Methodologies, not method, for primate theory of mind

Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21 (1):126-127 (1998)
Heyes correctly points out some problems in primate theory of mind, but lacks a critical approach to children's theory of mind, and at times implies meta-awareness when discussing theory of mind. Also, in selecting pure experimental designs, she ignores its limitations, as well as the merits, and at times the necessity, of other methodologies.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1017/S0140525X98350700
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Revision history Request removal from index
Download options
PhilPapers Archive

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy on self-archival     Papers currently archived: 16,667
External links
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library
References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles
C. M. Heyes (1998). Theory of Mind in Nonhuman Primates. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21 (1):101-114.
Matt McCormick (2003). Questions About Functionalism in Kant's Philosophy of Mind: Lessons for Cognitive Science. Journal of Experimental & Theoretical Artificial Intelligence 15 (2):255-266.

Monthly downloads

Added to index


Total downloads

4 ( #424,619 of 1,727,288 )

Recent downloads (6 months)

1 ( #369,877 of 1,727,288 )

How can I increase my downloads?

My notes
Sign in to use this feature

Start a new thread
There  are no threads in this forum
Nothing in this forum yet.