The Function Of Belief

[juantoo3]

Fear helps to keep the number of those receiving Darwin Awards relatively small.

Ah!, but is a Darwin award all it is cracked up to be?

 

[China Cat Sunflower]

Believe you can, or believe you cannot. Either way, you are correct.

It seems to me that there is a process where one chooses to enter the unknown incrementally. You lean back a little, trust just a little, and see what happens. Swim out just a little further than the last time, then swim back and touch the edge. Each little step is a little leap, but it's never all or nothing. A little faith, a little belief, a little growth each time. I think what holds people back is the idea that there has to be a total naked leap, all at once, into the unknown.

Chris

 

[cyberpi]

Fear helps to keep the number of those receiving Darwin Awards relatively small.

So then there is good science behind there being very few, for example, who were like Jesus Christ?!

The only thing that seems to have a lasting effect is the NLP treatment she received some years ago.

I wish your daughter and you the best.

I have been reading a little about NLP. Does the golden rule apply to it? Do unto others as you will that they do unto you? I personally desire open and honest communication with others, and with myself. If NLP is a pursuit of discovering the subjective or subverbal to make it more objective, as Maslow might suggest, then I consider it good. It is surely good for the education to identify the buttons or the triggers... to learn the science of the brain... to bring it to light.

When those subjective buttons or triggers are identified, and a person regains self control, I still see issues of faith. For example who wants to play the chemist to induce their own happy drug in a sort of perpetual masturbation? Why not then just go ingest the drugs when feeling low to brighten up the day. I submit the knowledge that might bring self control does not mean that controlling self is always good. With knowledge the power to choose is there, but to choose what? Conversely when there is a subjective button or anchor point identified on which a feeling hinges, then who is willing and open to disclose it to another person who might then press or deny it for their own purpose?

In an effort to communicate faith openly to children, I think there are some other good experiments that may seem pointless but that might be a rung on Maslow's pyramid. I view it as an opposite method to some of what I read about NLP. Children, for example, are delighted and their eyes open up when given control. If we jump in the car, then I might just take the time from my busy schedule and let them be the back seat driver for a day. We will go on an adventure. We will pack a lunch and they get to decide where we get to go explore. This seemingly pointless and chaotic activity, giving them the decision, is necessary. With it children are encouraged to explore. They still know that mom or dad approve, because we are there for them. They then see it. As time goes on, we watch more and more from a distance... they do someday prefer their own car. Another activity I remember as a kid was where someone blind folded themself, and let someone else guide them around an obstacle course. While it might be 'blind' faith... children don't see everything that parents do. So often the children are told to come here, to go there, to memorize this, or to think that, so it is really important to reverse those roles. For a time, not just control over the environment, but control over the parent. At its base level, is that not the golden rule?

 

[juantoo3]

It seems to me that there is a process where one chooses to enter the unknown incrementally. You lean back a little, trust just a little, and see what happens. Swim out just a little further than the last time, then swim back and touch the edge. Each little step is a little leap, but it's never all or nothing. A little faith, a little belief, a little growth each time. I think what holds people back is the idea that there has to be a total naked leap, all at once, into the unknown.

I don't disagree Chris, I don't think my previous comment excludes this you point out.

I seem to remember reading somewhere that Edison learned over a hundred ways how *not* to make a lightbulb before he figured out how to actually make one. What I take from that is that the way one deals with perceived failure (based on beliefs and "confidence") can influence their perceptions, and ultimately their personal relationship to and with the Divine. Am I a failure because I allow another to convince me I am (if I am told often enough, "you dummy!"), or am I a failure because I convince myself to give up and surrender through fear (telling myself "you dummy!"), or is failure simply another lesson about how not to achieve the goal I have set for myself (and learn how to contend with the obstacles that present themselves)?

Our beliefs are what can turn the condition of failure from a transient state into a more permanent state.

 

[juantoo3]

If NLP is a pursuit of discovering the subjective or subverbal to make it more objective, as Maslow might suggest, then I consider it good. It is surely good for the education to identify the buttons or the triggers... to learn the science of the brain... to bring it to light.

Abraham Maslow's hierarchy of needs was in chapter number one of every business text I had the pleasure of learning from. No exageration. I seriously do not recall any relationship to NLP. Care to elaborate?

When those subjective buttons or triggers are identified, and a person regains self control, I still see issues of faith. For example who wants to play the chemist to induce their own happy drug in a sort of perpetual masturbation? Why not then just go ingest the drugs when feeling low to brighten up the day.

I submit that by and large the bulk of the population do this chemically induced perpetual masturbation thing already. Whether by prescription or by contraband, there are more people driving on the highway *under the influence* of some chemical agent than one dares to consider. The cultural parameters defining what is *legal* and what is not are irrelevent. A person driving under the influence of legally prescribed narcotics is just as prone to deadly mistakes as any person under the influence of alcohol. Point being, if percentages (and mob rules democracy) are any indication of normalcy, then the normal mode of operation for "civilized" humanity seems to be a drug induced stupor. Those drugs used to induce stupor cloud the mind and separate the spirit from the Divine. Which is probably just as well; the typical mind refuses to look for the Divine, afraid of what they might find staring back at them.

 

[gp1628]

Pardon me for jumping in late and not reading all of the previous posts. I like to toss psuedo-scientific support into things like this. Science has often proven the power of belief, or faith. However in the usual tactics of science they tend to rename it and put it on their side of the fence if you know what to look for. In this case I would suggest bio-feedback, meditation, power of positive thinking, placebo, mind over body, the damage of stress vs the healing power of relaxation. In the case of belief providing benefits, science would suggest those as being the 'real' reasons. The person places faith in a power outside of themselves and gains benefits. Calming, focusing, relaxing. The scientific versions tend to be more difficult to get the same results. It takes more effort for a person to place the same amount of belief in something internal than something external. It tends to take years of training and still be less effective for some people. The scientific function of belief could be that of a social animal. A herd animal. That which allows the entire group to lose the continual fight-or-flight tension by shifting the authority for such to another entity allowing the majority of them to relax into their daily lives. Im not offering this as the ultimate answer. But sometimes its fun to be armed for a conversation with the semi-scientific types to fluster them in their own language and force them to agree that MAYBE things religious are worth something even in their view of the world. Gandalf Parker -- I do not ask for proof of God. In all of the stories that comes off rather like an ant asking for proof of Man. :: sad expression :: That poor ant.

 

[cyberpi]

Abraham Maslow's hierarchy of needs was in chapter number one of every business text I had the pleasure of learning from. No exageration. I seriously do not recall any relationship to NLP. Care to elaborate?

More generically I was saying that If NLP is a pursuit of knowledge like science or psychology... then oustanding... good. Abraham H. Maslow: "Become aware of internal, subjective, sub-verbal experiences, so that these experiences can be brought into the world of abstraction, of conversation, of naming, etc. with the consequence that it immediately becomes possible for a certain amount of control to be exerted over these hitherto unconscious and uncontrollable processes."

Then with any knowledge or capability, I was asking, what does a person do with it?

Regarding driving under the influence... the comparison for what I was saying is: Does the person merely drive for their own purpose of what feels good to them? I am suggesting in a way that a person should drive under the influence. The influence of others.

Science has often proven the power of belief, or faith.

I consciously and linguistically wrench the word or concept of faith away from belief, and into believing in someone who has a belief. There is a big difference between information and a person, between anything on paper and the will of the person who placed it, between the state of things and the potential to change it, between the flesh and the soul. Anyone can believe a book, but who can believe in a person who writes the book, even if the book is not true? As I read it though, that seemed to be the essence of your message.

 

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, gp1628, and welcome to CR!

I see you are from the central valley. I spent my teen years in Fresburg. It's changed an awful lot in the 30 years since I moved away.

Science has often proven the power of belief, or faith. However in the usual tactics of science they tend to rename it and put it on their side of the fence if you know what to look for.

True. Of course I'm sure Dawkins would say something to the effect that the goal and purpose of memes is to lay claim to the various facets of perceived reality. In effect, religion is equally guilty, for which Dawkins derides religion (but not science?).

In this case I would suggest bio-feedback, meditation, power of positive thinking, placebo, mind over body, the damage of stress vs the healing power of relaxation. In the case of belief providing benefits, science would suggest those as being the 'real' reasons. The person places faith in a power outside of themselves and gains benefits. Calming, focusing, relaxing. The scientific versions tend to be more difficult to get the same results. It takes more effort for a person to place the same amount of belief in something internal than something external. It tends to take years of training and still be less effective for some people.

It is essentially on these issues and similar that religions like Hinduism and Buddhism stake their claims to scientific legitimacy, gauging by the likes of Deepak Chopra and David Suzuki.

The scientific function of belief could be that of a social animal. A herd animal. That which allows the entire group to lose the continual fight-or-flight tension by shifting the authority for such to another entity allowing the majority of them to relax into their daily lives.

I have seen morality presented in the context of social / herd animals, but I am not so sure about belief, at least in the common civil human context of the term. Would you mind expanding your thought?

Im not offering this as the ultimate answer.

I don't think any of us here in this thread are offering any ultimate answers, just exploring the concepts. Ultimate answers scare me...they are consistently erroneous.

But sometimes its fun to be armed for a conversation with the semi-scientific types to fluster them in their own language and force them to agree that MAYBE things religious are worth something even in their view of the world.

Ahh, a person with views that parallel my own!

By the way, pleased to meet you Gandalf. I find myself relating better to the character of Gimli the battle hardened dwarf.

 

[juantoo3]

More generically I was saying that If NLP is a pursuit of knowledge like science or psychology... then oustanding... good. Abraham H. Maslow: "Become aware of internal, subjective, sub-verbal experiences, so that these experiences can be brought into the world of abstraction, of conversation, of naming, etc. with the consequence that it immediately becomes possible for a certain amount of control to be exerted over these hitherto unconscious and uncontrollable processes."

Very well, I suspect this was not related to his psychological work regarding needs. He was a prolific thinker, but much of his work was outside the popular realm, much like Jung.

Then with any knowledge or capability, I was asking, what does a person do with it?

This I think is a crucial question in the forefront of any person's mind that truly looks for wisdom. Knowledge for the mere sake of knowledge can be a dangerous pursuit, so often once the cat is out of the bag there is no returning it. Pandora's box is perpetually with us, and the temptation to open it overwhelming for those infatuated with their own intellect. Yes, I agree, wisdom lies in looking first to see the consequences of a course before proceeding. Sometimes it is not possible to see, but far more often it is and eyes are blinded deliberately from looking further afield before proceeding.

Regarding driving under the influence... the comparison for what I was saying is: Does the person merely drive for their own purpose of what feels good to them? I am suggesting in a way that a person should drive under the influence. The influence of others.

I could go in so many directions with this...I guess because to me it is sufficiently vague to be, for directional purposes, too ambiguous to be of any significant value. I mean no disrespect, I simply find occasions to agree and occasions to disagree and occasions where this line of reasoning is completely irrelevent.

 

[China Cat Sunflower]

I don't disagree Chris, I don't think my previous comment excludes this you point out.

I seem to remember reading somewhere that Edison learned over a hundred ways how *not* to make a lightbulb before he figured out how to actually make one. What I take from that is that the way one deals with perceived failure (based on beliefs and "confidence") can influence their perceptions, and ultimately their personal relationship to and with the Divine. Am I a failure because I allow another to convince me I am (if I am told often enough, "you dummy!"), or am I a failure because I convince myself to give up and surrender through fear (telling myself "you dummy!"), or is failure simply another lesson about how not to achieve the goal I have set for myself (and learn how to contend with the obstacles that present themselves)?

Our beliefs are what can turn the condition of failure from a transient state into a more permanent state.

I dunno, Juan. There is such a thing as being an abject failure as a human being. It's not an entirely subjective thing. Once a person gets so far behind the power curve of life it becomes easier to survive one more miserable day without changing than to start digging out. The magnitude of the change they would have to effect in order to regain their equilibrium seems impossibly beyond reach. And they don't have the energy or self discipline to follow through with anything. That's kinda how they got where they are. I agree that it's always a choice, but I also understand what it's like to be, for all intents and purposes, paralyzed and powerless. A victim of one's own self-victimization. From there it's awfully hard to scrape up any kind of personal capital to invest in anything positive.

Chris

 

[cyberpi]

This I think is a crucial question in the forefront of any person's mind that truly looks for wisdom. Knowledge for the mere sake of knowledge can be a dangerous pursuit, so often once the cat is out of the bag there is no returning it. Pandora's box is perpetually with us, and the temptation to open it overwhelming for those infatuated with their own intellect. Yes, I agree, wisdom lies in looking first to see the consequences of a course before proceeding. Sometimes it is not possible to see, but far more often it is and eyes are blinded deliberately from looking further afield before proceeding.

I don't claim to know what is in the forefront of any person's mind, but I can tell you what is in mine. By personally recognizing that the belief is false that any given knowledge or wisdom is dangerous, I don't get the urge to ban someone whose beliefs and words are disagreeable with me. I do not feel the need to censor their words from me or others. For example, I could use NLP techniques to learn the behavior of a rapist or a murderer without becoming one. If my model were that other people can't, then suddenly words, beliefs, or knowledge becomes extremely dangerous. If I detect that there are machines around me that will react violently if I say the wrong thing, then I will start learning the machine and advise whoever built it of the error or instability that I found in their beliefs.

I could go in so many directions with this...I guess because to me it is sufficiently vague to be, for directional purposes, too ambiguous to be of any significant value. I mean no disrespect, I simply find occasions to agree and occasions to disagree and occasions where this line of reasoning is completely irrelevent.

I was focused on the programming aspect of NLP, like anchoring. When I communicate with someone I do look for both the overt and the hidden clues in their language, the things they intend and the things they do not intend to say. That is very similar to what I read of with NLP. I also do mimic or imagine what it would be like to be them. But when it comes to speaking to someone then I will to use the words overtly. So if I want something, then I should just ask. In doing so I set myself up for a potential frustration on purpose; however, it will be per the will of the other person. Using the rather strong sexual example... if I want sexual gratification then I can take matters into my own hands, so to speak, or just go ask. The NLP techniques as I read them appear to advise another approach... purely seduction. To use a driving example, if I want someone else to let me in then I can put on the blinker and let them choose whether or not to let me in, or I can just cut in front with force, or I can swerve back and forth pretending like I'm drunk, taking advantage of their programming to avoid bad drivers. All three will work, but I think only one is driving per the will of the other driver. Applying the golden rule to it, only one is what I prefer others to do for me.

 

[gp1628]

I have seen morality presented in the context of social / herd animals, but I am not so sure about belief, at least in the common civil human context of the term. Would you mind expanding your thought?

If in fact the benefits of belief were to include the lack of stress of the individual, then an extended benefit within a herd would be the lack of stress in the herd. At one level it would be the shifting of duties to others as far as fight-or-flight decisions freeing the mass from continual alertness to danger. In other words, the creation of leaders and varioius other duties such as guards and scouts which many herd and pack animals have.

As intelligence grew (boy I can hear the atheists grinding on this one) it became the ability to have decisions and responsibility shifted away from any individual and to non-entities of various types. In other words spirits, and even gods. The benefit was not having to concern yourself with bothersome decisions. They came pre-packaged. The masses gained peace of mind. They were able to relax into their daily lives and leave the distressing thinking to others which would otherwise have fallen to each individual to continually puzzle over.

By the way, pleased to meet you Gandalf. I find myself relating better to the character of Gimli the battle hardened dwarf.

Yeah if I were to choose for myself it would probably have been a hobbit. Im much more hobbitish than I am like the wizard. We have a medieval/earth-day fair here and there is no way I could pull off coming as my namesake. Instead Im thinking of going as the "green man" which I feel well fits into both themes of the fair.

 

[Paladin]

If in fact the benefits of belief were to include the lack of stress of the individual, then an extended benefit within a herd would be the lack of stress in the herd. At one level it would be the shifting of duties to others as far as fight-or-flight decisions freeing the mass from continual alertness to danger. In other words, the creation of leaders and varioius other duties such as guards and scouts which many herd and pack animals have.

As intelligence grew (boy I can hear the atheists grinding on this one) it became the ability to have decisions and responsibility shifted away from any individual and to non-entities of various types. In other words spirits, and even gods. The benefit was not having to concern yourself with bothersome decisions. They came pre-packaged. The masses gained peace of mind. They were able to relax into their daily lives and leave the distressing thinking to others which would otherwise have fallen to each individual to continually puzzle over.


Yeah if I were to choose for myself it would probably have been a hobbit. Im much more hobbitish than I am like the wizard. We have a medieval/earth-day fair here and there is no way I could pull off coming as my namesake. Instead Im thinking of going as the "green man" which I feel well fits into both themes of the fair.

Well, here in the US this has largely become the consensus.

Hmmm gives me an idea for a new thread...

 

[juantoo3]

I dunno, Juan. There is such a thing as being an abject failure as a human being. It's not an entirely subjective thing. Once a person gets so far behind the power curve of life it becomes easier to survive one more miserable day without changing than to start digging out. The magnitude of the change they would have to effect in order to regain their equilibrium seems impossibly beyond reach. And they don't have the energy or self discipline to follow through with anything. That's kinda how they got where they are. I agree that it's always a choice, but I also understand what it's like to be, for all intents and purposes, paralyzed and powerless. A victim of one's own self-victimization. From there it's awfully hard to scrape up any kind of personal capital to invest in anything positive.

I agree some find it easier to surrender to lie in the bed they have helped create, rather than make up a new bed to lie in.

A lot comes down to staking claim on the labels oneself and others may try to attach. Self-limiting labels do just that, limit self. "I can't do that." So, "you're" a quitter then... Not that this of itself is a bad thing, obviously I do think there are certain limits and certain thresholds better not crossed.

I suppose in a sense one cannot regain their virginity. But thresholds can generally be crossed in both directions. So what if someone else holds memories better forgotten, they do not answer for "you." "You" answer for yourself only. If today was a bad today, one has the choice to begin tomorrow differently or continue living up to the bad labels that try to attach themselves.

It can be really difficult to see sometimes as one looks at a homeless and destitute person on the side of the road with a sign begging for money. No doubt their life, as anybody's life, is a compilation of their experiences. So, what experiences broought them to the point they are at? Are they a war vet who saw one too many horrific scenes play before their eyes so now they can no longer cope with civil social constructs? Are they an addict of one kind or another that has succumbed to their addictions? Are they mentally challenged in some manner that makes them anti-social? Are they financially challenged from falling on hard times? In each of these, a change can be affected, but the person must make a fundamental paradigm shift in their beliefs; about themselves and the world around them. Granted, this is easier said than done, and easier for some than others. Some are actually homeless and destitute *by choice.* They choose not to cope with society. Others, those who find themselves in such situations by circumstances, usually are those most ready to seize the opportunity to effect the changes needed to re-enter society.

I have been chastised in the past for holding this view, and expect no less now. But this is how I view things. That is not to say such people cannot or should not be helped; certainly if one is in a position to assist, by all means do so. But in my experience trying to help those who are not ready to be helped or those who simply have no desire to change, is wasted effort. Sometimes it is enabling another's self-destruction.

 

[juantoo3]

I don't claim to know what is in the forefront of any person's mind, but I can tell you what is in mine. By personally recognizing that the belief is false that any given knowledge or wisdom is dangerous, I don't get the urge to ban someone whose beliefs and words are disagreeable with me. I do not feel the need to censor their words from me or others. For example, I could use NLP techniques to learn the behavior of a rapist or a murderer without becoming one. If my model were that other people can't, then suddenly words, beliefs, or knowledge becomes extremely dangerous. If I detect that there are machines around me that will react violently if I say the wrong thing, then I will start learning the machine and advise whoever built it of the error or instability that I found in their beliefs.

Life is for learning...

When I communicate with someone I do look for both the overt and the hidden clues in their language, the things they intend and the things they do not intend to say. That is very similar to what I read of with NLP. I also do mimic or imagine what it would be like to be them. But when it comes to speaking to someone then I will to use the words overtly. So if I want something, then I should just ask. In doing so I set myself up for a potential frustration on purpose; however, it will be per the will of the other person.

Is this the method you use here with me? Frankly, I think you have deliberately avoided trying to imagine what it would be like to be me, in spite of my repeated attempts to demonstrate... Or am I a special case in your estimation?

In so saying I have set myself up for a potential frustration on purpose; however, it will be per the will of the other person...

 

[juantoo3]

If in fact the benefits of belief were to include the lack of stress of the individual, then an extended benefit within a herd would be the lack of stress in the herd. At one level it would be the shifting of duties to others as far as fight-or-flight decisions freeing the mass from continual alertness to danger. In other words, the creation of leaders and varioius other duties such as guards and scouts which many herd and pack animals have.

OK, but how do we determine if lack of stress is in fact a benefit of belief in a herd environment? I don't know that attaching telemetric meters to each individual in a herd and exposing them to a potential threat will reveal anything substantial, but I could be mistaken. I am not sure that even if reduced stress levels could be determined that they could be definitively tied to "belief(s)." Your notion regarding the development of leaders and specialists is intriguing.

As intelligence grew (boy I can hear the atheists grinding on this one) it became the ability to have decisions and responsibility shifted away from any individual and to non-entities of various types. In other words spirits, and even gods. The benefit was not having to concern yourself with bothersome decisions. They came pre-packaged. The masses gained peace of mind. They were able to relax into their daily lives and leave the distressing thinking to others which would otherwise have fallen to each individual to continually puzzle over.

Interesting...I am trying to see this in the context of the cave paintings and venus and shaman figurines.

Instead Im thinking of going as the "green man" which I feel well fits into both themes of the fair.

Ah yes, Santa Claus' older brother! Cool. Say hello to Sir Gawain for me!

 

[juantoo3]

Well, here in the US this has largely become the consensus. (The benefit was not having to concern yourself with bothersome decisions. They came pre-packaged. The masses gained peace of mind. They were able to relax into their daily lives and leave the distressing thinking to others which would otherwise have fallen to each individual to continually puzzle over.)

Hmmm gives me an idea for a new thread...

Well, Paladin, you seem to have a knack for threads that provoke some pretty deep thinking. I look forward to the next one!

 

[cyberpi]

Life is for learning...

Is that a confession of something learned?

Is this the method you use here with me? Frankly, I think you have deliberately avoided trying to imagine what it would be like to be me, in spite of my repeated attempts to demonstrate... Or am I a special case in your estimation?

Did you ask me if you should demonstrate something? Did you ask me to watch something? What exactly were you trying to demonstrate? Where and when did you demonstrate it? Did you ask anyone who you demonstrated it to if they approved? Did you take a public vote? Sorry I missed it... I don't know you... do I? I mean I know some of your words, and some of your beliefs, but when did you ever ask me whether or not I approved of anything?

In so saying I have set myself up for a potential frustration on purpose; however, it will be per the will of the other person...

Well I suppose you could force yourself into another lane and still be potentially frustrated... or sway back and forth like a drunk and still be potentially frustrated... or just do nothing and still be potentially frustrated. I guess I chose the wrong word. Maybe 'rejected' might be a better word, but then I suppose you could still apply the other two cases and be rejected after the act or alleged demonstration, rather than before it. Yet you were not rejected... were you? I'm still talking with you. You could still demonstrate something. I'd say that Silas and Niranjan were rejected. Thrown out of this lane. Intollerance threw them out. Not by me. Not in my name.

Allow me to demonstrate, if you will. Maybe this is the only way to demonstrate the kind of offering that I am trying to describe. I give you the power... I give you the power of a remote control. Would you like me to stop judging your words? Just say the word, just push that button, and I will take it somewhere else. I am programming me to seek and obey your approval. I seek your approval before you suffer from another one of my posts. What say you?

Alternatively I will offer you something outside of this forum. Dinner... my treat... in Florida. Within nose punching distance in case you spot some arrogance. Button two on the remote. What say you?

 

[China Cat Sunflower]

Well Chris, you might be right about that but doesn't that imply that there is meaning outside of ourselves? And if that is true, why doesn't everyone take away the same meaning from the same symbol?

Check out this essay that I happened upon, Mark.

The Simple Truth

Chris

 

[juantoo3]

From a program on NOVA last night: Ape Genius. I caught a couple of interesting comments dealing with "beliefs."

In 2003, Rebecca Saxe of MIT ran studies using functional magnetic resonance imaging, or fMRI, a non-invasive technology that creates a kind of movie of brain activity. The studies revealed an area perhaps half the volume of a sugar cube above and behind the right ear.

This brain region appears to have a remarkably specific function. When I am thinking about who a friend believes will be the next American president, this area in my brain is highly active. But when I am thinking about whether my friend is thirsty—another internal state, but not a belief—this brain region is quiet. Saxe's discovery—one of the most surprising in cognitive science in the last decade—begs a question: Do the other great apes have their own version of this brain area, and if so, what is it doing?

NOVA | Ape Genius | What Makes Us Human? | PBS

Q: Can you describe the experiment you do to look at theory of mind in young children?
Saxe: The standard paradigm is you have a puppet, Sally, who has a ball, and she puts the ball one place. And then she leaves, and you tell the child that Sally can't see or hear what's happening. And while Sally's out of the room, the ball's hidden someplace else. The question is, when Sally comes back in, where is she going to look for her ball? To figure that out, you need to know where she thinks the ball is. She's going to look for it where she first put it, because that's where she thinks it is, even though it's really in the other place.
Q: So what happens when you test this with, say, three-year-olds?
Saxe: Three-year-olds are amazing! The thing that's amazing is not that they fail, because there're lots of things three-year-olds can't do. The thing that's amazing is how convinced they are about their wrong answer! They're so sure that she's going to look for her ball where it really is because she wants it, and that's where it is. They'll show their confidence by betting tokens. If you give them 10 tokens, they'll bet all 10 tokens that she's going to look for it where it really is. The other thing that's amazing is that it's not a local cultural phenomenon; it's been found all over the world. It's been found in hunter-gatherer societies. It's been found in the Peruvian mountains. Three-year-olds are committed to the mistaken notion that human action is best predicted by what's really true. And so the achievement in psychological development is to realize that we should predict human action by what people think rather than by what's really true.

-emphasis mine
NOVA | Ape Genius | The Ape That Teaches | PBS

There are more intriguing issues brought up, such as teaching and the desire to be taught which appears to be lacking in other apes. The site referenced is well worth a look, and so is the tv program if you can find it.