Two approaches to the same question

Lupyan's discussion of triangles and how we, when presented with the word 'triangle', tend to idealize a very particular shape and orientation, struck a chord with me as it reminded me of another fascinating phenomenon I came across a long time ago.

Essentially, humans tend to find rectangles whose length-to-width ratio is approximately 1.618 to be the most aesthetically pleasing. This value - often known as the golden ratio - is so commonly accepted as the benchmark for rectangular perfection that we now find it frames ancient monuments like the Parthenon and Taj Mahal. This ratio is actually also very interesting from a mathematical perspective, and I always found it amazing that humans just sort of settled on it as a pleasing ratio. It’s even more fascinating to me - after reading Lupyan’s article - that this doesn’t just apply to rectangles and our mental images of them, but also to other shapes, and more importantly, the words and phrases we use to describe them. 

I found it really strange that all of these descriptions - which I’d imagine were reduced to the idea of a triangle internally - could so skew our mental images. Lupyan’s discussion of how this was actually characteristic of a larger issue - our deficiencies in category-based class-action were really interesting to me. In Symsys 1 and Phil 1 last year, I learnt about cognitivism, which Lupyan mentions quite frequently. Cognitivism is a framework for understanding the mind that draws a clear distinction between our behaviour and our thoughts, which affect our behaviour. It’s closely related to the Computational Theory of Mind, in which the way we understand the world is through informational structures called representational states. Lupyan’s findings contrast quite sharply with this, since if we really did consider triangles to all be members of the same class, we’d probably be more successful at classifying triangles correctly.

The connection between the two readings this weekend wasn’t particularly explicit and it took me a while to understand what the connection was. It may or may not have involved me looking at the syllabus, but I eventually realised that both Lupyan and Rickford’s paper related to how our minds and our societies relate to our relationship with language. Lupyan explores the former, and Rickford deals with the latter. While I personally found Lupyan’s discussion more engaging and counterintuitive, Rickford’s paper was effective on two levels. Firstly, it communicated the wealth of insight AAVE can provide into the relationship between society and language. I’ve read a fair amount about how such vernacular developed as a sign of cultural defiance and it was interesting to see this formalised. Secondly, I appreciated Rickford’s commentary on how the linguistic community must now further feed this symbiotic relationship and how it it its duty to engage the African American community. While perhaps not a particularly technical finding, I did think it was interesting that the paper gave the community from which it made its observations its due consideration.