Infants Read Minds: Psychology Psuedoscience Evidence

  • Thread starter rockytriton
  • Start date
In summary, a study was conducted on infants and their awareness of others' internal mental states and processes. The measure used was the infants' look time and sometimes pacifier sucking. However, there were concerns about the methodology and possible confounding factors, such as the presence of a human hand in the cartoon. The authors may have used the term "mind reading" loosely, but the overall finding suggests that infants have some level of understanding of others' mental states at a younger age than previously thought. Further reading of the study would provide more insight into the experimental design and controls used.
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
I don't think you would be so appalled if you had bothered to read the article and not just the title. Although, "mind reading" was probably not the best choice of words the authors could have used for describing this particular ability.
 
  • #3
I thought the same thing, Math is Hard, but it still seems that the method of experimentation is shoddy at best.
 
  • #4
Did they consider that the infants might be more curious because they saw a human hand? Without giving any significance to the hand, perhaps it was just because there was more action in that particular cartoon?

And whose mind are they reading? They're watching a cartoon.
 
  • #5
I believe all they are inferring from this experiment is that infants have some awareness that others (people, caterpillars,etc.) have internal mental states and processes, and previously they thought this didn't happen until much later. The dependent measure (look time) is pretty standard in development psych studies with infants. They also sometimes use rate of pacifier sucking as a measure. Tricky stuff, because infants can't verbally report, so researchers take a little bit of a leap of faith that this action actually measures interest. And I agree with you, Evo, the hand could certainly be a confound. There's no way to say how they controlled for that without reading the study.
 
  • #6
Math Is Hard said:
I believe all they are inferring from this experiment is that infants have some awareness that others (people, caterpillars,etc.) have internal mental states and processes, and previously they thought this didn't happen until much later. The dependent measure (look time) is pretty standard in development psych studies with infants. They also sometimes use rate of pacifier sucking as a measure. Tricky stuff, because infants can't verbally report, so researchers take a little bit of a leap of faith that this action actually measures interest. And I agree with you, Evo, the hand could certainly be a confound. There's no way to say how they controlled for that without reading the study.
Reading the study would probably be better.
 

1. How is it possible for infants to read minds?

There is currently no scientific evidence to support the claim that infants are able to read minds. The ability to read minds requires advanced cognitive and social skills, which are not fully developed in infants. Some studies have shown that infants may have a basic understanding of others' intentions and emotions, but this does not equate to mind reading.

2. What is the difference between psychology and pseudoscience?

Psychology is a scientific discipline that uses rigorous methods to study human behavior and mental processes. It is based on empirical evidence and is constantly evolving as new research is conducted. Pseudoscience, on the other hand, refers to practices or beliefs that claim to be scientific but lack evidence and cannot be tested or replicated.

3. Is there any evidence to support the claim that infants can read minds?

No, there is currently no scientific evidence to support the claim that infants have the ability to read minds. While some studies have shown that infants may have a basic understanding of others' intentions and emotions, this does not equate to mind reading. The idea of infants reading minds falls under pseudoscience and lacks empirical evidence.

4. Why do some people believe in the concept of infants reading minds?

The concept of infants reading minds may be appealing to some people because it suggests that infants have advanced cognitive abilities. It may also be seen as a way to explain infants' behaviors and reactions. However, without scientific evidence, this belief remains a pseudoscientific concept.

5. What impact does the belief in infants reading minds have on society?

Believing in the concept of infants reading minds can have a negative impact on society as it perpetuates pseudoscience and false claims. It can also lead to a distrust in scientific evidence and promote the spread of misinformation. It is important to critically evaluate claims and rely on scientific evidence rather than pseudoscience.

Similar threads

B Maximum mass of a neutron star
    • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
4
Views
1K
What we can learn from conspiracy theories
    • General Discussion
Replies
12
Views
1K
Is the Mini Mona Lisa the smallest version of the famous painting yet?
    • General Discussion
Replies
1
Views
1K
What does it mean to be an old bacterium?
    • Biology and Medical
Replies
11
Views
2K
Philosophy of Science: Discussing Maths, Physics, Mind, & AI
    • General Discussion
Replies
3
Views
2K
Study Favors Q-Mind - Support for quantum consciousness?
    • Biology and Medical
3
Replies
71
Views
7K
I What does wobbling in BGC reveal about the nature of dark matter?
    • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
7
Views
2K
MHB SE Class 10 Science: What Steel Was Used in the Titanic?
    • General Discussion
Replies
4
Views
2K
Medical Differences in Procrastinator Brains
    • Biology and Medical
Replies
1
Views
1K
Seeking psychological help: Tricks to deal with being really envious?
    • General Discussion
Replies
1
Views
706

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top