= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Emile comments on Talking to Children: A Pre-Holiday Guide - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (93)
The test succeeds at identifying something important that most people consider obvious, but that (surprisingly) some people fail at. Whether the something that the test measures is best called "theory of mind" is debatable, but I'm not sure there is a better name that would have stuck.
Having names for things is useful for thinking about them, as long as the focus is on the thing ("how could we call the thing this test measures"), and not on the name ("how could we design a test for the presence of a theory of mind?"). There's a delicate balance to reach between avoiding sneaking in connotations ("let's call it the Soul Test!"), and not having obscure names that don't suggest anything ("let's call it Plasmeomorphic Synchronism!"). I don't see any reason to think that they struck a particularly bad balance in this case.
daenerys is building an explanation for children's behaviour based on the premise that children can't have a model of the world that contains a person being wrong about a fact. I'm saying the test doesn't show that they can't.
I was responding more to your "This test is crap" and subsequent explanations - though I'd consider "children can't have a model of the world that contains a person being wrong about a fact" as a reasonable first approximation for young enough children.