TY - JOUR
T1 - Are knowledge- and belief-reasoning automatic, and is this the right question?
AU - Surtees, Andrew
AU - Andrew, Todd
PY - 2021/11/19
Y1 - 2021/11/19
N2 - Phillips et al. conclude that current evidence supports knowledge-, but not belief-reasoning as being automatic. We suggest four reasons why this is an oversimplified answer to a question that might not have a clear-cut answer: (1) knowledge and beliefs can be incompletely equated to perceptual states, (2) sensitivity to mental states does not necessitate representation, (3) automaticity is not a single categorical feature, and (4) how we represent others' minds is dependent on social context.
AB - Phillips et al. conclude that current evidence supports knowledge-, but not belief-reasoning as being automatic. We suggest four reasons why this is an oversimplified answer to a question that might not have a clear-cut answer: (1) knowledge and beliefs can be incompletely equated to perceptual states, (2) sensitivity to mental states does not necessitate representation, (3) automaticity is not a single categorical feature, and (4) how we represent others' minds is dependent on social context.
UR - https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/behavioral-and-brain-sciences
U2 - 10.1017/S0140525X20001880
DO - 10.1017/S0140525X20001880
M3 - Article
VL - 44
JO - Behavioural and Brain Sciences
JF - Behavioural and Brain Sciences
M1 - e172
ER -