Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-08T08:38:57.875Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Non-interpretative metacognition for true beliefs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 April 2009

Ori Friedman
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario N2L 3G1, Canada. [email protected]://www.psychology.uwaterloo.ca/people/faculty/friedman/[email protected]
Adam R. Petrashek
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario N2L 3G1, Canada. [email protected]://www.psychology.uwaterloo.ca/people/faculty/friedman/[email protected]

Abstract

Mindreading often requires access to beliefs, so the mindreading system should be able to self-attribute beliefs, even without self-interpretation. This proposal is consistent with Carruthers' claim that mindreading and metacognition depend on the same cognitive system and the same information as one another; and it may be more consistent with this claim than is Carruthers' account of metacognition.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Fodor, J. (1992) A theory of the child's theory of mind. Cognition 44:283–96.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Leslie, A. M., Friedman, O. & German, T. P. (2004) Core mechanisms in “theory of mind.” Trends in Cognitive Sciences 8:528–33.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Leslie, A. M. & Thaiss, L. (1992) Domain specificity in conceptual development: Neuropsychological evidence from autism. Cognition 43:225–51.Google Scholar
Nisbett, R. & Wilson, T. (1977) Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes. Psychological Review 84:231–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar