Transcript Delimiting "Counterfactual Reasoning"

original
Counterfactual reasoning and
false belief
Eva Rafetseder
28-11-2010
Dipleap Vienna
ESF-LogiCCC
1
Programme
TBA
Josef Perner
28-11-2010
Dipleap Vienna
ESF-LogiCCC
2
Finally
Stenning updated
Josef Perner
in collaboration with
Eva Rafetseder & Christine Hofer
28-11-2010
Dipleap Vienna
ESF-LogiCCC
3
Structure of the presentation
• Counterfactual Reasoning (CFR)
– Types of conditional reasoning
– Developmental Examples
• Attributing false beliefs
• Counterfactual Reasoning and Beief-Desire
Reasoning
• Implications for “Theory of Mind”
28-11-2010
Dipleap Vienna
ESF-LogiCCC
4
Our guiding Question
• When can we conclude that children are
able to reason counterfactually?
28-11-2010
Dipleap Vienna
ESF-LogiCCC
5
The Answer
• When children give correct answers to
counterfactual questions and ...
• ...could not arrive at this answer by
another kind of reasoning.
 check on different kinds of reasoning with
help of a research example.
28-11-2010
Dipleap Vienna
ESF-LogiCCC
6
Counterfactual Reasoning in
3-year olds (Harris et al 1986)
• Carol didn‘t take her muddy
shoes off and walked over the
sparkling clean floor.
• The floor is all dirty
• If Carol had taken her shoes off,
would the floor be clean or
dirty?
[clean]
• Counterfactual
(subjunctive) Question
• correct answer
 they can reason
counterfactually (??)
Distinction: Reasoning with assumptions counter-to-fact
28-11-2010
CounterfactualDipleap
reasoning
Vienna
ESF-LogiCCC
7
Counterfactual Reasoning
28-11-2010
Dipleap Vienna
ESF-LogiCCC
8
Counterfactual Question
Hypothetical Reasoning
• Consider!
• If Carol has taken her shoes off,
is the floor clean or dirty?
• Hypothetical
(indicative)
Question
[clean]
• same (correct)
answer
without reasoning
counterfactually (!)
28-11-2010
Dipleap Vienna
ESF-LogiCCC
9
Objectives
 Avoid False positives
 using tasks in which counterfactual and
hypothetical reasoning give different
answers to a CF-question.
28-11-2010
Dipleap Vienna
ESF-LogiCCC
10
Developmental Test (Maria Schwitalla 2010)
• Basic (hypothetical):
– If Carol has taken her shoes off, is the floor then clean or dirty?
 [clean]
• Counterfactual (Harris et al 1986)
• Semifactual (Schwitalla 2010)
– Carol walked with her muddy
shoes over the sparkling clean
floor. The floor is all dirty
– Carol & John walked with their
muddy shoes over the sparkling
clean floor. The floor is all dirty
– If Carol had taken her shoes off,
would the floor be clean or dirty?
[clean]
– If Carol had taken her shoes off,
would the floor be clean or dirty?
[dirty]
Show me: How would the floor look?
28-11-2010
Dipleap Vienna
ESF-LogiCCC
11
Data Schwitalla
Kontrafaktisch vs. Semifaktisch im Vergleich
Richtige Antworten in %
kontrafaktisch
semifaktisch
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
5-Jährige
5 years
1010-Järhige
years
Erw achsene
adults
Untergruppen der 10-Jährigen im Vergleich
0,1 oder 2 richtige Antworten
(Bedingung: semifaktisch)
100%
90%
80%
2
70%
60%
1
50%
40%
30%
0
20%
10%
0%
28-11-2010
Jüngere
Dipleap
7;8 bis 10;0
Vienna
ESF-LogiCCC
Ältere
10;0 bis 10;8
12
No premature objections,
please!
Comparabel results with quite different set up
28-11-2010
Dipleap Vienna
ESF-LogiCCC
13
A toy world: Pilz 2005 Thesis
Start
Mother
puts
cookies
Event-1
cookies
placed
Mid State
cookies
stored in
Event-2
cookies
transferred
End State
cookies
in
top
shelf
tall girl
girl's
room
small boy
bottom
shelf
28-11-2010
Dipleap Vienna
ESF-LogiCCC
tall girl
small boy
boy's
room
14
Exp 1 – 3: Rafetseder Cristi-Vargas & Perner 2010
Exp 4: Rafetseder & Perner (unpubl. data)
28-11-2010
Dipleap Vienna
ESF-LogiCCC
15
False Belief
28-11-2010
Dipleap Vienna
ESF-LogiCCC
16
False belief task
(Wimmer & Perner, 1983)
Test question
Where will he look
After
that,
Mum to
first
for
his
book?
Then
she
leaves
Then
he
leaves
to
Maxi puts
hisup
comes
to
tidy
Mum
and
takes
puts
itwork
the
in book
doinsome
in
Now,
Maxi
returns
play
the
garden
book
in
the
the
room
out
theof
bookshelf
the
cupboard,
the
kitchen.
looking
for
his book
cupboard
28-11-2010
Dipleap Vienna
ESF-LogiCCC
17
Counterfactual Reasoning
&
False belief
28-11-2010
Dipleap Vienna
ESF-LogiCCC
18
CFR and FB
(Riggs et al 1998)
Story:
–
–
–
–
Peter the fire fighter feels sick and goes to bed
His wife goes to the drug store to fetch some medicine
While his wife is out the sirens sound: Fire in the school.
Peter rushes to the school despite being sick.
CF-Q: Where would Peter be if there had been no fire?
FB-Q: Where does his wife think Peter is?
Results:
Around 4 years children manage both questions
CF somewhat easier than FB
Follow up: Perner Sprung & Steinkogler (2004)
CF can be made easier but not FB
 Reasoning with assumptions counter to fact is a
Dipleap Vienna
precondition for attributing
FB
28-11-2010
ESF-LogiCCC
19
Question
• If
• we use our „difficult“ CF-scenario
• and add an FB-question
• Will
• the FB-question still be as or more difficult
than the CF-question?
28-11-2010
Dipleap Vienna
ESF-LogiCCC
20
Tough Condition 1: CFR 
Hypothetical
• Sweets are on the top shelf – boy comes and takes
them.
• He ducks when he sneaks back to his room
• Mother thinks it was the little girl
cb
• False belief question:
– „Where does the mother think that the sweets are?
• Counterfactual Question:
– „What if not the tall boy but the little girl had come looking for
sweets, where would they be?“
• Answers:
28-11-2010
– simple hypothetical: If little girl comes then sweets go to her
room
 „in
the girl‘s room“
Dipleap Vienna
ESF-LogiCCC

21
Easy Condition 2: CFR = Hypothetical
• Sweets are on the bottom shelf – girl comes and takes them.
• She is wearing boy‘s jacket - Mother thinks it was the boy
• False belief question:
– „Where does the mother think that the sweets are?
cb
• Counterfactual Question:
– „What if not the little girl but the tall boy had come looking for sweets,
where would they be?“
• Answers:
– simple hypothetical: If tall boy comes then sweets go to his room
 „in the boy‘s room“
=
– counterfactual: sweets were on bottom shelf. If boy had come they
would go to his room.
 „in the boy‘s room“
28-11-2010
Dipleap Vienna
ESF-LogiCCC
22
Results
Easy
Tough : CFR
Tough : FB
28-11-2010
Dipleap Vienna
ESF-LogiCCC
23
Implications
for theory of mind
28-11-2010
Dipleap Vienna
ESF-LogiCCC
24
Stages
• 1) World (observed behaviour)  mind
– Maxi wasn‘t there when book was moved  Maxi
thinks book is still in old place
• 2) Mind  mind
– mother thinks it was the little girl  mother thinks she
couldn‘t reach sweets  mother thinks sweets still on
top shelf
• 3) Mind  world (action)
– Maxi thinks book in cupboard & Maxi wants the book
& Maxi thinks (knows) to get the book is to go where it
is –(practical inference) Maxi will go to the
cupboard (where he thinks it is).
28-11-2010
Dipleap Vienna
ESF-LogiCCC
25
Ways into the mind
• Theory:
– knowledge of what leads to which mental state, and
action.
• Simulation:
– Intuitive:
• Imaging a situation elicits „similar“ mental states and action
tendencies as being in that situation  imagine being
situation and read off (introspection) resulting states.
– My criterion
• The way one‘s own mind works is essential for understanding
what goes on in someone else‘s (or one‘s own) mind.
28-11-2010
Dipleap Vienna
ESF-LogiCCC
26
Plausibility
• World  mind
– theory: possible
– simulation: possible
• problem of what to include in imagination.
• Mind  mind  action
– implausible to have ready made knowledge about minds:
• People who think that a small girl came to look for sweets, and who
know she cannot reach to top shelf, will think that the sweets will
stay there.
 (modular) theory not tenable
– more plausible that we reason:
• counterfactually for ourselves (simulative element): if the girl, who
cannot reach, had come ...
• someone who thinks that the girl has come will draw the same
inferences (theory element)
– Our finding that belief attribution follows own inference ability
underlines this intuitive argument
28-11-2010
Dipleap Vienna
ESF-LogiCCC
27
It‘s high time to ...
Thank
You !
or else...
counterfactuality !
28-11-2010
Dipleap Vienna
ESF-LogiCCC
28