The Human Story - Robin Dunbar

Post Reply New Topic

I recently read this book and found within a very useful framework for understanding my experience. It's basically theory of mind defined, but defined rather well. I was hoping someone here will have read the book and if not, maybe someone might read this and be able to relate the ideas to their own experience. The word 'Intentionality' comes from the book and just means theory of mind really. It defines several levels:

0th level intentionality: Computers, maybe insects etc. These are mindless things. There are processes going on that we might call thinking but the creature itself is not aware of it.

1st level: Most animals, human infants. This is the self-aware creature. Knows that it's happy or sad or hungry etc. etc. Knows it's own thoughts.

2nd level: Most humans reach this at about 4yrs. This is the classic theory of mind as defined by the Sally-Ann test or Smarties test. Means that you know that other people have thoughts and feelings of their own. Incidentally, chimpanzees fall just short of this level.

3rd level: If 1st level is I think and 2nd level is I reckon he thinks, then 3rd level is I reckon he believes that I think. This is the level of understanding I've been struggling with my whole adult life. This is the minimum needed for a meaningful relationship with someone I think, because without it you can't understand that the other person is conscious of your feelings.

4th level: The book shows by an analysis of Othello (which was written with a mass audience in mind) that most people must have at least this level of intentionality. If you need 3rd level to have a relationship, then you need 4th level to understand other people's relationships. I certainly can't do this and the times I've got most confused in company have been when people were talking about this sort of thing. I can never remember what exactly - they always sound like Charlie Brown's teacher to me.

5th level: If you need 4th level intentionality to understand Othello, then you need 5th level to write it. This is because you have to be able to anticipate the audience's reaction in order to write an effective play. ie. I believe that the audience will think that Iago intends that Othello will think that his lover, Desdemona intends to betray him, even though Iago never says as much. (Count the italics, 5.)

5th level seems to be the limit for humans and even then you have to be pretty bright to get it.

Like I say, I can explain a lot of my experiences by supposing I had 2nd level from adolescence and have slowly developed 3rd level during adulthood. eg. I can remember being 22 and thinking after a conversation, "was he referring to me being [insert emotion]? but I never mentioned that. He can't be talking about that, it's not possible..." I was positively skeptical about others being able think about my internal states, what's more I really didn't like it - it was alien and intrusive to me. I had to accept it because I could obviously think about other people's internal states (that's 2nd level) and it didn't make sense that I should have such an unequal relationship with the people around me.

I could write more but I don't want to put people off. Do the above ideas make sense to people - does the sense of progression from 1st to 2nd to 3rd level describe your life? Can anyone share any experiences of this sort of progression?

thank you for that illuminating post. that is a keeper for me. i am barely beyond the chimp, on the cusp of understanding.

I think I'm at the 3rd level but I've only been there for two years.
I wasn't even at 2nd level in my teen years.

This might be a dumb question, but what does that mean above, to understand other people's relationships? Understand what?

You know, I'm not sure myself. My way in is to think about gossip. If you want to tell a story about another person you need to be able to gauge how close your listener is to that person. If they're too close they might tell that person what you've been saying about them, which you probably don't want. On the other hand, if they hardly know this person they won't be interested in the story at all.

The crucial factor is how 'close' the two people are. You get close to someone by knowing their mind (2nd level) and them knowing yours (your awareness of this constitutes 3rd level.) So to be aware of how 'close' two other people are requires 4th level intentionality, which is therefore necessary for gossiping.

As for why people gossip - I have no idea.

This entire theory of mind thing confuses the heck out of me.

I had very poor self awareness until my late teens. Did that make me a .5? And what does it mean to to have intention versus knowing you have intention?

Does a cat think "I feel happy" when it's purring while I scratch behind its ears? Or is it just "being happy", without some meta process observing itself.

Does one have to have some sort of inner dialogue (mental talking to one's self) before graduating to level 2?

I would have to say my awareness is smeared across all 5, often stuck in a lower level until something comes up that requires kicking it into a higher gear. Like right this moment I can hear conversations at the other end of the office but that are not people talking it's just noise - just words and not anything necessarily tied to another's intent. But if I start to actively listen, then it becomes more important to my attention and then I might hear a stream of information, not necessarily personalized, but just data input. Further up the scale a particular thing might be said that personalizes the information to a specific speaker. The voice becomes attached to a person and perhaps their intention.

So I move up and down the scale as the context might dictate. Surely everybody does this.

Very interesting, thank you!

I can understand all 5 levels logically, but I was thinking that to be able to understand it logically is maybe not full house.
As to the levels 2, 4, and 5, I guess an aspie is just not good at it, because of the lack of emotionally understanding.

I am really not sure though, because I can only speak for myself; Im not good on these levels.

Im dealing with the connection between people and the connection between myself and people all the time, but Im not sure if an NT has better requirements in this matter because of empathy?!

It makes me pose the question: How can I know if Im lacking something here, for understanding the situation completely, because if Im lacking it; how can I know that there is something more?

My intentionality profile resembles "Swiss Cheese"

There are lots of holes.

I can understand big themes/ ideas in plays, poetry, novels and films.
I've had these analytical techniques, imagery and idioms "drummed into me" during English lessons at school. I would never have been able to appreciate stories or cartoon shows if I hadn't understood character motivations.

I have also improvised drama with a clear story in mind. It's much easier to work out what to say if each word is being directed towards a clear goal. In this case, moving the story forward.

I can also watch people interact from a distance and determine if they're close friends/angry at each other and so on.

It's the real time analysis and communication "in the thick of" social interactions that I seem to have difficulties with. I can be funny and tell jokes, but I can't gossip. I can only respond to what people have said. I have never been able to go around spreading rumours about people.

So basically, I can understand big social themes like loyalty, betrayal, trust and friendship.
It's the gossipy blah blah that I find very confusing.

I can understand plays like "Julius Caesar" much better than I could a "Chick Flick".

I think you speak for the both of us!!

I've tried to imagine how an insect exists mentally or if it's even possible. Imagining how insects exist beyond their bodies is something I have a difficult time doing. I've always been interested in the ways other species are psychologically and a lot of the time I can somewhat grasp where they are...but not insects or arachnids.

Reading your post, I'm wondering if you can understand people at a distance well enough to predict how they're going to behave. I find I can usually understand social situations after they've happened, but that's never useful. If you're involved you need to be able to predict things well enough to know what to say, or more usually what NOT to say, in any given situation.

That's the point about Othello. The reason why the play is entertaining is that when Iago tells Othello about Desdemona the audience is expected to know how Othello will react. They don't know he'll kill her (spoilers!) but they know he'll do something, and it's that anticipation that makes the story exciting. If you only work out Othello's motives after the deed, then the play is just a series of events of no great interest - Othello might just as well do something else, which is how I feel about alot of films etc. Now I think I know why.

I wonder if there's a similar lack with me in ordinary social situations. That alot of conversation is uninteresting because I've got no anticipation of it going anywhere. Most conversation is not interesting under analysis - when broken down there's nothing there. The meaning of it is maybe something dramatic - to do with the possibility of what it might mean...

Maje wrote- [qoute] How can I know if Im lacking something here, for understanding the situation completely, because if Im lacking it; how can I know that there is something more?[/quote]

This is what I'm thinking.

This is what I'm thinking.[/quote]

Maybe this is why the entire Theory of Mind concept is so confusing to me. Explaining red to a blind man doesn't make him see color.