Pluralistic approach to Folk-psychology

The standard account of our folk-psychological method of interpretation has been widely understood as the attribution of beliefs and desires in order to explain and predict the actions of others. However, recent argument by pluralists such as Kristin Andrews (2007) and Peter Goldie (2007) has challenged this normative account, emphasising the lack of explanatory information when merely attributing beliefs and desires. According to Goldie, beliefs and desires only produce a ‘thin’ explanation, when in fact our folk-psychology produces a much ‘thicker’ explanation for the actions of others. This ‘thicker’ framework of causal factors include concepts such as character traits, stereotypes, motives, historical reasons, and situation specific moods, emotions and influences. Consider the following examples:

• The closer we are with someone, the better understanding we have of their common character traits. Suppose we ask the question, “why does he ride his bike to work everyday?” It is easy to attribute his desire to ride his bike to work because he believes it will help him lose weight. However, perhaps one of his personal traits is the consideration of the environments well-being. It is then natural to apply this personal trait to his actions in order to explain ‘why’ he chooses to ride his bike, ultimately being that he wants to advocate for a cleaner environment.
• Situational states can also effect how we explain the actions of others. For example, we may spend everyday at work with a very well mannered, soft spoken co-worker. However, at one of the work parties, as this individual starts to drink, he becomes very loud and obnoxious. In this case, we might attribute the co-worker’s alcohol intake as the reason for his sudden personality change.
• Motives are also an interesting way in explaining ‘how’ we come to desire something. For instance, we may ask why person A chose to shoot person B? According to Goldie (2007), one of the first questions we ask at a crime scene is, ‘what was the motive?’ Perhaps person B did something unforgivable to Person A, thus giving person A motive to get revenge on person B. ‘Revenge,’ is therefore the causal factor that helps us explain person A’s actions.

Other factors such as moods and emotions can also influence different kinds of actions. The sadness we feel from the loss of a friend or family member may explain why someone lacks motivation at work. On the other hand, the happiness one feel’s when their boss gives them a promotion can be the reason why they decide to take the entire department out for lunch. Ultimately, the pluralist argues that there are many more causal factors other than beliefs and desires that can give an explanation to our actions. The many causal factors shown above are what give us the so called ‘thicker’ explanations for our actions. Explaining the actions of others is much more complex then merely attributing beliefs and desires. The explanation and prediction of our folk-psychology is pluralistic, revealing far more detailed reasons for why we act the way we do.

References:

Andrews, K. (2007). It’s in your nature: a pluralistic folk psychology. Synthese.

Goldie, P. (2007). There Are Reasons and Reasons. In D. Hutto & M. Ratcliffe (Eds.), Folk Psychology Re-Assessed (pp. 103-114). Dordrecht: Springer

- Jacqueline Pepper, University of Toronto