@johncarlosbaez

I’m calling BS on this one, even without reading the paper.

If you want to know why, search Google for Clever Hans.

I spent my PhD years studying honeybee behaviour. Animal experiments are very often biased by the human experimenter in unconscious ways.

It just seems too far fetched for me: An cognitive effect in humans innately manifest in baby chicks? I doubt it.

Having said all that, I should read the paper and try to pinpoint specific weaknesses. But I’m busy and lazy.

@TonyVladusich - it's not supposed to be a linguistic effect, but rather a sonic effect: a correlation between sounds and shapes. We certainly know what sounds "wet" and animals should too. We also know what sounds "raspy and sharp", and what sounds "bouncy and rounded".

But yes: a skeptic should carefully study and question these findings with a careful comb.

@johncarlosbaez

How is that not linguistic? Sounds and shapes are cognitive constructs not physical ones!

@TonyVladusich @johncarlosbaez

Cognition and association-making don't require language.

Hard objects have give sharp transient acoustic signatures like kiki sound. Soft objects have slower rise times like bouba sound.

Crystal-like image on the left associates with hard, leaf-like image on the right associates with soft.

@maxpool @johncarlosbaez

This type of reasoning is known as "begging the question".

(As in, begging the very question we seek to answer.)

It is a logical fallacy.

Why is part of an image (an image!, not physical thing itself, no less) "hard" or "soft"?