‘Theory of Mind’: The Madness in the Method

Abstract

Research on ‘Theory of Mind’ has proliferated since the 1980s, and there are now many different theories of ‘Theory of Mind’. Indeed, the name for this field of research derives from a specific theory which has now to be awkwardly referred to as the ‘Theory Theory of Mind’. According to ‘Theory Theory’, all of us (psychologists and non-psychologists alike) are engaged in something akin to theorizing when making sense of one another: making inferences from mere behaviour to hidden psychological states that lie behind that behaviour. The main theoretical alternatives that have emerged to ‘Theory Theory’ deny that non-psychologists are really engaging in theorizing when dealing with one another: these include nativist theories based on postulated neurological ‘modules’, different versions of ‘simulation theory’, and several more radical and apparently ‘anti-dualist’ alternatives. So the term ‘theory of mind’ persists, yet now in a highly inclusive and confusing way. It is no longer presented as a body of contestable scientific theory, but as an established fact or else as ‘field of study’ with no particular theoretical commitments at all:

[‘Theory of mind’ is] the ‘everyday’ ability to understand other people’s beliefs, thoughts and desires in order to explain and predict their behaviour. With the ability to infer mental states, like the true and false beliefs of oneself and others, children become more capable of participating in a wide range of conversational and social interactions.

(Pring, 2005, p. 2)