Perner 2010.pdf

Page 253Anti-cognitivism infiltrates theory of mind 253unexpected change and retrieval of an object. So it is unlikely that the existingdata provide evidence of simultaneity of mastering different situation–purpose combinations required to rule out learning of behavior rules. 16 However,researchers are now working intensively on a variety of belief-inducingsituations.Symposium S-104 at ICP 2008 contained several ingenious contributions. Ican pick but one for detailed analysis: Scott and Baillargeon (2008) showedinfants two identically looking dotted cups and a striped cup and demonstratedthat one dotted cup and the striped cup rattle when shaken, while theother dotted cup remains silent. In the false-belief condition infants then sawhow the rattling of one of the dotted cups was demonstrated to a new person,who was then encouraged to do the same with one of the two other cups.Infants looked longer when that person shook the striped cup than the otherdotted cup. When, in a knowledge condition, that person was present whilethe properties of the cups were demonstrated to the infants themselves, theirlooking pattern reversed. How might the mentalist analyse the underlyingcognitive competence?NOT FOR DISTRIBUTIONMentalist rules:General rules:(application of CIP1 takes precedence over CIP2)(Sb-CIP1): IF a person looks at a demo of an action on an objectproducing an effect,THEN she knows that this action on that object has that effect.(Sb-CIP2): IF a person looks at a demo of an action on an objectproducing an effect,THEN she believes that the same action is more likely to producethe same effect on the same kind of (similarly looking) object thanon a different kind of object.(Sd-CIP): IF a person is asked to produce an effect, THEN she wants toproduce the effect.(dbA-CIP): IF a person wants to produce an effect, THEN she will usean object of which she knows/believes that it is most likely to producethat effect.Application to specific situations:(FB): The person looks at the demo of the dotted cup being shaken andproducing a rattling noise. The person knows that shaking the dotteddemo cup will produce a noise. One cup is more similar to the democup than the other. The person believes that the more similar cup ismore likely to produce the effect (Sb-CIP2, since 1 does not apply).The person is asked to use one of the other cups to produce theeffect. Person wants to produce the effect (Sd-CIP). Hence the personPerception, attention, and action:International Perspectives on Psychological Science (Volume1). Peter A. Frensch and Ralf Schwarzer (Eds). 2010.Published by Psychology Press on behalf of the International Union of Psychological Science.This proof is for the use of the author only. Any substantial or systematic reproduction,re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden.15:58:17:03:10Page 253