Human adults are good at reading the minds of others to distinguish accidental from intentional behaviour. So are babies and animals, as Jason Goldman reveals.
Related
(Science Photo Library)
Can this sneaky chimp read minds?
Why inept people think they are much smarter
Why the stupid say they’re smart
(Taro Taylor)
Brain test to identify rebels
Why science needs imagination and beauty
Secret to thinking like a genius
Do all animals need sleep?
Do all animals need sleep?
Animal behaviour in the boardroom
Animal behaviour in the boardroom
Monkey business might mean mucking around, but some companies are finding inspiration in the chimp world.
Say I poured hot coffee all over you. After you got over the initial shock, and perhaps the second-degree burns, you would probably be pretty angry with me. But might your anger be diluted if I made it clear I spilled my drink on you out of clumsiness rather than malice? In either case, my actions would have been the same: my arm rotates my hand, the coffee escapes the mug and ends up on your newly-ironed shirt. Somehow, though, you can effortlessly distinguish between an accident and purposeful behaviour, and adjust your reactions accordingly.
As part of my column, I am exploring the abilities of our species, and those of our non-human cousins, to understand that others have beliefs, desires and intentions that differ from our own – known as "theory of mind". Last time, I looked at deception. Humans, chimpanzees, rhesus monkeys, ravens, and domestic dogs are able to make basic predictions about what others know. The ability to deceive relies upon being able to make assumptions about what others know – essentially a basic form of mind reading. This provides insight not only into others' knowledge states but also into their most likely behaviours. In short, they allow us to predict the future.
This skill rests upon our ability to infer the goals that underlie others' actions. And to do that, we need to be able to distinguish between accidental and intentional behaviour.
We humans attribute intention almost without thinking about it. Imagine, for example, a woman standing near a bank of lifts, raising her knee into the air. If her arms are holding a stack of books, you might infer that she is trying to press the call button with her knee. But if her hands are free, you might assume that she is simply stretching her leg. You are effortlessly able to interpret the woman's actions, and then evaluate the context to determine what the goal might be. By knowing her goal, you can make predictions about her later actions.
Still not convinced? Here's another example. Imagine you're an alien and during your first visit to Earth you encounter a group of humans playing the game bobbing for apples, in which participants attempt to retrieve a floating apple from a large tub filled with water using only their mouths. Surely, you might think, using their hands would be more efficient. Being an intelligent alien, you might infer that the humans' arms are paralysed, or that apples on Earth are for some reason harder to grasp with fingers than with teeth. Or that the players are washing their faces. If you keep watching, you might eventually come to understand the game, its rules and goal. As a result you could make educated guesses about the future actions of participants.
This is precisely the problem that humans solve every time we observe the overt behaviours of others. We have to read beyond the superficial properties of actions in order to understand goals and intentions.
Hands-free test
Human infants can do this too. Psychologists Gyorgy Gergely, Harold Bekkering, and Ildiko Kiraly, devised an experiment involving 14-month-olds sitting across a table from an experimenter. Between them was a light which could be turned on simply by tapping on it. The researcher began by leaning forward and tapping the light with her forehead. For half of the infants, her hands were clearly visible and free, while for the second group, they were holding a blanket around her shoulders. The infants in the first group imitated the researcher, using their foreheads to switch on the light, while most of the second group used their hands.
Source: http://www.bbc.com/
No comments:
Post a Comment