How do We Understand other Humans?

In last two decades we had an intense discussion about which theory best describes how we understand other human beings. I will argue that neither Simulation Theory nor TheoryTheory nor Interaction-Theory do offer us an adequate analysis. Despite the fact that they highlight some relevant aspects, the generalization made by each theory cannot do justice to the varieties of social understanding we can actually observe. Thus, we need an alternative theory. I suggest the person model theory as an alternative and will defend it by distinguishing two question which we need to distinguish in the debate: 1. which epistemic strategy do we use to register the others’ mental state: simulation, theory-based inferences, interaction or direct perception? I argue for a multiplicity view that we in fact to use all these strategies depending on the context (Newen 2015). But the focus of this paper is question 2: How is prior information – that we usually rely on when understanding others – stored and organized: in form of a folk psychological theory or as narratives? My answer is that we essentially rely on person models to understand others. Person models can be implicitly represented (person schema) or explicitly available (person image). A person schema is an implicitly represented unity of sensory-motor abilities and basic mental phenomena related to one human being (or a group of humans). We also develop person images while this is a unity of explicitly registered mental and physical phenomena related to one human being (or a group). My aim is to show that the person model theory is more powerful than the alternative candidates.