Gergely G, Csibra G
Sub-Department of Clinical Health Psychology, University College London, UK.
Cognition. 1997 May;63(2):227-33. doi: 10.1016/s0010-0277(97)00004-8.
We argue that Premack and Premack's criticism of our demonstration (Gergely et al., 1995) of interpreting goal-directed action in one year-olds in terms of the principle of rationality are ill-founded, and their suggested alternative test for goal-attribution is open to lower level interpretations. We show that the alterative model they propose for our data in terms of 'appropriate' change of means action is but a somewhat imprecise restatement of our account of the infant's naive theory of rational action. Finally, we elaborate and clarify our model of the teleological stance in infancy which we suggest is an as yet nonmentalistic precursor of the young child's later emerging causal theory of mind.
我们认为,普雷马克和普雷马克对我们(杰尔杰利等人,1995年)依据合理性原则对一岁幼儿目标导向行动进行解释的论证的批评是毫无根据的,而且他们所建议的目标归因替代测试容易受到低层次解释的影响。我们表明,他们针对我们的数据提出的关于手段行动“适当”变化的替代模型,不过是对我们关于婴儿朴素理性行动理论的一种有些不精确的重述。最后,我们详细阐述并澄清了我们关于婴儿期目的论立场的模型,我们认为这是幼儿后期出现的因果心理理论的一种尚未涉及心理层面的前身。