Skip to main content

Poor Sally, Mean 'ole Anne, and Monkeys

 


In the study of autism, a meta-theory called the “theory of mind” refers to a “theory” that the typical development of the nervous system enables. This development is said to prompt an intuitive understanding that other people have minds and points of view different from one's own. This hard-wired neurological "theory" typically develops around the time a child is four years old.

Simon Baron-Cohen and Uta Frith are credited with developing the idea, the meta-theory of the theory of minds, based on a story they told children that involved Sally and Anne.

Sally put a ball into a basket and went out for a walk. While she was gone, mean ole Anne took the ball out of the basket and put it into a box. When Sally came back, she wanted to play with the ball. Where, the children are asked, will Sally look for the ball?

Neurotypical children figured out that Sally would look in the basket [picture above!] and be disappointed. They had a “theory of mind.” They were looking at this from Sally’s point of view. Children with Down’s Syndrome, too, often figured this out. Down’s Syndrome need not impede the development of this particular capability. But autistic children consistently had trouble with this, and expected Sally to look in the box, which after all is where the experimenter just told them the ball is!

The Baron-Cohen and Frith publication in 1985 has excited a good deal of continuing debate. And not just because Baron-Cohen’s name sounds like he’s the guy who plays Borat in the movies.

Interestingly, there has been progress in identifying the neurology behind the “theory of mind” in this sense. I've mention this before in this blog, but I'll repeat it today. 

The May 19, 2017 issue of SCIENCE carries a report with the title "A dedicated network for social interactional processing in the primate brain."

It would be difficult to get monkeys to sit still and listen to the above story, so the experimenters use movies. Specifically videos of other monkeys engaged in social interactions. The video viewing monkeys were at this time brain-scanned for neuronal activity.

The researchers found that a subset of the brain of the spectator monkey was active exclusively during monkey-monkey screen interactions, NOT when the "actor monkeys" were dealing with objects. Further, the network activated in monkeys by seeing other monkeys interacting "shares some of its components ... with a possible homolog of the human network involved in the theory of mind."


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A Story About Coleridge

This is a quote from a memoir by Dorothy Wordsworth, reflecting on a trip she took with two famous poets, her brother, William Wordsworth, and their similarly gifted companion, Samuel Taylor Coleridge.   We sat upon a bench, placed for the sake of one of these views, whence we looked down upon the waterfall, and over the open country ... A lady and gentleman, more expeditious tourists than ourselves, came to the spot; they left us at the seat, and we found them again at another station above the Falls. Coleridge, who is always good-natured enough to enter into conversation with anybody whom he meets in his way, began to talk with the gentleman, who observed that it was a majestic waterfall. Coleridge was delighted with the accuracy of the epithet, particularly as he had been settling in his own mind the precise meaning of the words grand, majestic, sublime, etc., and had discussed the subject with William at some length the day before. “Yes, sir,” says Coleridge, “it is a majesti

Five Lessons from the Allegory of the Cave

  Please correct me if there are others. But it seems to be there are five lessons the reader is meant to draw from the story about the cave.   First, Plato  is working to devalue what we would call empiricism. He is saying that keeping track of the shadows on the cave wall, trying to make sense of what you see there, will NOT get you to wisdom. Second, Plato is contending that reality comes in levels. The shadows on the wall are illusions. The solid objects being passed around behind my back are more real than their shadows are. BUT … the world outside the the cave is more real than that — and the sun by which that world is illuminated is the top of the hierarchy. So there isn’t a binary choice of real/unreal. There are levels. Third, he equates realness with knowability.  I  only have opinions about the shadows. Could I turn around, I could have at least the glimmerings of knowledge. Could I get outside the cave, I would really Know. Fourth, the parable assigns a task to philosophers

Searle: The Chinese Room

John Searle has become the object of accusations of improper conduct. These accusations even have some people in the world of academic philosophy saying that instructors in that world should try to avoid teaching Searle's views. That is an odd contention, and has given rise to heated exchanges in certain corners of the blogosphere.  At Leiter Reports, I encountered a comment from someone describing himself as "grad student drop out." GSDO said: " This is a side question (and not at all an attempt to answer the question BL posed): How important is John Searle's work? Are people still working on speech act theory or is that just another dead end in the history of 20th century philosophy? My impression is that his reputation is somewhat inflated from all of his speaking engagements and NYRoB reviews. The Chinese room argument is a classic, but is there much more to his work than that?" I took it upon myself to answer that on LR. But here I'll tak