Journal
SCIENCE
Volume 344, Issue 6190, Pages 1356-+Publisher
AMER ASSOC ADVANCEMENT SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1126/science.1243091
Keywords
-
Categories
Funding
- Wellcome Trust [091593] Funding Source: Medline
Ask authors/readers for more resources
It is not just a manner of speaking: Mind reading, or working out what others are thinking and feeling, is markedly similar to print reading. Both of these distinctly human skills recover meaning from signs, depend on dedicated cortical areas, are subject to genetically heritable disorders, show cultural variation around a universal core, and regulate how people behave. But when it comes to development, the evidence is conflicting. Some studies show that, like learning to read print, learning to read minds is a long, hard process that depends on tuition. Others indicate that even very young, nonliterate infants are already capable of mind reading. Here, we propose a resolution to this conflict. We suggest that infants are equipped with neurocognitive mechanisms that yield accurate expectations about behavior (automatic or implicit mind reading), whereas explicit mind reading, like literacy, is a culturally inherited skill; it is passed from one generation to the next by verbal instruction.
Authors
I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.
Reviews
Recommended
No Data Available