Lec 8: Everyday Mind Reading

0.0(0)
Studied by 0 people
call kaiCall Kai
learnLearn
examPractice Test
spaced repetitionSpaced Repetition
heart puzzleMatch
flashcardsFlashcards
GameKnowt Play
Card Sorting

1/7

encourage image

There's no tags or description

Looks like no tags are added yet.

8 Terms

1
New cards

What’s the point of this lecture?

  • mentalizing system and mirror system are brought together into a larger account

  • looking at the neurocognitive subcomponents that let us make sense of other’s minds, and what each system contributes

  • necessary process


2
New cards

Why is it strange that the mentalizing and mirror neuron literatures grew up separately?

  • It’s odd because both systems have to do with making sense of other people’s mind so it brings the question: Did the brain really build to separate systems to do the same job? perhaps understanding people is so important the brain built in redundancy

  • mirror neuron camp originated mostly in Italy

  • mentalizing camp originated mostly in England w/ Chris & Uta Frith + colleagues

  • most likely about how each literature was set up that kept them from seeing how the systems relate


3
New cards

What does resting-state brain activity suggest about how the two systems relate?

  • much of the mirror system is in the same region as the working memory

  • this means mirror system and mentalizing system act like a neural seesaw

  • strange that when one is active, the other is suppressed


4
New cards

Why do mentalizing studies and mirror neuron studies almost never find activity in the other system?

1) Reason 1: experimental design

  • each camp may have designed studies that leave out conditions that would recruit the other system

  • so each system was studied in isolation rather than how both operate in ordinary situations

  • meaning, it might not reflect how the brain works in real life

2) …


5
New cards

What are the weaknesses of the typical mentalizing system?

  • these studies depend heavily on language but if we go back 200,000 years, cartoons and vignettes aren’t how we evolved to understand others, seeing how they didn’t even exist yet. So whatever neural mechanisms evolved in our brain to make sense of others was not to decode comic strips or text-based puzzles. Instead, our brains evolved to make sense of others through direct, real-world observations of behavior, physical actions, body language

  • the use of different stimulus in mentalizing cartoons vs control cartoons: diff subjects, content, & looks were used for comparison trials when ideally you would compare two mental processes applied to the same stimulus to be sure the process is driving the difference and not the stimulus.

  • DISCLAIMER: these criticisms are proposed by Matt, stating that the neuron camp could raise these arguments


<ul><li><p>these studies depend heavily on language but if we go back 200,000 years, cartoons and vignettes aren’t how we evolved to understand others, seeing how they didn’t even exist yet. So whatever neural mechanisms evolved in our brain to make sense of others was not to decode comic strips or text-based puzzles. Instead, our brains evolved to make sense of others through direct, real-world observations of behavior, physical actions, body language </p></li><li><p>the use of different stimulus in mentalizing cartoons vs control cartoons: diff subjects, content, &amp; looks were used for comparison trials when ideally you would compare two mental processes applied to the same stimulus to be sure the process is driving the difference and not the stimulus.</p></li><li><p>DISCLAIMER: these criticisms are proposed by Matt, stating that the neuron camp could raise these arguments </p></li></ul><p></p>
6
New cards

What are the weaknesses of the typical mirror neuron study?

  • these studies have a real advantage as their stimuli (silent video of a real person performing a real action) is better b/c you might actually see it in the real world. However…

  • the mentalizing camp could criticize that these aren’t clear studies that capture psychological understanding. This is b/c participants were never given a goal of understanding the mind of the person they’re watching. If they were given a goal like “think about WHY this person is doing this,” then it could ALSO activate the mentalizing system rather than just the mirror system

  • They were also never asked afterward for any evidence that they inferred anything about that person’s mind.

  • Other problem is that these videos typically show close-ups of body parts when in real life we can see the whole thing, with faces and bodies


<ul><li><p>these studies have a real advantage as their stimuli (silent video of a real person performing a real action) is better b/c you might actually see it in the real world. However…</p></li><li><p>the mentalizing camp could criticize that these aren’t clear studies that capture psychological understanding. This is b/c participants were never given a goal of understanding the mind of the person they’re watching. If they were given a goal like “think about WHY this person is doing this,” then it could ALSO activate the mentalizing system rather than just the mirror system</p></li><li><p> They were also never asked afterward for any evidence that they inferred anything about that person’s mind.</p></li><li><p>Other problem is that these videos typically show close-ups of body parts when in real life we can see the whole thing, with faces and bodies</p></li></ul><p></p>
7
New cards

What is the missing quadrant of everyday mind reading?

you can sort the studies on 2 dimensions:

1) Dimension where study gathers evidence of mind reading. Whether it’s by building it into the task or by asking ppl afterward what they inferred.

  • mentalizing research falls under this dimension: evidence of mind reading but abstract stimuli (doesn’t use accurate stimuli of real world)


2) Dimension where the stimuli show relatively normal, everyday action or something more abstract.

  • mirror neuron research falls under this dimension: everyday action that is more accurate in the real world but no evidence of mind reading


Missing quadrant: best quadrant for mind reading b/c it’s watching everyday behavior & inferring something about the person’s mind

  • basically what we do on day to day basis

  • ex: seeing someone roll their eyes at what someone said then concluding what they must be feeling

  • neither camp has studied how the 2 systems behave in these situations


<p>you can sort the studies on 2 dimensions:</p><p>1) Dimension where study gathers evidence of mind reading. Whether it’s by building it into the task or by asking ppl afterward what they inferred.</p><ul><li><p>mentalizing research falls under this dimension: evidence of mind reading but abstract stimuli (doesn’t use accurate stimuli of real world) </p></li></ul><p></p><p>2) Dimension where the stimuli show relatively normal, everyday action or something more abstract.</p><ul><li><p>mirror neuron research falls under this dimension: everyday action that is more accurate in the real world but no evidence of mind reading </p></li></ul><p></p><p>Missing quadrant: best quadrant for mind reading b/c it’s watching everyday behavior &amp; inferring something about the person’s mind </p><ul><li><p>basically what we do on day to day basis </p></li><li><p>ex: seeing someone roll their eyes at what someone said then concluding what they must be feeling</p></li><li><p>neither camp has studied how the 2 systems behave in these situations </p></li></ul><p></p>
8
New cards

What does “why did the chicken cross the road?” have to do with mind reading?