SchäsLong, del 16

På tal om att detta, och kanske ännu mer detta.

 

Vi har typer i hjärnan. Typ.

"Most people would say that a robin is a more typical bird, and a desk chair is a more typical chair. The cognitive psychologists who study this sort of thing experimentally, do so under the heading of 'typicality effects' or 'prototype effects' (Rosch and Lloyd 1978). For example, if you ask subjects to press a button to indicate 'true' or 'false' in response to statements like 'A robin is a bird' or 'A penguin is a bird', reaction times are faster for more central examples. (I'm still unpacking my books, but I'm reasonably sure my source on this is Lakoff 1986.) Typicality measures correlate well using different investigative methods—reaction times are one example; you can also ask people to directly rate, on a scale of 1 to 10, how well an example (like a specific robin) fits a category (like 'bird').

So we have a mental measure of typicality—which might, perhaps, function as a heuristic—but is there a corresponding bias we can use to pin it down?

Well, which of these statements strikes you as more natural:  '98 is approximately 100', or '100 is approximately 98'? If you're like most people, the first statement seems to make more sense. (Sadock 1977.) For similar reasons, people asked to rate how similar Mexico is to the United States, gave consistently higher ratings than people asked to rate how similar the United States is to Mexico."

 

Oliver Sacks skriver (i Hallucinationer) (förlåt lättjefull och lätt skuggad citationsmodell):

 

 

Det finns alltså ett begreppsmässigt lexikon med bilder på urtyper av olika saker!

 

Homer Simpsons skor liksom. Arketypiska skor.

 

Språket och begreppen har sin rent fysiologiska motsvarighet inne i hjärnan. Men, varför skulle det vara på något annat sätt.