Mark Changizi

I mean, neuroscientists know that we didn't evolve, but they've named some of the areas of our brains even, you know, basically reading areas. And we know that they're not actually reading areas. So how did that happen? In fact, we read so well, it really is like an instinct. We read often more than we listen to all day long. Reading is, and we're so amazingly good at it.

I mean, neuroscientists know that we didn't evolve, but they've named some of the areas of our brains even, you know, basically reading areas. And we know that they're not actually reading areas. So how did that happen? In fact, we read so well, it really is like an instinct. We read often more than we listen to all day long. Reading is, and we're so amazingly good at it.

I mean, neuroscientists know that we didn't evolve, but they've named some of the areas of our brains even, you know, basically reading areas. And we know that they're not actually reading areas. So how did that happen? In fact, we read so well, it really is like an instinct. We read often more than we listen to all day long. Reading is, and we're so amazingly good at it.

Even children are great at it by four years old, and they're barely being read to. They're not having much practice compared to being spoken to. So it's almost as if it's an instinct. So how is that possible? And so what I argued 20 years ago is that over time, cultural evolution itself shaped the look of writing to look like nature.

Even children are great at it by four years old, and they're barely being read to. They're not having much practice compared to being spoken to. So it's almost as if it's an instinct. So how is that possible? And so what I argued 20 years ago is that over time, cultural evolution itself shaped the look of writing to look like nature.

Even children are great at it by four years old, and they're barely being read to. They're not having much practice compared to being spoken to. So it's almost as if it's an instinct. So how is that possible? And so what I argued 20 years ago is that over time, cultural evolution itself shaped the look of writing to look like nature.

So we already have visual systems that are incredibly good at processing natural scenes, object recognition. And so all that culture had to do was invent writing systems that looked like nature. In our case, so for example, you've got L junctions. Just whenever there's some kind of contour in the world, meaning the tip of another contour.

So we already have visual systems that are incredibly good at processing natural scenes, object recognition. And so all that culture had to do was invent writing systems that looked like nature. In our case, so for example, you've got L junctions. Just whenever there's some kind of contour in the world, meaning the tip of another contour.

So we already have visual systems that are incredibly good at processing natural scenes, object recognition. And so all that culture had to do was invent writing systems that looked like nature. In our case, so for example, you've got L junctions. Just whenever there's some kind of contour in the world, meaning the tip of another contour.

You've got T-junctions whenever something goes behind something. There's my contour here, goes up against this contour. Those are the two main ones. There's X-junctions, but X-junctions don't happen in a world of opaque objects. It's very rare, in fact. And then you can look at all the different kinds of junctions that have three contours. Let's say Y junctions and K junctions.

You've got T-junctions whenever something goes behind something. There's my contour here, goes up against this contour. Those are the two main ones. There's X-junctions, but X-junctions don't happen in a world of opaque objects. It's very rare, in fact. And then you can look at all the different kinds of junctions that have three contours. Let's say Y junctions and K junctions.

You've got T-junctions whenever something goes behind something. There's my contour here, goes up against this contour. Those are the two main ones. There's X-junctions, but X-junctions don't happen in a world of opaque objects. It's very rare, in fact. And then you can look at all the different kinds of junctions that have three contours. Let's say Y junctions and K junctions.

And it turns out there's 32 of these different kinds of topologically distinct junctions with three contours. And then you can ask, well, how commonly do these things happen in natural scenes of just opaque objects? Either you can look at like different kinds of varieties of scenes as well. It just turns out it doesn't really matter where you look.

And it turns out there's 32 of these different kinds of topologically distinct junctions with three contours. And then you can ask, well, how commonly do these things happen in natural scenes of just opaque objects? Either you can look at like different kinds of varieties of scenes as well. It just turns out it doesn't really matter where you look.

And it turns out there's 32 of these different kinds of topologically distinct junctions with three contours. And then you can ask, well, how commonly do these things happen in natural scenes of just opaque objects? Either you can look at like different kinds of varieties of scenes as well. It just turns out it doesn't really matter where you look.

It's all the same as just a world with opaque objects strewn about. It's basically that drives the same relative probability of which of these junction types happen. And then you can just ask, well, if this idea is right, then you should find that across human writing systems, writing tends to have the junction types that are found in nature. In those proportions? In those proportions.

It's all the same as just a world with opaque objects strewn about. It's basically that drives the same relative probability of which of these junction types happen. And then you can just ask, well, if this idea is right, then you should find that across human writing systems, writing tends to have the junction types that are found in nature. In those proportions? In those proportions.

It's all the same as just a world with opaque objects strewn about. It's basically that drives the same relative probability of which of these junction types happen. And then you can just ask, well, if this idea is right, then you should find that across human writing systems, writing tends to have the junction types that are found in nature. In those proportions? In those proportions.

And that's the case.

And that's the case.