What you know is not necessarily what someone else knows

Social capabilities across human development | Part 6

You may know that a plan changed while another person has not received the update. Social capability appears in noticing that information gap and adapting an explanation. Accurate information and information that has reached the person are distinct.

The day the meeting room changed

A meeting moves from a room marked blue to one marked orange. An employee who received the update spots a colleague carrying the old schedule. "Did the change reach you?" they ask, showing the latest instructions. The colleague heads toward the new room.

This fictional example checks the other person's information before blaming them for not knowing. Treating a knowledge gap as something to clarify, rather than evidence of carelessness, is a concrete social judgment.

Thinking from theory-of-mind research

Wellman, Cross, and Watson's meta-analysis examines developmental changes in explicit false-belief task performance and the relevance of task conditions. Such research distinguishes the actual state of the world from another person's understanding. See Meta-analysis of theory-of-mind development.

Correct task answers do not mean someone consistently uses another person's perspective in daily life. Apperly and colleagues also investigated difficulties in adults' use of another person's perspective in a communication task. See Why are there limits on theory of mind use?.

Instead of one passing age, distinguish recognizing another person's information from using that distinction during a busy interaction. This helps specify the conditions in which social capability is expressed.

Do not assume you know what the other person knows

A family may assume everyone knows a shopping change. A pupil who missed a lesson may be assumed to know what was explained. Sharing a document can be confused with the recipient having read it.

Check who encountered which information and explain the relevant gap. Even then, someone's knowledge cannot be established perfectly from outside. A "received" record is not proof of understanding. Leave room for questions and corrections.

Missing information is not automatically information that may be shared. If the update is confidential, sharing authority needs checking. Closing a knowledge gap differs from revealing everything.

A design hypothesis for physical AI

A possible design separates world information in the AI's memory, records of what it communicated, inferences about understanding, and permissions to share. Knowing the current meeting room does not justify assuming everyone else knows.

Briefly clarify uncertainty and update guidance when someone says, "I hadn't heard." For confidential plans or personal information, prioritize sharing permissions. Person-specific memories also need a purpose and a retention period.

Evaluation could distinguish people who received an update, did not receive it, received but did not read it, or lack access authority. The proposal is to examine guidance appropriate to the recipient together with information boundaries, alongside factual correctness.

A decision in four panels

Only one person receives the room change.
Someone with old instructions heads toward another room.
The updated marker is shown and the change explained.
After checking, they head toward the correct room.

The fictional comic illustrates checking differences in available information, rather than reading another person's mind.

References

About this series

This series uses published literature to examine everyday situations. Its 7 domains and 22 capabilities are an editorial framework, not a standard academic classification. Differences in age or culture are not rankings of people's social worth or capability. The proposed AI designs do not establish humanlike emotional experience or demonstrated product performance. The comics illustrate fictional examples.