I don't get where you're coming from. Looie496 (talk) 05:38, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

New article in need of attention

I've created a new article (stub) for Yale's Ami Klin, a fairly high-profile autism/Asperger's researcher. As this is rather out of my field, I'm looking for any assistance in expanding the article. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 21:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Western scrub jays and food pilfering

The scrub jay is a food cacher. Here is a quote from an abstract from an article that I think needs to be included on this page:

When observed by potential pilferers at the time of caching, experienced jays that have been thieves themselves, take further protective action. Once the potential pilferers have left, they move caches those birds have seen, re-hiding them in new places. Naive birds that had no thieving experience do not do so.By focusing on the counter strategies of the cacher when previously observed by a potential pilferer, these results raise the intriguing possibility that re-caching is based on a form of mental attribution, namely the simulation of another bird’s viewpoint.

Clayton, N.S., Dally, J.M. & Emery, N.J. (2007). Social cognition by food-caching corvids: the western scrub-jay as a natural psychologist. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 362, 507–522. doi:10.1098/rstb.2006.1992 Another paper: Emery, N.J., Dally, J.M., Clayton, N.S. (2004). Western scrub-jays (Aphelocoma californica) use cognitive strategies to protect their caches from thieving conspecifics. Animal Cognition, 7, 37–44. doi: 10.1007/s10071-003-0178-7

I'd do it myself but I am not very confident in my skills. But it really seems to imply the jays have some ToM. 71.48.77.37 (talk) 23:43, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Although I am dubious about the interpretation here, I agree with you that a discussion of these facts and arguments belongs in the article. The only way to gain confidence in your skills is to use them -- why not give it a shot? It would be nice, though, to also point out the counterarguments advanced in papers such as PMID 17264056. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 17:35, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

See also, above at "Crows know what other Crows know". Vernon White ^{. . . Talk} 20:18, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

ToM in deaf children

There is an interesting paper on ToM in children who were born deaf or have become deaf before the acquisition of language. They fail in the false-belief task very much like autistic children.
The paper also implies that this is due to having hearing parents who (according to other research) are likely not to converse about imaginary or unobservable topics. This was not significantly tested though - only two out of 26 subjects had deaf parents (both passed successfully).
Candida C. Peterson, Michael Siegal (1995). Deafness, Conversation and Theory of Mind, DOI: 10.1111/j.1469-7610.1995.tb01303.x
Yamitai (talk) 02:31, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Non-human theory of mind

There are stories of Chimps lying-to or misleading their captors. For example, Lucy_Temerlin was reported to have lied when caught defecating in the wrong place, blaming it on one of her trainers (as heard on This American Life). An Orangutan named Fu Manchu hid a piece of metal used to pick a lock and escape from his cage in the Nebraska Zoo (as heard on Radiolab http://mediasearch.wnyc.org/m/28543257/shorts-fu-manchu.htm). Isn't this deceipt an indication that they understand that their captors have a different perspective? Deproduction (talk) 21:50, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Is there a reliable source discussing this? - SummerPhD (talk) 00:48, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

you don't find This American Life and Radiolab to be reliable? I inserted the reference to wnyc. The info on Lucy_Temerlin is visible everywhere, as it was a well-documented experiment. I saw a documentary on PBS (I didn't catch the title) that said that even the smartest chimps cant comprehend that another chimp/being would have a different perspective. That statement was called into question in my mind, first while reading about Lucy, and again while hearing the radiolab story about Fu Manchu http://www.radiolab.org/blogs/radiolab-blog/2010/jan/25/fu-manchu/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deproduction (talk • contribs) 02:14, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Whos theory of mind ?

Can someone add information about who originally developed Theory of Mind - I think it might be William James ? 81.141.30.252 (talk) 18:28, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

   "Theory of mind" does not refer to a scientific or scholarly theory about what minds are. ToM is one of the patterns of behavior that is typically exhibited by the minds of normal humans: When a fly is buzzing around me, i see a fancy wind-up toy that either rests or zooms; if you lean your spear against a tree on seeing me, i say to myself, "OK, she's in no rush for a fight; what is it that she's weighing in her mind?", bcz we she and i each entertain, implicitly and perhaps explicitly, a "theory" abt what the other is thinking, and how that should affect our respective behaviors.
   So, my having theory of mind means that i can ask myself, e.g., whether you have a sense of humor and i have none, leading to the conclusion that you made a joke & the proverbial pole jes' kep' me fum gittin' it. But just in case you were serious, this is addressed to anyone else who's not sure: perhaps you have made a joke that is rather meta, but perhaps you've just learned that Theory of Mind developed by evolution, before anyone asked themselves whether psychologists should consider theorizing about what Mind is... (and in that case someone probably needs to make the accompanying article clearer).
--Jerzy•t 02:27, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Plagiarism?

The entire Brain Mechanisms section might have been plagiarized, the literal section can be found on at least a wordpress blog (http://asiaaudiovisualra09puspitasani.wordpress.com/idea-brain-mind/brain-mechanisms/), where it might have had its origins, not completely sure - the section at least appears as if it came straight from someone's thesis, rather than being written for an encyclopedia. I will attempt to insert the section into Eudora (a plagiarism detection system), and see what it spits out - hopefully tomorrow. 94.214.196.189 (talk) 02:12, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

There is no doubt that the sections match, but there is good reason to believe that the Wikipedia version came first. It was added January 2009 by Bdeen (talk · contribs). The version on the blog matches the final version that Bdeen created rather than the initial version, and also lacks the references that are in the Wikipedia version. Note also that Bdeen left a note about his edits in the section of this talk page titled Edits to "Brain Mechanisms" section, above. Also there is no way of being sure that Bdeen is not the same person as Puspitasani, in which case this would not be plagiarism in either direction. Looie496 (talk) 05:38, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Section "Other tasks"

In this section, there is the following text:
"In order to make tasks more accessible for other animals, young children, and autistic individuals, theory of mind research has begun employing non-verbal paradigms. One category of tasks uses a preferential looking paradigm, with looking time as the dependent variable. For instance, Woodward[full citation needed] found that 9-month-old infants preferred looking at behaviors performed by a human hand over those made by an inanimate hand-like object."
It is not at all clear to me how preferentially looking at a human hand over an inanimate hand-like object relates to ToM theory. Please explain! Lova Falk talk 16:29, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Abbreviation (ToM)

I think it would be more scholarly to use TM as an abbreviation, not ToM. Also, this abbreviation should come at the very beginning of the article in brackets after the first words. Iain (talk) 19:40, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually, as far as I remember, all articles/books I have read use ToM. Lova Falk talk 18:51, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

That was then, this is now

Back when I studued philosophy, Theory of Mind was the philosophical study of how conscious thoughts arise in the human brain. What is that discipline called these days? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:58, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Cultural Variation - Where to Place

Evidence that theories of "theory of mind" differ across cultures. For instance, "Euro-American modern secular" model sees minds as separate containers with clear boundaries between other minds and the external environment. "Euro-American modern supernaturalist" follows the former with certain exceptions in which the mind is more permeable. And my favorite, the "mind control" model, found throughout Asia, in Thailand in particular, in which boundaries between minds and their environment are much more blurred - uncontrolled emotions can sort-of "leak" out of uncontrolled minds in the form of ghosts.

So far, researchers have identified six different models. I think it's relevant and important given the urgent need to study psychological phenomenon outside of W.E.I.R.D. cultures. But - I figured I'd check here first since I'm a newb. Also would like advice regarding where to place such a section if it's relevant/reliable enough (was thinking it might flow nicely before or after "Non-human"?).

Source: Towards an Anthropological Theory of Mind. Is it reliable enough? I thought so, but again, I'm a noob. Hope somebodies watching this! Tangelopixi (talk) 08:47, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Off topic chat

It seems that the use of this phrase is deeply ingrained with the meaning given in the text, but as a respecter of language I can't help thinking that the phrase "Theory of mind" is a mistake. As the opening sentences make clear, it is more a presumption than a theory. The underlying idea is better represented by the simple word "empathy", which is so commonly and clearly understood by everyone that an encyclopedia entry would be redundant if that simple and apt word were to be adopted. g4oep — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.96.60.31 (talk) 12:44, 9 September 2014 (UTC) Article talk pages are for discussing improvements to the article, not for general discussion of the topic. - SummerPhD (talk) 12:52, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Can we look at a bifurcating to include a theory of alien minds?

Under the guise of a character interview, Profoundly Gifted Magazine Interviews Charles Wallace Murry... talks about "theory of other minds" being usefully bifurcated into a theory of like minds and a theory of alien minds, and I am working on that in a revamped author bio for my site.

The question is significant, and one psychology Ph.D. said "I would research this if I were free to do academic research now [she was working in counseling]."

24.15.85.69 (talk) 22:34, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Let me just point out that anything that goes into a Wikipedia article must be derived from reputable published sources. That fictional "interview" does not count. Looie496 (talk) 13:29, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Habent sua fata libelli

Theory Of Mind (As Pure Act) or 'general theory of mind', the first systematic treatise by the chair of philosophy at Rome and the epistemological ontology he championed for the Italian Fascist revolution to contrast the materialist communist philosophy. Can we link that somehow to this page, since, though forgotten in the English speaking world (mostly because it's follow-up, his nigh-eight-hundred pg. magnum opus 'System of Logic' was never translated into English, due to stigma and it's late coming and lack of interest (alas, we have Heidegger, Gentile was not offensive enough to garner morbid curiosity due to how "liberal" and "left" many would be loathe to admit he *actually* (pun intended) was. It's a seminal work in world philosophy and the explosive core to the short lived Fascist movement which did influence history enough that his main English representative work should be alluded to in at least a disambig. Just don't know how would be appropriate here. 66.96.79.217 (talk) 22:52, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

False Photograph Task Does Not Test for Theory of Mind

In Other Tasks, section 4.3 of the article, the "false-photograph" task is mentioned. However, both of the references , 43 and 44 , actually serve to contrast a child's ability to complete false photograph tasks versus false belief tasks.

In a false-photograph experiment, children are not representing others' minds. Instead, they must maintain representations of the objects in the photograph. On the other hand, in a false belief experiment, children need theory of mind because they must represent others' beliefs and thoughts.

Should we revise the information on "false photograph" task? Or remove it entirely? Jlhan (talk) 10:04, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Theism

1. not to understand the theory of mind, being intellectually less than 4 years of age, and claiming that the supposedly precosmic cosmogonous bearer of personhood has the same beneficial intentions towards our own various personhoods
2. to claim that the universe is the atheistic toy of the theist god (the universe itself doesn't have intentions in Christianity, instead god controls is; in animism it has intentions, and in physics it doesn't have intentions but exhibits probabilistic ethology [behavioral patterns]) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.4.218.168 (talk) 11:13, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

References

Request to elaborate Evolution of TOM section and create new Cultural Variation section

For a final project in a graduate evolutionary psychology class. Tangelopixi (talk) 03:15, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Genetic based eating disorder connection

First section claims that genetic-based eating disorders can cause ToM deficits. I couldnt find this in the linked citations, could someone point it out? 98.10.36.202 (talk) 23:21, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Importance of using up to date sources

Scientific concessuss has charged drastically in regards to theory of mind over the last thirty years. If you are adding references to this article, please be sure to use recent sources!

Removal of information

I have been asked here to justify my previous removal of parts of this article - the information is out of date, and more recent (past twenty years) scientific consensus disagrees with it, as seen in the sources I cited in my edit. -- ☽☆ NotCharizard (talk) 05:29, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Hello Notcharizard and thanks for bringing this to the talk page. The first paragraph you removed is from the lead. It goes as follows:

Deficits in theory of mind can occur in people with autism spectrum disorders, genetic-based eating disorders, schizophrenia, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, cocaine addiction, and brain damage suffered from alcohol's neurotoxicity; deficits associated with opiate addiction are reversed after prolonged abstinence. Having a theory of mind is similar to but not identical with having the capacity for empathy or for sympathy.

Could you spell out in detail how, as you claim, "...the information is out of date, and more recent (past twenty years) scientific consensus disagrees with it..."? Please keep in mind: all the sources cited here are from the past twenty years. Phlsph7 (talk) 05:49, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Oh, I see. I assumed you were talking about the main article and only disussed my reason for that, I am sorry. My removal of that in the lead was because I thought perhaps it may have been too long, I have been told in regards to other articles that I've made/drafted that the lead needs to be kept fairly small as a strong summary of the article for people to get a quick impression, and I thought that specific detail mightn't have fitted in the lead. I sought advice at the Teahouse and they told me it's very important to be careful when changing the lead because of how important it is, so in future I'll be sure to use to talk the talk page before doing so. -- ☽☆ NotCharizard (talk) 16:17, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Whatever the faults of the current lead, excessive length is not one of them. One of the maintenance templates for this article is Template:Lead too short. Phlsph7 (talk) 04:55, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

That's fair. Do you take issue with my edits outside of the lead? -- ☽☆ NotCharizard (talk) 00:40, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Well, I have similar doubts here as well. For example, could you provide reliable sources for your justification in relation to the removal of the following paragraph?

Understanding of others' intentions is another critical precursor to understanding other minds because intentionality, or "aboutness", is a fundamental feature of mental states and events. The "intentional stance" was defined by Daniel Dennett as an understanding that others' actions are goal-directed and arise from particular beliefs or desires. Both two- and three-year-old children could discriminate when an experimenter intentionally vs. accidentally marked a box with stickers as baited.

The mere fact that the sources were not published in the past 20 years is not a sufficient reason to remove the material, so you would have to show how there is a clear consensus in the more recent publications against the claims raised here, like concerning the role of intentionality or the study about the children.

Similar doubts would apply to other removed paragraphs. It seems that you are still in the process of getting started as a wiki editor and the changes in questions are extensive and concern a big article with many monthly views. So I would suggest that you keep the issue at the back of your mind and get back to it once you have more experience. This way, it might be easier for you to distinguish the problematic aspects of your changes from the less controversial ones. Phlsph7 (talk) 05:36, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

That makes sense in regards to coming back once I've a bit more experience, I think I got a bit over my head trying to do a big article. Would it be okay if for now, if rather than deleting some paragraphs in the autism section, I added some info with good sources that disagrees with what has already been said? I appreciate also you explaining everything clearly, I know it must be frustrating sometimes dealing with new editors getting used to stuff. -- ☽☆ NotCharizard (talk) 08:41, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

We were all new editors once and making mistakes is an important part in figuring out how things work. Thanks for your efforts at improving this article. The paragraph on the "double empathy problem" sounds good to me. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:19, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Outdated ableist ideas about autism and neurodiversity in this article

The idea that neurodivergent people lack empathy is considered to be wrong and rooted in the fact that neurotypical people are misunderstanding and misnaming autistic behavior. The article also implies that empathy is inherent to being neurotypical, which is just simply incorrect. 147.134.61.128 (talk) 17:49, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Fails to include psychopathy

The article doesn't mention psychopathy or sociopathy anywhere, and yet theory of mind is an important aspect of it. Some sources:

• Theory of mind and mentalizing ability in antisocial personality disorders with and without psychopathy (2004)
• Theory of Mind in the psychopath (2008)
• Psychopathic traits and theory of mind task performance: A Systematic review and meta-analysis]
• Theory of mind and psychopathy: can psychopathic individuals read the 'language of the eyes'? (2003)
• The role of the orbitofrontal cortex in affective theory of mind deficits in criminal offenders with psychopathic tendencies (2009)
• How Psychopaths See the World (2018).

More: Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 10:34, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

ToM in LLMs

Does it make sense to include the perfomance of large language models on theory of mind tests? See for example Testing theory of mind in large language models and humans Limpaldu (talk) 13:21, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Lead section maintenance tags

The tag requesting rewriting of the lead section is unclear. Is this issue addressed? If not maybe we can add a more descriptive request.

It seems to me that this article is well cited for the most part and the request for more citations is no longer needed. The sections where citations are needed appear to have to maintenance tags requesting that. I just wanted to check here before removing it. Finq (talk) 17:00, 18 November 2024 (UTC)