What do you think?
Rate this book
Others in Mind: Social Origins of Self-Consciousness
Why are we so prone to guilt and embarrassment? Why do we care so much about how others see us, about our reputation? What are the origins of such afflictions? Philippe Rochat argues that it is because we are members of a species that evolved the unique propensity to reflect upon themselves as an object of thoughts; an object of thoughts that is potentially evaluated by others. But, the argument goes, this propensity comes from a basic fear: the fear of rejection, of being socially "banned" and ostracized. Others in Mind is about self-consciousness, how it originates and how it shapes our lives. Self-consciousness is arguably the most important and revealing of all psychological problems.
264 pages, Paperback
First published December 1, 2008
11 people are currently reading
367 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
October 19, 2016
Phillippe Rochat is a professor at a university in Georgia, but I had to get this book shipped to me from England, which means I paid significantly more than I would’ve paid had he decided to publish it in the U.S. instead, which almost certainly merits the deduction of a star – and then I remembered that price-to-quality ratio is a heuristic I reserve only for judgments in the culinary arts…
Rochat wants to convince you that there isn’t such a thing as an individuated self. In fact, he suggests that the Western focus on this nonexistent entity is a prime source of dissatisfaction in peoples’ lives. If this sounds far-fetched, let me assure you that he does a damn good job of it. His grammar isn’t perfect, and he repeats several points throughout, but these crimes can be forgiven when you consider his strengths: logical deduction and positive argumentation (which tend to be especially rare in the psychological disciplines). His empirical background in child development psychology and tribal anthropology, in combination with a wide knowledge of philosophy through the postmodernists, positions him to provide a unique – and likely accurate – take on how humans work.
Consider the artist who believes he is capable of greatness, yet is constantly disappointed by the work he puts out; reality never matches the vision he has in his head, the vision he wishes to communicate to others as directly as possible so that they too recognize his (imagined) greatness. This represents his desire to implant a conception of himself in others’ minds; without the others, he does not exist. Or consider the dead, relegated to the pages of history, whose corpses have long decayed but whose actions remain in our minds. As the saying goes, we die two deaths: once when our bodies cease to function, the second when someone thinks of us for the last time.
But did you know? The two don’t have to be in that order, and the second, as Rochat suggests, can be said to occur when one simply believes it. “To be ignored and rejected by others is indeed the worst punishment and the worst of all sufferings. It is psychological death [p.224]” and “In suicide, ironically, death seems often to be used as a desperate last call for existence in the minds of others [p.20].” How does this framework apply to Jackson Pollock? Why are people so desperate for Andy Warhol’s fifteen minutes? What are the roots of social media addiction? Read and find out.
Perhaps the most important takeaway for me is reinforcement of my idea that the most noble figures are those who are willing to sacrifice their reputations to defend or promote their ideas, for it takes a great soul to continue a life under shame. Constant shame, or psychological martyrdom, is not ego death; it is ego torture. To live on requires a great soul (or psychopathy).
Favorite quotes
“As you get old, there is typically less and less enjoyment in the contemplation of the self in mirrors, an experience that is increasingly depressing in the context of societies that pay little respect and admiration to aging, a process considered more like entropy and self-deterioration than accumulated experience and wisdom.” [p.26]
“The persistence in development of the sole authority of embodied first-person perspective can actually be very detrimental. This seems particularly evident in the case of people suffering from eating disorders (e.g. bulimia or anorexia nervosa). In such instances, the person develops a distorted embodied perception of the self. The authority of first-person perspective becomes dictatorial, associated with social alienation and delusional self-identity, particularly grossly transformed body image despite clear contradictory social clues from attentive and caring others. Intersubjective clues are not properly integrated in the constitution of self-identity.” [p.203]
“We might be fighting with someone, and in the midst of the fight the phone rings. After some heated argument as to who will pick it up, we finally answer the phone with a voice and attitude that are in total contrast with what we were just portraying of ourselves in the argument.” [p.209]
“…the meaning of a pointing gesture is at the interface of one individual’s attention to a particular object in the environment and other individuals’ attention to the same object. It is within neither one nor the other individual’s private mind. The meaning of the pointing is shared, not privately owned. The same applies to self-knowledge.” [p.40]
Rochat wants to convince you that there isn’t such a thing as an individuated self. In fact, he suggests that the Western focus on this nonexistent entity is a prime source of dissatisfaction in peoples’ lives. If this sounds far-fetched, let me assure you that he does a damn good job of it. His grammar isn’t perfect, and he repeats several points throughout, but these crimes can be forgiven when you consider his strengths: logical deduction and positive argumentation (which tend to be especially rare in the psychological disciplines). His empirical background in child development psychology and tribal anthropology, in combination with a wide knowledge of philosophy through the postmodernists, positions him to provide a unique – and likely accurate – take on how humans work.
Consider the artist who believes he is capable of greatness, yet is constantly disappointed by the work he puts out; reality never matches the vision he has in his head, the vision he wishes to communicate to others as directly as possible so that they too recognize his (imagined) greatness. This represents his desire to implant a conception of himself in others’ minds; without the others, he does not exist. Or consider the dead, relegated to the pages of history, whose corpses have long decayed but whose actions remain in our minds. As the saying goes, we die two deaths: once when our bodies cease to function, the second when someone thinks of us for the last time.
But did you know? The two don’t have to be in that order, and the second, as Rochat suggests, can be said to occur when one simply believes it. “To be ignored and rejected by others is indeed the worst punishment and the worst of all sufferings. It is psychological death [p.224]” and “In suicide, ironically, death seems often to be used as a desperate last call for existence in the minds of others [p.20].” How does this framework apply to Jackson Pollock? Why are people so desperate for Andy Warhol’s fifteen minutes? What are the roots of social media addiction? Read and find out.
Perhaps the most important takeaway for me is reinforcement of my idea that the most noble figures are those who are willing to sacrifice their reputations to defend or promote their ideas, for it takes a great soul to continue a life under shame. Constant shame, or psychological martyrdom, is not ego death; it is ego torture. To live on requires a great soul (or psychopathy).
Favorite quotes
“As you get old, there is typically less and less enjoyment in the contemplation of the self in mirrors, an experience that is increasingly depressing in the context of societies that pay little respect and admiration to aging, a process considered more like entropy and self-deterioration than accumulated experience and wisdom.” [p.26]
“The persistence in development of the sole authority of embodied first-person perspective can actually be very detrimental. This seems particularly evident in the case of people suffering from eating disorders (e.g. bulimia or anorexia nervosa). In such instances, the person develops a distorted embodied perception of the self. The authority of first-person perspective becomes dictatorial, associated with social alienation and delusional self-identity, particularly grossly transformed body image despite clear contradictory social clues from attentive and caring others. Intersubjective clues are not properly integrated in the constitution of self-identity.” [p.203]
“We might be fighting with someone, and in the midst of the fight the phone rings. After some heated argument as to who will pick it up, we finally answer the phone with a voice and attitude that are in total contrast with what we were just portraying of ourselves in the argument.” [p.209]
“…the meaning of a pointing gesture is at the interface of one individual’s attention to a particular object in the environment and other individuals’ attention to the same object. It is within neither one nor the other individual’s private mind. The meaning of the pointing is shared, not privately owned. The same applies to self-knowledge.” [p.40]
February 16, 2026
I think in retrospect I understood this book less than I thought at the time of reading. I read 80% of it sneaking time at night before bed after packing my schedule in nyc and finished this book on vacation. I was chillin in a sauna and I found myself really connecting with my relaxed physical sensations of comfort. I finally found some presence of mind to contemplate my own selfhood given the argument the book makes - the idea that the “self” exists only because there are others to distinguish ourselves from.
I think there’s a surface level way to engage with the text as a readout of a series of experiments and their results around infant/child “theory of mind” development (used extremely loosely). Plus readouts of the existing topic literature and schools of thought on the self. Eg the self is completely instinctual and develops from within, or the self is completely a product of someone’s environment (from without). < I find the author’s argument of how neither of these capture the full picture really compelling.
Going deeper I feel there’s a lot of value from giving self-exercises-to-the-reader. Such as when the book discusses different cultural effects on the way we consider others (or lack thereof).
To braindump for myself. Concepts I remember off the top of my head include differentiating different tiers of thinking (from sensation -> “knowing you know” something, understanding cause and effect/agency, sharing/bartering/negotiating/ownership, justice, separation anxiety
I would personally prefer the text repeat itself a lot less but maybe even more would have flown over my head. I did appreciate the author’s voice coming through so personably. I was pleasantly surprised bc I expected the subject matter to be presented in a much more dry/academic manner.
I think there’s a surface level way to engage with the text as a readout of a series of experiments and their results around infant/child “theory of mind” development (used extremely loosely). Plus readouts of the existing topic literature and schools of thought on the self. Eg the self is completely instinctual and develops from within, or the self is completely a product of someone’s environment (from without). < I find the author’s argument of how neither of these capture the full picture really compelling.
Going deeper I feel there’s a lot of value from giving self-exercises-to-the-reader. Such as when the book discusses different cultural effects on the way we consider others (or lack thereof).
To braindump for myself. Concepts I remember off the top of my head include differentiating different tiers of thinking (from sensation -> “knowing you know” something, understanding cause and effect/agency, sharing/bartering/negotiating/ownership, justice, separation anxiety
I would personally prefer the text repeat itself a lot less but maybe even more would have flown over my head. I did appreciate the author’s voice coming through so personably. I was pleasantly surprised bc I expected the subject matter to be presented in a much more dry/academic manner.
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews