It's in Your Nature: A Pluralistic Folk Psychology

Philosophia, 2012

One of the central explananda in the debate on social cognition is the interpretation of other people in terms of reasons for action. There is a growing dissatisfaction among participants in the debate concerning the descriptive adequacy of the traditional belief-desire model of action interpretation. Applying this model as an explanatory model at the subpersonal level threatens to leave the original explanandum largely unarticulated. Against this background we show how Brandom's deontic scorekeeping model can be used as a valuable descriptive tool for making folk psychology explicit. Following Brandom's non-formalist and nonmentalistic account of reason discourse, we suggest that the process of making sense of others is best captured as proceeding from a 'factive' baseline. According to this picture the ascription of beliefs and desires is not the default interpretation strategy, but rather the result of prior scaffolding of the agent's deontic score. We close by discussing Brandom's model in the light of empirical findings on the ontogeny of reason attribution.

2004

Asian Journal Of Social Psychology, 1998

According to the everyday understanding of the mind (called folk psychology), people's belief and desire causally combine to determine their intention, which in turn controls their action. However, recent empirical investigations have shown that psychologists' and laypeople's intuitions are not always in agreement about this common sense. To shed light, in this study folk psychology of belief, desire, and intention is conceptualized as a category of the mind; that is, a kind of category that embodies people's causal knowledge about human action. Four experiments explored the implications of this conception for understanding and prediction of social action (Experiments 1 and 2) and for explanation of simple scripted action (Experiments 3 and 4). The results showed that the present conception of folk psychology is useful in guiding empirical investigation. A systematic investigation of folk psychology may revitalize Heider's research program on naive psychology. Everyday understanding of human action requires an understanding of other minds. Ever since Premack and Woodruff (1978) posed the question, ''Does the chimpanzee have a theory of mind?'', humans' everyday understanding of the mind has become a major issue in psychological research. Often dubbed folk psychology, laypeople's conception of the mind has in recent times been investigated by philosophers of the mind (e.g.

In this paper, I seek to refute arguments for the idea that folk psychological explanation, i.e. the explanation of actions, beliefs and desires in terms of one another, should be understood as being of a different character than ordinary scientific explanations, a view defended most prominently in analytical philosophy by Donald Davidson and John McDowell. My strategy involves arguing both against the extant arguments for the idea that FP must be construed as giving such explanations, and also against the very notion of such a different kind of explanation. I argue first that the in some sense a priori and conceptual nature of folk psychological principles does not support the idea that these are other than empirical generalisations, by appeal to recent nativist ideas in cognitive science and to Lewis's conception of the meaning of theoretical terms. Second, I argue that there is no coherent sense in which folk psychological explanations can be seen as normative. Thirdly, I examine the putatively holistic character of the mental and conclude that that too fails to provide any cogent reasons for viewing folk psychological explanations as different from other kinds of explanation.

The Philosophical Review, 1985

Folk psychology is a network of principles which constitutes a sort of common-sense theory about how to explain human behavior. These principles provide a central role to certain propositional attitudes, particularly beliefs and desires. The theory asserts, for example, that if someone desires that p, and this desire is not overridden by other desires, and he believes that an action of kind K will bring it about that p, and he believes that such an action is within his power, and he does not believe that some other kind of action is within his power and is a preferable way to bring it about that p, then ceteris paribus, the desire and the beliefs will cause him to perform an action of kind K. The theory is largely functional, in that the states it postulates are characterized primarily in terms of their causal relations to each other, to perception and other environmental stimuli, and to behavior. Folk psychology (henceforth FP) is deeply ingrained in our common-sense conception of ourselves as persons. Whatever else a person is, he is supposed to be a rational (at least largely rational) agent-that is, a creature whose behavior is systematically caused by, and explainable in terms of, his beliefs, desires, and related propositional attitudes. The wholesale rejection of FP, therefore, would entail a drastic revision of our conceptual scheme. This fact seems to us to constitute a good prima facie reason for not discarding FP too quickly in the face of apparent difficulties. Recently, however, FP has come under fire from two quarters. Paul Churchland (1981) has argued that since FP has been with us for at least twenty-five centuries, and thus is not the product of any deliberate and self-conscious attempt to develop a psychological theory which coheres with the account of homo sapiens which the natural sciences provide, there is little reason to suppose that FP is true, or that humans undergo beliefs, desires, and the like. And Stephen Stich (1983) has argued that current work in cognitive science suggests that no events or states posited by a mature cognitive psychology will be identifiable as the events and states posited by FP; Stich maintains that if this turns out to be the case,

Abstract The debates about the form of folk psychology and the potential eliminability of folk psychology rest on a particular view about how humans understand other minds. That is, though folk psychology is described as “ourcom monsense conception ofpsychological phenomena”(Churchland 1981, p. 67), there havebeen implicit assumptions regarding the nature of that commonsense conception. It has been assumed that folk psychology involves two practices, the prediction and explanation of behavior. And it has been assumed that one cognitive mechanism subsumes both these practices. I argue for a new conception of folk psychology, one which challenges these assumptions. There is reason to think that folk psychology is more diverse than is typically thought, both insofar as there are a heterogeneous collection of heuristics that are used, and as our folk psychological practices include more than prediction and explanation. While these practices remain central in the philosophical discussion...

Philosophical Studies, 1990

In this essay we would like to answer the question whether – and if so, in what sense – folk psychology explains human behavior and how such explanations differ from those provided by psychological and neuroscientific theories. We begin with a short characterization of folk psychology, distinguishing between its two levels: phenomenological and architectural. Next, we attempt to show that while the architectural level of folk psychology is biologically determined, the phenomenological level crucially depends on culture. We also propose a theory of explanation which postulates continuity between concrete, non-deductive, causal explanations on the one hand, and abstract explanation-as-unification on the other. Finally, we come to the conclusion that the explanations of human behavior supplied by folk psychology are genuine, but more concrete than their scientific counterparts.

Philosophical Investigations, 2009

The nature of human social cognition has been the subject of one of the most contentious and interesting debates in psychology and philosophy of psychology of the past three decades. The central issue concerns how human beings manage to predict and understand each other's behaviour. All parties to the debate assume that interpreting human behaviour in terms of beliefs, desires, and other propositional attitudes, i.e., the reasons that persons have for their actions, plays a central role in our socio-cognitive accomplishments. The key dispute concerns how human beings come to know the reasons for which others act, and how they infer future behaviour from such attributions of reasons.

Grazer Philosophische Studien

The nature of human social cognition has been the subject of one of the most contentious and interesting debates in psychology and philosophy of psychology of the past three decades. The central issue concerns how human beings manage to predict and understand each other's behaviour. All parties to the debate assume that interpreting human behaviour in terms of beliefs, desires, and other propositional attitudes, i.e., the reasons that persons have for their actions, plays a central role in our socio-cognitive accomplishments. The key dispute concerns how human beings come to know the reasons for which others act, and how they infer future behaviour from such attributions of reasons.

People typically explain others’ behaviors by attributing them to the beliefs and motives of an unobservable mind. Although such attributional inferences are critical for understanding the social world, it is unclear whether they rely on processes distinct from those used to understand the nonsocial world. In the present study, we used functional MRI to identify brain regions associated with making attributions about social and nonsocial situations. Attributions in both domains activated a common set of brain regions, and individual differences in the domain-specific recruitment of one of these regions—the dorsomedial prefrontal cortex (DMPFC)—correlated with attributional accuracy in each domain. Overall, however, the DMPFC showed greater activation for attributions about social than about nonsocial situations, and this selective response to the social domain was greatest in participants who reported the highest levels of social expertise. We conclude that folk explanations of behavior are an expert use of a domain-general cognitive ability.

To the extent that psychologists are concerned to do more than collect raw data for possible interpretation, they cannot avoid interrogating the philosophical assumptions which inform their work. This paper argues that there is a vital need for conceptual clarification of many of the central topics studied by today’s sciences of the mind. Yet, rather than offering a comprehensive survey of these, this paper focuses on one illustrative, high profile case: the way in which our everyday understanding of reasons for action has been wrongly categorized in terms of ‘theory of mind’ abilities. Focusing on this example I show how it is possible to elucidate topics in the philosophy of psychology by relinquishing certain powerful explanatory temptations and by attending more closely to our everyday practices and activities.

Philosophical Books, 2008

Folk psychology is under threat - that is to say - our everyday conception that human beings are agents who experience the world in terms of sights, sounds, tastes, smells and feelings and who deliberate, make plans, and generally execute actions on the basis of their beliefs, needs and wants - is under threat. This threat is evidenced in intellectual circles by the growing attitude amongst some cognitive scientists that our common sense categories are in competition with connectionist theories and modern neuroscience. It is often thought that either folk psychology or modern cognitive science must go. It is in these terms that the battle lines of today's philosophy of mind are drawn. If, as unbiased observers, we judge the progress of this war it becomes quickly obvious that the folk psychologists are consistently on the defensive. Ih light of this I sketch a general, but brief, strategy by which folk psychologists can, at the very least, protect some of their flanks and, at best, mount an offensive against the eliminativists.

Studia Philosophica Estonica, 2016

'Folk psychology' is a term that refers to the way that ordinary people think and talk about minds. But over roughly the last four decades the term has come to be used in rather different ways by philosophers and psychologists engaged in technical projects in analytic philosophy of mind and empirical psychology, many of which are only indirectly related to the question of how ordinary people actually think about minds. The result is a sometimes puzzling body of academic literature, cobbled together loosely under that single heading, that contains a number of terminological inconsistencies, the clarification of which seems to reveal conceptual problems. This paper is an attempt to approach folk psychology more directly, to clarify the phenomenon of interest, and to examine the methods used to investigate it. Having identified some conceptual problems in the literature, I argue that those problems have occluded a particular methodological confound involved in the study of folk psychology, one associated with psychological language, that may well be intractable. Rather than attempt to solve that methodological problem, then, I suggest that we use the opportunity to rethink the relationship between folk psychology and its scientific counterpart. A careful look at the study of folk psychology may prove surprisingly helpful for clarifying the nature of psychological science and addressing the contentious question of its status as a potentially autonomous special science.