How We Know Our Own Minds: Mindreading and Metacognition
An article by an eminent philosopher promises to stir up controversy about introspection (metacognition) and understanding the mental states of others (mindreading), on the one hand, and autism and schizophrenia on the other.
About the Article on Knowing Our Own Minds
As a ‘BBS Associate’ — part of an international community of authors, referees and commentators drawn upon by the journal Behavioral and Brain Sciences — I recently received this fascinating abstract by eminent philosopher Peter Carruthers:
ABSTRACT: Four different accounts of the relationship between third-person mindreading and first-person metacognition are compared and evaluated. While three of them endorse the existence of introspection for propositional attitudes, the fourth (defended here) claims that our knowledge of our own attitudes results from turning our mindreading capacities upon ourselves. Section 1 introduces the four accounts. Section 2 develops the “mindreading is prior” model in more detail, showing how it predicts introspection for perceptual and quasi-perceptual (e.g. imagistic) mental events while claiming that metacognitive access to our own attitudes always results from swift unconscious self-interpretation. It also considers the model’s relationship to the expression of attitudes in speech. Section 3 argues that the commonsense belief in the existence of introspection should be given no weight. Section 4 argues briefly that data from childhood development are of no help in resolving this debate. Section 5 considers the evolutionary claims to which the different accounts are committed, and argues that the three introspective views make predictions that aren’t borne out by the data. Section 6 examines the extensive evidence that people often confabulate when self-attributing attitudes. Section 7 considers “two systems” accounts of human thinking and reasoning, arguing that although there are inrospectable events within System 2, there are no introspectable attitudes. Section 8 examines alleged evidence of “unsymbolized thinking”. Section 9 considers the claim that schizophrenia exhibits a dissociation between mindreading and metacognition. Finally, Section 10 evaluates the claim that autism presents a dissociation in the opposite direction, of metacognition without mindreading.
The paper has been selected as a target article for open peer commentary at the prestigious journal Behavioral and Brain Sciences, one of the foremost print publications in its field. If you’d like to have a look at the full text of the paper, it’s available here: Carruthers Preprint on Knowing Our Own Minds.
The journal employs a fairly unique quality-control system whereby commentaries are accepted only from people called ‘BBS Associates’ or those nominated by BBS Associates; and to be eligible to become a BBS Associate, you must either have had work previously accepted for the journal (or refereed for them), or been nominated by someone who has. As a BBS Associate myself since publishing with them in the late 90s, I’m happy to nominate others to write commentary for the article. So if you have relevant expertise in this area, and no other BBS Associate is available to you, please drop me a note via the site’s contact page and let me know a bit about your background and what you would like to contribute via published commentary.
About the Journal
Behavioral and Brain Sciences (BBS) is an international, interdisciplinary journal providing Open Peer Commentary on important and controversial current research in the biobehavioral and cognitive sciences. Commentators must be BBS Associates, or suggested by a BBS Associate. If you are not a BBS Associate, please follow the instructions linked below:
http://www.bbsonline.org/Instructions/associnst.html
Other articles by Dr Greg Mulhauser, Managing Editor
This article was last reviewed by Dr Greg Mulhauser, Managing Editor on Friday, 19th September 2008. You can leave a reply below.
The URL of this page is:
http://counsellingresource.com/features/2008/09/19/knowing-our-own-minds/
21st September 2008
Thank you very much for making this available, Greg. I’m looking forward to reading this article; the intersection between philosophy and psychology has always been fascinating for me.
22nd September 2008
Wow…. That’s alot of area’s of work! I am especially intrigued by the fourth. Turning mindreading on onesself. Psychic abilities as that which pertains to oneself and others. An area where I believe the empath has his/her hearts centered. As my perception tells me that all areas of healers in all arenas have this definable gift. That pyschologists often are pulled to this path because of a intuitional
presence and spirit attunement field. The superconsciousness a beautiful new field of research. Though most highly attuned individuals can not take the instruments that are available as of yet.
As most people have alot of fear in these areas. Because even in todays “enlightened communities” and I speak loosely here. The word loopy comes up. Its like the elusive Proof that is a plain as day to some. Predictions are part of life and sensing these way ahaed of time is seen as “out there” though most of us have experienced them in one form or another. A part of a Higher Wisdom that openness to all that there is extensively promotes a growth in. Its why some questions or quandries must be brought to certain venues. That have effectively conquereed the fear of light. Its so fast…. that I am sure of like lightening.
Mind reading hmmmm…..metacognition……..
Quantum Theories always comes up for me in reference to these psychological processes. I’ll read the full article later.
17th March 2009
I love this because in order to know ourselves, this “intersection” of psychology and philosophy MUST occur, and I’d like to add a third player to this arena, religion. In order to attain full understanding of ourselves and others, it is impossible to ONLY rely upon one field for healing; one must use all three: philosophy, psychology and theology. This is my humble theory, and I’m a lay person. I like this web site very much, as it seems very thorough and also “cutting edge” in its content. Kudos to Counselling Resource!