¶ … namely how the theory of mind and understanding can be thought of a basis for other social/cognitive/emotional understandings in life. Additionally, we will examine briefly how theory of mind touches upon other abstract concepts.
The mind is not something that can be observed directly, so any dialogue about it is done in terms of theoretical discussion. Speaking about any other person's mind is only theoretical because one can only intuit upon their own mind. Theory of mind is the belief that on should attribute mental states (intents, beliefs, pretending, knowledge, desires and so on) to oneself and others. In addition, one understands that others have desires, beliefs as well as intentions that are at variance from one's own. Though there exist philosophical methods to approach such issues, The theory of mind is distinct from the philosophy of the mind. Given the fact that we can relate with other people via ghte agency of language. While the operation of theory of mind seems to be innate to people, it appears that socialization is key to bringing it to fruition (Soraya, 2008).
For many decades, controversy has raged between social scientists regarding whether or mental development is the result of "nature or nurture." An example of the nature approach is that of famed social scientist and of behavioral science B.F. Skinner who postulated that very little of mental makeup or actions was due to anything other than genetic predilection. The other side of the divide, those who support the nurture argument feel that while there may be some genetic proclivities, social development largely overrules these influences as a person grows up. In this vein, Jim Watson in a controversial experiment with a young orphan named Albert was able to demonstrate that acquisitions of a phobias can be explained through classical conditioning. Watson is a leading proponent of environmental learning (Powell, 2011).
While commonsense might dictate that the truth is almost always in the center of these extremes, science dictates precision. The jury is still out so to speak and the nature or nurture argument may never be sufficiently resolved. However, one simple type of experiment, that of identical twins that are separated and raised separately, sheds some light. When raised separately, identical twins are never exactly alike. This would seem to indicate that nurture is at least as important as nature in human development and intelligence. However, if nurture were the only criteria fraternal twins that reared under identical conditions would be alike in spite of differences in genetic makeup. Studies do show that more closely resemble each other than non-twin brothers and sisters. However, such studies also demonstrate the same similarities when reared apart as with identical twins. (ibid.). Further studies such as these combined with genetic mapping and research will hopefully resolve the controversy.
You’re 71% through this paper. Sign up to read the full paper.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.