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

BehaviorismJohn Watson, the founder of behaviorism, believed that by completely controlling a person’s environment, you could make them into anyone: a doctor, a lawyer, a beggar, or a thief. Behaviorism followers claimed that by controlling rewards, punishments, and positive and negative reinforcements, you could turn anyone into whoever you wanted. This is an example of a person trapped within the confines of their category. It is now known that if you add just one more factor (for example, protein deprivation during the prenatal period), the principles of behaviorism will fail. It is impossible to achieve complete control over the environment and make a person into anyone you desire.

Frontal lobotomyEgas Moniz was a Portuguese neurologist and the author of frontal lobotomy. He presented lobotomy as a treatment for mental disorders. As a result, the brains of tens and hundreds of thousands of people suffered due to a person who was pathologically confined within the confines of categorical thinking.

Racial selectionKonrad Lorenz was a scientist who had his own particular views on races, ethnicities, and genetics. Despite his significant contributions to science, he fervently promoted the Nazi regime and advocated 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.