Common sense suggests that we know our own thoughts directly, but that we infer the thoughts of other people.
Topic
Whether our knowledge of our own thoughts is direct and infallible, or actually inferential and potentially fallible
Framework
Challenge Position
Main Point
The passage challenges the common belief that we have direct, infallible access to our own thoughts and suggests, based on psychological experiments, that our knowledge of our own thoughts is actually inferential—much like how we infer the thoughts of others. *The Most Valuable Sentence is at the end of the first paragraph: *
P1: Challenging Common Sense about Self-Knowledge
Common sense says we know our own thoughts directly and with certainty, but experiments show young children can misdescribe their own thoughts, even when they get the actual facts right. Psychologists use this to argue that our self-knowledge is actually inferential, just like when we guess what others are thinking.
P2: Explaining Why We Think We're Infallible
These psychologists try to explain why we're so convinced we know our thoughts directly. They compare it to gaining expertise—like chess experts who "just see" a good move. We become so skilled at quickly and unconsciously figuring out what we're thinking that it feels like direct perception, even though it's not.
P3: Refining the Position—What Are We Inferring From?
The psychologists clarify that, even if our self-knowledge is inferential, we aren't just looking at our own external behavior. Instead, we draw on our internal experiences—like fleeting emotions or sensations—to make these inferences. Because no one else can observe these internal cues, our mistaken sense of infallibility is reinforced.