text:
Talk:Theory of mind

Connection to ADHD
I see that there is a connection mentioned to ADHD in the introduction, but it is not discussed in the entry. Alliwalk (talk) 22:13, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Connection to Dystopia
The article on Dystopia is linked at the bottom of this one, but these two topics have very little, if anything, in common. Should the link be removed, perhaps? DiabloMan8890 20:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

 * Confusing "Social Disorder" with "Disordered Society" ? --195.137.93.171 (talk) 22:38, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Cartoon image
Can someone explain what the cartoon image is supposed to mean? I don't see how it is related to Theory of Mind. -- Kimiko 12:04, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Looks like a brain trying to understand how another brain works. Apokrif 11:32, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

ToM and schizophrenia
ok, i dont know if anyone will know but im currently doing some coursework and was wondering if anyone could answer a question for me, based on the mind?

I read that certain cognitive deficits, including lack of ToM, are common to PDDs and schizophrenia. Apokrif 11:18, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

For a psychology writing course, a classmate and I edited the article to include more information on schizophrenia, in the Deficits section and in Brain Mechanisms. (KateHL (talk) 01:15, 22 February 2015 (UTC))

Autism and Theory of Mind
Does anyone know a reference for the assertion in the article that: "autistic people who develop a workable theory of mind tend to be aware not only that other people have different knowledge from themselves but also that other people have a different way of thinking." 24.26.98.245 (talk)

The sentence at the end of the autism section seems to be erroneous opinion.: "These researchers’ findings are important to understanding the social disorder, because they suggest that autism’s abnormalities, which may initially appear to be unrelated to theory of mind, such as communication challenges, in fact result from theory of mind deficits." Even if all autistic individuals had testable theory of mind deficiencies, would one say that autism was caused by theory of mind deficiencies, or just that the two were correlated. I will change "result from" to be "correlated to" unless someone has objections or references. 24.26.98.245 (talk) 07:44, 18 December 2007 (UTC)BP

Actually, does that sentence convey anything additional? It is basically restating that the two might be related, and saying its important, but this doesnt add anything scientific/factual.... 24.26.98.245 (talk) 07:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)BP

 * It think it's more complex than that !
 * Autism’s abnormalities result from theory of mind deficits.

 * does not necessarily mean that
 * Theory of mind deficits cause autism.

 * Rather
 * Autism causes theory of mind deficits which, in turn, cause further abnormalities.

 * No ?
 * Isn't it ironic that we're striving to know what someone else means, in an article about 'theory of mind' !
 * --87.194.174.252 (talk) 13:49, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Or am I mistaken in considering autism to be a disease, rather than a syndrome (collection of symptoms) ? Or a perfectly valid and healthy personality style ? Or even a completely different Theory of Mind ? (same contributor, different IP!)--195.137.93.171 (talk) 22:32, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * This bit does not make sense to me now:

 * ... sugges that a person with autism deficits in theory of mind result from a distortion in understanding and responding to emotions.

 * Is 'deficits' meant to be a verb or a noun ? How about 'result' ? It just doesn't parse as English language !

 * Using "autism-related deficits" would result in a phrase that 'boils down' to " ... a person ... result from a distortion ..."

 * How about making the nouns and verbs explicit:

 * ... suggests that, in a person with autism, any deficiency in theory of mind may result from a distortion in understanding and responding to emotions.

 * But isn't that just a truism - precisely the definition of ToM !

 * To be honest, I think the original sentence quoted above was best ! Meaning "Autism may include theory of mind deficits which are noticeable as communication difficulties." Or "Theory of Mind may help to explain communication and awareness difficulties that are often present in autism." Not implying cause-and-effect.

This remarkable study appears to show that Theory of Mind leads to the wrong interpretation of a person's intentions. By projecting themselves into a character rather than listening they misread the situation. Strong evidence that Theory of Mind is a not a problem of autism but a problem of non-autism, misnamed simply due to being a feature/bug of the majority 86.143.58.116 (talk) 10:18, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

If you simply think about it, both autists and non autists have an ability to consider other person's feelings and have a general idea of what other people are like. I this way both have a theory of mind, be it different. here's a study proving that all people have a theory of mind: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6959478/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by DenniZr (talk • contribs) 15:51, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

 * --195.137.93.171 (talk) 00:18, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Clinical Psychologist here. I'd say the relationship between theory of mind and autism is thus - autism, where there are extreme language acquisition delays, which can be due to symptoms but just as easily be due to a maladaptive environment or some combination of both, lead to lack of language/conceptual skills within a certain timeframe (I'm not 100%, but I would say by around the age of 7) of neurocognitive development, which then inhibits permanently the ability to understand others and that their perspectives and knowledge are discreet from your own. I actually take issue with the initial sentence of the article as a whole, and was coming here to complain, because there isn't enough justification to say that theory of mind is an inhibition of empathy, as empathy itself is somehow poorly defined, and can refer to reflexive sharing of emotional experiences (like emotional contagion, or even yawning) or projective identification, or compassion.

Please note, this isn't isolated to autism - in situations where people haven't acquired language for other reasons within that particular neurocognitive timeframe, the result is the same. A great example is how, in Nicaragua, due to socio-political issues, Deaf people were prevented from being schooled together and from learning sign language. The result was adults who didn't understand concepts like deceit or limitations of another's perspective, depending on what ages they were effected by this phenomenon from. In fact, as I recall, this is where all our early theory of mind research really came from, and it started not with psychology but with linguistics before we all caught onto the psychological ramifications. Sorry I can't provide references as I wasn't prepared - but I wanted to provide enough information that somebody who has the time and energy might be able to find the necessary information. 2601:244:1:4580:1C0B:D33F:6D22:D710 (talk) 22:29, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

 * Thanks for pointing this out, I've removed the reference to empathy in the introductory sentences and added another sentence later on to mention their relation, besides a few other changes. Phlsph7 (talk) 05:12, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

 * I think I found that study on Nicaraguan deaf students, at https://acamh.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2006.01621.x . I'll take a read through, but thank you for referencing that! Patrickpowns (talk) 18:03, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Needs work
This article needs work. In particular, it says nothing about 'theory of mind' as a vast area in philosophy - perhaps it shouldn't be covered here at all, so for now I've added a disambig link at the start. Ben Finn 21:46, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

 * We should be content with that disambig link. In philosophy, "theory of mind" is just a description of a wide and general area of interest.  In psychology, "theory of mind" is a proper name for a particular body of literature.  Nevertheless, this article does indeed need work.  It especially needs more information about criticisms of the theory (of which there are plenty).  KSchutte 18:34, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

 * KSchutte, do you mind providing those links? I found this article several months ago, while reading about animal intelligence, and found it to be a very intriguing subject.  In the process, I actually became friends with an autistic woman who seems to lack this theory of mind, yet is very aware of her lack thereof.  Particularly of interest to me is the recent study about the neurons in the brain that are allegedly devoted to developing theory of mind in individuals. Raphael 19:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I've tried to divide the page up into subcategories, and I removed an irrelevant link to a PNAS paper which talks about Self, not Theory of Mind. I'm sure more work could be done to expand and reference each subcategory. AFdeCH 00:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

A Functional Model of the Mind

 * This functional model of the mind is a metaphysical philosophy based on subjects and relations. Since anything can be a subject, it is the highest of all possible systems. (There is a little more information in this description than is in the diagram.  Not everything can be drawn.)

 * Subject - a cross-utilized unit of a relation
 * Relation - more than one subject combined together
 * Extrinsic Subject - subject given to a relation
 * Intrinsic Subject - subject contained in a relation
 * Right - if a subject is within an extrinsic subject
 * Wrong - if a subject is not within an extrinsic subject
 * Possession - if an intrinsic subject is within a subject
 * Good - what increases a relation
 * Bad - what hinders or decreases a relation

 * Happiness - occurs if subjects combine and form a relation. There are five different types of happiness.  In order to include non-social relations in these definitions, the generic term combination is used symbolized with the letter 'C'.
 * 1stC - occurs when a relation is formed. Here the extrinsic subject is created.
 * 2ndC - occurs when subjects are combined to an existing relation. Here the extrinsic subject  already exists.
 * 3rdC - occurs as the back and forth dynamics between relations. Here more than one extrinsic subject is involved.
 * Leverage - resembles a lever, the relative lowering of a subject in a relation causes the relative increase of the other related subjects. This also is known as apathetic happiness. Subjects on opposite sides of the lever are apathetic to each other.  An examples of this is teasing.
 * Contentment - is a relative position a subject has in a relationship. This position is what we mean when we say we are "happy". Here the word "content" can be used interchangibly.
 * Unhappiness is, of course, the converse but with separation instead of combination. Hate is excessive apathy.

 * Nervousness - anticipation of a combination
 * Worry - anticipation of a separation
 * Shyness - excessive Nervousness
 * Fear - excessive Worry
 * Pride - above Contentment
 * Shame - below Contentment
 * Dignity - empathetic Pride
 * Arrogance - excessive Dignity
 * Honor - the action toward Dignity
 * Jealousy - apathetic Pride
 * Envy - the action toward Jealousy
 * Modesty - empathetic Shame
 * Humility - the action toward Modesty
 * Pity - apathetic Shame
 * Disgust - the action toward Pity
 * Expectation - future Contentment
 * Standard - past Contentment
 * Surprise - empathetically or apathetically above Standard or Expectation
 * Embarrassment - empathetically below Standard or Expectation
 * Disappointment - apathetically below Standard or Expectation
 * Elation - excessive Surprise
 * Sadness - excessive Disappointment or Embarrassment

 * The name of this system is Subjations which is a blend of words subjects and relations. What is especially interesting is that even though it is a system of emotions it also conforms with evolution.  After all, every living thing has relatives.  Also, although emotions have no substance they do invoke physical changes in the body.  This leads to the question, is this science or not?  One more thing I'd like to add is something I call the Base Rule.  The Base Rule states that "Related subjects do not combine for the same reason that unrelated subjects do not separate".  That doesn't sound like much but it is a significant factor with morality.   I welcome any feedback.  I'm the author.  My name is John Huber and my email is jhn_hbr@yahoo.com

Crows know what other Crows know
I guess this should be added to the Non-Human Theory of Mind section:

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/mg19426091.700-the-scheming-minds-of-crows.html

Sry, for not having a better link. 13 Sept 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.124.3.108 (talk) 13:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

= The reference to "Premack, D. G. & Woodruff, G. (1978). Does the chimpanzee have a theory of mind? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 1, 515-526." is made several times in the references

 * Nicky Clayton, who features in the New Scientist article, cited above, was the interviewee in a [v programme] in the the BBC Radio 4 Series "The Life Scientific" November 2011. See also http://www.psychol.cam.ac.uk/ccl/    Vernon White  . . . Talk 20:13, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * also, see below under "Western scrub jays and food pilfering" Vernon White  . . . Talk 20:15, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Theory of 'nasty' minds
Somebody needs to post up about this.

I dont know enough about it.

194.83.93.11 (talk) 12:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Neil

Theory of Mind - General Comment
The comments about functionalism and mind brain identity at the beginning of the page have very little specifically to do with theory of mind (maybe the author thought that 'theory of mind' was a synonym for 'philosophy of mind'?) and should be dropped. [I have now removed this section]

The section on 'philosophical roots' conflates 'theory theory' with 'folk psychology' whilst ignoring genuine philosophical parallels between 'theory theory' and proposed philosophical solutions to the 'problem of other minds' such as the 'argument from analogy' (see e.g. Mill 1889.)

This section also argues that, unlike 'theory theory' "simulation theory suggests ToM is not, at its core, theoretical." However this conception of simulation theory as non theoretical has been vigorously contested in recent literature. e.g.

"The presupposition both theories [TT and ST] share is that mind reading is primarily a ‘spectatorial process' of explanation and prediction. On this way of thinking self and other stand in relation to each other as observer and observed…This view of intersubjective relations seems distorted."

(Thompson, E. (2001) Empathy and Consciousness in Thompson, E. (Ed) Between Ourselves, Imprint Academic, 2001.  p.12)

Paul

Social Neuroscience papers
Here are some sources about theory of mind published in Social Neuroscience that might be used to improve this article (which I find to be a bit dated):

Eubulides (talk) 16:08, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Edits to "Brain Mechanisms" section
I've replaced the first paragraph of the "Brain Mechanisms" section with four paragraphs that are far more informative and comprehensive. Further comments/questions on this edit are welcome.

I also removed the sentence "They [mPFC and TPJ] are involved in many other functions, drawing on executive attention" from the subsequent paragraph. The extent to which mPFC and TPJ are selectively involved in social cognitive processes is a very contentious matter, and we by no means know that they are involved in "many other functions." Also, "executive attention" is an unclear term. mPFC is seemingly NOT involved in working memory or attentional reorienting, insofar as it deactivates during such tasks, although the TPJ may be involved in the latter.

I've also added a section on neuroimaging studies of theory of mind impairment in autism.

Bdeen (talk) 19:43, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

appearance-reality tests
This section is a bit muddled, what is currently described in this section is actually another false-belief study. Appearance reality tests are those which evaluate a childs capability of discerning when the appearance of an object is concurrent with what the object actually is. An example of this would be Flavell, Flavell and Green's (1983) study. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.234.146.251 (talk) 16:21, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

criticism section
I'm temporarily moving here a paragraph just added by, because it is weasel-worded in a way that absolutely requires a source. Here is the paragraph:

 * Criticism of Theory of Mind: Some argue that "theory of mind" is too vague and arbitrary to really mean anything and is simply a way of putting humans at some kind of higher level than animals for all but a few exceptions. This view maintains that humans and animals can have the same thought processes, it's just that humans have a far larger brain and can go at problems in a way that is hugely more complicated. In other words there is no big jump between supposedly more simple learned behaviour and theory of mind because they are both the same thing, there is just a continuum of understanding rather than one discrete jump to "theory of mind".

I'm not rejecting the assertions -- I actually have a lot of sympathy with them -- but you just can't put this sort of thing into an article without specifying who the "some argue" refers to. Looie496 (talk) 16:53, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

 * I agree with the deletion - I think that critic has not read the article - it seems more of a criticism of philosophy of mind !

Remove from WikiProject Philosophy ?
... and the categories below. This is Psychology - you want philosophy of mind, not Theory of Mind ?

In a nutshell, it says "I know what you know".

--195.137.93.171 (talk) 00:29, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

 * Well, I think it's relevant to philosophy too. At any rate, this should be a decision for WikiProject Philosophy to make. Looie496 (talk) 02:03, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Massive changes
An IP editor has just made major changes to several sections of the article, with an edit summary saying "ToM Spring 2009". Changes on such a scale are always difficult to follow, but on scanning through the revisions, most of them look like improvements to me, so I'm not going to revert at this time. In future, though, please discuss before making such major changes to an article, or they are likely to be reverted just for the sake of stability. It would also be very helpful for editors who make such major contributions to register an account, so that it is possible to contact them for discussion. Looie496 (talk) 19:11, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Help to translate in to russian "Theory of mind"
In russian theory is system of organisation scientific knowledge about fact ...etc. and mind is human's ability to understand, to comprehend, to ratiocinate and etc. summation: Theory of mind is system of organisation scientific knowledge about human's ability  to understand, to comprehend, to ratiocinate and etc.

Also in english theory is 'a formal statement of the rules on which a subject of study is based or of ideas which are suggested to explain a fact or event or, more generally, an opinion or explanation' and mind is 'the part of a person that enables a person to think, feel emotions and be aware of things'

But. This article conceive under "Theory of mind" something another. --Aia philosophia (talk) 14:52, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

 * "Theory of mind" is a very poorly chosen term even in English, but is too well-established in the literature to be changeable. Translating it part by part into Russian might not be the best choice.  I expect there is a standard translation, but have no idea what it is. Looie496 (talk) 00:42, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

"Theory of mind is the ability to attribute mental states" - how theory may be ability? Theory of mind is not theory of consciousness, is't it? --Aia philosophia (talk) 06:13, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

 * As I said, you are right, the concept is very badly named. The blame goes to Premack and Woodruff, who invented the term in their article "Does the chimpanzee have a theory of mind?" in 1978.  After 30 years and hundreds of publications, even if we agree now that the term is wrong, it is too late to change it.  Anyway, since the Premack and Woodruff article was very widely-read, you could try looking for a Russian translation, to see what wording was used in the title there. Looie496 (talk) 16:02, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

 * Thanks :) Premack's article was't translated in russian, and it had't very widely-read... Attempts translate "theory of mind" left it in quotation mark. --Aia philosophia (talk) 18:06, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the term just hit Looie's consciousness at an awkward angle; in any case, it's hardly constructive to try to fix blame. Aia ph., on the other hand may have faced a quite specific barrier: unless i fail to appreciate the exceptional cases or my sparse knowledge of the Russian language is misleading me, "the theory" and "theory" are translated to the same single Russian word. But "the theory of mind" is clear to all native English-speakers, and the phrase "theory of mind" will alert most of them (and probably native speakers of nearly all West-European languages) that "something exceptional is going on here", and that there's a somewhat subtle distinction being made:
 * A theory of mind means one (purportedly) well-tested account of how minds work and/or why they work as they do.
 * "The theory of mind" means a theory of mind that someone is claiming explains and predicts all the mental phenomena that any other plusible theory of mind does.
 * But "theory of mind" is not a theory but a unified set of phenomenon where an individual behaves (or many individuals of a species do so) in some ways that best make sense on the hypothesis that they "at least implicitly act as if they have a theory that others have minds -- as if they know" that one or more others, with whom they interact, have a mind or minds.
 * Any creature that entertains, at least figuratively, such a theory about another will behave toward that other as if she either hopes that the other will understand what she intends (and thus cooperate with her), or hopes that the other will "be fooled" about her intentions (and present her with an opportunity to cheat them). In a line, "theory of mind" is the mental capability of an individual that enables him to plans to affect others' behavior.  I'm not so far inclined to jump into editing that understanding into the article (or even try to see if its already been done) but it hasn't been done, it should be. --Jerzy•t 22:50, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Schizophrenia?
The article mentions that some schizophrenics has impairments in their theory of mind. I strongly suspect that those are actually people with autism spectrum disorders which has been misdiagnosed as schizophrenics. Also, I don't think schizoid personality disorder exists, people with that diagnosis actually has Asperger syndrome. And yes, I am an Aspie myself.

2009-08-18 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden.

 * The article needs to go with what the literature says, but for what it's worth, I have personally seen people with definite paranoid schizophrenia who had great difficulty understanding what other people were thinking, and constantly attributed the wrong motives to their actions -- this is a major feature of what we call "paranoia". Looie496 (talk) 17:07, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I don’t think paranoia has anything with this to do. If I have understood it correctly persons suffering from paranoid schizophrenia imagines themselves to be persecuted by people which really doe not exist. Persons with paranoia imagine that they are persecuted by real people: it is just the persecution which is imaginary. Please correct me if I am wrong!

2009-08-24 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.247.167.70 (talk) 10:56, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

 * That isn't quite true -- people with paranoid schizophrenia imagine themselves persecuted by real people as well as imaginary people. That's actually one of the biggest problems with the disorder. Looie496 (talk) 18:07, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

New Title: Animal ToM
This really should be titled "Animal Theory of Mind." It very much reads like an Ethology article, almost like something written by Povinelli (or someone who's read too much Povinelli). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.33.35.132 (talk) 03:21, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Most of the article is about humans, so I don't get where you're coming from. Looie496 (talk) 05:38, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

New article in need of attention
I've created a new article (stub) for Yale's Ami Klin, a fairly high-profile autism/Asperger's researcher. As this is rather out of my field, I'm looking for any assistance in expanding the article. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 21:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Western scrub jays and food pilfering
The scrub jay is a food cacher. Here is a quote from an abstract from an article that I think needs to be included on this page: When observed by potential pilferers at the time of caching, experienced jays that have been thieves themselves, take further protective action. Once the potential pilferers have left, they move caches those birds have seen, re-hiding them in new places. Naive birds that had no thieving experience do not do so.By focusing on the counter strategies of the cacher when previously observed by a potential pilferer, these results raise the intriguing possibility that re-caching is based on a form of mental attribution, namely the simulation of another bird’s viewpoint. Clayton, N.S., Dally, J.M. & Emery, N.J. (2007). Social cognition by food-caching corvids: the western scrub-jay as a natural psychologist. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 362, 507–522. doi:10.1098/rstb.2006.1992 Another paper: Emery, N.J., Dally, J.M., Clayton, N.S. (2004). Western scrub-jays (Aphelocoma californica) use cognitive strategies to protect their caches from thieving conspecifics. Animal Cognition, 7, 37–44. doi: 10.1007/s10071-003-0178-7

I'd do it myself but I am not very confident in my skills. But it really seems to imply the jays have some ToM. 71.48.77.37 (talk) 23:43, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

 * Although I am dubious about the interpretation here, I agree with you that a discussion of these facts and arguments belongs in the article. The only way to gain confidence in your skills is to use them -- why not give it a shot?  It would be nice, though, to also point out the counterarguments advanced in papers such as .  Regards, Looie496 (talk) 17:35, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * See also, above at "Crows know what other Crows know".  Vernon White  . . . Talk 20:18, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

ToM in deaf children
There is an interesting paper on ToM in children who were born deaf or have become deaf before the acquisition of language. They fail in the false-belief task very much like autistic children.

The paper also implies that this is due to having hearing parents who (according to other research) are likely not to converse about imaginary or unobservable topics. This was not significantly tested though - only two out of 26 subjects had deaf parents (both passed successfully).

Candida C. Peterson, Michael Siegal (1995). Deafness, Conversation and Theory of Mind, DOI: 10.1111/j.1469-7610.1995.tb01303.x

Yamitai (talk) 02:31, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Non-human theory of mind
There are stories of Chimps lying-to or misleading their captors. For example, Lucy_Temerlin was reported to have lied when caught defecating in the wrong place, blaming it on one of her trainers (as heard on This American Life). An Orangutan named Fu Manchu hid a piece of metal used to pick a lock and escape from his cage in the Nebraska Zoo (as heard on Radiolab http://mediasearch.wnyc.org/m/28543257/shorts-fu-manchu.htm). Isn't this deceipt an indication that they understand that their captors have a different perspective? Deproduction (talk) 21:50, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Is there a reliable source discussing this? - SummerPhD (talk) 00:48, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * you don't find This American Life and Radiolab to be reliable?  I inserted the reference to wnyc. The info on Lucy_Temerlin is visible everywhere, as it was a well-documented experiment. I saw a documentary on PBS (I didn't catch the title) that said that even the smartest chimps cant comprehend that another chimp/being would have a different perspective. That statement was called into question in my mind, first while reading about Lucy, and again while hearing the radiolab story about Fu Manchu http://www.radiolab.org/blogs/radiolab-blog/2010/jan/25/fu-manchu/  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deproduction (talk • contribs) 02:14, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Whos theory of mind ?
Can someone add information about who originally developed Theory of Mind - I think it might be William James ? 81.141.30.252 (talk) 18:28, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * "Theory of mind" does not refer to a scientific or scholarly theory about what minds are. ToM is one of the patterns of behavior that is typically exhibited by the minds of normal humans: When a fly is buzzing around me, i see a fancy wind-up toy that either rests or zooms; if you lean your spear against a tree on seeing me, i say to myself, "OK, she's in no rush for a fight; what is it that she's weighing in her mind?", bcz we she and i each entertain, implicitly and perhaps explicitly, a "theory" abt what the other is thinking, and how that should affect our respective behaviors.  So, my having theory of mind means that i can ask myself, e.g., whether you have a sense of humor and i have none, leading to the conclusion that you made a joke & the proverbial pole jes' kep' me fum gittin' it. But just in case you were serious, this is addressed to anyone else who's not sure: perhaps you have made a joke that is rather meta, but perhaps you've just learned that Theory of Mind developed by evolution, before anyone asked themselves whether psychologists should consider theorizing about what Mind is... (and in that case someone probably needs to make the accompanying article clearer). --Jerzy•t 02:27, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Plagiarism?
The entire Brain Mechanisms section might have been plagiarized, the literal section can be found on at least a wordpress blog (http://asiaaudiovisualra09puspitasani.wordpress.com/idea-brain-mind/brain-mechanisms/), where it might have had its origins, not completely sure - the section at least appears as if it came straight from someone's thesis, rather than being written for an encyclopedia. I will attempt to insert the section into Eudora (a plagiarism detection system), and see what it spits out - hopefully tomorrow. 94.214.196.189 (talk) 02:12, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * There is no doubt that the sections match, but there is good reason to believe that the Wikipedia version came first. It was added January 2009 by .  The version on the blog matches the final version that Bdeen created rather than the initial version, and also lacks the references that are in the Wikipedia version.  Note also that Bdeen left a note about his edits in the section of this talk page titled Edits to "Brain Mechanisms" section, above.  Also there is no way of being sure that Bdeen is not the same person as Puspitasani, in which case this would not be plagiarism in either direction. Looie496 (talk) 05:38, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Section "Other tasks"
In this section, there is the following text: "In order to make tasks more accessible for other animals, young children, and autistic individuals, theory of mind research has begun employing non-verbal paradigms. One category of tasks uses a preferential looking paradigm, with looking time as the dependent variable. For instance, Woodward[full citation needed] found that 9-month-old infants preferred looking at behaviors performed by a human hand over those made by an inanimate hand-like object." It is not at all clear to me how preferentially looking at a human hand over an inanimate hand-like object relates to ToM theory. Please explain! Lova Falk    talk   16:29, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Abbreviation (ToM)
I think it would be more scholarly to use TM as an abbreviation, not ToM. Also, this abbreviation should come at the very beginning of the article in brackets after the first words. Iain (talk) 19:40, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, as far as I remember, all articles/books I have read use ToM.  Lova Falk     talk   18:51, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

That was then, this is now
Back when I studued philosophy, Theory of Mind was the philosophical study of how conscious thoughts arise in the human brain. What is that discipline called these days? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:58, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Cultural Variation - Where to Place
Evidence that theories of "theory of mind" differ across cultures. For instance, "Euro-American modern secular" model sees minds as separate containers with clear boundaries between other minds and the external environment. "Euro-American modern supernaturalist" follows the former with certain exceptions in which the mind is more permeable. And my favorite, the "mind control" model, found throughout Asia, in Thailand in particular, in which boundaries between minds and their environment are much more blurred - uncontrolled emotions can sort-of "leak" out of uncontrolled minds in the form of ghosts.

So far, researchers have identified six different models. I think it's relevant and important given the urgent need to study psychological phenomenon outside of W.E.I.R.D. cultures. But - I figured I'd check here first since I'm a newb. Also would like advice regarding where to place such a section if it's relevant/reliable enough (was thinking it might flow nicely before or after "Non-human"?).

Source: Towards an Anthropological Theory of Mind. Is it reliable enough? I thought so, but again, I'm a noob. Hope somebodies watching this! Tangelopixi (talk) 08:47, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

It seems that the use of this phrase is deeply ingrained with the meaning given in the text, but as a respecter of language I can't help thinking that the phrase "Theory of mind" is a mistake. As the opening sentences make clear, it is more a presumption than a theory. The underlying idea is better represented by the simple word "empathy", which is so commonly and clearly understood by everyone that an encyclopedia entry would be redundant if that simple and apt word were to be adopted. g4oep — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.96.60.31 (talk) 12:44, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Article talk pages are for discussing improvements to the article, not for general discussion of the topic. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 12:52, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Can we look at a bifurcating to include a theory of alien minds?
Under the guise of a character interview, Profoundly Gifted Magazine Interviews Charles Wallace Murry... talks about "theory of other minds" being usefully bifurcated into a theory of like minds and a theory of alien minds, and I am working on that in a revamped author bio for my site.

The question is significant, and one psychology Ph.D. said "I would research this if I were free to do academic research now [she was working in counseling]."

24.15.85.69 (talk) 22:34, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

 * Let me just point out that anything that goes into a Wikipedia article must be derived from reputable published sources. That fictional "interview" does not count. Looie496 (talk) 13:29, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Habent sua fata libelli
Theory Of Mind (As Pure Act) or 'general theory of mind', the first systematic treatise by the chair of philosophy at Rome and the epistemological ontology he championed for the Italian Fascist revolution to contrast the materialist communist philosophy. Can we link that somehow to this page, since, though forgotten in the English speaking world (mostly because it's follow-up, his nigh-eight-hundred pg. magnum opus 'System of Logic' was never translated into English, due to stigma and it's late coming and lack of interest (alas, we have Heidegger, Gentile was not offensive enough to garner morbid curiosity due to how "liberal" and "left" many would be loathe to admit he *actually* (pun intended) was. It's a seminal work in world philosophy and the explosive core to the short lived Fascist movement which did influence history enough that his main English representative work should be alluded to in at least a disambig. Just don't know how would be appropriate here. 66.96.79.217 (talk) 22:52, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

False Photograph Task Does Not Test for Theory of Mind
In Other Tasks, section 4.3 of the article, the "false-photograph" task is mentioned. However, both of the references, 43 and 44 , actually serve to contrast a child's ability to complete false photograph tasks versus false belief tasks.

In a false-photograph experiment, children are not representing others' minds. Instead, they must maintain representations of the objects in the photograph. On the other hand, in a false belief experiment, children need theory of mind because they must represent others' beliefs and thoughts.

Should we revise the information on "false photograph" task? Or remove it entirely? Jlhan (talk) 10:04, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Theism

 * 1) not to understand the theory of mind, being intellectually less than 4 years of age, and claiming that the supposedly precosmic cosmogonous bearer of personhood has the same beneficial intentions towards our own various personhoods
 * 2) to claim that the universe is the atheistic toy of the theist god (the universe itself doesn't have intentions in Christianity, instead god controls is; in animism it has intentions, and in physics it doesn't have intentions but exhibits probabilistic ethology [behavioral patterns])  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.4.218.168 (talk) 11:13, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Request to elaborate Evolution of TOM section and create new Cultural Variation section
For a final project in a graduate evolutionary psychology class. Tangelopixi (talk) 03:15, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Genetic based eating disorder connection
First section claims that genetic-based eating disorders can cause ToM deficits. I couldnt find this in the linked citations, could someone point it out? 98.10.36.202 (talk) 23:21, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Importance of using up to date sources
Scientific concessuss has charged drastically in regards to theory of mind over the last thirty years. If you are adding references to this article, please be sure to use recent sources!

Removal of information
I have been asked here to justify my previous removal of parts of this article - the information is out of date, and more recent (past twenty years) scientific consensus disagrees with it, as seen in the sources I cited in my edit. -- ☽☆ NotCh arizar d ( talk ) 05:29, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

 * Hello and thanks for bringing this to the talk page. The first paragraph you removed is from the lead. It goes as follows:
 * "Deficits in theory of mind can occur in people with autism spectrum disorders, genetic-based eating disorders, schizophrenia, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, cocaine addiction, and brain damage suffered from alcohol's neurotoxicity; deficits associated with opiate addiction are reversed after prolonged abstinence. Having a theory of mind is similar to but not identical with having the capacity for empathy or for sympathy."

 * Could you spell out in detail how, as you claim, "...the information is out of date, and more recent (past twenty years) scientific consensus disagrees with it..."? Please keep in mind: all the sources cited here are from the past twenty years. Phlsph7 (talk) 05:49, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see. I assumed you were talking about the main article and only disussed my reason for that, I am sorry. My removal of that in the lead was because I thought perhaps it may have been too long, I have been told in regards to other articles that I've made/drafted that the lead needs to be kept fairly small as a strong summary of the article for people to get a quick impression, and I thought that specific detail mightn't have fitted in the lead. I sought advice at the Teahouse and they told me it's very important to be careful when changing the lead because of how important it is, so in future I'll be sure to use to talk the talk page before doing so.  -- ☽☆ NotCh arizar d  ( talk ) 16:17, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Whatever the faults of the current lead, excessive length is not one of them. One of the maintenance templates for this article is Template:Lead too short. Phlsph7 (talk) 04:55, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * That's fair. Do you take issue with my edits outside of the lead? -- ☽☆ NotCh arizar d  ( talk ) 00:40, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, I have similar doubts here as well. For example, could you provide reliable sources for your justification in relation to the removal of the following paragraph?
 * "Understanding of others' intentions is another critical precursor to understanding other minds because intentionality, or "aboutness", is a fundamental feature of mental states and events. The "intentional stance" was defined by Daniel Dennett as an understanding that others' actions are goal-directed and arise from particular beliefs or desires. Both two- and three-year-old children could discriminate when an experimenter intentionally vs. accidentally marked a box with stickers as."

 * The mere fact that the sources were not published in the past 20 years is not a sufficient reason to remove the material, so you would have to show how there is a clear consensus in the more recent publications against the claims raised here, like concerning the role of intentionality or the study about the children.
 * Similar doubts would apply to other removed paragraphs. It seems that you are still in the process of getting started as a wiki editor and the changes in questions are extensive and concern a big article with many monthly views. So I would suggest that you keep the issue at the back of your mind and get back to it once you have more experience. This way, it might be easier for you to distinguish the problematic aspects of your changes from the less controversial ones. Phlsph7 (talk) 05:36, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * That makes sense in regards to coming back once I've a bit more experience, I think I got a bit over my head trying to do a big article. Would it be okay if for now, if rather than deleting some paragraphs in the autism section, I added some info with good sources that disagrees with what has already been said? I appreciate also you explaining everything clearly, I know it must be frustrating sometimes dealing with new editors getting used to stuff. -- ☽☆ NotCh arizar d  ( talk ) 08:41, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * We were all new editors once and making mistakes is an important part in figuring out how things work. Thanks for your efforts at improving this article. The paragraph on the "double empathy problem" sounds good to me. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:19, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Outdated ableist ideas about autism and neurodiversity in this article
The idea that neurodivergent people lack empathy is considered to be wrong and rooted in the fact that neurotypical people are misunderstanding and misnaming autistic behavior. The article also implies that empathy is inherent to being neurotypical, which is just simply incorrect. 147.134.61.128 (talk) 17:49, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Fails to include psychopathy
The article doesn't mention psychopathy or sociopathy anywhere, and yet theory of mind is an important aspect of it. Some sources: More: Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 10:34, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Theory of mind and mentalizing ability in antisocial personality disorders with and without psychopathy (2004)
 * Theory of Mind in the psychopath (2008)
 * Psychopathic traits and theory of mind task performance: A Systematic review and meta-analysis]
 * Theory of mind and psychopathy: can psychopathic individuals read the 'language of the eyes'? (2003)
 * The role of the orbitofrontal cortex in affective theory of mind deficits in criminal offenders with psychopathic tendencies (2009)
 * How Psychopaths See the World (2018).

ToM in LLMs
Does it make sense to include the perfomance of large language models on theory of mind tests? See for example Testing theory of mind in large language models and humans Limpaldu (talk) 13:21, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Theory of mind


text:
Talk:Allhallows-on-Sea

"the river itself begins a 200 mile journey inland"

Some mistake, surely?

Achtung
Allhallows-on-Sea, Hoo All Hallows, Allhallows: to be rationalised! JackyR 00:15, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:Allhallows-on-Sea


text:
Talk:Standing wave ratio

Reflection coefficient is complex
Note to ssd: I added a mention that the reflection coefficient is complex. Perhaps there is more we could say about this quantity, but I suggest that extra information goes in to the reflection coefficient article, not this one. Unless, that is, you care to explain how the phase of ρ can affect the SWR. That is beyond my understanding, but you might like to have a go. -- Heron 12:14, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * Probably mentioning phase angle is enough, although one of these articles (perhaps not this one) should mention complex conjugate impedance match. Actually,now that I think about it, that would best go in an article on antenna tuner which does not yet exist.  As you said before, probably the equations for resistive loss and dielectric loss should go in the transmission line article where it talks about decibels per foot. --ssd 17:01, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The image "Standing wave ratio for ρ = 0.5" is useful, but could someone edit out the microsoft office grammar check green squiggly underlines in the axis labels? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jethrotull4321 (talk • contribs) 16 aug 2006 01:02

radiation burn
Abnormally high voltages in the antenna system increase the chance of accidental radiation burn if someone touches the antenna during transmission.

Here's my understanding:
 * antennas do not produce ionizing radiation, which corresponds to UV upwards.
 * radiation burn is caused by ionizing radiation.

Could someone who knows these things fix up one of these articles: Standing wave ratio, radiation burn, ionizing radiation please? njh 23:11, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

 * The EM Radhaz article notes that a burn can result from touching an antenna. I guess that assumes that the power/voltage is high enough. See also

 * The sentence quoted probably isn't related to the SWR article, probably should be removed. I'm not sure what it means by abnormally high, 2 w from a 1 w system would be abnormally high, but not likely to cause a burn. Maybe it's there because if you touch an antenna it will create high VSWR? Maybe just delete it from this article. Someone can add it again later if they have a reference for it. --Dual Freq 00:08, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed rf burns have little to do with SWR, essentially a RF burn is caused by radio waved heating the body tissues (in a similar manner that a microwave heats foods) touching the antenna directly increases this effect, also has alot to do with resonant frequency of various parts of the body to calculate absorbtion and heating, ARRL has alot of good litterature on burns. Mattpalmer84 15:00, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the the presence of any grounded body near the antenna will change the SWR. and the grounded body will pull most of the standing waves to it and result in microwave burns. wile causing signal interference. User:taylormayhew87 6:22 12 May 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1011:B017:E342:8412:75EE:2C85:BCE6 (talk)

Standing Wave Math Expression
It seems being a paradox. For
 * $$\mathcal {\mid}\Psi(x,t){\mid}^2=A^2sin^{2}(kx)*cos^{2}({\omega}t)=0 {\neq}1 $$

which means that it does not equal to 1. Thus caused not coresponse Normalization. Known a standing wave is expressed as
 * $$\mathcal, \Psi(x,t)=Asin(kx)*cos({\omega}t), $$.

Can anyone talk about your thoughts? Thanks.

 * One more question that what's difference between phase velocity and group velocity? My opinions and thoughts:
 * By their math expression we can clearly find angular frequency of $$\mathcal V_p ,$$ $$\mathcal \omega $$ which keeps constant when a wave vibrates up and down localized. That may because of energy transports into a wave is conservative,just like a particel moves up and down in a Y axis,localizedly(which keeps energy conservative).
 * But for another one,it travels in an X axis,that hints its phase-angular is the function of time. By time changes,then $$\mathcal \omega $$ naturely changes either.

I'm a little not sure above. Could anyone discuss with me? --HydrogenSu 11:47, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

my opinion is that is something for a physicist to explain, i would rather consider the practical realitys of EE problems Mattpalmer84 15:05, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Arcing
The article says "Arcing may occur if there is a hole, if transmitting at high power, usually 200 watts or more (Need reference for the power statement)." I doubt a reference for the power statement can be found as arcing strongly depends on the frequency and the waveguide dimensions. I frequently transmit between 2 and 3 kW through a R26 waveguide at 2.45 GHz and have never experienced any arcing. In my opinion, the sentence should be shortened to "Arcing may occur if there is a hole or if transmitting at excessive power."

Ulrich — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.69.28.66 (talk • contribs) 16 jul 2007 16:25

Error in claim in section "Practical implications of SWR"
The following claim mentioned in "Practical implications of SWR" is not true:

 * 1) Higher reflected power in the transmission line is dissipated in the output stage of the RF source, in the form of heat.

This is extensively documented in the ARRL Techical Information Service at http://www.arrl.org/tis/info/reflections.html

See http://www.arrl.org/tis/info/pdf/q1106037.pdf.

Regards, LA8UU —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oka (talk • contribs) 18:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

 * Well if the power is reflected, where do you figure it eventually goes? And it's a pretty well-accepted fact that running an unloaded microwave oven cooks the magnetron precisely because the magnetron ends up dissipating the power that is reflected rather than absorbed by the cooking chamber.

 * Atlant (talk) 00:24, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Lede
The third paragraph of the lede makes it sound as though the VSWR is a property of the transmission line; the vast majority of the reflection will occur at the junction with the load or from within the load (barring backhoe fade). --catslash (talk) 02:03, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

 * Not sure if this is the intended point of the author, but it is indeed true that VSWR is used as a quality measure by cable manufacturers. I found some references on this while writing Nominal impedance.  Of course, I agree with your statement also; cable testing requires precision adjustment of the termination first to be meaningful.  Spinning  Spark  08:32, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Further analysis section
There is something wrong with the further analysis. According to the result min voltage always occurs at x=0. Clearly, this is only true for resistive loads less than Z0. The mistake seems to be ignoring the phase of Γ, but I haven't worked through it in detail. Also the diagram contradicts this by showing max voltage at x=0. Might be an idea to state where x is being measured from.  Spinning Spark  13:28, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Symbol for reflection coefficient
I don't see the advantage of changing the symbol used for the magnitude of the reflection coefficient from \rho to |\Gamma|. The former makes for cleaner expressions in my opinion, but in any case, I don't think that it is acceptable to half change the article as it now stands. It should be all or nothing, including the diagram. SpinningSpark 16:22, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

 * Well go back to the old version and look carefully. Rho was used for the magnitude of Gamma. It was just used in a couple locations and it didn't seem to require its own symbol for any good reason since writing |Gamma| doesn't take up much more space. I could see substituting repeated uses of a complex expression with an easier symbol, but in this case it would more likely introduce confusion (if they didn't read the definition of rho carefully) than clarity.Interferometrist (talk) 17:20, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

 * But you're right about the diagram though. I guess if you really want that diagram, then you should change back to rho. I didn't think the diagram was too useful to a general reader and would prefer to look for a different one. A good one, in my opinion, would be one that showed the standing wave pattern with a composite showing the net voltage at different time phases, and the SWR showing up as the envelope (of course you can only do that for one SWR in one picture). The original presentation in that section did have x as a measure of distance, but didn't show where the end of the line and load was located (so I made it explicit), so the correspondence between the figure and the text wasn't so clear. I guess, according to the figure, the line ends at 3pi, with Gamma being real positive. But how often is a line exactly 3/2 wavelengths long? (Or did it really start at x=0?). Interferometrist (talk) 17:35, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

 * And actually it's worse than that (possibly the reason for the section being tagged). According to the first equations, it would appear that the load was at x=0 and gamma is positive real. And with the forward wave in the +x direction (thus x is always negative along the line). So that didn't correspond to the figure at all. Of course you could reintroduce the figure stating x_0 = 3pi and spelling out rho. But as I said, the figure isn't so helpful in my opinion, and certainly shouldn't be inconsistent with the equations.Interferometrist (talk) 17:44, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

 * I don't agree with your argument that the user will get confused if they don't read the definitions. Of course they will, but they could get just as confused with |\Gamma| if they don't read the definition of \Gamma. SpinningSpark 19:13, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Power standing wave ratio
I recently sourced the definition of PSWR in the article. The source was challenged with the edit summary ''Would like to see source <60 years old indicating current usage (also why the term is meaningful). Currently Google search for term points to wikipedia: are we to be the main source of misinformation?''. First of all, the book I cited is still in print (or was until quite recently). It is from the publisher of one of the most highly prestigious electrical engineering professional societies in the world. It is hard to get more reliable or authoritative than that on the correct use of EE terminology. Secondly, even if the term could not be found in any modern source, that still remains the correct definition of it which is all that is being cited. However, a gbook search quickly establishes that the term still has some traction in books published this millenium.

I don't know why there is any doubt about the physical meaning of the term. It is patently the ratio of the power of the forward and backward travelling waves, at least for purely real characteristic impedance. SpinningSpark 20:11, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

 * Well, when I searched Google, I found that all the references it turned up were either copies of Wikipedia itself (whether acknowledged or not, you can just compare the wording with old versions of this page) or copies of one other source which admitted that is was a "misleading" term (for the reason I'm about to state). So the issue isn't whether it can be found anywhere (almost anything you search for is going to be found somewhere) but whether it has any actual meaning, or more to the point, whether the people using it actually understand what they are saying rather than just repeating someone else. I'm certain it's the latter, as I'll explain in answer to your remark:
 * "It is patently the ratio of the power of the forward and backward travelling waves". Well no, that's definitely NOT what it is!! That ratio is the squared magnitude of the reflection coefficient. Someone had been taught that P ~ V^2 so decided that a ratio between two voltages can just be squared to get a power ratio. But no such power actually exists. Those powers that you have taken the ratio of are the powers that would be dissipated in an R ohm resistor with those voltages applied across it. But of course if you actually DID shunt a resistor at a point along the feedline you would completely change its standing wave pattern (unless it was a very large resistor)! So no, the "powers" refered to don't exist and aren't intended to exist. The actual powers are in the two waves, given by V_f^2/Z_0 and V_r^2/Z_0. Those powers have nothing to do with Vmax^2 and Vmin^2. Squaring those voltages gets you nothing.
 * It's as if I were to edit the page on currency exchange, so that if 1 euro equals $1.2 then the "power currency conversion" is defined as 1.2^2, or the "power temperature" of the water melting point is 273^2 etc. If I were to publish such a definition and get it mindlessly repeated (even in otherwise respectable publications by otherwise intelligent authors), does that make it valid? Interferometrist (talk) 22:53, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You are, of course, right about the physical meaning. My bad, I had a moment of blindness there.  But that is all irrelevant anyway, the article makes no claim to its meaning, only saying that it is the square of VSWR, and that is all the sources ever say as far I can ascertain.  The bottom line is that it appears in reliable sources.  Readers may well look it up in Wikipedia.  It is perfectly reasonable that we have coverage of the term in our article. SpinningSpark 23:33, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Alright, we basically agree, so the remaining issue is how we frame the use of a basically useless term and how much credance we give to its usage. If a useless term was incorrectly introduced into the jargon of a field and carelessly repeated by those who were concentrating on other aspects of the field (such as the antennnas themselves, which requires the mention of transmission lines and impedance matching), but never is further explained in contexts where it would be central to the discussion, then it is natural that the MOST authoritative sources (which actually do explain the phenomenon, SWR in this case) won't even mention it, and its use will fade out. Then how much should Wikipedia dignify such a term? This becomes particularly important when a great deal of the use of the term can be traced back to it appearing in Wikipedia in the first place, as appears to be the case here. If so, then Wikipedia is doing a disservice not only to its readers but to the whole discourse (given the prominence of Wikipedia as a first reference point for reliable information, which is certainly the way I use it). In those cases either the term should be avoided in Wikipedia, so as not to be reinforced, or it should come with a clear statement as to the reason for avoiding the term. So I would propose somewhat stronger language in that regard compared to the current disclaimer, if the erroneous term is to be mentioned at all.
 * Since I went to the trouble of doing a Google search and glancing at the results, let me share those. These are copied from older versions of the wikipedia page itself (or perhaps our page was copied from one of them): . These all contain enough common text that they have been copied from each other:, and to its credit it mentions that the definition is "misleading," a somewhat stronger statement than we currently have. I found one other source that mentions the definition , and one that is a glossary with a definition that's not even understandable out of context and which doesn't mention the context: . To say that it is a term that is included in "reliable sources" is somewhat a stretch. At this point, I am more concerned about Wikipedia doing harm by propagating an invalid term than failing to mention an invalid term that may have some usage. Though I still wonder about that. Have you EVER heard someone mention a specific value of "PSWR" or seen it calibrated on an SWR meter? If not, then you can't even say the term is in usage, but just that its definition is in usage, if you see what I'm saying. Interferometrist (talk) 15:26, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, you can't cherrypick a bunch of unreliable sources and from that conclude the term is useless, nor can you conclude that it is mostly copied from Wikipedia because unreliable sources so copy it. Let's restrict the conversation to sources normally considered reliable, like books from recognised publishers and scholarly papers.  I have no idea how you have come to the conclusion that the term originated in Wikipedia after you tagged my contribution for citing it to a 1949 source, long before the internet, let alone Wikipedia, was even thought of.  Just to show that that is not a one off, there are also, A Textbook of Radar (1948, CSIRO), Electric Transmission Lines (Skilling, 1951, McGraw-Hill), Handbook of Microwave Measurements (Sucher et al, Polytechnic Institute of Brooklyn, 1963), and many others.  There are also many modern book sources from the last decade, for instance, Transmission Lines, Matching, and Crosstalk (Kaiser, 2005).  There are also papers showing up in Scholar since 2000.  So while it may not be the favourite term, it is clearly not defunct.
 * My understanding of the use of the term is that it is used for exactly the same purposes as VSWR (used for the same, not equal to!) and is thus no more, nor less, useless than VSWR. Most sources start off with VSWR and then say PSWR is its square.  However, I note that Silver does this the other way round, starting with PSWR then declaring VSWR to be the square-root.  You can't claim the term to be useless in the article when sources don't support that claim.  Gridey (2010)says that PSWR is sometimes used in favour of VSWR because of the square-law nature of the crystal detectors originally used.  I think it is also easy to cite that the more modern detectors using Schottky barrier diodes are also square law. SpinningSpark 17:32, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Hey cool down! I'm just trying to get this right. But please understand one thing: I did NOT cherry pick any sources. I did a Google search, and showed you EVERY relevant result I got on the first two pages of results. Period. And I certainly did NOT say that it was mostly copied from Wikipedia, but did say that Wikipedia was responsible for 3 of the sources I found on that not-cherry-picked search, and concern for the fact that, if not careful, Wikipedia could be contributing to the problem rather than helping to clarify. No more time to write just now, but I will answer further, and actually WOULD like to see any use of the term (didn't have a chance to follow your links yet) where a justification for the term is offered. But please moderate your tone: I'm just trying to get this right. I don't have a financial stake in putting PSWR out of business and if I'm making a mistake (I've certainly made mistakes before) then I want to correct it, not justify it at all costs. Ok? Interferometrist (talk) 17:50, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry you think I need to cool down. I'm not angry, like you I'm just trying to get the article right. I suppose my essential point about your search results is that raw google searches, or analyses of them, are rarely helpful in constructing an encyclopaedia article. SpinningSpark 19:10, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

 * Alright, I am pleased to hear that you aren't angry. It appeared you were because you opened with an accusation that I had "cherry-picked" sources. If I believed that someone had presented me with cherry-picked sources in order to deceive me, I would be angry. Though I wouldn't have made the charge, following the dictum of assuming good faith, unless I had strong reason to believe the accusation. Starting with, in this case, doing the same Google search and seeing if there were conflicting sources that had been conspicuously omitted from those presented. I want you to know that I did an honest Google search to find any usage of the term, not looking either for reliable or unreliable sources, but for any justification of the term (of which I found none) or commentary on the term (which is always disparaging, including from your own sources). I am editing the page accordingly.

 * But first I will answer you, now that we've gone this far in discussing a matter of so little importance. I clicked on each of your sources, though in cases of Google books it often showed just one sentence with no context. I'd be particularly interested in seeing "Silver does this the other way round, starting with PSWR" which sounds unquestionably wrong. But I was able to view Gridley fully and will comment. In addition to disparaging the term, he (as you point out) attempts to explain its origin. Now, his work looks fine in all respects but I can only conclude that he wasn't thinking when he wrote that but was just coming up with what seemed plausible to him in order to make sense of non-sense. Exactly as you did when you wrote: "It is patently the ratio of the power of the forward and backward travelling waves," only because you didn't take 5 seconds to think about it. I don't fault you for that. I regularly find, from very intelligent people, that when you challenge conventional wisdom or the statement of a recognized "authority," they often will immediately come up with a plausible-sounding but often invalid (as they will admit after careful consideration) reason that the authority is right and I am wrong. I'm sure I've done it too. Our psychology is such that we try to make order of the world and resolve such tension. But Gridley's remark is wrong on two counts, and I'd bet that if you pointed this out to him he would agree right away and retract his explanation.

 * It is true that a diode, operated forward-biased in the small-signal regime, will perform square-law demodulation. However in an SWR meter that doesn't apply, because you are measuring substantial RF voltages with a transmitter sending down watts of power. Now (obviously) when you operate a rectifier in the large-signal regime, the rectified DC voltage (neglecting any forward voltage drop) is EQUAL to the peak RF voltage. Period.

 * Secondly, while SWR is the ratio of Vmax to Vmin, you never measure those particular voltages in practice. First, you wouldn't know where along the transmission line to find them. And most transmission lines are insulated so you couldn't make that measurement, and unless you were careful attaching a test lead would change the SWR (granted, you could use a 10x scope probe). The only times I've seen (on video) such a measurement is for classroom demonstration of UHF standing waves along an open transmission line setup for that purpose. The old SWR meters I've seen (haven't looked at any recently) work using directional couplers to obtain RF voltages proportional to Vf and Vr. Even if you had directly measured the powers of those waves, Pf ~ Vf^2 and Pr ~ Vr^2, the computation of PSWR still takes one more step than SWR. PSWR = ((1+sqrt(Pf/Pr)) / (1-sqrt(Pf/Pr)))^2 which cannot be further simplified to avoid the square roots for instance. I rest my case. Interferometrist (talk) 14:44, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Errata: the above equation should have read:
 * PSWR = ((1+sqrt(Pr/Pf)) / (1-sqrt(Pr/Pf)))^2 Interferometrist (talk) 16:28, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

 * Gridley is almost certainly talking in the context of slotted lines or similar instruments, although he doesn't say so. On such instruments the extrema are directly measured and the square law issue applies. SpinningSpark 16:35, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

 * Well I guess I agree with you now! I hadn't heard of slotted lines and have no practical experience with waveguides and such technology. But now I see that this does involve direct measurement of Vmax and Vmin. And from reading the page on slotted lines, I see that these are low power measurements with (understandably) tiny antennas sensing the electric field, so that the diode never receives a large signal. (That article also mentions using thermistors for sensing, which of course are also sensitive to power and thus ~ V^2). So this all adds up now, and I will make only non-controversial changes in wording.

 * For one, you were a bit hasty in reformatting the quote, because the second sentence wasn't by Gridley but was what I had written to emphasize his point! Perhaps you're spending too much time staring at the source and not formatted text (where this would have been clear). I'm fixing it now. (BTW, should the quote be enclosed in quotation marks if it is offset in this manner? I gather not, using the template you supplied.)

 * Again, I'm glad we have this resolved, and regret having made an issue of it except that I was unaware of the direct measurement using slotted lines (and wish you had mentioned that earlier!). It also still bothers me that not one of the references (that I've seen so far) specifically refers to slotted lines, but now that I'm familiar with their use I have to agree that that is what Gridley must have had in mind. Interferometrist (talk) 16:28, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * P.S. I don't have the book, but was the Rollin reference over the slotted line measurement, or just over the square law of a crystal detector? If the latter, the ref needs to be moved up. Interferometrist (talk) 16:38, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry for not mentioning slotted lines earlier, as I wrote the article, I don't even have your excuse of never having heard of it before! In my day, these were quite ubiquitous and I tend to assume they are still well known.  I was quite shocked to find Wikipedia did not have an article.  The whole reason that VSWR is used at all is because it is the easiest thing to measure on slotted lines (and similar measuring techniques).  The reflection coefficient would be the natural choice, but it can't be found directly.  If it weren't for this, VSWR would probably never have been used at all.  By rights, it should probably be abandoned now, but it is much too well established.
 * On the Rollin cite, he is discussing a student exercise using a waveguide slotted line. The relevant sentence is "Since for low level input, the crystal is approximately a square law detector, this is the power standing wave ratio (P.S.W.R.)."  Sorry, it was the only source I could find that intersected square law of detectors with PSWR.  Intersecting square law/detectors/slotted line are easy to find (there are more accessible sources in the slotted line article) as are sources intersecting slotted line/PSWR but getting both in the same source proved a bit more difficult. SpinningSpark 18:03, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

 * Well good, we've just about converged. And I trust you'll consider my latest edits. On your point, though: "It is dangerous to say the readings are power, I thought we had just established they weren't." Ha, I guess I was saying that the power delivered by the probe was being measured. It occurred to me (but I'm not the one with practical experience in this regard) that such a probe would feed a rectifier and analog meter, where the meter's scale would already be warped to take into account deviations from the square law response at higher/lower voltages (like the scales on the low AC voltage ranges of old multimeters), in which case what's important is whether the calibration is in terms of relative voltage or power. And although I'm not surprised that thermistors aren't used much anymore (of course I just got that from the slotted waveguide page), it was another perfect example of a true power (from the probe!) detector. But never mind. It's looking fine, and I think I'm done with it, unless you can find something else to disagree about ;-) Interferometrist (talk) 18:45, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Article rating
, I find it baffling why you have demoted the article to start class. The requirement for C class (in part) is "The article is substantial, but is still missing important content...". The page has nearly 4000 words of readable prose. It is difficult to see how that cannot be substantial. The reader experience for C class is "Useful to a casual reader, but would not provide a complete picture for even a moderately detailed study." Reader experience for Start class is "Provides some meaningful content, but most readers will need more." Demoting the article implies that either the article is not useful to a casual reader, or that most readers will require more information. So can you explain how the article fails one of those criteria? SpinningSpark 15:26, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * you have presented some really valid arguments. I agree with you on this. I am changing this back to Class C. Thanks for pointing this out. Steve Quinn (talk) 04:32, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Gamma greater than unity
You reverted the edit by user:AE6TY that claimed that gamma can be greater than unity. The source cited is only available in snippet on gbooks, but clearly supports the claim. The source also addresses your concern that gain has been implied. I don't think your claim can be right that gamma is always specified with respect to a positive real impedance, and not the actual characteristic impedance. Do you have a source for that? SpinningSpark 16:31, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

 * Hi, of course it's possible to plug in a complex characteristic impedance into a formula and mechanically apply the formula. But AFAIK (and if I'm wrong I'll concede the point, but I'm not) whenever SWR or Gamma is used in practice (such as on a Smith chart, which is a plot of Gamma) it is with respect to a real impedance, usually 50 or 75 ohms. That impedance may or may not be the same as a coax used, or there may be no coax ever involved anywhere, such as when you measure s-parameters (Gamma == S_11) with an analyzer having a specified reference impedance. SWR and Gamma are only useful in this way and there is no reason anyone would use a complex reference impedance. Even when using a cable whose characteristic impedance has an imaginary component (which is normal, but tiny and uninteresting in this context) you don't redefine SWR due to that.
 * No, I didn't read the reference, but all I can say using my judgement based on my familiarity with these fields, is that the author decided to be cute and show that if you do allow a complex reference impedance then you get strange, but essentially nonsensical results. After all, the MEANING of SWR -- forget the definition in terms of impedances -- is the ratio of the peak voltage (or current) magnitude (phase isn't involved) to the minimum, which is obviously >=1. Long ago someone translated that into a formula involving impedances without spelling out the hidden (but obvious) assumption that the cable impedance is taken to be real. Finding such a flippant remark based on inappropriately applying a formula in one otherwise-RS doesn't mean that this would be accepted by any other equally competent authors who don't bother themselves with fringe cases (the whole point of transmission line is to transmit power, not to dissipate it which is what adds a SMALL imaginary part to its characteristic impedance). Agree? Interferometrist (talk) 18:48, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

 * I'm really not trying to be cute. I'm trying to stamp out a misconception rampant in the field.  There is almost universal (and passionate) belief that for any passive network, the |Gamma| cannot be larger than 1, regardless of the reference impedance.  This is patently false.  I understand that the overwhelming majority of applications can safely assume the reference impedance is purely real but there ARE applications where this is not the case.  I am not an expert but have been told that power transmission lines and POTS phone lines need to take the complex reference into account.  Papers by Korukawa and Awakawa dealing with optimal power exchange also indicate the use of a complex reference at higher frequencies.  I don't want to complicate things needlessly but I do think that a footnote is a good compromise.  For those trying to get started, nothing is obvious.  AE6TY (talk) 21:38, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Interferometrist, I don't agree that transmission line impedance (always) has an insignificant imaginary part. I agree with AE6TY on this; twisted pair at audio frequencies is anything but a constant real number.  I spent a good many years in my career dealing with just that issue.  Yes, one uses a reference impedance on a Smith chart plotting the effect of a complex load, but there are also times when we want to know the effect on a fixed resistive load of a non-ideal transmission line.  Having said that, I agree with you that the definition of SWR is the ratio and must be greater than unity.  I also agree that the impedance formula becomes nonsense with a greater than unity gamma.  That whole issue seems to me to be something more appropriate to discuss in the reflection coefficient article than here. SpinningSpark 22:30, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

 * I agree that a better place is probably the article on reflection coefficient... I'm only trying to get a footnote in here. It is amazing to me how passionate people get about this issue.  I think it would improve wikipedia's image to at least provide a footnote and references for further reading.  Please note that the second reference above is capitalized incorrectly.  It should be 'Kurokawa'.  Too much Java programming makes my fingers do weird things.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by AE6TY (talk • contribs) 00:34, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

 * I would also point out that I ran across this when someone asked ME why my SWR report was negative. It occurred when the user was driving a highly reactive antenna with a highly reactive source.  There was no transmission line present.  In researching the topic I found that the overwhelming majority of sources quietly assume (or are unaware that they are assuming) that the reference impedance must be purely real for these equation to apply.   Understanding that SWR is a transmission line thing I went looking at transmission line authorities such as my cited Chipman.  Other in depth papers discuss the (perhaps esoteric) issues involved with complex reference impedances.
 * So how does Wikipedia expect us to proceed? AE6TY (talk) 15:34, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * In the first instance, say what it is you want to do to this article and see if other editors agree with you. Then you can do it.  But I thought you agreed with me earlier that reflection coefficient was the right article to add this.  In which case you should add it there, and discuss it there if it is challenged. SpinningSpark 18:45, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your thoughtful inputs. I basically stand by what I wrote but will refine my views. , editors "feel passionate" when text is added to a page (including within a footnote) which is incorrect (including the incorrect usage of a term according to its general understanding within a field, regardless of outlier definitions) or which is misleading (including placing excessive weight on a fringe definition). I did not look at your two references, but if there are only two such papers over 50 years, that proves my point. If there are many more, OR if you can write some CONTENT on how a complex reference impedance is used in practice to actually solve a problem (hopefully a method used by more than one individual, though even that's not essential), then I would concede the point and tell you to go ahead and put in such content. If you do, it would be responsible to point out that this liberty is almost never taken in practice which is why |Gamma|<=1 is normally asserted etc.

Yes I agree that at some frequencies (especially as freq-> 0) the imaginary part of a cable's characteristic impedance can become important or even large. However what I haven't seen (and which would change my judgement) is how using that cable's complex Z_0 in an equation for Gamma would help solve a problem. You seem to be well-versed in these matters, so I will let you answer that and edit accordingly. If that adds some new content then I will be happy to learn it for myself. But just placing a footnote to say that at least two authors over 50 years have used a generally disallowed notation and not being able to say why it is useful -- no.

Also, I think the SWR and Reflection coefficient pages should be merged because they are about the same thing. But I know how hard that is to get such a thing done, so never mind! Interferometrist (talk) 13:30, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

title: Talk:Standing wave ratio


text:
Israel Joshua Singer

Israel Joshua Singer (Yiddish: ישראל יהושע זינגער ; November 30, 1893, Biłgoraj, Congress Poland — February 10, 1944 New York) was a Polish-Jewish novelist who wrote in Yiddish.

Biography
He was born Yisruel Yehoyshye Zinger, the son of Pinchas Mendl Zynger, a rabbi and author of rabbinic commentaries, and Basheva Zylberman. He was the brother of the author Isaac Bashevis Singer and novelist Esther Kreitman. He married Genia Kupferstok. His eldest son, Yasha, died at 14 of pneumonia before the family's emigration to America. His younger son, Joseph Singer, was the translator for both his father's works and his uncle's, Isaac Bashevis Singer. Joseph, a painter and writer like his father, married June Flaum Singer, who went on to become a writer. They had four children: Sharon Salinger, Brett Singer, I.J. Singer and Valerie Singer. The three daughters followed in the family business and are also published poets and novelists.

Singer contributed to the European Yiddish press from 1916. In 1919, he and his wife Genia went to Ukraine, where he found work on a newspaper, The New Times, and was considered one of the "Kiev Writers". Then they moved to Moscow, where he published articles and stories. After two hard years, in 1921, they returned to Warsaw. In 1921, after Abraham Cahan noticed his story Pearls, Singer became a correspondent for the American Yiddish newspaper The Forward. His short story Liuk appeared in 1924, illuminating the ideological confusion of the Bolshevik Revolution. He wrote his first novel, Steel and Iron, in 1927. In 1934 he emigrated to the United States to write for The Forward. Eventually, Israel Joshua invited his younger brother, the future Nobel prize winner Isaac Bashevis Singer, to the United States and engineered for him a job with The Forward. "Had it not been for Joshua, Abraham Cahan would have fired him", I. J. Singer's wife Genia later told I. B. Singer's son Israel Zamir. I. J. Singer died of a heart attack at age 50 at his home in New York City, at 258 Riverside Drive, on February 10, 1944.

Works

 * Fun a velt vos iz nishto mer (English: Of a World That is No More (1946)). This was published posthumously, with an English translation published by Vanguard Press in 1971.
 * Shtol un Ayzn (1927); translated into English as Blood Harvest (1935) and as Steel and Iron (1969)
 * Nay Rusland (Eng: New Russia) (1928)
 * Yoshe Kalb (1932). Translated as The Sinner, Liveright Pub., NY (1933), and the same translation was published as Yoshe Kalb in 1937. In his introduction to the latter, I. B. Singer called The Sinner "an insipid title".
 * The Brothers Ashkenazi (1936)
 * Friling (1937)
 * East of Eden (originally titled Khaver Nachman) published by Alfred A. Knopf (1939)
 * The Family Carnovsky (1969) (originally titled Di mishpokhe Karnovski) (1943)
 * The River Breaks Up, stories published by Alfred A. Knopf (1938); republished by Vanguard Press, NY (1966)
 * Dertseylungen (English: Stories); published posthumously, 1949

In the introduction to A Treasury of Yiddish Stories, Irving Howe and Eliezer Greenberg stated that Singer's books are organized "in a way that satisfies the usual Western expectations as to literary structure. His novels resemble the kind of family chronicle popular in Europe several decades ago [that is, the turn of the century]".

title: Israel Joshua Singer