This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cognitive science, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Cognitive scienceWikipedia:WikiProject Cognitive scienceTemplate:WikiProject Cognitive scienceCognitive science articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Neuroscience, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Neuroscience on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NeuroscienceWikipedia:WikiProject NeuroscienceTemplate:WikiProject Neuroscienceneuroscience articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Autism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of all aspects of autism and autistic culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AutismWikipedia:WikiProject AutismTemplate:WikiProject AutismAutism articles
Sally–Anne test is within the scope of WikiProject Disability. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.DisabilityWikipedia:WikiProject DisabilityTemplate:WikiProject DisabilityDisability articles
"Since other great apes are not known to have a human-like theory of mind, it is assumed that it evolved after our ancestors diverged from other great apes. Suddendorf has suggested that this occurred with H. erectus (dating from 1.8 mya)." --This is all pretty questionable. In fact some other primates are positively known to have some such theory, and the have an ability to decieve which depends on this, so I'm highly doubtful of the claim made here.
our common ancesters of 15 million years ago are not available to disucss this with - there should be an indication of how one comes to believe they had a theory of mind, if there is an assertion of it in teh text.
62.6.139.1015:51, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
What constitutes "passing" the test needs to be made clearer. GiveBlood
I agree, and I am also embarassed to admit that I actually don't understand the test's sequence of events based on the description in this article. Who's in what room when the marble is moved? Are the basket and box with their doll owners at all times? Who moves the marble? What does the test subject actually witness? Tempshill17:14, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The thing that interests me in all this is the acceptance by the devisor of the test and subsequent testers that the dolls are people-substitutes and that the person/child being tested will recognise the dolls as person-substitutes.
For this test to work at all, it must be presumed that the dolls can
be
have
do
see
think
Initially Sally and Ann (who are two lumps of plastic or stufffed cloth) "are there together". They "own" a basket and a box. Sally does some "doing". She puts a marble in the basket she owns. Then stumps or flops away out of sight. Depending on whether her legs are plastic or not. The Anne.... well, really Is she naughty? sneaky? stealing? or is it OK to take someones' marbles when they are not looking? She is somehow manipulated by the tester into taking the marble. When Sally comes back, what goes on, exactly, in her empty plastic skull? Nothing! Simply nothing!
What I am thinking about is this..
It has been said that we are programmed to recognise faces. Do we therefore recognise the face of a doll as being "person" and automatically imbue it with being, having, doing powers?
At what point in time does a young child come to accept a doll as a person substitute?
What part does imagination play in this?
What if the kid simply doesn't recognise the doll as a person-substitute?
What if the kid doesn't feel anything about the doll because in its sophisticated little brain, that thing is merely a piece of plastic or a lump of stuffed cotton?
Is this doll stuff a social response?
would a teddy and a doggy work as well?
New track
do animals percieve likenesses to things as having the attributes of the thing itself?
(excluding here the genuine error of a creature that sees its own reflection)
or does the thing have to have autonomous movement before an animal will believe it is alive? (I'm thinking about a dog who had several soft toys that she groomed like puppies.) --Amandajm14:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For, say, a two-year-old to pass the test would be considered extraordinary, I presume. But if it did happen, what could be inferred about that child? Has it ever happened? Are there any circumstances under which a child would develop a theory of mind at an unusually young age? --Shay Guy (talk) 07:51, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And any child who has seen the test before may think Sally already knows that Anne is a thieving bitch and will thus go straight to her box. Best to add a 'Why?' check-question. 81.159.139.77 (talk) 21:40, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Vsauce and this so wrong. No such thing as correct or not about it, cept u, can feel any as any no matter what and any can be perfect. Just u r autisx. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lyhendy (talk • contribs) 13:32, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have added sections for criticism, outcomes, and implication, as well as additional sources for the background of the test and its process. Additional sources include Premack and Woodruff, Tager-Flusberg, and Ruffman et al.
Alexkuka (talk) 04:09, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
