Sad paralles between prototypes and sterotypes

In the Paradox of the Universal Triangle Lupyan uses the triangle as an example of a formal category that shows biases towards a given prototype and is highly sensitive to subtle differences in eliciting cues. He showed through 3 different experiments that we think equilateral triangles are better "triangles" than scalene/oblique triangles. When we are prompted to draw a "triangle" vs.  a "3 sided polygon" we demonstrate this bias by drawing more closely equilateral triangles. Because different language elicits from us different concepts of the same formal category it seems the search for a single concept of a triangle is fruitless. Rather, we need to recognize concepts as functions of the context that elicit them. In fact, as Lupyan argues, words play a crucial role in communication of goal states by efficiently capturing all objects related to the prototype for which they conjure in an individuals mind. Words as labels allow us to "transcend" the concreteness of specific instances or realizations to a general idea that would be hard to achieve without them.

In the other half our reading for the week Rickford discusses the ways in which Black American communities have been exploited by linguistic researchers and failed to give back in meaningful ways. The first two ways in which he illustrates the perpetuation of this unequal relationship, one that is historically quite common in all fields of socio-related research, lie the representation of the African American Speech Community and the treatment of Black Americans in the criminal justice system. At this point in the discussion I recognize a sad parallel between Lupyan's discussion of prototypes and the mistreatment of Black American communities discussed by Rickford. Just as we come to hold prototypical representations of geometric shapes, we also come to hold prototypical representations of groups of individuals. While Rickford rules out sample exposure for triangle prototype formation, I argue that it cannot be ruled out in the case of prototype formation for people and that when the work of linguists have historically described AAVE as the language of "criminals, dope pusher, teenage-hoodlums, and various and sundry hustlers" (Smitherman-donaldson and Morgan) by not representing the experiences of women and non-criminals they're contributing to a specific prototype of Black Americans. And an enduring one it is, seeing as though statistics cited in Rickford's section on Prison, Courts, and Worplaces (such as the fact that African Americans constitute only 12.3% of the population nationwide but 43.4% of the inmates in local jails and 45.6% of the inmates in state prisons) have not improved (in 2008 black and hispanic lives represented 58% of all US inmates). This is great example of the great responsibility researchers have to be aware of the ways they affect the communities they work with and if not careful, research can be used for the purpose of systematic oppression.

On a closing thought with one more parallel, I also find it interesting how certain vernaculars, rather than single words, can be conjure up biases inherent in certain prototypes (stereotypes) just as the word "triangle" can for a shape. Would much appreciate a further look into how different vernaculars support and lead to stereotypes and discrimination (as seen in biased hiring practices).