Theory of mind and children's games

I started playing hide and seek with my daughter when she was two, and she enjoys the game, but she fundamentally Does Not Get It. She’ll hide right in front of me; she’ll ask me to help her hide when I’m supposed to be seeking; she’ll tell me where to hide when it’s my turn. She doesn’t get that I’m not supposed to know where she is hiding, and she is not supposed to know where I am hiding. And this made me think of the theory of mind experiments, which autistic children and those under 4 usually fail. She is under 4, so it matches the theory that she wouldn’t understand that I can have different knowledge to her. But… she talks to me. She tells me what she wants (very insistently!). Doesn’t that require some understanding that other people do not know everything she does?

Many other children’s games also require some degree of deception, or at least of understanding other people do not have the same knowledge you do. In Pairs, you must not give away the location of a matching card when it is not your turn. Playing tag around some object, you can change direction to try to catch/avoid the other person, because they are not expecting it. Don’t these kinds of actions demonstrate theory of mind? And kids with milder autism at least, are perfectly well able to do them. So do they have theory of mind or not?

I don’t have any conclusions here, I want to hear other people’s thoughts.

I’ve never been convinced most children under the age of 3 are actually sentient. I’m convinced those under 2 are not. I’ve known smarter Border Collies. I think most Border Collies come closer to demonstrating Theory of Mind than most children under 3.

But I’m not sure I’m answering your question.

I won’t pretend to be an expert on child development, but I was a PE teacher for for a decade and spent a lot of time playing games with kids. It was always interesting to see the young ones (K-2, say) as they progressed in their understanding of how games are played.

We started off very simply learning to take turns. That’s a big deal, and I think it has a lot to do with them realizing there are other people in the world with needs beyond their own. And it can be hard for them at first. By allowing someone else to do something fun instead of them momentarily, they are also learning to delay gratification.

Simon Says was great for learning to follow directions. Again, I started that extremely simply and nobody had to sit out if they missed. I’d just call them on a mistake, we’d all laugh and continue. It was also great for simply developing some stamina - being able to pay attention for a period of time.

We practiced a lot of moving in general space. This combined following instructions (walk, skip, hop, jog) with having to be aware of the people around them. That’s a lot for little kids to process. Once we could do that safely I would introduce tag games. These often involved helping each other, which again calls attention to other peoples’ needs. So in Tunnel Tag, if you got touched by a tagger you stood still with your feet apart and hand raised and another player could free you by crawling through (and taggers could not tag someone performing a rescue).

Around the middle of first grade we would play games that involved some basic strategies. There was a lot of variability in how the kids took to it, I think depending on various factors in how they learned. Lots of times kids will just do what they see others doing, and getting them to do plan something different and carry it out is pretty damn subtle. Example:

We would play a team tag game. Each team lined up about 15 feet apart, one being the ‘odds’ and the other being ‘evens’ (this was tied into their learning odd / even numbers in class). I would roll a big foam dice in the middle and if it came down an odd number they would get to chase and tag the evens, and vice versa. Here’s what would always happen: At some point a kid would make a mistake and retreat when his team could have been taggers, and everyone would follow them. I’d stop the game and explain the mistake and tell them to think, not just follow everyone else. And sure enough there would be a dice roll where a whole team would do the wrong thing except for one kid who stood his ground correctly and made a tag or three very quickly. I’d always call attention to that success, and I was thrilled for the kid who was able to think decisively in that situation.

A slightly edgy thing I would do… I would cheat overtly occasionally. While playing a tag game I would idly hold a tagger (we used beanbags or foam arrows) and call a kid over as if I wanted to talk to them. They would gamely trot over, at which point I’d tag them. They would be incredulous at this (and it was all done with laughs and smiles), but would never fall for it a second time. We would talk about this as a class afterwards, with me promising to play fair and properly from then on.

I felt it was a benign way of demonstrating that not everyone was going to do the right thing, or even have good intentions. And that they had to watch for situations like that and stand up for themselves.

I would do similar things, purposely misunderstanding or denying reality.

“Oh, you’re six years old? I was never six. I skipped directly from five to seven. Had to get special permission for that.”

The kids would turn that one over in their heads and then challenge me, which is what I wanted. I really enjoyed making them think and seeing them get more sophisticated over time. It seemed that grade 3 was a turning point. They were emerging from little kid-hood and becoming big kids.

Don’t miss the nonsense of being a teacher, but I do miss the kids sometimes.

I think the simple answer is that “Theory of Mind” is not a single binary thing that you either have or you don’t. It’s on a continuum, and develops over time. Even adults often have difficulty with more advanced implications of it (see, for instance, how many adults struggle with the classic Red-Eyed Monks logic puzzle).

I think this is true. I have a three year old autistic child (support level 2. He’s severely impaired in some areas, moderately impaired in most areas and excelling far beyond the norm in academic concepts… it’s tricky, as a parent, to figure out exactly what he needs/where his limits are.) He has understood the concept of hide and seek since he was at least two. I didn’t expect that he would get it, but his at-the-time nanny started the game with him and he understood it well enough to be the “hider.” (Hiding not himself, but his stuffed racecar.)

But in the theory of mind experiment with Sally and Anne I don’t think he would fare well. That’s because, like many autistic children, language is a challenge for him. So is this test really measuring “theory of mind” or receptive language? I’m quite sure that “Where should Sally look?” would be incomprehensible by my child. He would probably hear “Sally” and “look” and point her to the ball without fully understanding the question. I don’t know if my son would be able to answer this correctly even if we somehow stripped it of its dependence on language.

What I do know is that, when you strip back the language, children can understand really sophisticated concepts. Infants, for example, have been shown to understand basic physics. Toddlers have been shown to have a preference for helping other people out in exchange for nothing at all (I have no doubt they are sentient.)

But if my kid has taught me anything it’s that kids develop along their own timeline, and all these different components of their development can develop at vastly different rates. So my kid understands hide and seek but he doesn’t know how to have a conversation, and it wasn’t until recently he would say goodbye to objects in a room rather than the people in it. And there are as many ways to develop as there are children in the world, so that’s only my one kid. But I am endlessly fascinated trying to figure out how his mind works and how much he actually understands. It’s usually more than we expect.

I’d love to see this as a short-run series or documentary. “Follow the same set of kids from grades 1 to 3 and see how they develop and mature by playing games.” Your explanation was wonderful.

Wasn’t there a Nova episode similar to this a while back? I recall one with some “mind games” played with babies, such as placing a smudge on their face and see if they recognize themselves in a mirror.

Yes. That was a great story well-told. It’s obvious you were great at the job.

Thanks for all the replies.

This seems correct:

I remembered another funny thing my daughter used to do: if I didn’t want her to have something, I’d put it on a high shelf and refuse to get it for her. Often, she would go and look for a stool to stand on to try and get it herself. But not only did she do this right in front of me, she would even ask me to carry the stool for her! I hadn’t realised until I thought about it, but understanding I don’t want her to have the thing, and predicting that I would therefore not be willing to help her, and would even be likely to stop her if I saw her getting it, requires some degree of modelling of another person and their motivations. That’s far more complicated than understanding that you need to tell an adult if you want something.

The researchers tried to account for the language issue by also asking a similarly complex question that did not involve ToM. But I don’t think my daughter would understand “where should Sally look?” either. She’s caught up on language now and can hold a conversation, but that’s still too sophisticated. Sometimes I do ask her something too complicated and she answers a different, simpler question.

Interestingly, back when she was still doing poos in her nappy, she used to hide away to do them, and unlike in the game, she really was trying to hide. So maybe she just thinks the fact it’s a game means it’s pretend hiding?

Yeah, that would be cool. There was a documentary in the UK called ‘Secret Life of 4 Year Olds’ which AFAIK was something along those lines, but I didn’t see much of it since we didn’t have TV.

Don’t overestimate the importance of language and communication in how a mind works.

I knew an autistic 4-year-old with a vocab of about 20 words, most of them nouns, and food words at that, who once locked the chain on the door when his father went outside, and then started giggling (the kid). Then when his father came and couldn’t get in, started laughing hysterically (kid, again). Mom said in an exaggerated voice something like “Oh no! what happened to the door!” more laughter. Dad says “I guess I’ll have to sleep in the car, and can’t give Danny a good night hug and tickle!” Kid opens door, and gives dad a big hug.

** But I knew another autistic 4-yr-old whose language, without specific testing, was so good, you couldn’t tell him from a non-autistic child. But he absolutely could not grasp that things happened when he left the room. He was out of the classroom once for some thing, and it happened to be while his class had snack. He was offered snack when the thing was over. He said he’d have it with his class; on being told the class had already had snack, he insisted they could not possibly have, until it began to precipitate a meltdown.

** irrelevant-to-the-main-point details changed in second story because I encountered it professionally, albeit, 20 years ago, and in another city. First story is about a friend’s kid, and all details are as was, to the best of my memory.

I have no conclusions, but a little more information is that Deaf friends I had who did not have language until 4 or 5, or even 6, still have clear memories of things, although they were unable to label them. The ways they describe organizing their thoughts before language are fascinating.