Veena

This object is a side-by-side visual comparison of the United States Department of Agriculture's Food Guide Pyramid (1992) and MyPlate (2011). The Food Pyramid organized food groups hierarchically, placing grains at the base with a recommendation of 6–11 servings daily, followed by fruits and vegetables, then proteins and dairy, with fats at the apex to be eaten sparingly. Conversely, MyPlate organizes the same food groups proportionally on a circular plate divided into four equal sections (fruits, vegetables, grains, and protein) with dairy positioned as a side component.

This reclassification used identical food groups but an entirely different organizational logic. Evidence pointed to the fact that most Americans misinterpreted the pyramid’s hierarchy, thinking larger sections meant “eat more,” not realizing the design intended to convey serving counts. This resulted in overconsumption of grains and reduced uptake of vegetables and fruits. Between 1992 and 2010, obesity rates in the United States nearly doubled, which prompted Congress to call for clearer and more actionable nutrition advice. In response, MyPlate was developed and tested in focus groups, who found that the plate diagram could be immediately linked to real meal portions, eliminating the translation problem that existed with the pyramid.

These findings justify the knowledge claim by showing that the way knowledge is classified and organized directly shapes its interpretation and how we use it in practice. The pyramid’s vertical design emphasizes hierarchy and the idea of foundational food groups, but can shroud the portion balance across categories, while MyPlate’s flat structure prioritizes proportional relationships but loses the sense of nutritional priority that that pyramid was based on. Empirical evidence from studies and the observed differences in public comprehension illustrate how the interpretation of nutritional relationships changes when the classification of identical concepts is altered. This demonstrates that organization impacts not just what relationships we see, but also what we act upon, and therefore ultimately affects public health outcomes. 

This is a graphic of the possible results from the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator(MBTI), a personality assessment that classified individuals into one of sixteen types using four binary dimensions: Introversion or Extraversion, Sensing or Intuition, Thinking or Feeling, and Judging or Perceiving. Each result presents a fixed label, such as “INTJ,” alongside descriptions of behavior, strengths, weaknesses and suitable careers. This system organizes complex psychological traits into more fixed categories, giving us a simplified framework for understanding personality. However, contemporary psychology largely considers personality as existing along continuous spectrums rather than discrete types.

Despite this, the MBTI remains widely used. Over two million people complete the assessment each year, and many organizations use it in workplace or educational contexts. The appeal of the MBTI, however, lies in the certainty it offers. By assigning a stable label, the classification can reduce ambiguity surrounding identities and behaviors. While psychological studies have repeatedly shown that individuals often receive different results when retaking the test, calling into question the reliability of the test, the classification still persists because it satisfies a desire for definitive knowledge about oneself rather than probabilistic explanations.

This object supports the knowledge claim by demonstrating that classification shapes the knowledge individuals actively seek. Once assigned a type, individuals often pursue information that is specifically framed for that category, such as “best careers for INFJ” or “ESTJ relationship advice.” Knowledge outside the classification framework can frequently be undervalued in return. The certainty created by categorical organization narrows the scope of inquiry, directing attention towards confirming information rather than developing an understanding. As a result, what people come to “know” about themselves, through seeking information, is influenced less by accuracy and more by the structure used to organize that knowledge.

This is a Facebook post from a news article announcing the International Astronomical Union’s (IAU) 2006 decision to reclassify Pluto from a planet to a “dwarf planet.” Prior to this decision, the solar system was organized around a nine-planet model that had been taught globally since Pluto’s discovery in 1930. In 2006, the IAU formally defined the term “planet” for the first time, with three criteria: it should be a celestial body that orbits the Sun, it should be spherical, and it should have cleared its "orbital neighborhood.” Pluto failed to meet the third criterion because it shares its orbit with other Kuiper Belt objects. This decision immediately altered textbooks, curricula and general public understanding of the solar system, highlighting how classification decisions reshape accepted knowledge.

This object links directly to the claim that the organization and classification of knowledge determines what knowledge is produced. The discovery of Eris in 2005, a Kuiper Belt object similar in size to Pluto, challenged the existing planetary classification system. Astronomers faced a choice, where they could either expand the definition of planets to include many newly discovered bodies or redefine planetary classification entirely. The IAU, as the governing authority of astronomy, exercised its institutional power to reorganize astronomical knowledge. 

This object justifies its inclusion by demonstrating that classification is not neutral, but in fact, actively shapes knowledge production. Once Pluto was reclassified, it was no longer studied primarily as the ninth planet but instead as a representative dwarf planet and Kuiper Belt object. This shift influenced research priorities, funding decisions, and scientific inquiry, contributing to missions such as NASA’s New Horizons in 2015, which framed Pluto within this new classification. Therefore, how knowledge is organized, especially through powerful institutions, directly influences what knowledge is generated, explored, and accepted, determining what we ultimately come to know.