Olfactory abstraction: a communicative and metacognitive account

Abstract

The usual puzzle raised about olfaction is that of a deficit of abstraction: smells, by contrast notably with colours, do not easily lend themselves to abstract categories and labels. Some studies have argued that the puzzle is culturally restricted and that abstraction is more common outside urban Western societies. Here, I argue that the puzzle is misconstrued and should be reversed: given that odours are constantly changing and that their commonalities are difficult for humans to identify, what is surprising is not that abstract terms are rare, but that they should be used at all for olfaction. Given the nature of the olfactory environment and our cognitive equipment, concrete labels referring to sources seem most adaptive. To explain the use and presence of abstract terms, we need to examine their social and communicative benefits. Here these benefits are spelt out as securing a higher agreement among individuals varying in their olfactory experiences as well as the labels they use, as well as feeling a heightened sense of confidence in one's naming capacities. This article is part of the theme issue 'Concepts in interaction: social engagement and inner experiences'.

Keywords: abstraction; communication; individual differences; metacognition; odours; olfaction.

Figure 1.

Olfactory terms vary both in generalization and in the amount of sensory experiences they are linked to. The two-dimensional map captures the main diagnosis made about smells, i.e. that concrete, specific terms are the norm, and general, more sensorily detached terms the exception. (Online version in colour.)

Figure 2.

Concrete terms may offer a benefit for individual recognition, but abstract terms can provide a communicative advantage and a boost in confidence. (Online version in colour.)