A solid understanding of theory of mind (ToM) is extremely important to understanding some of the fallacies that derive from its misapplication. ToM “is the ability to attribute mental states—beliefs, intents, desires, pretending, knowledge, etc.—to oneself and others and to understand that others have beliefs, desires and intentions that are different from one's own.”[1] To better understand this definition, let us consider a situation where ToM is applied both practically and accurately.
While Bob was out shopping, his wife, Mary, poured all of his whiskey down the sink. After Bob returned home, his boss, Phil, came over to visit and asked Bob for a drink of whiskey. Upon hearing this, Mary quickly excused herself and left the house.
If the above passage seems like anything more than a series of random events to you, then you have actually applied ToM several times, in several different ways and in only a matter of seconds. The most advanced computers available today could not begin to extrapolate all the information that you just did from that short passage.
Making sense of the above passage required imagining at least 2 different virtual models of the human mind. You realized that Bob didn’t know his whiskey had been poured down the sink and that he would likely be angry when he found out. To do this you had to keep track of beliefs, intents and knowledge, attribute them to different people and, finally, make a prediction of behavior based on those models. You even predicted Bob’s reaction without being prompted with a question as to how he might react.
Incredibly, you did not actually derive your prediction of Bob’s behavior from your own model of Bob’s mind. You analyzed Mary’s behavior, used it to extrapolate your model of her mind and realized that she was predicting Bob’s behavior based on her model of Bob’s mind. You did all of this with so little effort that you didn’t even realize that you were doing it. I bet you feel pretty smart right now, huh?
The human ToM is one of the least talked about but most important aspects of human evolution. Our highly evolved ToM allowed for the development of complex social structures that gave us a significant advantage over other creatures that had evolved bigger teeth, bigger claws, and much more powerful limbs and jaws. We divided our duties of protecting our camps and children, hunting for meat, and gathering other foodstuffs because we understood that particular duties were being handled by others. We also developed highly organized strategies for hunting and killing large animals that would have been impossible to conquer using spontaneous blitz attacks.
As a simple example of the advantage of ToM to hunting, consider a Stone Age hunter tracking a wild boar. Part way down the trail, the hunter realizes that the boar is headed for a nearby watering hole and he also realizes that the boar has chosen the longer of two trails. Taking a shortcut, the hunter easily catches up to the boar at the watering hole and secures a feast for his entire clan. A pair of jackals might have also been on the trail of the boar but tracking only by scent, and lacking ToM, they do not have the advantage of predicting the boar’s destination. The jackals end up missing out on a valuable meal.
Upon returning with the slaughtered boar to camp, the hunter proceeds to divide the meat. He knows that the shaman likes the spleen for ritualistic practices. He knows that the old toothless woman likes the liver. He gives a strip of tenderloin to a young girl that he fancies and then quickly gives an entire shoulder to his rival for the girl’s attention – that he might appease his rival and reduce the potential for physical confrontation. These sorts of social dynamics are only possible with a very highly evolved theory of mind.
When people begin discussing human evolution and marvel at how we survived, against all odds, with such pathetic biological weaponry, they all too often seem to ignore the human capacity to model other minds: the minds of other hunters, other predators, the prey animal being pursued, and of other creatures that become silent or scurry away in reaction to the aforementioned animals. Humans can whip up numerous artificial minds instantaneously to keep track of all of these or they can hold onto long term models used to keep tabs on the social dynamics at work around them. Other animals can exhibit behaviors that suggest a theory of mind, but none have a theory of mind anywhere near as developed as that of man. It could easily be argued that it is the one area in which the greatest margin has evolved between humans and every other creature on the planet.
One drawback of our ToM is that it might be a little too highly developed. Humans are prone to whipping up a virtual model of the human mind without even considering whether or not it applies in a given situation. This leaves us exhibiting some extremely irrational behaviors such as having conversations with cats, begging stop lights to change, and commanding teetering objects not to fall as we run to catch them. In a rural setting we can do such silly things as begging fire to ignite, pleading with the sky for rain, and asking the wind in our most polite tone if it might not be so kind as to stop blowing for just one afternoon.
This sort of fallacious projection of human consciousness into elements of the environment can become so convoluted that we actually start to negotiate with the natural elements. Think for a moment about a drought stricken farmer standing in his field, looking up at the sky and saying, “If you would just be so kind as to give me a little rain I would love you so much! Give a guy just a little break, would ya?” It is easy to understand the desperation of such a man and overlook the irrational nature of his behavior. Although we might think he was slightly crazy if he started doing a little jig in the hopes that the sky might find him entertaining and thereby be more persuaded by his desires, some twentieth century farmers actually paid money for Native American rain dancers to do just that.
It shouldn’t be hard then to understand why so many primitive cultures have been documented as having beliefs in sun, sky, wind, and fire gods. Consider the modern phenomenon of clans decorating themselves in ritualistic colours, painting their faces to match, and standing in front of a video display screaming, “Run, you son-of-a-bitch, RUN!” There is absolutely no possibility that their screams can be heard by the player running with the ball but even the most intelligent, educated, otherwise reasonable individuals in the crowd form such vivid connections with the ToM that they have created for their favorite player that they just can’t help but scream as though the player himself is within earshot.
As a species it is not only natural, but overwhelmingly compelling for us to try to understand and influence everything around us by leveraging our most powerful evolutionary tool – our ability to instantly and effortlessly fabricate a model of our own conscious mind. As a civilized society, however, it is important that we begin to realize the limitations of this highly evolved tool, and the fallacy of applying it erroneously to inanimate objects, house pets, and nature. Our theory of mind is the wrong tool to use for understanding such things and actually leads to a misunderstanding of these things. Furthermore, such a fallacious projection can lead to the very compelling and misleading belief that we can influence such things through verbal persuasion.
Comment by Nelson on March 28, 2011 at 1:46pm another example is when young male chimps, near a female that's ready to mate, hide their erections by placing their hands over their genitals so that the approaching male leader of the troop won't see the young male's erection and get angry. this shows that chimps can process thus: i know that if he sees this he'll be angry and i know that if i hide it he won't see it and become angry so i will hide it. they're able to put themselves in the shoes of their conspecifics and guess at and predict their thoughts. it's easy to fail to see how incredible that is but when you really think about it you see it for what it is.
@Dallas: and not just any alarm but the specific alarm for snakes so that the troop heads into the trees leaving the cheater down on the ground to collect the food unimpeded. :)
Comment by Heather Spoonheim on March 28, 2011 at 1:56pm
Comment by Nelson on March 28, 2011 at 2:01pm and note too that when you have a ToM and are therefore able to lie and cheat because you can reliably predict the thoughts of your conspecifics you then need a system for tracking cooperators and cheaters. in-group (cooperators) and out-group (cheaters and those not yet known to be cooperators) thinking is the result. punishment for cheaters. feelings of guilt show others we regret our cheating and are willing to recommit to cooperating in the future and, internally, make us want to honor that commitment.
so ToM is at the root of justice and morality as well.
Comment by Heather Spoonheim on March 28, 2011 at 2:01pm
Comment by Heather Spoonheim on March 28, 2011 at 2:06pm
Comment by Nelson on March 28, 2011 at 2:09pm totally agree Heather.
again, great post.
Comment by Becca on March 28, 2011 at 9:35pm "Letting children imagine ToM for dolls is just lovely, and I think very important developmentally"
It is extremely important developmentally. Children who do not engage in pretend play (which is an application of ToM) typically have serious developmental and sensory disorders. I think when we are children it is necessary to apply our ToM to inanimate objects (toys) in order to practice it and fully develop it. I think without religion or superstition encouraging us most people would grow to apply their ToM in more appropriate ways instead of using it to talk to a sky god and asking them for things.
Anyways... awesome post!
Comment by idcollapse Ra on March 28, 2011 at 10:23pm
Comment by Wesley on March 29, 2011 at 12:57am Without ToM we wouldn't be able to create scenarios in our brains as to which action might be the most successful given a spectrum of choices. I wonder if mirror neurons played a part in our development of ToM?
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/ramachandran07/ramachandran07_index...
Comment by Heather Spoonheim on March 29, 2011 at 2:58am @Becca - Thanks. I realize the importance of pretend play - I'm just suggesting there might be something gained in also pointing out, explicitly, that pretend is just pretend. I don't wanna be the kindergarten scrooge or anything, but I do think that some environments leave children with indefinite periods of pretend lacking any punctuated returns from which to reflect back on pretend.
@idcollapse - Thank you. I wrote a book but I haven't found a publisher that is interested in it yet. I'm hoping my next book will be better.
@Wesley - Ramachandran is super cool. It looks like my little attempt to explain something to myself is generating quite the reading list.
Comment
Started by Milos Cakovan in Small Talk. Last reply by Misty: Baytheist Living! 23 minutes ago. 16 Replies 1 Like
Posted by Rob Klaers on June 17, 2013 at 2:00am 6 Comments 3 Likes
Check out our new mobile/tablet version of Think Atheist! www.ThinkAtheist.com/m
© 2013 Created by Morgan Matthew.

You need to be a member of Think Atheist to add comments!
Join Think Atheist