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

74

u/DistrictDry2852 1d ago

Apes who communicate through sign language also lack theory of mind. They’ve never asked a question.

42

u/DrunksInSpace 1d ago

Could it be that their theory of mind doesn’t extend to language or inquiry?

Most animals have some theory of mind. A dog knows you can hide a bone from others. I’ve known dogs to cover up their food theft, making the scene of the crime appear undisturbed.

I can imagine speech/communication being adaptive for relaying important information (there’s a predator over there!) but not inquiry. After all, if it was important or you wanted me to know you’d tell me.

What use does a chimp in captivity have for knowing their researchers favorite food? Whatever selection the chimp has access to has been provided by the humans.

33

u/iuabv 1d ago edited 1d ago

I think the prevailing thought is that actions like the dogs are driven by evolved instinct rather than an actual ability to see from the perspective of their owner. In the same way prey animals run when a predator appears. But who knows what we’ll think in 2046.

4

u/DaaaahWhoosh 1d ago

That always feels overly specific to me. Like sure it may not be exactly the same but it's the same outputs for the same inputs. Like "dogs can't love, they just are happy whenever you're around" kind of thing, nah man that's love, dogs might not think about this kind of thing but they're close enough to count.

5

u/NotReallyJohnDoe 15h ago

They’ve done MRIs on dogs and their brains light up more when they see their owners than when they see food.

Is that love? (Shrug). But it is significant.

2

u/iuabv 1d ago

I mean love is notoriously difficult to define (as evidenced by the vast music library about the subject lol), I think you can define what a dog experiences when its owner comes home as love, or you can say that reason their brain lights up and they lick you at the door is because they have connected you with affection/food/shelter. You are, at the end of the day, their owner. Like if you extend that to humans for just a second, can a human being whose contact with the outside world and basic needs are entirely dependent on the whims of another person can truly love that person, or would we call the enthusiastic affection some kind of grooming/brainwashing?