I'd be curious if there's a way to characterize "the prototypic expected human" as implicitly reflected in SCOTUS decisions and how that changes over time. For

I'd be curious if there's a way to characterize "the prototypic expected human" as implicitly reflected in SCOTUS decisions and how that changes over time. For example, this decision implies people are expected to read the volumes of fine print on a ticket before they purchase it. Seems like if you decontextualized things it might point to absurdities in current law or its interpretation. I think many decisions are affected by certain kinds of hindsight cognitive biases that distort interpretation of context.