Another Word For Intersubjective Agreement Is

Common reference during an activity facilitates learning. Adults teach either by performing the task with children or by directing attention to the experts. Children who had to ask questions about how to accomplish a task were reprimanded for not learning by the example of another, as if they were unaware of the resources available to learn a task, as Tz`utujil Maya sees parents who question children and ask «if they have eyes». [20] Intersubjectivity was used in the social sciences to refer to an agreement. There is an intersubjectivity between people when they agree on a number of meanings or a definition of the situation. Similarly, Thomas Scheff defines intersubjectivity as «the common use of subjective states by two or more individuals.» [2] In the debate between cognitive individualism and cognitive universalism, certain aspects of thinking are neither personal nor completely universal. Supporters of cognitive sociology argue for intersubjectivity – an intermediate perspective of social knowledge that offers a balanced vision between the personal and universal opinions of our social knowledge. This approach suggests that instead of being individual or universal thinkers, people join «communities of thought» – communities of different beliefs. Churches, professions, scientific beliefs, generations, nations and political movements are examples of communities of thought. [7] This perspective explains why each individual thinks differently from another (individualism): Person A may choose to stick to the expiration date on food, but Person B may believe that expiry dates are only guidelines and that it is always safe to eat on food days after the expiration date. But not all people think the same way (universalism).

The term was also used to refer to common (or partially divided) differences in meaning. Self-presentation, lies, practical jokes and social emotions, for example, do not imply a common definition of the situation, but partly common differences in meaning. Someone who tells a lie is involved in an intersubjective act because he works with two different definitions of the situation. The lie is therefore really intersubjective (in the sense of work between two subjective definitions of reality). [Citation required] Simulation theorists, on the other hand, assert that we explain and predict the behavior of others by using our own minds as a model, and by «putting ourselves in the shoes of another» – that is, imagining what our mental states would be and how we would behave if we were in the position of the other. Specifically, we simulate what each other`s mental states may have been to provoke observed behavior, then we use simulated mental states, we give convictions, and we give desires as a contribution by passing them through our own decision-making mechanism. We will then take the resulting conclusion and register it with the other person. [9] Authors such as Vittorio Gallese have proposed a theory of incarnate simulation, which refers to neuroscientific research on mirror neurons and phenomenological research. [10] Studies of dialogue and dialogue show how profoundly intersubjective language is. When we talk, we always turn to our interlocutors, we take their perspective and we move towards what we think (or, more often, do not think). [12] In this research tradition, it has been argued that the structure of each sign or symbol, the basis of language, is intersubjective[13] and that the psychological process of self-reflection implies intersubjectivity.

[14] Recent research on mirror neurons provides evidence of the profoundly intersubjective basis of human psychology[15] and probably much of the literature on empathy and mind theory refers directly to intersubjectivity. The cultural value of respeto can also contribute to intersubjectivity in some communities; Contrary to the English definition of «respect,» respeto refers in bulk to mutual consideration of