On the Categoricity of Thought

“Behave: The Biology of Humans at Our Best and Worst,” Robert Sapolsky

Thinking outside of categories

Instead of memorizing absolute characteristics of things, it’s more convenient for us to break everything down into categories and think in those terms. Reasoning in categories allows us to better remember and evaluate things in various situations. The downside of this approach is that if you focus too much on the boundaries, you miss the bigger picture. All a person thinking this way sees are the categories. If you get too fixated on the categories, you might overlook the differences between objects within the same category and overestimate the differences between objects in two different categories.

Examples.

In some areas where categories are not typically found, we create them.

• Colors.The spectrum of colors from red to violet is divided into categories—individual colors. We separate the spectrum at convenient points and refer to certain intervals of this spectrum as colors. This makes it easier for us to store information. However, people from different language groups may divide the color spectrum differently. The same color that one culture perceives as a single hue may be seen as two distinct colors by someone from another culture.
• Sounds.Different cultures divide the sound spectrum into different segments and label them as sounds. Sounds that are approximately the same in one language may be perceived as different in another. For example, Finns do not perceive a distinction between the sounds “v” and “p.”
• Numbers.There is a connection between the number sequence “4, 14, 23, 34”; what will the next number be? The correct answer is “42.” Why? Don’t try to find a mathematical pattern. These are just the station numbers in the New York City subway. A person unfamiliar with this subway would hardly categorize these numbers in the same way. A clear category for residents of one city can create understanding issues for residents of other cities.

Destructive mistakes of categorical thinking

Behaviorism. John Watson, the founder of behaviorism, believed that by taking complete control of a person’s environment you could make him into anything at all: a doctor, a lawyer, a beggar, a thief. The followers of behaviorism claimed that by controlling rewards, punishments, positive and negative reinforcement you could turn anyone into whatever you wanted. This is an example of a man locked inside the frame of his own category. It is now known that you need only add one more factor (protein starvation in the womb, for instance) and the principles of behaviorism break down. You cannot obtain full control of the environment and make a person into anything you please.

Frontal lobotomy. Egas Moniz, a Portuguese neurologist and the author of the frontal lobotomy. He presented the lobotomy as a way of treating mental disorders. Back then the brains of tens and hundreds of thousands of people were damaged because of a man pathologically locked inside the frame of his categorical thinking.

Racial selection. Konrad Lorenz, a scientist who had his own particular notions about races, ethnic groups and genetics. In spite of his substantial contribution to science, he was a ferocious propagandist for the Nazi regime. He argued for racial selection.

To start thinking in categories means to harm the world of science. We must strive not to repeat the mistakes of such thinking.