magnetism is, by definition, a force of attraction, for most people, the idea sort of centres around two or more things, whatever, being pulled toward each other, and the idea of a repulsive possibility, repulsive force, comes second
a toddler’s first introduction to magnetism, or a magnet, is probably a demonstration or observation of a force of attraction (not sure what that’d resolve to in mentalese, there’s inescapable gravity as an introduction though). A second magnet is needed to demonstrate repulsion, so you know a toddler might get around to putting two fridge magnets together from their own exploring, they can do a lot of exploring, call it toddler physics, proto-physics, toddler science
it’s possible I guess that a toddler’s first experience and most influential experience of a magnet could be one of repulsion, I think though making that happen would require some unusual control over the environment the toddler inhabits, perhaps the fridge door could have another line of magnets fixed to the fridge side that kept the door open rather than seal shut, and a latch, so it sprung open when unlatched. Don’t expect the fridge door seal to seal very well, if the strip magnet’s in that
not sure a magnet could rightly be called a magnet if the experience of it was to generally repel, or always repel, you’d perhaps need rename it repeller. And the force the repellent force perhaps, or change what magnetic means, but if you knew no different you could happily call a repeller a magnet, until perhaps you went to explain it to someone that had the more common experience of attraction, and more commonly agreed word-concept
of course the force of magnetic repulsion is not uncommonly used, defiantly exists in the physics of the world, contrary to the basic idea or primary notion commonly held
anyway, if I could crossover now by mentioning conceptualizing a magnet as having a force of attraction is a conceptualization people are attracted to. Word-concepts can be very useful, people are attracted to useful things. This thread may not be useful for much at all
there are so many things that aren’t really, or entirely as the concept or word-concept may tend to define them, like i’m sitting on a chair, you could say a chair is for sitting on, I might argue it is (for) so you don’t have to stand all the time, or lay down, so there’s something between laying and standing, another possibility
that a chair is for sitting on is perhaps the more appealing explanation, or description. Sit, seat, chair, all makes perfect sense, intuitively maybe
bringing standing and laying into the explanation (of function) sort of wanders off from a simple description, even potentially introduces contradiction, because while sitting you’re not standing or laying (ignoring planking on a single chair, laying across multiple chairs, or standing on a chair to change a light bulb or whatever), yet we’ve all thought while standing at some stage i’ve got to sit down, or maybe heard an older person say that
so i’m wondering what shapes working concepts about things, the forces that shape them
you know if I say look up there’s a bird flying over you might look up, and to do that you instantly employ the idea of down with the idea of up, because up and down are part of the same idea, (derived from gravity, responses to), part of intuitive geometry if you like, for orientation etc, but I ask what happens to sideways, the perpendicular to that line in that flash of automated thinking. It too accompanies the up-down thing, in fact if you look up, down sort of vanishes from view but sideways persists. Imagine though how delayed looking up would be if you started thinking about all the mental processes involved while, so to save from catatonic abstraction the mind tools employ efficient ways