 A version of this approach has been elaborated by Erik Olsson (2016), who appeals to a well-supported psychological theory about conceptualization called basic-level theory, developed by Eleanor Rosch in the 1970s (Rosch et al. 1976). Rosch and her collaborators studied the deployment of taxonomically related concepts like “animal”, “dog”, and “labrador”. In such a taxonomy, one term is a superordinate concept (“animal”), another is an intermediate-level concept (“dog”), and a third is a subordinate concept (“labrador”). It turns out that intermediate-level concepts are overwhelmingly preferred in free naming tasks (e.g., “What would you call this?”). For example, in one study Rosch et al. found that, out of 540 responses, 530 to 533 converged on the same intermediate-level word for naming a physical object. Olsson suggests that ordinary people might similarly tend to converge on an intermediate-level concept when typing belief-forming processes. This conjecture has been empirically supported in work by Jönsson (2013). Jönsson showed subjects clips in which characters arrived at various conclusions, and then asked the subjects to specify how the characters arrived at their beliefs. Subjects converged on the choice of verbs describing the belief-formation processes, even without linguistic cues to guide the process-typing task. Jönsson also found a correlation between subjects’ estimates of the reliability of the characters’ belief-forming processes and subjects’ judgments about whether the characters were justified in holding the beliefs in question. Thus there is some evidence that folk psychological propensities lead us to converge on belief-typing tasks, and that our reliability assessments track our justification judgments.