Simulation Theory

Brooks Wellington III grew up in the Upper East Side of Manhattan. He has lived a life that has always been full of extravagances and possibilities. Brooks has never had to wonder where his next meal would come from or even had to work a day in his life. He has always had more money than he knows what to do with, and most likely always will. Luxury and wealth surrounds his days, not those filled with hardships. Jaafar Omer has spent all of his life in the conflict-filled, impoverished region of Darfur, Sudan. Jaafar awakes every morning hoping that that day will not be the day the one that he meets his end. In front of his own eyes, he witnessed the brutal murders of his own parents as well as the kidnapping of his younger sister. He spends his days working in the hot, desert sun. He is a young teen living with his aunt, uncle and cousins, with barely enough food to survive the demanding life he carries out. He doesn't know about first loves, video games or many of the other life experiences that Brooks had growing up. Could these two men ever understand one another? Is there any possibility that they could imagine what one another's life is like or their hopes and dreams? The simulation theory would confirm that these two individuals could explain one another's actions by imagining oneself in the other person's situation, and then deciding how the person would be likely to act (Goldman and Mason, 218). This explains how we have an amazing ability to understand how other people's minds work and how we're able to routinely anticipate and explain other's behaviors. In reality, people's minds are so different that we would never be able to fully understand one another using simulation.

Mason and Goldman's views and the simulation theory attempts to prove the notion that Brooks and Jaafar could in fact understand one another. The simulation theory is an approach to the theory of mind. The theory states that we, as humans, do our best to explain other people's actions by using our own experiences (lecture). We replicate, usually through the imagination, the thinking, decision-making, emotional responses or other aspects of the mental life of another person (Goldman and Mason, lecture). In doing this, we can anticipate another's solution to a problem by solving the same problem in our own head. This idea basically suggests that as we use resources in our brains to guide our own behavior, we should also be able to use the same resources to explain other's behaviors (Folk, p. 1). Many definitions have arisen from simulation but it has most often come to mean role-playing or "putting oneself in another's place" (Folk). Arguing for this theory, the idea of replication would be able to explain how we're so often able to place oneself in another person's physical and mental situations. Say for example, Brooks witnesses a prosperous man walk up to Jaafar and offer him a satchel of money. Wouldn't it be probable that Brooks could place himself in Jaafar's position and guess that he would accept the money considering the cruel condition he was living in? In this idea of role-taking, one's own behavior is flexible, allowing for predictions or anticipations of behaviors.

I believe that throughout the world, people's motives, behaviors, beliefs and desires are so different, it would be hard to imagine how one's narrow experiences would give them the capacity to make an inference about another's mental state. It may be possible to place oneself in another person's physical or mental situation some of the time, but this explanation would not be plausible for all situations. I think there are times that I may know what my best friend would be likely to do in a certain situation. Say for example her grandmother died. I know that she would need me to be there for emotional support and that she most likely want to share her feelings with me. I also know her morals, behaviors, family upbringing, experiences etc., making it easier for me to know how she will act. In contrast, I may, for example, want to predict the decision of someone whose experiences and beliefs are radically different than my own. I would not be able to simply change my mental life to bring it in line with theirs. Consider Joe Bob from the street losing his grandmother. It may be in his personality to bottle up his emotions and go on with his life as if nothing happened. It seems as if we would have to know every life detail of someone's life and the way they think in order to know how they might think or respond to a situation. Using the example from earlier, Jaafar was offered a large sum of money from