[canjobear]

> But I guess it's about why so we associate those with spiky shapes, though surely it's because they represent sharp immediate changes in frequency?

Sure, but it's a very abstract connection between objects being sharp in vision and frequencies changing sharply in hearing. There's no guarantee any given organism would make the connection.

[fzeindl]

In the book „the design of everyday things“ it is mentioned that „natural mappings“ exist. Moving the knob of a vertical slider to the upper end universally means „brighter“ or „louder“, not „less bright“ or „more silent“.

[5-]

maybe the chicks and norman get it, but i'm currently renting an apartment in france that has a bunch of these light switches installed all upside down, with "-" at the top:

https://www.legrand.com.gh/en/catalog/products/arteor-push-b...

[IsTom]

> Moving the knob of a vertical slider to the upper end universally means „brighter“ or „louder“, not „less bright“ or „more silent“.

Except for the organ drawbars?

[seba_dos1]

Which way would a vertical weight slider go?

[oasisaimlessly]

I don't think it's abstract at all. Rub something sharp (anything from a stick to a phonograph needle) on an object and you'll directly transcribe its spatial frequency spectrum into an audio frequency spectrum.

[canjobear]

Do you think it's obvious that a chick would understand that connection?

[PaulDavisThe1st]

"Spatial frequency spectrum" typically refers to visual elements of an object, and has nothing particularly to do with its structure. Entirely smooth surfaces banded in different colors have a "spatial frequency". Extremely irregularly surfaces have no effective spatial frequency. Objects on the same scale as, say, a human head, would have to be "rubbed" at ridiculous high rates (and repeatedly) to even get into a "frequency" range that might include pressure variations that would be considered as a "wave".

I think you're imagining an entirely too limited set of objects.