Keyboard Shortcuts?f

×
  • →Next step
  • ←Previous step
  • ↓Skip this slide
  • ↑Previous slide
  • mShow slide thumbnails
  • tShow transcript (+SHIFT = all transcript)
  • nShow notes (+SHIFT = all notes)

Please be cautious in using the transcripts.

They were created mechanically and have mostly not been checked or revised.

Here is how they were created:

  1. live lecture recorded;
  2. machine transcription of live recording;
  3. ask LLM to clean up transcript, and link to individual slides.

This is an error-prone process.

Click here and press the right key for the next slide.

(This may not work on mobile or ipad. You can try using chrome or firefox, but even that may fail. Sorry.)

also ...

Press the left key to go backwards (or swipe right)

Press n to toggle whether notes are shown (or add '?notes' to the url before the #)

Press m or double tap to slide thumbnails (menu)

Press ? at any time to show the keyboard shortcuts

 

Conclusion

Predictions?

- interaction history shifts mindreading standards

- rewards and sanctions make shifts more stable

I'm at a stage too early to have properly nailed down the predictions, and I need a fuller literature search.
But you can maybe see the rough shape of the predictions I'd make. One might be that rewards and sanctions
The stimuli would be situations that the participants are likely to regard as admitting multiple incompatible mindreading attributions.
For example, someone who passed an exam claimed to be guessing but studied hard.
Then I would like to have two groups of participants. In one group, participants have a partner who follows a principle in making attributions but does not criticise or reward. In the other group, participants have a partner who applies rewards and sanctions.

conclusion

The existence of
confident local agreement + variation
stands in need of explanation.

... an unresolved problem for any account of mindreading: it’s something that an account of mindreading should be able to explain.
To understand both agreement and variation, we have to ask.

Where do mindreading standards come from?

And in asking this question we are confronted with twin constraints. We as researchers do not know what the correct attributions are, and ordinary mindreaders probably do not know much about what the standards are.

Ignorance of the correct attributions is a constraint on theories,
as is mindereaders’ ignorance of the standards.

Proposal: history of joint attribution + norm-like patterns

My positive proposal has two parts
Coordinating on mindreading attributions aligns us on standards for attributing mental states, and we maintain those standards through norm-like patterns of behaviour even if no one can articulate them.

Unknown Minds,
Shared Norms

Where Do Standards
for Attributing
Mental States and Agency
Come From?

Unknown Minds,
Shared Norms

Where Do Standards
for Attributing
Mental States and Agency
Come From?