I’m still amazed at my visceral reaction. I re-researched bits of exemplar theory and thought of … well, examples where I use examples for generalizations.
But it might be that I generalize _too_ close to the specific. Drawing broad generalizations “hastily”. Not hasty to me as it’s just how my brain works — but apparently I should put a bunch side by side and draw lines.
I think I generalize “differently” than I’m supposed to. Chronically. As in, that’s just how I am. So if I’m working from exemplars, I get results that don’t always match up to reality — or frequently don’t. But prototypes, which are general rules, don’t have to correspond to anything specifically but can be broad enough within their own ranges to encompass any exemplar sufficiently that one might throw at it that is accurate to the meaning of the prototype.
Oh, gosh that means I’m endorsing gaussian, smeary vague mono … but wait, no it’s not because it’s hierarchical. It has different scales. Not a scale free system. Each scale can be functionally independent until you get to the interfaces, although upon zooming in they do interact.
Hm.. ok, I need to start mapping these on paper visually.