Skip to main content

An Externalist Theory of Social Understanding: Interaction, Psychological Models, and the Frame Problem

Abstract

I put forward an externalist theory of social understanding. On this view, psychological sense making takes place in environments that contain both agent and interpreter. The spatial structure of such environments is social, in the sense that its occupants locate its objects by an exercise in triangulation relative to each of their standpoints. This triangulation is achieved in intersubjective interaction and gives rise to a triadic model of the social mind. This model can then be used to make sense of others’ observed actions. Its possession plays a vital role in the development of the capacity for false belief reasoning. The view offers an integrated account of the development of social cognition from primary intersubjectivity to level-2 perspective taking. It incorporates insights from interactionism and mindreading theories of social cognition and thus offers a way out of the stalemate between defenders of the two views. Because psychological sense making is perspectival, the frame problem does not arise for social reasoners: the perspective they bring to bear on the action that is to be interpreted constrains the information they can select to make sense of what others do.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Notes

  1. 1.

    Within the group of supporters of mindreading approaches to social cognition, defenders of the Theory Theory hold that social cognizers make use of a theory of how mental states inform behaviour. Mental state concepts may be innate (e.g., Leslie, Friedman, & German, 2004) or developmentally acquired (e.g., Gopnik & Meltzoff, 1997). Defenders of the Simulation Theory maintain that we ascribe mental states to others by imaginatively putting ourselves in the other’s shoes (e.g., Goldman, 2006). Hybrid views are possible. This is well-trodden terrain and it is not necessary to rehash the debate for present purposes.

  2. 2.

    For the purposes of this paper, I bracket a group of findings that ascribes the ability to pass some implicit false belief tests to children as young as fifteen months of age (e.g., Onishi & Baillargeon, 2005; Southgate, 2010). My reason for doing so is that some of the relevant findings have recently failed to replicate (Kulke, Reiss, Krist, & Rakoczy, 2018; Kulke, Von Duhn, Schneider, & Rakoczy, 2018) and that, consequently, it is currently controversial whether infant mentalising is a real phenomenon (Kulke, Johannsen, & Rakoczy, 2019).

  3. 3.

    See Spaulding (2010) for an overview of the respective positions and an argument against the interactionist contention that mindreading occurs only in exceptional circumstances.

  4. 4.

    Empathy is often thought to play a key role in the felt understanding of others. See Stueber (2006) for a discussion of both its felt aspect and its role in folk psychological reasoning.

  5. 5.

    Though it should be noted that not all tests of young children’s psychological reasoning capacities are spatial: see for instance the colour filter tests of Moll and Meltzoff (2011).

  6. 6.

    In what follows, I use the verb “to proprioceive” as a shorthand for “to apprehend by means of proprioception”. Thanks go to one of my reviewers for highlighting the need for clarification.

  7. 7.

    Dreyfus’s (1993/2014) Heideggerian notion of “coping” is one version of such a view. Hutto’s (2011) enactivism is another example of a way of thinking about human activity without appeal to mental state concepts.

  8. 8.

    I call such creatures “doers” or sometimes “agents”, without thereby meaning to imply that their bodily movements can necessarily be explained by appeal to mental state concepts.

  9. 9.

    One way to understand the notion of a doing is by drawing on a conclusion of Borg’s (2007) in her discussion of the role of mirror neurons in intention attribution. She suggests that the discovery of mirror neurons can tell us something about which creatures an observer is prepared to treat as minded (and, you might add, which kinds of movements as purposive activities) even though it falls short of explaining how we come to know about the large-scale intentions with which they move. Doings can be thought of as purposive activities whose perception presents the executing creature as minded, irrespective of whether large-scale intention attribution is taking place.

  10. 10.

    In a seminal article, Rizzolatti, Fadiga, Fogassi, and Gallese (1997) argued that there is a specific kind of spatial format that is represented in the brain as a spatial map that is vital for the control of motor movement. For a recent discussion of the relation between egocentric space and action space, see De Vignemont (2018).

  11. 11.

    In particular, conceptualising peripersonal space is dependent on the notion of an egocentre occupied by the agent’s body.

  12. 12.

    In its original form, this is the problem of whether a person born blind could immediately identify an object they have known only by touch if they came to see it. For an account of how it pertains to facial imitation, see Meltzoff (1993).

  13. 13.

    Children begin to pass the “mirror test” (or the closely related “rouge test”), in which their ability to recognise themselves in a mirror is tested, around 18 months (Archer, 1992). It should be noted that the mirror test is subject to considerable criticism.

  14. 14.

    To see this, compare the situation of the imitating infant to that of the Davidsonian radical interpreter (Davidson, 1973): the interpreter can always point out the features of the environment that are visible to both the speaker and the interpreter in order to ascertain the accuracy of the interpretation at issue. Even though there is no knowing whether speaker and interpreter conceptualise the demonstrated scene in the same way, there is still some kind of means of comparison that enables the interpreter to assess the accuracy of his translation, which is what the imitating infant lacks.

  15. 15.

    Gallagher (2005, pp. 65-85), Meltzoff (1993); Meltzoff and Moore (1995) offer evidence in support of this idea.

  16. 16.

    See De Vignemont (2018) for a discussion of the role of action space in the visual experience of nearby and distal objects.

  17. 17.

    For discussion see Briscoe and Grush (2020).

  18. 18.

    Some recent work offers empirical evidence in support of the existence of a social spatial framework. Costantini and Sinigaglia (2011) find that the perception of objects’ affordances for action is modulated not just by the spatial relation between perceiver and object but also by the relation between a potential co-actor and the object. The notion of social space is further supported by a study by Maister, Cardini, Zamariola, Serino, and Tsakiris (2015), who find that shared experience of the enfacement illusion results in a remapping of the representation of the other’s peripersonal space as one’s own; and, less directly, by a study by Soliman, Ferguson, Dexheimer, and Glenberg (2015), who suggest that the shared manipulation of an object with others builds on a joint body schema. See Seemann (2019) for a detailed discussion.

  19. 19.

    See De Vignemont (2009) for a discussion of the difficulties involved in making the notion of low-level simulation precise.

  20. 20.

    A recent much-discussed study finds, contrary to orthodoxy about social imitation in infancy, that infants do not imitate others’ facial expressions: they react with tongue protrusions also when presented with adults’ happy faces or finger pointing (Oostenbroek et al., 2016). Note that these findings, if vindicated, do not pose a problem for the current proposal. The thesis of an intermodal social space does not require that neonates imitate facial gestures; it requires only that they deploy perception and proprioception in the intersubjective process.

  21. 21.

    The crucial role of joint attention in the development of social cognition is prominently stressed by the Shared Intentionality Hypothesis, as defended by Tomasello and his colleagues (e.g., Tomasello & Carpenter, 2007; Tomasello & Moll, 2010). There are clear parallels between this body of work and the present proposal in various respects, amongst them the stress on joint attention as a key event in human sociocognitive development. One important difference between the two approaches is that social externalism attempts to explain the most basic forms of social understanding without having to appeal to intention recognition. Thanks go to a reviewer for highlighting the connection.

  22. 22.

    It is an open question whether non-human primates are capable of joint attention (e.g., Leavens, 2011).

  23. 23.

    For a recent critical analysis, see Battich and Geurts (2020).

  24. 24.

    I do not here discuss the difficult question of how exactly to think of such a standpoint (or egocentre). One locus classicus is Evans’s (1982) work on spatial representation. For proposals of how to think about the notion of an egocentre within an action-based view of perception, see e.g. Grush (2001, 2007) and Schellenberg (2007).

  25. 25.

    The epistemological backdrop of the approach I am developing here is the “knowledge first” programme most prominently defended by Williamson (2000). The approach I am recommending is sympathetic to Nagel’s (2017) view that the contrast that matters for mental state attribution is not between true and false beliefs but between factive and non-factive mental states, and that observation of perceptual access is a promising entry point for mental state attribution; thanks go to one of my reviewers for highlighting the connection. See section III (b) for more on the epistemology of social space.

  26. 26.

    In a related vein, Schellenberg (2007) argues that knowing an object’s perspective-transcendent spatial properties requires knowing how to act on it.

  27. 27.

    This section summarises aspects of a much larger discussion in Seemann (2019).

  28. 28.

    For an argument that there is no such thing as common knowledge, see Lederman (2018). For the view that common knowledge is impossible because subjects can never know whether they have it, see Sperber and Wilson (1995, p. 23). For a comprehensive argument in favour of the possibility of perceptual common knowledge, see Seemann (2019).

  29. 29.

    This is compatible, of course, with one or more subjects mistakenly believing that they have it.

  30. 30.

    Williamson (2000) introduces the notion of a “cognitive home”, in which all facts are open to view, and argues against its possibility. Public perceptual environments constitute a social version of such a cognitive home.

  31. 31.

    See Nagel (2017) for a related view.

  32. 32.

    The notion of a representation-enabling “background” of nonrepresentational capacities goes back to Searle (1983). I am not, for present purposes, using the notion in strictly nonrepresentational terms.

  33. 33.

    There is an interesting question whether an interpreter’s perspective determines her interpretation of an observed doing or whether it merely constrains the information she can select to support it. Discussion is not possible here. It is also not required for the present argument.

References

  1. Apperly, I. (2011). Mindreaders: The cognitive basis of “theory of mind”. Hove: Psychology Press.

  2. Archer, J. (1992). Ethology and human development: Rowman & Littlefield.

  3. Avramides, A. (2001). Other minds. London: Routledge.

  4. Baron-Cohen, S., Tager-Flusberg, H., & Cohen, D. (1999). Understanding other minds II. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  5. Battich, L., and B. Geurts. 2020. Joint attention and perceptual experience. Synthese, forthcoming.

  6. Borg, E. 2007. If Mirror neurons are the answer, what was the question? Journal of Consciousness Studies 14 (8): 5–19.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Briscoe, R., & Grush, R. (2020). Action-based theories of perception. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), the Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. Doi:https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2020/entries/action-perception.

  8. Campbell, J. 2005. Joint attention and common knowledge. In Joint attention: Communication and other minds, ed. N. Eilan, C. Hoerl, T. McCormack, and J. Roessler, 287–297. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  9. Campbell, J. (2011). An object-dependent perspective on joint attention. In a. Seemann (Ed.), joint attention: New developments in psychology, philosophy of mind, and social neuroscience (pp. 415 - 430ß). Cambridge, MA: MIT press.

  10. Costantini, M., & Sinigaglia, C. (2011). Grasping affordance: A window onto social cognition. In A. Seemann (Ed.), Joint attention: New developments in psychology, philosophy of mind, and social neuroscience. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

  11. Davidson, D. 1973. Radical interpretation. Dialectica 27: 314–328.

  12. De Jaegher, H., E. Di Paolo, and S. Gallagher. 2010. Can interaction constitute social cognition? Trends in Cognitive Science 14 (10): 441–447.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. De Vignemont, F. 2009. Drawing the boundary between low-level and high-level mindreading. Philosophical Studies 144 (3): 1–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. De Vignemont, F. 2018. Peripersonal perception in action. Synthese. 198: 4027–4044. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-018-01962-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Dreyfus, H. (1992). What computers still can’t do: A critique of artificial reason. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

  16. Dreyfus, H. (1993/2014). Heidegger's critique of the Husserl/Searle account of intentionality. In Skillful coping: Essays on the phenomenology of everyday perception and action (pp. 76–91). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  17. Evans, G. (1982). The varieties of reference. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  18. Flavell, J. H. (1992). Perspectives on perspective-taking. In H. Beilin & P. B. Pufall (Eds.), the Jean Piaget symposium series. Piaget's theory: Prospects and possibilities (Vol. 14, pp. 107-139). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

  19. Gallagher, S. (2005). How the body shapes the mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  20. Gallagher, S. 2008. Direct perception in the intersubjective context. Consciousness and Cognition 17: 535–543.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Gallagher, S. (2012). Social cognition, the Chinese room and the robot relies. In Z. Radman (Ed.), Knowing without thinking: Mind, action, cognition and the phenomenon of the background (pp. 83–97). London: Palgrave Macmillan.

  22. Gallese, V., and A. Goldman. 1998. Mirror neurons and the simulation theory of mind-reading. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 2 (12): 493–501.

  23. Godfrey-Smith, P. 2005. Folk psychology as a model. Philosophers’ Imprint 5 (6): 1–16.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Goldman, A. (2006). Simulating minds: The philosophy, psychology, and neuroscience of mindreading. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  25. Gopnik, A., & Meltzoff, A. (1997). Words, thoughts, and theories. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

  26. Grush, R. 2001. Self, world and space: The meaning and mechanisms of ego- and allocentric spatial representation. Brain and Mind 1: 59–92.

  27. Grush, R. 2007. Skill theory v2.0: Dispositions, emulation, and spatial perception. Synthese 159: 389–416.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Hobson, P. (2002/2004). The cradle of thought. London: Macmillan.

  29. Hutto, D. (2011). Elementary mind minding, enactivist-style. In A. Seemann (Ed.), Joint attention: New developments in psychology, philosophy of mind, and social neuroscience (pp. 307–341). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

  30. Kessler, K., and H. Rutherford. 2010. The two forms of visuo-spatial perspective taking are differently embodied and subserve different spatial prepositions. Frontiers in psychology(1), 1-12. 1. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2010.00213.

  31. Kulke, L., J. Johannsen, and H. Rakoczy. 2019. Why can some implicit theory of mind tasks be replicated and others cannot? A test of mentalizing versus submentalizing accounts. PLOS One. 14: e0213772. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0213772.

  32. Kulke, L., M. Reiss, H. Krist, and H. Rakoczy. 2018a. How robust are anticipatory looking measures of theory of mind? Replication attempts across the life span. Cognitive Development 46: 97–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Kulke, L., Von Duhn, B., Schneider, D., & Rakoczy, H. (2018b). Is implicit theory of mind a real and robust phenomenon? Results from a systematic replication study. Psychological Science, 0(0956797617747090), 29, 888, 900.

  34. Leavens, D. (2011). Joint attention: Twelve myths. In A. Seemann (Ed.), Joint attention: New developments in psychology, philosophy of mind, and social neuroscience (pp. 43–72). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

  35. Lederman, H. 2018. Uncommon knowledge. Mind 127 (508): 1069–1105.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Leslie, A. 2000. ‘Theory of mind’ as a mechanism of selective attention. In The new cognitive neurosciences, ed. M. Gazzaniga, 1235–1247. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Leslie, A., O. Friedman, and T.P. German. 2004. Core mechanisms in "theory of mind". Trends in Cognitive Sciences 8: 528–533.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Maibom, H. 2003. The mindreader and the scientist. Mind & Language 18 (3): 296–315.

  39. Maibom, H. 2007. Social systems. Philosophical Psychology 20 (5): 557–578.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Maibom, H. 2009. In defence of (model) theory theory. Journal of Consciousness Studies 16 (6–8): 360–378.

  41. Maister, L., F. Cardini, G. Zamariola, A. Serino, and M. Tsakiris. 2015. Your place or mine: Shared sensory experiences elicit a remapping of peripersonal space. Neuropsychologia 70: 455–461.

  42. Masangkay, Z.S., K.A. McCluskey, C.W. McIntyre, J. Sims-Knight, B.E. Vaughn, and J.H. Flavell. 1974. The early development of inferences about the visual percepts of others. Child Development 45: 357–366.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Meltzoff, A. (1993). Molyneux’s babies: Cross-modal perception, imitation, and the mind of the pre-verbal infant. In N. Eilan, R. McCarthy, & B. Brewer (Eds.), Spatial representation: Problems in philosophy and psychology (pp. 219–235). Oxford: Blackwell.

  44. Meltzoff, A., and M.K. Moore. 1977. Imitation of facial and manual gestures by human neonates. Science 198: 75–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Meltzoff, A., & Moore, M. K. (1995). Infants’ understanding of people and things: From body imitation to folk psychology. In J. L. Bermudez, A. Marcel, & N. Eilan (Eds.), The body and the self (pp. 43–69). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

  46. Michael, J. 2011. Interactionism and mindreading. Review of Philosophy and Psychology 2: 559–578.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Moll, H., M. Carpenter, and M. Tomasello. 2011. Social engagement leads 2-year olds to overestimate others' knowledge. Infancy 16: 248–265.

  48. Moll, H., and A. Meltzoff. 2011. How does it look? Level 2 perspective taking at 36 months of age. Child Development 82: 661–673.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Moll, H., and M. Tomasello. 2006. Level 1 perspective-taking at 24 months of age. British Journal of Developmental Psychology 24: 603–613.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Nagel, J. 2017. Factive and nonfactive mental state attribution. Mind & Language 32: 525–544.

  51. Onishi, K.H., and R. Baillargeon. 2005. Do 15-month-old infants understand false beliefs? Science 308: 255–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Oostenbroek, J., T. Suddendorf, M. Nielsen, J. Redshaw, S. Kennedy-Costantini, J. Davis, S. Clark, and V. Slaughter. 2016. Comprehensive longitudinal study challenges the existence of neonatal imitation in humans. Current Biology 26: 1334–1338. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2016.03.047.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Peacocke, C. (2005). Joint attention: Its nature, reflexivity, and relation to common knowledge. In N. Eilan, C. Hoerl, T. McCormack, & J. Roessler (Eds.), Joint attention: Communication and other minds (pp. 298–324). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  54. Perner, J., and B. Lang. 1999. Development of theory of mind and executive control. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 3: 337–344.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Reddy, V. (2008). How infants know minds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

  56. Reddy, V. (2011). A gaze at grips with me. In A. Seemann (Ed.), Joint attention: New developments in psychology, philosophy of mind, and social neuroscience (pp. 137–157). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

  57. Rizzolatti, G., L. Fadiga, L. Fogassi, and V. Gallese. 1997. The space around us. Science 277: 190–191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Schellenberg, S. 2007. Action and self-location in perception. Mind 116 (463): 603–632.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Schiffer, S. 1972. Meaning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  60. Schönherr, J. 2017. What’s so special about interaction in social cognition? Review of Philosophy and Psychology 8: 181–198. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13164-016-0299-y.

  61. Searle, J. (1983). Intentionality: An essay in the philosophy of mind. New York: Cambridge University Press.

  62. Seemann, A. (2019). The shared world: Perceptual common knowledge, demonstrative communication, and social space. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.

  63. Soliman, T.M., R. Ferguson, M.S. Dexheimer, and A.M. Glenberg. 2015. Consequences of joint action: Entanglement with your partner. Journal of Experimental Psychology 144 (4): 873–888.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Spaulding, S. 2010. Embodied cognition and mindreading. Mind and Language 25 (1): 119–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Spaulding, S. (2018). How we understand others: Philosophy and social cognition. London and New York: Routledge.

  66. Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1995). Relevance: Communication & cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.

  67. Stratton, G.M. 1899. The spatial harmony of touch and sight. Mind 8: 492–505.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Stueber, K. (2006). Rediscovering empathy: Agency, folk psychology, and the human sciences. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.

  69. Tomasello, M., and M. Carpenter. 2007. Shared intentionality. Dev Sci. 10 (1): 121–125.

  70. Tomasello, M., & Moll, H. (2010). The gap is social: Human shared intentionality and culture. In P. M. Kappeler & J. B. Silk (Eds.), Mind the gap (pp. 331–349). Berlin: Springer.

  71. Trevarthen, C. (2011). The generation of human meaning: How shared experience grows in infancy. In A. Seemann (Ed.), Joint attention: New developments in psychology, philosophy of mind, and social neuroscience (pp. 73–113). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

  72. Van den Bos, E., and M. Jeannerod. 2002. Sense of body and sense of action both contribute to self-recognition. Cognition 85 (2): 177–187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Wheeler, M. 2008. Cogition in context: Phenomenology, situated robotics and the frame problem. International Journal of Philosophical Studies 16 (3): 323–349.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Williamson, T. (2000). Knowledge and its limits. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  75. 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: 103–128.

  76. Zawidzki, T. (2013). Mindshaping: A new framework for understanding human social cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Axel Seemann.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Seemann, A. An Externalist Theory of Social Understanding: Interaction, Psychological Models, and the Frame Problem. Rev.Phil.Psych. (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13164-021-00584-z

Download citation