Talk:Folk psychology

message: Q: What relation does this have to common sense? Because it sounds very similar.
A: Another term for Folk Psychology is "common sense psychology". It's just common sense applied to psychological questions.
---
The entire 'manifestation' section seems to take Folk Psychology as 'pseudoscience' when it is instead the populist account of the human mind (i.e. a belief that emotion is real and that the human mind is not replicable / not formalisable).
---  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.90.166.197 (talk) 14:11, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: We seem to be taking for granted here that folk psychology theory is an accurate model of the human psyche. Agree that it is a compelling theory, but considering we still have not been able to satisfactorily determine the nature of the consious mind, perhaps we should be careful of referring to the existence and nature of folk psychology as fact?Shaggorama 08:21, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: Folk psychology (sometimes called naïve psychology or common sense psychology) is the psychological theory implicit in our everyday ascriptions of others' actions, and includes concepts such as belief ("he thinks that Peter is wise"), desire ("she wants that piece of cake"), fear ("Alex is afraid of spiders") and hope ("she hopes that he is on time today"). Such ascriptions are collectively known as propositional attitudes.
I've just ran across this article here and noticed immediately that it explicitly endorses the view eliminative materialist view that folk phychology is, in fact, a theory. That seems to be a rather severe, if probably unintentional violation of the NPOV policy, no?? Let me explain: the question of whether or not folk psyhcology can be considered a theory on a par with other theories (even though erroneous ones) such as geocentrism and alchemy is oen of the fundmantal points of controversy between eliminativists and some of their opponents. The veiw that folk physchlogy is a theory has a name, as a matter of fact: the theory-theory (or theory-theory of mind). There are some (I can't of the names off the top of my head) important philosophers who opposes precisly the idea that folk psyhcology can be considered a systematic theory which can be judges based on its generalizability, predictive accuracy, internal logical consistency, fecundity, and so on. So, it's important to change the wording here right off the bat. Let's see what I can think up as an alternative formulation--Lacatosias 16:32, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: When Alison Gopnik discusses the "Theory theory" in scholarly papers with other psychologists at prestigious universities, such as Carnegie-Mellon and MIT, in the context of cognitive maps, Bayes nets, causal maps, etc., and in her latest (bestselling) book The Philosophical Baby, she's not discussing Folk psychology, yet entering "Theory theory" in the search box redirects us here, which is a great disappointment. Unfree (talk) 20:05, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Theory-theory 

message: I just corrected the error and added a few paragrpahs of explnation just off the top of my head. I was in a hurry, so please check for typos and such. I hope that helps clear things up. --Lacatosias 17:41, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  fixed up 

message: "In the view of Daniel Dennet, propositional attitudes are simply dispositions to behave in certain ways." 
WHERE does Dennett avow this? Please find a source IN DENNETT before putting words in his mouth. 
I believe this is inaccurate (POV at best). You could make it stick on Ryle, but it's not what Dennett says about the PAs. What Dennett says about the PAs is that (for example) one believes that P just in case one can be predictively attributed the belief that P. 
Troublemsome though that might be, turning it into "PAs are simply dispositions to behave" can't be accurate. Dennett is quite open about the interaction of beliefs and desires in producing behavior. He would not, then, attempt an analysis of "belief that P" into tendencies to do certain things given certain conditions; the behavioral entailments of belief that P obviously determine on one's desires as well. In the "worst" case, Dennett holds that entire ascribed mental states are dispositional in character. But this much is not necessarily obvious either, since Dennett does not anywhere (that I have read in any of his work on the Intentional Stance) identify mental states with dispositions, he just says that their truth conditions lie in the predictive success of attributing them.
I tried to clean up some of this, but this page is frankly a mess and needs a rewrite. I wish I had the time
152.3.232.17 13:20, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree this is a mess. It's hard to understand what, if anything, is being said. 121.209.148.207 (talk) 09:45, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inaccurate on Dennett 

message: "If X wants that Y, and believes that Z is necessary for Y, then X will do Z."
That's illogical.  Look at the contradictory ways Y and Z appear in the statement.  Without knowing what it means, I suggest that "that Z" be replaced by "that doing z" and that "that Y" be replaced by "Y to occur" and "for Y" be replaced by "for achieving Y".  Then we'd have:
"If X wants Y to occur and believes that doing Z is necessary for achieving Y, then X will do Z."  But what a ridiculous formalism for such a simple statement!  It's equivalent to "X will do whatever he thinks he has to do." Unfree (talk) 20:28, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Illogical characterization 

message: The foundation of folk psychology is giving the layman an understanding. When the explanation needs explaining, then the principles of folk psychology have been offended. Thus I agree, Z will do what it takes to get Y, if the motivation exists. 68.75.18.77 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 19:54, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Folk Psycholgy about an understandable language. 

message: The following sentence is POV (in addition to being improperly formatted): "Tim Crane refutes each of these claims in his book The Mechanical Mind." For him to have refuted it, the view must be false, but that's the kind of POV Wikipedia doesn't engage in. I wouldn't be surprised if Crane did refute it, but an encyclopedia shouldn't say that he did unless philosophers have come to a consensus that he has. Otherwise, it should say that he has attempted to refute it or that he has argued against it. There should be no implication of his success in doing so. Also, book titles should be italicized, and there should be a citation for the book. Parableman (talk) 12:53, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV in Crane section 

message: This multiplicative function accounting for total deviations from the ideal can be very advantageous for the purposes of consolidating a more comprehensive domain of psychology.
The tone of this article seems to contain a lot of jargon that limits the accessibility of non-philosophers. I would like to edit some of it, and some of it is useful context, but the editing required to improve readability overall seems extensive to me, and I wasn't willing to rewrite a considerable portion of the article (especially as I am not an expert) without jumping into the talk page. Dogen83 (talk) 20:04, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jargonistic 

message: Folks: The first sentence of this entry reads: "In philosophy of mind and cognitive science, folk psychology, or commonsense psychology is an inborn human capacity to explain and predict the behavior and mental state of other people." This sentence seems wrong to me.
1. I doubt that in general psychologists and philosophers of science think "folk psychology" is necessarily innate, or "inborn" (which my Merriam-Webster says is a synonym for "innate"). That is because whether or not it is innate is debated in these fields, so it cannot generally be presupposed as part of the term's meaning.
2. The claim that it is innate in the first sentence is supported by a reference to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry "Folk Psychology as a Theory." But if you read the entry (at http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/folkpsych-theory/) you will see that it does not say that at all.
3. In fact, if you read the first half of that article, you will see that whether or not folk psychology is innate is a major controversy in the field.
The sentence should be changed from "is an inborn human capacity" to "is a human capacity" which is the wording used in the SEP entry. (Also, it could use a comma after "or commonsense psychology.") Any comments before I make the change?
JohnintheBronx
JohnintheBronx (talk) 23:46, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I also reviewed this source and gained some knowledge from it. When looking at the claim of folk psychology being innate from "Folk Psychology as a Theory", I could see how there is a debate of how it could or could not be. As there is questioning behind the term, leaving the terms' meaning to having both parts would be more accurate.  Nicolemicha (talk) 21:54, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  The 1st sentence seems false (as of 3-7-15) 

message: Hi! My name is growthdeath and i'm going to try and improve this article ( it is currently Stub or Start Class) as part of my Psychology University Degree - any advice that you could provide would be welcome! --GrowthDeath (talk) 11:45, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Psychology Project 

message: — Assignment last updated by Rahneli (talk) 17:15, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Psychology Capstone