The goal of this paper is to explain children’s early success in the mirror task with a multiple-models theory of partial mirror self-recognition. Given the fact that children manifest these abilities at the same age when they first pass a mirror test, their behaviour in front of mirrors may express their capacity to operate with multiple models. Numerous studies confirm that this ability is a necessary prerequisite for children’s pretend play, synchronic imitation, and early empathic responses (see Asendorpf and Baudonnière 1993 Bischof-Köhler 1988, 2012). But what does it mean to partially recognize oneself in a mirror? How can we make sense of this prima facie puzzling idea? Perner’s seminal work (Perner 1991) suggests that an important skill children acquire during their second year is the ability to use multiple models in representing facts that do not fit into their reality model. Once mirror self-recognition is conceived of as a gradual phenomenon, there is conceptual space for a notion of partial self-recognition that precedes the ability to fully understand the nature of one’s mirror image. Accordingly, the apparently contradictory views mentioned above may turn out to be compatible to some extent. While experiments with non-human animals may demonstrate the proficiency to track how sensory stimuli vary with bodily movements, similar experiments with children may reveal something else about what goes on in the mind of a 2-year-old child when it responds meaningfully to its mirror image. Second, we must allow that the process of learning to recognize oneself in a mirror may vary from species to species. Like other cognitive achievements, recognizing oneself in a mirror requires some practice and therefore allows for “partial accomplishments” (see Courage et al. This observation holds not just for self-recognition in general, but also applies specifically to the phenomenon of mirror self-recognition. It is a well-established empirical fact that “self-recognition does not emerge suddenly with one particular behaviour, but develops gradually” (Bertenthal and Fischer 1978, p. First, we need to overcome the common sense intuition that recognizing oneself in the mirror is an all-or-nothing phenomenon. In this paper, I argue that in order to advance the debate on mirror self-recognition, two critical moves need to be made. None of these interpretations has found general acceptance, however. Further evidence from developmental studies suggests that success in the mirror task may be indicative of a socially induced form of self-awareness that emerges from integration of both perceptual and interpersonal experiences (see Rochat 2001 Rochat and Zahavi 2011). 2014), others have interpreted the mirror task as indicating only a sensorimotor capacity to match visual and kinaesthetic stimuli (see Mitchell 1993a Heyes 1994 Povinelli and Cant 1995 Povinelli 2000 Schwenkler 2008). When one removes an unusual mark on one’s face that a mirror reveals, does the removal count as evidence for self-recognition? If it does, does it also count as evidence for the existence of a rudimentary self-concept and/or the capacity to ascribe properties to oneself? While Gallup has argued that a properly executed mirror test warrants a positive answer to these questions (Gallup 1982, 1998 Gallup et al. As for what we think we don't look good in the photo.Since the discovery that chimpanzees are able to pass a simple mirror test (Gallup 1970), much has been written about how self-awareness manifests itself in human and animal behaviour. When some subtle changes occur, such as seeing normal images, we are because these challenges have our usual cognition, so we have reached awkward conclusions. The picture taken by the camera is a normal image, and it is the same as what others see, so this can explain why, after taking the photo, only you said that your appearance is so strange, others say it is normal.Īs for why you feel not so good, it is because we are used to our own mirror image. This is mainly because our faces are usually asymmetrical or not completely symmetrical, what you see is a mirror image, others see a normal image. That is to say, most of the situations you see in your whole life are different from those of others. When you look in the mirror, your appearance is a mirror look. Throwing away the angle, light, camera settings and other factors, there is a psychological phenomenon called "exposure effect" that affects our judgment: people will prefer things they are familiar with, and the increase in the number of occurrences will increase their likeness. Why you look better in the mirror than in a photograph? What is this sorcery, right? You should definitely read this. If you've ever asked yourself, "Why does my face look crooked in pictures?" And at some point in our lives, we have wondered why on the earth do we look different in the mirror than in photos.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |