| Title |
Human thinking, shared intentionality, and egocentric biases
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Biology & Philosophy, December 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10539-015-9512-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Uwe Peters |
| Abstract |
The paper briefly summarises and critiques Tomasello's (2014) A Natural History of Human Thinking. After offering an overview of the book, the paper focusses on one particular part of Tomasello's proposal on the evolution of uniquely human thinking and raises two points of criticism against it. One of them concerns his notion of thinking. The other pertains to empirical findings on egocentric biases in communication. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 53 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 53 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 9 | 17% |
| Student > Bachelor | 9 | 17% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 13% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 8% |
| Professor | 4 | 8% |
| Other | 8 | 15% |
| Unknown | 12 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 16 | 30% |
| Philosophy | 8 | 15% |
| Social Sciences | 3 | 6% |
| Linguistics | 3 | 6% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 10 | 19% |
| Unknown | 11 | 21% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 10 December 2021.
All research outputs
#2,787,119
of 22,663,969 outputs
Outputs from Biology & Philosophy
#101
of 660 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#48,949
of 386,914 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Biology & Philosophy
#1
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,663,969 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 660 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 386,914 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them