User:Skaplan1/Attention Models

Theory Theory new article content ...

Introduction Theory theory is one hypothesis attempting to explain the Theory Of Mind; Simulation Theory is another. Its core ideals are that, starting at a young age, children begin to form their own personal hypotheses about the world around them, as well as the people functioning in them. Although many theory theorists concentrate mostly on preschool-aged children due to the speed at which the hypotheses are tested and altered, this process continues throughout the entirety of the human lifespan. Therefore, this theory relies on mental analysis and keen observation rather than empathy.

Transitions Between Ages Two And Five Two year olds are true mentalists, but their platform of knowledge is centered on desire and perception. Their explanations and interpretations of events all tie back to those two key points. This gives them a level one understanding: a completely selfish interpretation of all that occurs. Most predictions made are often incorrect, eventually leading the desire-perception theory to be deemed incorrect. At age three, children begin moving away from this hypothesis and form a more representational model. Cognitive intellectual vocabulary sees an increase, as beliefs, dreams, and imagery become key components. Explanations and interpretations are no longer based upon desires, but beliefs. Misrepresentation is a common occurrence, however, leading to false belief errors when making predictions. It is somewhere between the ages of four and five that a child’s mind finishes this major cognitive transition and adopts a fully representational model. This, in turn, allows explanations to be based upon representational character of desires and beliefs, leading to correctly answering false belief tasks (Gopnik and Wellman, 1992).

Arguments For Theory Theory -Autism And Asberger's Syndrome The fields of Autism research, sociopathic and psychopathic behavior, and reading facial expressions can all be used as support for theory theory. One of the latest developments in understanding Autism and its less severe form, Asberger’s Syndrome, is to compare the deficits exhibited in these patients with those of brain trauma patients and contrast them with the proper cognitive development required for theory theory (Lyons & Fitzgerald, 2004). Those exhibiting trauma to the right hemisphere behave similarly to those diagnosed with any degree of Autism: incorporation of connotation, episodic memory, establishment of representational sets, humor, mind reading, social cognition, language, and administrative functions are all affected. When assessing the frontal lobe, more similarities appear: there are visible decreases from normal levels in both sets of patients in social development, communication, attention, emotional control, spontaneity, and the effective application of knowledge. When adding theory theory into the mix, such observations are not the least bit surprising: these areas of the brain are specifically linked with the cognitive skills used in both mind reading and cognitive functioning, most important of all being language. When particularly high-functioning individuals with Autism and Asberger’s were given extremely sophisticated theory of mind exams, there was clear indication of mind reading dysfunction. It is important to note that there was no evidence pointing to defects in these patients’ mirror neurons since their physical movements were not commented upon. Such a presentation markedly does not support the simulation theorists’ opinion on how mirror neurons work. -Study Of Facial Expressions Since the middle of the twentieth century, leaps and bounds have been made in the study of facial expression of emotion. It was discovered that all humans on the planet have at least seven emotions in common, frequently referred to as the seven universal emotions. Great effort has gone into identifying each facial muscle, groups of facial muscles, and what emotion each action unit expresses. This led to the detection of microexpressions, action unit activity lasting less than a quarter of a second in length (Ekman, 1999). While many spend hours diligently studying this material to become more proficient at understanding the emotional expressions of others, some are naturally gifted with the ability (Ekman, O'Sullivan, & Frank, 1999). For the talented few, observation is critical to reading minds. The rest of the population, although not initially experts in decoding each action unit observed, is mostly adept at the very least in determining the most basic emotions, especially when presented on the faces of family and friends. In either case, there is no need to simulate the other’s thoughts, finding simulation theory rather useless. -Sociopathic And Psychopathic Behavior Sociopathic and psychopathic behaviors have become a widely studied topic, gaining increased interest within the last few decades. The American Psychological Association’s publication on the classification of mental disorders has, in its most recent edition, filed both under the title of antisocial personality disorder. Currently working to make psychopathic behavior a subtype of this disorder in the next edition, the APA currently defines antisocial behavior as being “characterized by a lack of regard for the moral or legal standards in the local culture. There is a marked inability to get along with others or abide by societal rules. Individuals with this disorder are sometimes called psychopaths or sociopaths” (Antisocial Personality Disorder, n.d.). Some typical observances amongst sociopaths and psychopaths, specifically, are: “deceitfulness, as indicated by repeated lying, use of aliases, or conning others for personal profit or pleasure…reckless disregard for safety of self or others…[and] lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another” (DSM-IV-TR, 2004). Whether one is speaking of a sociopath with complete a lack of empathy or a psychopath who also exhibits violent tendencies, the ability to put himself or herself in another’s shoes, per say, in order to read the other’s mind exactly as simulation theory suggests one would is completely lacking. However, people with these disorders are completely able to read the minds of others; they have proven this often while in the process of manipulating both the people around them and the situations they find themselves in. Their mirror neurons, still assumed to be completely functional, are clearly acting as imitators rather than simulators. When looking at this from another perspective entirely, it becomes clear that the average person cannot or will not simulate the minds of such members of society do to the existence of a conscience. These facts go against simulation theory’s hypothesis on how mirror neurons function, as well as the theory’s core beliefs.

Arguments Against Theory Theory Some popular arguments that are against theory theory and in support of simulation theory are the following: one cannot misinterpret one’s own mental state, attributing different mental states to another should not be expected to be easier or harder, and thinking that children at those ages have such a presence of mind is to consider them to be terribly precocious. Although the first argument is true, one cannot put aside the entirety of his or her thought system and accurately construct another’s, especially at that age. This also applies to the second argument for one cannot feel utter empathetic understanding without personally experiencing certain situations that need to be accounted for in order to assure one hundred percent accuracy. Lastly, the third argument severely underestimates the mental abilities of children; although popular culture values the knowledge that comes with age, the curiosity that toddlers possess continually leads them to explore for the answers to a multitude of new questions with frequently successful results. Another issue is the possible holistic nature of the theory. Simulation theorists fear that theory theory is not conducive to allowing multiple individuals to hypothesize the same concepts or to allowing an individual the ability retain a singular concept for a large amount of time. A related apprehension concerning this subject matter is whether or not there will be a basis for comparison (Margolis & Laurence, 2011). First, one could never guess based on this particular worry, but most Western cultures strive to have each person think for himself or herself rather than allowing someone else to make all of the important decisions. Second, the length of time a personal hypothesis remains unchanged should not be the priority, but the accuracy of the hypothesis; granted, flexible theories can get hard to keep track of, but individuals’ personalities do not often change terribly quickly, if at all. Finally, all should take comfort in the fact that diversity in thinking is what advances knowledge on the off chance that everyone’s theories become incompatible.