Krytyka natywizmu jawnego i ukrytego w badaniach nad dziecięcymi teoriami umysłu

Robert Mirski


A Critique of Explicit and Implicit Nativism in Research on Children’s Theories of Mind

The traditional theories of theory-of-mind development – modularist nativism, theory theory, and the two-systems theory – share a common model of mental representation. According to that model, the normative content of representation is encoded in its physical vehicle. In the present article, I point out that this claim entails the view that representation cannot emerge out of non-representational phenomena. This leads to the need of positing foundational mental content – foundationalism – and viewing cognitive development only as a reconfi guration of the innately given representations. As a result, all three models are forced to claim innate mental content, although only the modular nativists explicitly acknowledge it. Further, the idea that mental content is innate faces its own challenges: nativism does not seem to be a tenable position in either the “biological” or “psychological” sense of the term. I argue that nativism is a symptom of theoretical limitations, not a legitimate division of labor between psychology and other sciences.

Słowa kluczowe: theory of mind, mindreading, mental representation, nativism, foundationalism, emergence, teoria umysłu, natywizm, emergencja, reprezentacje mentalne, fundacjonizm

Allen J.W.P., Bickhard M.H. (2013), Stepping off the pendulum: Why only an action-based approach can transcend the nativist–empiricist debate. Cognitive Development, 28(2), 96–133. DOI: cogdev.2013.01.002.

Apperly I.A. (2012), Mindreaders: The Cognitive Basis of ‘Theory of Mind’. Hove: Psychology.

Apperly I.A., Butterll S.A. (2009), Do humans have two systems to track beliefs and belief-like states? Psychological Review, 116(4), 953–970. DOI:

Barrett H.C., Broesch T., Scott R.M., He Z., Baillargeon R., Di Wu, Laurence S. (2013), Early false-belief un- derstanding in traditional non-Western societies. Proceedings. Biological Sciences, 280(1755), 20122654. DOI:

Bickhard M.H. (2001), Why children dont have to solve the frame problems: cognitive representations are not encodings. Developmental Review, 21(2), 224–262. DOI:

Bickhard M.H. (2015), What could cognition be if not computation… Or connectionism, or dynamic systems? Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology, 35(1), 53–66. DOI:

Bickhard M.H. (2016), Probabilities over what? Human Development, 59(1), 34–36. DOI:

Bickhard M.H., Richie D.M. (1983), On the Nature of Representation: A Case Study of James Gibsons The- ory of Perception / Mark H. Bickhard, D. Michael Richie with Robert Hughes, James Dannemiller. New York, NY, USA: Praeger.

Bickhard M.H., Terveen L. (1995), Foundational Issues in Artificial Intelligence and Cognitive Science: Im- passe and Solution. Advances in Psychology: nr. 109. Amsterdam, New York: Elsevier.

Butterll S.A., Apperly I.A. (2013), How to construct a minimal theory of mind. Mind & Language, 28(5), 606–637. DOI:

Campbell R.L., Bickhard M.H. (1986), Knowing Levels and Developmental Stages. Contributions to Human Development: nr. 16. Basel: S. Karger.

Carpendale J.I.M., Wereha T.J. (2013), understanding common developmental timetables across cultures from a developmental systems perspective. Human Development, 56(3), 207–212. DOI: https://doi. org/10.1159/000351276.

Carpendale J.I.M., Hammond S.I., Atwood S. (2013), A Relational developmental systems approach to moral development. W: R.M. Lerner, J.B. Benson (eds.), Advances in Child Development and Behavior. Embodi- ment and Epigenesis: Theoretical and Methodological Issues in Understanding the Role of Biology within the Relational Developmental System Part B: Ontogenetic Dimensions, nr 45, 125–153. Elsevier. DOI:

Carruthers P. (2013), Mindreading in infancy. Mind & Language, 28(2), 141–172. DOI:

Carruthers P. (2015), Mindreading in adults: Evaluating two-systems views. Synthese. Artykuł w czasopiśmie internetowym. DOI:

Di Paolo E.A., Cuffari E.C., Jaegher, H. de (2018), Linguistic Bodies: The Continuity between Life and Lan- guage. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Dixson H.G.W., Komugabe-Dixson A.F., Dixson B.J., Low J. (2017), Scaling theory of mind in a small-scale society: a case study from Vanuatu. Child Development. Artykuł w czasopiśmie internetowym. DOI:

Elman J.L. (ed.) (1996), Neural Network Modeling and Connectionism. Rethinking Innateness: A Connection- ist Perspective on Development. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Fodor J.A. (1975), The Language of Thought. The Language and Thought Series. New York: Crowell.

Fodor J.A. (1992), A theory of the childs theory of mind. Cognition, 44(3), 283–296. DOI: https://doi. org/10.1016/0010-0277(92)90004-2.

Gilbert S.F. (2001), Ecological developmental biology: developmental biology meets the real world. Devel- opmental Biology, 233(1), 1–12. DOI:

Gilbert S.F., Epel D. (2015), Ecological Developmental Biology: The Environmental Regulation of Development, Health, and Evolution (Second edition). Sunderland Massachusetts U.S.A.: Sinauer Associates Inc. Publishers.

Gopnik A. (2003). The theory theory as an alternative to the innateness hypothesis. W: L.M. Antony, N. Horn- stein (eds.), Philosophers and Their Critics. Chomsky and His critics, 238–254. Malden, MA: Blackwell Pub. DOI:

Gopnik A. (2009), Rational constructivism: A new way to bridge rationalism and empiricism. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 32(02), 208. DOI:

Gopnik A. (2010), Dziecko filozofem. Co dziecięce umysły mówią nam o prawdzie, miłości oraz sensie życia. Na ścieżkach umysłu. Warszawa: Prószyński Media.

Gopnik A. (2011), The Theory Theory 2.0: Probabilistic models and cognitive development. Child Development Perspectives, 5(3), 161–163. DOI:

Gopnik A., Bonawitz E. (2015), Bayesian models of child development. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews. Cog nitive Science, 6(2), 75–86. DOI:

Gopnik A., Tenenbaum J.B. (2007), Bayesian networks, Bayesian learning and cognitive development. Developmental Science, 10(3), 281–287. DOI:

Gopnik A., Wellman H.M. (1992), Why the childs theory of mind really is a theory. Mind & Language, 7(1–2), 145–171. DOI:

Gopnik A., Wellman H.M. (2012), Reconstructing constructivism: causal models, Bayesian learning mechanisms, and the theory theory. Psychological Bulletin, 138(6), 1085–1108. DOI:

Gopnik A., Meltzoff A.N., Kuhl P.K. (1999), The Scientist in the Crib: What Early Learning Tells us about the Mind. Pymble, NSW, New York: HarperCollins e-books.

Gould S.J., Lewontin R.C. (1979), The spandrels of san marco and the panglossian paradigm: a critique of the adaptationist programme. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 205(1161), 581–598. DOI:

Gould S.J., Vrba E.S. (1982), Exaptation a missing term in the science of form. Paleobiology, 8(01), 4–15. DOI:

Helming K.A., Strickland B., Jacob P. (2016), Solving the puzzle about early belief-ascription. Mind & Language, 31(4), 438–469. DOI:

Kirchhoff M.D., Froese T. (2017), Where there is life there is mind: in support of a strong life-mind continuity thesis. Entropy, 19(4), 169. DOI:

Kovács Á.M., Téglás E., Endress A.D. (2010), The social sense: Susceptibility to others beliefs in human infants and adults. Science (New York, N.Y.), 330(6012), 1830–1834. DOI:

Kristen S., Sodian B. (2014), Theory of mind (tom) in early education: developmental progression of early theory of mind skills, social developmental factors and the importance of tom for learning. W: O.N. Saracho (ed.), Contemporary Perspectives in Early Childhood Education. Contemporary Perspectives on Research in Theory of Mind in Early Childhood Education, 291–320. Charlotte, North Carolina: Information Age Publishing.

Leslie A.M., Friedman O., German T.P. (2004), Core mechanisms in “theory of mind”. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8(12), 528–533. DOI:

Lewis C., Carpendale J.I.M., Stack J. (2013), Anticipation and social interaction: Commentary on “Step- ping off the pendulum: Why only an action-based approach can transcend the nativist–empiricist debate” by J. Allen and M. Bickhard. Cognitive Development, 28(2), 159–163. DOI: cogdev.2013.01.008.

Lewkowicz D.J. (2011), The biological implausibility of the nature-nurture dichotomy & what it means for the study of infancy. Infancy: The Official Journal of the International Society on Infant Studies, 16(4), 331–367. DOI:

Lewontin R.C. (2001), The Triple Helix: Gene, Organism and Environment. Cambridge (Massachusetts), London: Harvard University Press.

Lightfoot D. (1989), The childs trigger experience: Degree-0 learnability. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12(02), 321. DOI:

Low J., Apperly I.A., Butterll S.A., Rakoczy H. (2016), Cognitive architecture of belief reasoning in children and adults: a primer on the two-systems account. Child Development Perspectives, 10(3), 184–189. DOI:

Mameli M., Bateson P. (2011), An evaluation of the concept of innateness. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences, 366(1563), 436–443. DOI: rstb.2010.0174.

Mayer A., Träuble B. (2012), Synchrony in the onset of mental state understanding across cultures?: A study among children in Samoa. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 37(1), 21–28. DOI: https://

Meristo M., Morgan G., Geraci A., Iozzi L., Hjelmquist E., Surian L., Siegal M. (2012), Belief attribution in deaf and hearing infants. Developmental Science, 15(5), 633–640. DOI:

Meristo M., Strid K., Hjelmquist E. (2016), Early conversational environment enables spontaneous belief at- tribution in deaf children. Cognition, 157, 139–145. DOI:

Milligan K., Astington J.W., La Dack (2007), Language and theory of mind: meta-analysis of the relation be- tween language ability and false-belief understanding. Child Development, 78(2), 622–646. DOI:

Mills S. (2001), The idea of different folk psychologies. International Journal of Philosophical Studies, 9(4), 501–519. DOI:

Moczek A. (2014), Towards a theory of development through a theory of developmental evolution. W: A. Minelli, T. Pradeu (eds.), Towards a Theory of Development, 218–226. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Nelson K. (2005), Language pathways into the community of minds. W: J.W. Astington, J.A. Baird (eds.), Why Language Matters for Theory of Mind, 26–49. New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Nęcka E., Orzechowski J., Szymura B. (2006), Psychologia poznawcza. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN; Academica Wydawnictwo SWPS.

Onishi K.H., Baillargeon R. (2005), Do 15-month-old infants understand false beliefs? Science (New York, N.Y.), 308(5719), 255–258. DOI:

Oyama S. (1985/2000), The Ontogeny of Information. Duke University Press.

Perner J., Ruffman T. (2005), Psychology. Infants’ insight into the mind: how deep? Science (New York, N.Y.), 308(5719), 214–216. DOI:

Pezzulo G., Vosgerau G., Frith U., Hamilton A.F. d. C., Heyes C., Iriki A., Tramacere A. (2015), Acting up: an approach to the study of cognitive development. W: A.K. Engel, K.J. Friston, D. Kragic (eds.), Strüngmann Forum Reports. The Pragmatic Turn. Toward Action-oriented Views in Cognitive Science 49–77. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Piattelli-Palmarini M. (ed.). (1980), Language and Learning: The Debate between Jean Piaget and Noam Chomsky. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Pigliucci M., Müller G.B. (ed.). (2010), Evolution the Extended Synthesis. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Pinker S. (2014/1994), The Language Instinct: How the Mind Creates Language. Brilliance Audio.

Poulin-Dubois D., Chow V. (2009), The effect of a lookers past reliability on infants’ reasoning about beliefs. Developmental Psychology, 45(6), 1576–1582. DOI:

Racine T.P. (2013), How useful are the concepts “innate” and adaptation” for explaining human development. Human Development, 56(3), 141–146. DOI:

Ruffman T., Taumoepeau M. (2014), When and how does a theory of mind arise? W: O.N. Saracho (ed.), Con- temporary Perspectives in Early Childhood Education. Contemporary Perspectives on Research in Theory of Mind in Early Childhood Education 45–63. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.

Ruffman T., Slade L., Rowlandson K., Rumsey C., Garnham A. (2003), How language relates to belief, de- sire, and emotion understanding. Cognitive Development, 18(2), 139–158. DOI: S0885-2014(03)00002-9.

Samuels R. (2002). Nativism in cognitive science. Mind & Language, 17(3), 233–265. DOI: https://doi. org/10.1111/1468-0017.00197.

Samuels R. (2004). Innateness in cognitive science. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8(3), 136–141. DOI:

Scholl B.J., Leslie A.M. (2001), Minds, modules, and meta-analysis. Child Development, 72(3), 696–701. DOI:

Scott R.M., Baillargeon R. (2009), Which penguin is this? Attributing false beliefs about object identity at 18 months. Child Development, 80(4), 1172–1196. DOI:

Scott R.M., Baillargeon R. (2017), Early false-belief understanding. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 21(4), 237–249. DOI:

Scott R.M., Baillargeon R., Song H.-j., Leslie A.M. (2010), Attributing false beliefs about non-obvious properties at 18 months. Cognitive Psychology, 61(4), 366–395. DOI:

Spencer J.P., Blumberg M.S., McMurray B., Robinson S.R., Samuelson L.K., Tomblin J.B. (2009), Short arms and talking eggs: Why we should no longer abide the nativist-empiricist debate. Child Development Perspectives, 3(2), 79–87. DOI:

Strijbos D.W., De Bruin L.C. (2013), Universal belief-desire psychology?: A dilemma for theory theory and simulation theory. Philosophical Psychology, 26(5), 744–764. DOI:

Träuble B., Marinović V., Pauen S. (2010), Early theory of mind competencies: do infants understand others’beliefs? Infancy, 15(4), 434–444. DOI:

Venter C., Cohen D. (2004), The century of biology. New Perspectives Quarterly, 21(4), 73–77. DOI:

Villiers J.G. de, de Villiers P.A. (2014), The role of language in theory of mind development. Topics in Language Disorders, 34(4), 313–328. DOI:

Vinden P.G. (1996), Junin Quechua childrens understanding of mind. Child Development, 67(4), 1707–1716. DOI:

Wellman H.M. (2014), Making Minds: How Theory of Mind Develops. Oxford Series in Cognitive Development. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.

Wellman H.M., Fang F., Liu D., Zhu L., Liu G. (2006), Scaling of theory-of-mind understandings in Chinese children. Psychological Science, 17(12), 1075–1081. DOI: Wellman H.M., Fang F., Peterson C.C. (2011), Sequential progressions in a theory-of-mind scale: Longitudinal perspectives. Child Development, 82(3), 780–792. DOI:

Westra E. (2017), Pragmatic development and the false belief task. Review of Philosophy and Psychology8(2), 235–257. DOI:

Westra E., Carruthers P. (2017), Pragmatic development explains the Theory-of-Mind Scale. Cognition, 158, 165–176. DOI:

Wimmer H., Perner J. (1983), Beliefs about beliefs: Representation and constraining function of wrong beliefs in young childrens understanding of deception. Cognition, 13(1), 103–128. DOI: https://doi. org/10.1016/0010-0277(83)90004-5.

Wynn K. (1992), Addition and subtraction by human infants. Nature, 358(6389), 749–750. DOI:

Czasopismo ukazuje się w sposób ciągły on-line.
Pierwotną wersją czasopisma jest wersja elektroniczna
publikowana kwartalnie w internecie.