We argue that developmental robotics, in its integration of developmental psychology and robotics, has the potential to encounter unexpected and unexamined conceptual difficulties. In particular, the various uses of embodiment and shared intentionality single out certain robots and behaviors as more or less relevant for the modeling of social cognition. As these terms have relatively orthogonal histories, there is no account for how their use will interact to shape methodology. We provide a brief discussion of how they may do so. Moreover, theorists often avoid explicit endorsement of some use or another. Although this agnosticism is understandable, we use the model of Dominey and Warneken (2011) as an illustrative example of why it is potentially dangerous. While Dominey and Warneken have succeeded in encouraging theorists to adopt clearer formulations of shared intentionality, their model suffers from important difficulties in interpretation, which, we argue, are a consequence of their uses of embodiment and shared intentionality respectively.
Origin Information
Default image for the object Methodological consequences of weak embodied cognition and shared intentionality, object is lacking a thumbnail image
Embodied approaches to cognition have been empirically successful both in developmental psychology and robotics. Shared intentionality has been similarly productive in developmental and comparative psychology. However, embodiment and shared intentionality both have a rich philosophical history. As a consequence, researchers who aim to benefit from the methodological advances of these literature must navigate through a variety of different usages, many of which rest on potentially contentious philosophies regarding the nature of mind. We attempt to identify renditions of embodiment and shared intentionality that can motivate research while making relatively modest assumptions. As we will see, such readings already exist in the embodied cognition literature. We find most uses of shared intentionality, however, to be unnecessarily strong theses that inevitably tie a researcher to contentious frameworks. We suggest a usage-based explication of shared intentionality that is far weaker, and may motivate research in the absence of such assumptions.