A Critique of Embodied Simulation

Article

Abstract

Social cognition is the capacity to understand and interact with others. The mainstream account of social cognition is mindreading, the view that we humans understanding others by interpreting their behavior in terms of mental states. Recently theorists from philosophy, psychology, and neuroscience have challenged the mindreading account, arguing for a more deflationary account of social cognition. In this paper I examine a deflationary account of social cognition, embodied simulation, which is inspired by recent neuroscientific findings. I argue that embodied simulation fails to present an adequate alternative to mindreading accounts of social cognition. I defend a philosophically and empirically plausible two-systems account of social cognition, which holds that even very young children are capable of mindreading.

References

  1. Adolphs, R., D. Tranel, H. Damasio, and A. Damasio. 1994. Impaired recognition of emotion in facial expressions following bilateral damage to the human amygdala. Nature 372(6507): 669–672.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Apperly, I., and S. Butterfill. 2009. Do humans have two systems to track beliefs and belief-like states? Psychological Review 116(4): 953.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Apperly, I., and E.J. Robinson. 2003. When can children handle referential opacity? Evidence for systematic variation in 5-and 6-year-old children's reasoning about beliefs and belief reports. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 85(4): 297–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baillargeon, R., R.M. Scott, and Z. He. 2010. False-belief understanding in infants. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 14(3): 110–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bloom, P., and T.P. German. 2000. Two reasons to abandon the false belief task as a test of theory of mind. Cognition 77(1): 25–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bruner, J. S. 1990. Acts of meaning: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Carruthers, P. 2006. The architecture of the mind. USA: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Csibra, G. 2010. Recognizing communicative intentions in infancy. Mind & Language 25: 141–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Davidson, D. 2001. Essays on actions and events, 2nd ed. Oxford: Clarendon.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Evans, J.S.B.T., and D.E. Over. 1996. Rationality in the selection task: Epistemic utility versus uncertainty reduction. Psychological Review 103(2): 356–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gallagher, S., and F. Hutto. 2007. Understanding others through primary interaction and narrative practice. In The Shared Mind: Perspectives on Intersubjectivity, eds. Sinha et al., 17–38. John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  12. Gallagher, S. (2008). Inference or interaction: Social cognition without precursors. Philosophical Explorations, 11(3), 163–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gallese, V. 2006. Intentional attunement: a neurophysiological perspective on social cognition and its disruption in autism. Brain Research 1079(1): 15–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gallese, V. 2007. Before and below theory of mind: embodied simulation and the neural correlates of social cognition. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 362(1480): 659–669.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gallese, V. 2009. Mirror neurons, embodied simulation, and the neural basis of social identification. Psychoanalytic Dialogues 19(5): 519–536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gallese, V., C. Keysers, and G. Rizzolatti. 2004. A unifying view of the basis of social cognition. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 8(9): 396–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gendler, T.S. 2008. Alief and belief. Journal of Philosophy 105(10): 634–663.Google Scholar
  18. Gergely, G., and G. Csibra. 2003. Teleological reasoning in infancy: the naive theory of rational action. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 7(7): 287–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gergely, G., H. Bekkering, and I. Kirly. 2002. Developmental psychology: rational imitation in preverbal infants. Nature 415(6873): 755.Google Scholar
  20. Gopnik, A., and J. Astington. 1988. Children’s understanding of representational change and its relation to the understanding of false belief and the appearance-reality distinction. Child Development 59(1): 26–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gopnik, A., and H.M. Wellman. 1994. The theory theory. In Mapping the mind: domain specificity in cognition and culture, eds. L. A. Hirschfield & S. A. Gelman, 257–293. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Hare, B., J. Call, B. Agnetta, and M. Tomasello. 2000. Chimpanzees know what conspecifics do and do not see. Animal Behaviour 59(4): 771–785.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hare, B., J. Call, and M. Tomasello. 2001. Do chimpanzees know what conspecifics know? Animal Behavior 61(1): 139–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hare, B., J. Call, and M. Tomasello. 2006. Chimpanzees deceive a human competitor by hiding. Cognition 101(3): 495–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hurley, S., and N. Chater. 2005. Perspectives on imitation: from neuroscience to social science. Cambridge: MIT.Google Scholar
  26. Hutto, D.D. 2008. Folk psychological narratives: the sociocultural basis of understanding reasons. Cambridge: MIT.Google Scholar
  27. Iacoboni, M. 2009. The problem of other minds is not a problem: Mirror neurons and intersubjectivity. In Mirror Neuron Systems, ed. J. A. Pineda, 121–133. Humana.Google Scholar
  28. Keysers, C., and D.I. Perrett. 2004. Demystifying social cognition: a Hebbian perspective. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 8(11): 501–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Keysers, C., and V. Gazzola. 2009. Unifying social cognition. In Mirror Neuron Systems, ed. J. A. Pineda, 1–35. Humana.Google Scholar
  30. Leslie, A., O. Friedman, and T. German. 2004. Core mechanisms in ‘theory of mind’. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 8(12): 528–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Liu, D., H.M. Wellman, T. Tardif, and M.A. Sabbagh. 2008. Theory of mind development in Chinese children: a meta-analysis of false-belief understanding across cultures and languages. Developmental psychology 44(2): 523–531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Luo, Y., and R. Baillargeon. 2007. Do 12.5-month-old infants consider what objects others can see when interpreting their actions? Cognition 105(3): 489–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Nichols, S., and S.P. Stich. 2003. Mindreading: an integrated account of pretence, self-awareness, and understanding other minds. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Oberman, L., and V. Ramachandran. 2009. Reflections on the mirror neuron system: Their evolutionary functions beyond motor representation. In Mirror Neuron Systems, ed. J. A. Pineda, pp. 1–21: Humana.Google Scholar
  35. Onishi, K., and R. Baillargeon. 2005. Do 15-month-old infants understand false beliefs? Science 308(5719): 255–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Onishi, K.H., R. Baillargeon, and A.M. Leslie. 2007. 15-month-old infants detect violations in pretend scenarios. Acta Psychologica 124(1): 106–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Perner, J. 2010. Who took the cog out of cognitive science? In Cognition and neuropsychology: international perspectives on psychological science, ed. R. Schwarzer and P.A. Frensch, 241–262. New York: Psychology.Google Scholar
  38. Perner, J., and T. Ruffman. 2005. Infants’ insight into the mind: how deep? Science 308(5719): 214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Planty, M., Hussar, W., Snyder, T., Kena, G., KewalRamani, A., Kemp, J., et al. 2009. The Condition of Education 2009: Indicator 1--Enrollment Trends by Age. NCES 2009–081. National Center for Education Statistics, 7.Google Scholar
  40. Povinelli, D. J., & Vonk, J. (2003). Chimpanzee minds: Suspiciously human? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(4), 157–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Rizzolatti, G., and L. Craighero. 2004. The mirror-neuron system. Annual Review of Neuroscience 27(1): 169–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Scott, R.M., R. Baillargeon, H. Song, and A.M. Leslie. 2010. Attributing false beliefs about non-obvious properties at 18 months. Cognitive psychology 61: 366–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Singer, T., B. Seymour, J. O’Doherty, H. Kaube, R.J. Dolan, and C.D. Frith. 2004. Empathy for pain involves the affective but not sensory components of pain. Science 303(5661): 1157–1162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Song, H.-J., and R. Baillargeon. 2007. Can 9.5-month-old infants attribute to an agent a disposition to perform a particular action on objects? Acta Psychologica 124(1): 79–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Southgate, V., and G. Csibra. 2009. Inferring the outcome of an ongoing novel action at 13 months. Developmental psychology 45(6): 1794.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Stanovich, K.E., M.E. Toplak, and R.F. West. 2008. The development of rational thought: a taxonomy of heuristics and biases. Advances in Child Development and Behavior 36: 251–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Tomasello, M., Call, J., & Hare, B. (2003). himpanzees understand psychological states the question is which ones and to what extent. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(4), 153–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Wellman, H.M., D. Cross, and J. Watson. 2001. Meta analysis of theory of mind development: the truth about false belief. Child Development 72(3): 655–684.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Wicker, B., C. Keysers, J. Plailly, J.P. Royet, V. Gallese, and G. Rizzolatti. 2003. Both of us disgusted in my insula: the common neural basis of seeing and feeling disgust. Neuron 40(3): 655–664.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Wimmer, H., and J. Perner. 1983. Beliefs about beliefs: representation and constraining function of wrong beliefs in young children's understanding of deception. Cognition 13(1): 103–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Philosophy-Neuroscience-Psychology ProgramWashington University in St. LouisSt. LouisUSA

Personalised recommendations