Solving the (real) other minds problem - Epley (2008) - Article

What thoughts do writers share in the article?

The writers find it remarkable that people are generally quick to draw conclusions about other people's minds, but that they struggle throughout their lives with the problem of accurately reading the thoughts of others. Research is still being done to improve this ability. In this area of research, current developments include defining a more complete theoretical framework for reading thoughts in which the different tools integrate into one general structure.

Solving (real) mental problems of others

How is it possible that people cannot accurately read the thoughts, feelings and intentions of others?

Research shows that this is because people tend to reason about the mental states of others by starting with their own condition. Only then do they adjust their self-centered default to cope with differences between themselves and others. These adjustments are often insufficient. As a result, final estimates are influenced egocentrically.

Does it make a difference when people have more information about the other person?

When people have more information about others, they tend to rely on existing stereotypes and possible other expectations. In this way they try to understand the other person's mental state.

What are the pros and cons of this?

Systematic errors due to excessive egocentrism or incorrect expectations can lead to miscommunication, misunderstandings and social conflicts. There are also advantages. These prejudices may also be useful strategies for learning to read the minds of others better in daily life.

Why is it a problem for most people to see the mental state of others accurately?

This is because we cannot directly see the mental state of others. Instead, it must derive from a variety of indirect methods. Consider for example observations of behavior, second-hand reports from others or out of pure intuition. This problem comes to the surface not only when we try to look into the minds of other people, but also when we look into the minds of future versions of ourselves. Consider, for example, choices to get married, divorce, accept a job or continue saving for our pension. We are now making choices based on beliefs about what will make us happy and satisfied in the future. So how we deal with solving a specific version of the other mind is not only crucial for effectively guiding our behavior to others in the present. It is also important to effectively guide our decisions for the future.

There is a lot of variability in mind reading. How can psychologists make an important contribution to this?

They can make a substantial contribution by clearly identifying the mechanisms that enable the ability to read thoughts. We deal with reading thoughts when we reason about other people's beliefs, attitudes, knowledge, thoughts or emotional states. But also when we make predictions about other people's behavior based on their underlying mental states. When we understand how we experience the intuitive mental states of others in all of these domains, it may help to explain when we are doing it right, when we are probably doing it badly and especially how we can do it better.

Children and adults do not differ in the speed at which they make a self-centered conclusion, nor in the likelihood of considering a self-centered sponsor. They do differ in the speed and probability with which they corrected that self-centered inference to incorporate the perspective of others. How can this be explained?

There are three reasons for this. First of all, recent developments in neuroscience indicate that mirror neurons can create a self-centered experience that can simply be used to draw conclusions about other people's thoughts. This can be done through egocentric simulation and the only subsequent correction.

A second explanation could be that the egocentric standard is activated relatively automatically. Adjustments require both time and attention. This reduces a person's ability to spend time or careful thoughts. This can increase the egocentric prejudices in the judgment.

Finally, a third explanation could be that people use their own mental state as the standard starting point. Only then will they adjust that standard to absorb the differences between themselves and others. This continues until they have reached a satisfactory level.

How do people usually solve their problems?

By attacking their causes, people try to solve their problems. It is important that someone knows the cause of their problem. Otherwise, possible causes are attacked that have nothing to do with the problem. As a result, there are also solutions that have nothing to do with the problem.

What thoughts do writers share at the end of the article?

The writers find it remarkable that people are generally quick to draw conclusions about other people's minds, but that they struggle throughout their lives with the problem of accurately reading the thoughts of others. Research is still being done to improve this ability. In this area of research, current developments include defining a more complete theoretical framework for reading thoughts in which the different tools integrate into one general structure.