Basic Color Categorization
One of the things that came up in lecture today is that classifications are arbitrary and “biased.” I think there is an interesting counter-example to this in the story of the development of the classifications of basic colors. It is understood that across different cultures throughout time, we share the same basic colors (blue, green, red, yellow, etc.). These basic colors are common in all cultures, and what with the advancement of neuroscience and discoveries in cultural anthropology, it’s been agreed upon by many scholars that this is some sort of evolutionary development that makes these colors common to all people. So in this case, the classification isn’t arbitrary, but natural. So it seems like it’s not necessarily the case that all classifications must be arbitrary.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=7051553
http://human-nature.com/science-as-culture/saunders.html
INFO 202 Fall 08 Blog » Color and Meaning: Designing a wristband is harder than you think Said,
September 25, 2008 @ 8:47 am
[...] reading Jonathan’s post I came across this New York Times article about a national effort to standardize the color coding [...]
Shawna Hein Said,
September 25, 2008 @ 11:32 am
but we’re biased toward the human vision of color. what about the poor bees who see much more on the UV side of the spectrum?? we should have special hospital wristbands for bees.
Jonathan Breitbart Said,
September 26, 2008 @ 3:43 pm
Hospital wristbands for bees! Nice. Yes, this system is biased toward human vision, but I don’t really see that as problem!
This notion of developing classifications based on natural or evolutionary phenomena is really an interesting one and I think it’s important to consider about what other classification systems have developed (or could develop) in a similar manner. Could focusing on natural characteristics of things help reduce bias in some systems of classification? Still, what one considers “natural” can certainly be debated, depending on the context!