Folkbiology of freshwater fish

Cross-cultural comparisons of categorization often confound cultural factors with expertise. This paper reports four experiments on the conceptual behavior of Native American and majority-culture fish experts. The two groups live in the same general area and engage in essentially the same set of fishing-related behaviors. Nonetheless, cultural differences were consistently observed. Majority-culture fish experts tended to sort fish into taxonomic and goal-related categories. They also showed an influence of goals on probes of ecological relations, tending to answer in terms of relations involving adult fish. Native American fish experts, in contrast, were more likely to sort ecologically. They were also more likely to see positive and reciprocal ecological relations, tending to answer in terms of relations involving the full life cycle of fish. Further experiments support the view that the cultural differences do not reflect different knowledge bases but rather differences in the organization and accessibility of knowledge. At a minimum the results suggest that similar activities within a well-structured domain do not necessarily lead to common conceptualizations.

[1]  E. Rosch,et al.  Cognition and Categorization , 1980 .

[2]  D. Medin,et al.  Folkecology and commons management in the Maya Lowlands. , 1999, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[3]  R. Paul Sons or Sonnets , 2000, Current Anthropology.

[4]  J. Coley,et al.  Emerging differentiation of folkbiology and folkpsychology: attributions of biological and psychological properties to living things. , 1995, Child development.

[5]  Carolyn B. Mervis,et al.  Impact of intuitive theories on feature recruitment throughout the continuum of expertise , 1998, Memory & cognition.

[6]  D. Medin,et al.  The native mind: biological categorization and reasoning in development and across cultures. , 2004, Psychological review.

[7]  D. Medin,et al.  A bird's eye view: biological categorization and reasoning within and across cultures , 2002, Cognition.

[8]  D. Medin,et al.  Does rank have its privilege? Inductive inferences within folkbiological taxonomies , 1997, Cognition.

[9]  Eleanor Rosch,et al.  Principles of Categorization , 1978 .

[10]  D. Medin,et al.  Cultural and experiential differences in the development of folkbiological induction , 2003 .

[11]  N. Ross Cognitive Aspects of Intergenerational Change: Mental Models, Cultural Change, and Environmental Behavior among the Lacandon Maya of Southern Mexico , 2002 .

[12]  James S. Boster,et al.  Natural and Human Sources of Cross‐Cultural Agreement in Ornithological Classification , 1989 .

[13]  J. Boster,et al.  Form or Function: A Comparison of Expert and Novice Judgments of Similarity Among Fish , 1989 .

[14]  D L Medin,et al.  Expertise and category-based induction. , 2000, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[15]  E. Rosch,et al.  Family resemblances: Studies in the internal structure of categories , 1975, Cognitive Psychology.

[16]  S. Weller Shared Knowledge, Intracultural Variation, and Knowledge Aggregation , 1987 .

[17]  D. Medin,et al.  Inductive reasoning in folkbiological thought. , 1999 .

[18]  D. Medin,et al.  Tall is typical: Central tendency, ideal dimensions, and graded category structure among tree experts and novices , 2000, Memory & cognition.

[19]  Edward E. Smith,et al.  Categories and concepts , 1984 .

[20]  Douglas L. Medin,et al.  Categorization and reasoning in relation to culture and expertise , 2002 .

[21]  Patrick Shafto,et al.  Development of categorization and reasoning in the natural world: novices to experts, naive similarity to ecological knowledge. , 2003, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[22]  T. E. Hays Cognitive Foundations of Natural History , 1991 .

[23]  J. Boster Agreement Between Biological Classification Systems Is Not Dependent On Cultural Transmission , 1987 .

[24]  B. Malt,et al.  Category Coherence in Cross-Cultural Perspective , 1995, Cognitive Psychology.

[25]  C. Chiu,et al.  Multicultural minds. A dynamic constructivist approach to culture and cognition. , 2000 .

[26]  Keiko Nakao,et al.  A Method for Testing Alternative Theories: An Example from English Kinship , 1984 .

[27]  Paul Radomski,et al.  The Homogenizing of Minnesota Lake Fish Assemblages , 1995 .

[28]  Kathy E. Johnson,et al.  Effects of varying levels of expertise on the basic level of categorization. , 1997, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[29]  L. Barsalou Ideals, central tendency, and frequency of instantiation as determinants of graded structure in categories. , 1985, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[30]  Edward E. Smith,et al.  The Tree of Life: Universal and Cultural Features of Folkbiological Taxonomies and Inductions , 1997, Cognitive Psychology.

[31]  J. Tanaka,et al.  Object categories and expertise: Is the basic level in the eye of the beholder? , 1991, Cognitive Psychology.

[32]  F. Keil,et al.  Mechanism and explanation in the development of biological thought: The case of disease , 1999 .

[33]  W. Batchelder,et al.  Culture as Consensus: A Theory of Culture and Informant Accuracy , 1986 .

[34]  Brian H. Ross,et al.  The Use of Categories Affects Classification , 1997 .

[35]  D. Medin,et al.  Categorization and Reasoning among Tree Experts: Do All Roads Lead to Rome? , 1997, Cognitive Psychology.

[36]  James S. Boster,et al.  Exchange of Varieties and Information Between Aguaruna Manioc Cultivators , 1986 .

[37]  J. Stepp,et al.  Lacandon Maya intergenerational change and the erosion of folk biological knowledge. , 2002 .

[38]  B. Berlin,et al.  Ethnobiological Classification: Principles of Categorization of Plants and Animals in Traditional Societies. , 1994 .

[39]  Angela Y. Lee,et al.  “I” Value Freedom, but “We” Value Relationships: Self-Construal Priming Mirrors Cultural Differences in Judgment , 1999 .