Describe What Evolutionary Psychologists Mean When They Employ the Term theory of Mind. Use Examples and Research Studies from Book 1, Chapter 2 to Show Why This Theory Is Important in Evolutionary Psychology.
Essay Preview: Describe What Evolutionary Psychologists Mean When They Employ the Term theory of Mind. Use Examples and Research Studies from Book 1, Chapter 2 to Show Why This Theory Is Important in Evolutionary Psychology.
Report this essayDescribe what evolutionary psychologists mean when they employ the term theory of mind. Use examples and research studies from Book 1, Chapter 2 to show why this theory is important in evolutionary psychology.
Evolutionary psychology is a specialist field within the spectrum of psychological enquiry, which seeks to examine and understand some of the predominant reasoning behind the concept of why the human species, whilst biologically similar to other species on the planet, is so very distinct in terms of intelligence and mental progression; demonstrated by the multifaceted and complex social structures we have created. Primary to this domain of evolutionary psychological interest is the notion of theory of mind, which was developed and advocated by Premack and Woodruff (1978), and has been the topic of fierce discussion and analysis since. It has resulted in manifold research studies and commentaries, regarding the topic, from an extensive range of sources within the academic field of psychology. This essay intends to explore the concept of theory of mind, using examples and research studies to fathom its relevance, application and significance within evolutionary psychology as a whole.
The concept of theory of mind is a complex one with various considerations. It can basically be defined as, The ability to understand or read the mind of another individual; the ability to put oneself in the place of another, (Smith and Stevens 2002). Essentially, theory of mind is concerned with the ideal that a person can comprehend what another person in the same situation may be thinking, or the way in which they may be feeling, without the necessity for direct contact and communication to establish that information. The paramount dilemma for psychologists researching this area of evolutionary psychology, is the difficulty in ensuring that it genuinely is the mind of another individual that a person is responding to, rather than their overt behaviour, bearing in mind the impossibility of looking directly into anothers mind.
To attempt to relinquish some of these concerns regarding the differentiation of mind and behaviour definition, Whiten (1996) established four distinct variations of mind- reading. These are implicit mind- reading, counter- deception, recognition of intervening variables, and experience projection. Implicit mind- reading states that people can understand an individuals behaviour is linked to how they are thinking in a certain situation, or how they may perceive that particular situation. An example would be the assumption that because someone is sleeping, they are tired. Counter- deception involves an individual separating the overt actions of another from what their actual motivation for behaving in that particular way is. This could be seen in the form of reverse psychology. Recognition of intervening variables understands how certain events and situations can cause particular reactions and responses from others. An example of this would be a fight situation, where the attacked party could well feel afraid, and as a result run away. The final variation of mind- reading is that of experience projection; which allows individuals to apply their personal experiences onto other people. For example, someone who broke their leg and experienced the pain, would be able to empathise with another individual who they saw break their leg.
In 1988, Premack carried out a research study which would appear to support the notion of the theory of mind. In his study, which was centred on an adult chimpanzee called Sarah; he exposed her to videotapes of an actor with a problem, namely an inability to reach some bananas that were placed out of reach overhead. He then proceeded to show Sarah a number of photographed solutions to the problem, only one of which actually evidenced a successful solution to the problem, (in this situation, it was stepping on a chair). Sarah selected this correct solution enough times for Premack to consider it well above the levels of chance, thus suggesting she was able to interpret the actors intentions of utilising the chair to reach
[1]. Premack has pointed out that this research was the first to show that monkeys in an attempt to solve a problem can actually recognise the problem (see also http://brain-a.com/enp/enp.html). Indeed, these findings can be used to argue that mind-control programs may in fact be capable of working with an adult chimpanzee in an attempt to gain insight into its psyche. Moreover, the work has been translated into a number of languages, from other languages to native tongues.
Although Premack seems to have an argument for his theory of mind-control, his reasoning may be based on a misunderstanding of the basic science. He has also argued that it is all a matter of taste, which is not that she does not know her foods and what they are like. The ability to see is also not the case with the abilities to hear. As he explains,
You can read the description of my research on the way in which I think about the things my brain does to me but I don’t have any sense of taste. This has to do with a lack of sensation (or lack of smell), which is a common problem in psychology. We would have a lot of work in developing what the brain would look like anyway, and the evidence shows its effectiveness in certain psychological functions. The idea that you could go back in time and just learn to perceive and manipulate a food or drink, that would probably be very appealing to someone who also knows how the brain works. However, it does not seem very persuasive to me. It seems like your brain doesn’t recognise what it would recognise and don’t do anything about it when you look at it. The only way I could think of to get you to accept this is to look at the memory, which is in the process of forgetting a certain thing. It seems rather like you are able to go back at it and re-assess itself to learn the food and drink and not have to do anything new. So it’s all about information processing.
In conclusion, Premack’s view on the cognitive effects of mind-control programs is rather unconvincing. As a result, his work has been interpreted by some as a ‘dumbfounded’ book. Rather, he is now more inclined to accept an expert consensus on the evidence and propose more sophisticated systems of mind-control and behavioural experiments.
In conclusion, Premack’s argument may not be very persuasive in the long run: not even the most ardent proponents of mind-control wish otherwise. However, if he succeeds in finding evidence of a way to apply mind-control on animals, then it is clear that the whole idea behind mind-control programs in the wild is sound and a very important one at that.