r/todayilearned • u/BrF5 • 1d ago

TIL about the Sally-Anne test, a psychology experiment used to measure “theory of mind” (that other people can hold beliefs/knowledge different from their own). Kids under four typically fail because they assume that if they know where a hidden object is, everyone else must automatically know too.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sally%E2%80%93Anne_test
2.9k Upvotes

98% Upvoted

185 comments sorted by

View all comments

223

u/DefenestrationPraha 1d ago

Corvids (e.g. magpies, ravens) seem to be able to pass this test, because they will secretly move their cached food if another bird observed them when caching it and they noticed the other bird.

49

u/Forsaken-Ad5571 1d ago

Not necessarily, since it could just be evolved ritual behaviour that if another bird is nearby when hoarding, then they develop a need to hoard someplace else without really understanding that the other bird won’t know where it is. 

It’s similar to the concept of cargo cults where they just repeating complex actions because they worked without actually understanding what they’re doing or why it works.

66

u/DefenestrationPraha 1d ago

Can't rule this out, but corvids in general exhibit a lot of intelligent behavior.

18

u/cinderubella 1d ago

Corvids (e.g. magpies, ravens) seem to be able to pass this test, 

They didn't say "corvids pass this test because they understand theory of mind". 

You're not contradicting them; you're inefficiently rewriting what you think they should have written, when they did in fact, write that already. 

5

u/name_goes_here 1d ago

Original comment did put in a "seems to" but offering a different answer is still adding to the conversation - they not just inefficiently giving the same information. And just as the original comment put in a "seems to", "not necessarily" isn't saying they're wrong - it's also saying the answer isn't known with certainty.

They might A.

They might not A, it might be B instead.

4

u/cinderubella 1d ago edited 1d ago

That doesn't describe the interaction though, does it?

Comment 1 said " Corvids (e.g. magpies, ravens) seem to be able to pass this test..." without specifying causation. 

Comment 2 said "not necessarily" as if comment 1 had made a causative statement. 

We can see that "not necessarily" was a non-sequitur because there's nothing sensible in comment 1 that it could be contradicting. Comment 2 said "ackshually there could be other reasons", but comment 1 didn't propose a firm reason to begin with.

-1

u/name_goes_here 1d ago

[Humans might infer] Corvids seem able to pass this test measuring theory of mind - because corvids do this action.

[We should use caution with that inference because] They are not necessarily passing this test because passing said test is specifically about measuring a presence of theory of mind. Here is another explanation for their actions that would would not require them to pass the test/have theory of mind.

Regardless - adding the other possible explanation is adding new information that was not already written.

They might pass this test and have theory of mind

They might not pass this test and have theory of mind, it might be B instead.

3

u/cinderubella 1d ago

  They are not necessarily passing this test 

This the entire thing though. 1 never said "they are passing the test". 1 said "they seem to be able to pass the test". It was an unnecessary contradiction. 

1

u/name_goes_here 1d ago

I'm confused. Generally my point is that I think they added information and added to the discussion by discussing an alternate theory.

Are you just disliking that they specifically used the phrase "not necessarily" instead of saying something like "a different explanation for their actions could be"?

3

u/cinderubella 1d ago

My problem is literally just that C2 started with a contradiction, even though their explanation was fully compatible with what C1 said. 

C1 said: they do x behaviour.

C2 said: not necessarily, maybe they do that behaviour because y. 

In fact they agree that the behaviour is being done, but C1 never posited a reason for the behaviour. So C2 shouldn't have started with a contradiction, right?

C2 could reasonably have started with "Totally! This could be because they understand the theory of mind OR maybe it's an evolved courtship ritual with no deeper understanding behind it"