Default Interpretations

There's an interesting observation I have made when it comes to the way people perceive the world.  Whilst I've written before about the limit of diversity and how everyone has the same experiences which lead to the same conclusions, most of those are based on objective observations, where there's only one conclusion that you can draw in those scenarios.  What I find fascinating however is when you venture into the realm of interpretation, that is to say when you have something that there is no definitive answer for.  In these situations I find it interesting when independently people come to the same conclusion or have the same interpretation at that end despite there being no real reason why that should be the case.

As an example, there is an observable effect known as the Bouba/kiki effect, where nonsensical words can be created, and images presented to observers, and through experimentation asking the observer to associate the words with one of the images, there are trends that appear.  In the classical Bouba/kiki example the two words "Bouba" and "Kiki" are presented along with two graphics of non geometric shapes, one is round and amorphous, and the other is sharp and pointy.  When asked to associate the words with the images, the majority of observers will associate the word "Bouba" with the rounded image, and the word "Kiki" with the pointed image.  There is an inherent interpretation that leads us to interpret these words in this way.

Whilst this demonstrates an experiment that explores this concept, you can look beyond the examination and look to society itself.  There are certain themes that emerge over time which are present amongst different cultures, from the association of thoughts and feelings with colours e.g. yellow is associated with happiness and sunshine, whilst black is associated with sadness and despair, or grey is associated with blandness and conformity.  These interpretations developed independently across cultures that for the longest time had no contact that we know of whatsoever.  Go beyond this into the symbolism of water representing depth, potential, and the unknown, and fire representing danger, anger, and conflict.   Whilst not everyone will agree on these interpretations I do find it interesting that the consensus emerges even when those asked to form such interpretations are asked in isolation.

You can make the argument that there is crossover in cultural influences in the world we now live in, and that our upbringing will play a part, but that argument becomes less persuasive when it is put against the context of the Bouba/kiki effect where the words chosen are nonsensical and the images picked are meaningless.  There is a question that arises as to why there seems to be a default interpretation for many things, and if there is some underlying empirical reason for that default interpretation.  If you are not easily unnerved, this concept has been entertained and taken to the extreme in the past, there have been experiments done on humans called language deprivation experiments in which infants were deprived of any linguistic interaction in an attempt to determine whether a "natural" or "default" language would emerge although not carried out with rigour the general consensus seems to be that lack of spoken language leaves humans to develop physical language as a means of communication through gesticulations.

The fact that we all have similar experiences and that we all come to similar conclusions has made it easier for me to find confidence in myself at times.  Whenever I first took an interest in the use of Cold Reading - extracting information from people without needing any prior knowledge of that person and with little or no information provided verbally - I quickly came to the realisation that uniqueness is a paradox.  For everyone to be unique there has to be conformity in diversity which isn't possible as this is an oxymoron.  The conclusion that I made was that "you're unique, just like everybody else" is meant quite literally, everyone is the same person, there are just enough variances and defining factors to make it possible to distinguish one from another - most of the time.

Still the idea of default interpretations intrigues me, and leads me to question why there is such diversity in personal opinions even if it is far more limited than you would expect.  If there are default interpretations then how are deviations accounted for, how are such differing conclusions formed, is it really a case of wanting to compete?  Like choosing a football team to support, is it as much about an emotional connection overriding the logical choice?  Are our interpretations ultimately an expression of choice, one we make out of a conscious decision to deviate from the default, like picking a wallpaper for your desktop background, do we change it because we want to be different, or paradoxically do we seek out what other people have chosen so that we can conform, even if it is with a minority or in complete obscurity.