1. Which way to your mind? theories of mentalising… and how they run into trouble

2. do we have to learn theory? Science is built up with facts, as a house is with stones. But a collection of facts is no more a science than a heap of stones is a house. maxi task own/other infantsimitationadultsasd

3. like a closed book... thoughts, knowledge,...., the mind are not observable so how could we possibly know?

4. like a closed book... mental states inferred from behaviour as other unobservable particles are inferred from observables or do we simulate: imagine ourselves in that situation? Does Lizzy think these examples are grammatical?

5. the contenders theory theory* stance towards agent as object of investigation rules/ initial conditions ➜ explain/ predict behaviour simulation theory place in the position of the agent proceed as though our mental states are roughly congruent with those of target *so good they named it twice

6. how fast is your car? how fast would your car go up this hill? theory on car road in questio n power of engine transmiss ion of power surface resistanc e

7. every time... all the time...? first time you see unexpected transfer next 20 times you see that a person did not see something moved familiar vs. unfamiliar conditions

8. what do we need how can we know what someone else is thinking? theory: charting development testable predictions is development gradual or a radical conceptual shift? Wellman, Cross & Watson, 2001:178 studies

9. what’s the shift? children below 4 give wrong answer? why? lack of rule: seeing = knowing not seeing = not knowing

10. do children understand that seeing = knowing I’ve taken one of the things out of this bag and put it in this box. I walk, I walk-ed, I run, I run-ed Sodian & Wimmer, 1987 cannot see, but children aged 5: it was an m&m would someone else (with the same info) know it was an m&m? no inference neglect

11. does this rule explain fb failure? Robinson & Mitchell, 1995 which twin had stayed outside? 85% 3-year olds give correct answer but only 30% correct predictions early seeing - knowing link, but no FB passing Robinson & Whitcombe, 2003 3 y.o. change statement depending on who looked in the box what’s in here? No, it’s something else!

12. to have or not to have? Object Location False Belief Location

13. from wrong to right: step or curve? Wellman et al. data supports a radical conceptual shift but: change from wrong to right is gradual children give systematically incorrect responses if you do not have a rule responses should be unsystematic Age % correct FB Wellman et al. rule-based

14. from wrong to right: step or curve? development explained: from desire theorist Maxi wants the chocolate to believe theorist Maxi’s desire will be thwarted what about Smarties? do you want Smarties or a pencil? Age % correct FB Wellman et al. rule-based

15. explaining systematically incorrect answers default: my own mental state report the more salient default gradually get better at setting aside own and take on other perspective my own mind as model of the world default - my set of beliefs

16. deceptive box test Gopnik and Astington (1988) When you first saw this tube, before we opened it, what did you think was inside? children aged 3 cannot acknowledge own prior FB assumption: run simulation based on own mental processes must understand own mental states first must understand that *I* can have a FB access to current mental states access to prior mental states through simulation?

17. the curse of salience knowledge

18. so... which one is it? development is gradual salience matters children understand that seeing = knowing without understanding FB.... but they do overapply some rules adults influenced by own knowledge on jug content children are not

19. rules and imagination Laura was sitting in her room when Tony came/ went into the room. The toy car was spinning on the floor when Julia came/ went into the room. Ziegler et al. 2005

20. ontogeny of mentalising neural mapping between observed and executed movements Meltzoff (2005): first person experience creates a map linking their own mind and behaviour. map can be used to understand other minds because others are ‘like me’ imitationsimulationrules

21. how can we explain asd? no one cognitive theory can explain pattern of success and failure documented problems with imitation some pass FB tasks can use rules, but not take empathic stance imitationsimulationrules

22. two routes... summary simulation is primary children have to use this early in development rule-based shortcuts for familiar problems revert to simulation when faced with novel problem my mind your mind

23. at least one small problem... how does infant competence fit into this? is imitation in ASD really impaired (Hamilton, 2009)

24. key references Mitchell, P., Currie, G., & Ziegler, F. (2009). Two routes to perspective: Simulation and rule-use as approaches to mentalizing. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 27(3), 513-543 Hamilton (2009) Goals, intentions and mental states: Challenges for theories of autism Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry