Biological Basis of Behaviour – Lecture 9.1 and 9.1
Week 5: Introduction to Theory of Mind
Tactical Deception
Deception is one way to study theory of mind. An intent to deceive presupposes some kind of theory
of mind, but you have to establish intent, and that’s not easy on an anecdotal basis.
Things we must consider:
- Dishonest signals might derive from operant conditioning
- Anecdotes of primate dishonesty may not be that useful, we need more applicable vidence
- Deception and intention
- Understanding the intentions of the individual to be deceived
all of these are needed to establish some kind of Theory of Mind...
Theory of mind in primates
3 levels of evidence about animals’ apparently deceptive acts
Level 0: Unintentional - the result is a "windfall gain"- something that happens by accident
Level 1: Activities apparently directed towards a goal that can only be achieved if the
receiver is deceived (but is learned, not understood)
Level 2: "Mindreading", involving
the attribution of intentions to
another animal – genuine theory of mind
Explanation of these levels and how they interact:
So, for example, there are anecdotes of monkeys in a troop out scouring the forest and one comes
across a food item. Normally they would have to share it with the others, or might even lose it to a
more dominant member of the troop, but just at that moment another food item is discovered and
noticed by the rest of the troop (including our monkey) whose attention is attracted to that area–
leaving our monkey alone to eat the food. This is a windfall gain – there was no intent to deceive.
But say that they learned (as a result of this experience) that if they look in a certain direction in a
certain way, they get food when they have some. Next time they encounter a food item – they might
do the same thing. That could be very quick operant or instrumental learning. It still might not be
deception. It could be a learned behaviour, not one based on working out the situation and then
deliberately manipulating it.
Mindreading
Ability to infer what another animal can and cannot see
Attributes mental states to others
Acquired by age 5 in most children
The second Tutorial will focus on this issue.
, Theory of Mind (TOM)
A typical TOM problem is illustrated below.It can be applied to animals too. In it two observers are
depicted, one of whom knows what is in the box. The question is which one should a child select to
learn what is in the box? The ability to answer this question correctly would suggest that the
respondent had some idea that one observer possessed mental states that differed both from their
own and from other observers.- Sally, although she is touching the box, she is not looking into it
Here’s a classic theory of mind problem. It
can be applied to animals other than
human as well. We’ll study that in the
tutorial. For now, children around 4 can
solve this correctly. Earlier in life they might
pick Sally though.
Some key consideration points…
How would you determine if one of your friends had a theory of mind if you couldn’t use
language?
What would you be able to come up with? You don’t have to pretend to be any less
intelligent than you are – you just aren’t allowed to speak to one another or use written
language.
Self-concept in primates
Here’s one approach to this problem.
- Theory of others' minds IMPLIES theory of their own minds IMPLIES concept of
the self
The mirror self-recognition experiment
- chimpanzees, orang-utangs, (some) gorillas = pass this test
- dolphins = pass this test
- parrots = not demonstrated so far
Gallup’s Mirror Test
• Gallup (1970) studied the reactions of chimpanzees and macaques to their mirror reflections
(8 hours per day for 10-14 days)
• Over time, chimpanzees showed an increase in the number of self-directed behaviours that
relied on the use of the mirror
– Grooming parts of the body that would otherwise be visually inaccessible
– Picking bits of food from the teeth whilst looking in the mirror
Week 5: Introduction to Theory of Mind
Tactical Deception
Deception is one way to study theory of mind. An intent to deceive presupposes some kind of theory
of mind, but you have to establish intent, and that’s not easy on an anecdotal basis.
Things we must consider:
- Dishonest signals might derive from operant conditioning
- Anecdotes of primate dishonesty may not be that useful, we need more applicable vidence
- Deception and intention
- Understanding the intentions of the individual to be deceived
all of these are needed to establish some kind of Theory of Mind...
Theory of mind in primates
3 levels of evidence about animals’ apparently deceptive acts
Level 0: Unintentional - the result is a "windfall gain"- something that happens by accident
Level 1: Activities apparently directed towards a goal that can only be achieved if the
receiver is deceived (but is learned, not understood)
Level 2: "Mindreading", involving
the attribution of intentions to
another animal – genuine theory of mind
Explanation of these levels and how they interact:
So, for example, there are anecdotes of monkeys in a troop out scouring the forest and one comes
across a food item. Normally they would have to share it with the others, or might even lose it to a
more dominant member of the troop, but just at that moment another food item is discovered and
noticed by the rest of the troop (including our monkey) whose attention is attracted to that area–
leaving our monkey alone to eat the food. This is a windfall gain – there was no intent to deceive.
But say that they learned (as a result of this experience) that if they look in a certain direction in a
certain way, they get food when they have some. Next time they encounter a food item – they might
do the same thing. That could be very quick operant or instrumental learning. It still might not be
deception. It could be a learned behaviour, not one based on working out the situation and then
deliberately manipulating it.
Mindreading
Ability to infer what another animal can and cannot see
Attributes mental states to others
Acquired by age 5 in most children
The second Tutorial will focus on this issue.
, Theory of Mind (TOM)
A typical TOM problem is illustrated below.It can be applied to animals too. In it two observers are
depicted, one of whom knows what is in the box. The question is which one should a child select to
learn what is in the box? The ability to answer this question correctly would suggest that the
respondent had some idea that one observer possessed mental states that differed both from their
own and from other observers.- Sally, although she is touching the box, she is not looking into it
Here’s a classic theory of mind problem. It
can be applied to animals other than
human as well. We’ll study that in the
tutorial. For now, children around 4 can
solve this correctly. Earlier in life they might
pick Sally though.
Some key consideration points…
How would you determine if one of your friends had a theory of mind if you couldn’t use
language?
What would you be able to come up with? You don’t have to pretend to be any less
intelligent than you are – you just aren’t allowed to speak to one another or use written
language.
Self-concept in primates
Here’s one approach to this problem.
- Theory of others' minds IMPLIES theory of their own minds IMPLIES concept of
the self
The mirror self-recognition experiment
- chimpanzees, orang-utangs, (some) gorillas = pass this test
- dolphins = pass this test
- parrots = not demonstrated so far
Gallup’s Mirror Test
• Gallup (1970) studied the reactions of chimpanzees and macaques to their mirror reflections
(8 hours per day for 10-14 days)
• Over time, chimpanzees showed an increase in the number of self-directed behaviours that
relied on the use of the mirror
– Grooming parts of the body that would otherwise be visually inaccessible
– Picking bits of food from the teeth whilst looking in the mirror
