Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T16:20:33.945Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

More stereotypes, please! The limits of ‘theory of mind’ and the need for further studies on the complexity of real world social interactions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 March 2017

Kristin Andrews*
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy, York University, Toronto, M6H3N8, Canada. andrewsk@yorku.cahttp://kristin-andrews.weebly.com/

Abstract

I suggest that the Stereotype Rationality Hypothesis (Jussim 2012) is only partially right. I agree it is rational to rely on stereotypes, but in the complexity of real world social interactions, most of our individuating information invokes additional stereotypes. Despite assumptions to the contrary, there is reason to think theory of mind is not accurate, and social psychology's denial of stereotype accuracy led us toward mindreading/theory of mind – a less accurate account of how we understand other people.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Andrews, K. (2012) Do apes read minds? Toward a new folk psychology. MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Apperly, I. (2010) Mindreaders: The cognitive basis of “theory of mind.” Taylor & Francis.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jussim, L. (2012) Social perception and social reality: Why accuracy dominates bias and self-fulfilling prophecy. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Locksley, A., Borgida, E., Brekke, N. & Hepburn, C. (1980) Sex stereotypes and social judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 39:821–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zawidzki, T. W. (2013) Mindshaping: A new framework for understanding human social cognition. A Bradford Book/MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar