Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Science

Words Affect Our Reality - On The Right 258

Posted by jamie from the theory-of-the-mobius dept.
The Whorf hypothesis claims that one's native language influences perception and thought. Researchers at UC-Berkeley and U-Chicago reasoned that, since language is predominantly processed in the left hemisphere of the brain, any effect on perception should have an effect predominantly on the right visual field, which is also processed on the left. After comparing reaction times for hues of blue-green -- colors with distinct names in one language but not another -- they concluded, in a just-published paper, that the Whorf hypothesis holds for the right visual field, but not the left.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Words Affect Our Reality - On The Right More

Words Affect Our Reality - On The Right

Comments Filter:

  • You learn something new every day. (Score:5, Funny)

    by TripMaster Monkey ( 862126 ) * on Wednesday February 01, 2006 @01:01PM (#14617552)

    And all this time I thought the Worf hypothesis was just "Today is a good day to die.".

    ...the Whorf hypothesis holds for the right visual field, but not the left.

    Apparently the left visual field is "without honor".

  • bi -lingual ?? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by wesw02 ( 846056 ) on Wednesday February 01, 2006 @01:02PM (#14617554)
    What if one is Bi-Lingual natively?
    • Bi-lingual?

      Then you are either a cunnilingus or a cunning linguist.

  • Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Wednesday February 01, 2006 @01:02PM (#14617556)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • actually the eskimo language doesn't have more words for snow than any other. they have words for things like blizzard, flurry, drift, etc just the same as we do. this misconception stemmed from partially a misunderstanding early on between their language and english but mostly it was propegated because people thought it was funny, which admittedly it would be were it true.

    • Re:I always liked the reverse Whorf hypothesis.. (Score:5, Informative)

      by mopslik ( 688435 ) on Wednesday February 01, 2006 @01:11PM (#14617676)
      Of course, some of us have heard that this "large number of words for snow" story is somewhat misleading [upenn.edu].
      • Thanks for the link.

        Interestingly, the article does not debunk the basic idea of the story, only the representation. While the article says these languages do not really have more roots for "snow" than english, it also says that given the complex suffix structure, you can build unlimited versions of the same root - for all roots, not just snow-related. And not only nouns.

        What it doesn't say is how many of these versions were in use when the Eskimos lived traditional lives in great numbers, but I suspect a l
        • IANAL (Linguist), but I'm pretty convinced that language does inform your thinking and perception.

          Most non-linguists are pretty convinced of the same. After enough education to get over common sense, most linguists change their mind. Just like physicists and the idea that if you hit a large 50 lbs block with a 1 lb block that the 50 lbs block won't move. Common sense says it won't, but physics tells us that's BS.

          The Eskimo kid would learn early-on that snow has different forms, and that life depended on
          • Most non-linguists are pretty convinced of the same. After enough education to get over common sense, most linguists change their mind

            Aren't you exaggerating there?

            This is no more relavent nor special than saying the same thing about English speaking children in snowy areas. The construction of these complex words for snow is not all together that different from English composition of sentences.

            Right, but off my point. Which was, I think, that people who have to deal with something all the time will develop
            • people who have to deal with something all the time will develop both a language to discuss the nuances of the subject matter and a perception that allows to notice them.

              I grew up in L.A., and (no joke!) I have 18 words for smog.

            • Aren't you exaggerating there?

              I'm exaggerating with the use of the word "most"? I'd be exaggerating if I said "all", but seriously, most linguists refute the strong Sapir-Whorf hypothesis outright. There are quite a number of experiments out there that show that we do not think exclusively in language, and thus, the strong Sapir-Whorf hypothesis can be immediately discarded.

              Right, but off my point. Which was, I think, that people who have to deal with something all the time will develop both a language to
          • Most non-linguists are pretty convinced of the same. After enough education to get over common sense, most linguists change their mind. Just like physicists and the idea that if you hit a large 50 lbs block with a 1 lb block that the 50 lbs block won't move. Common sense says it won't, but physics tells us that's BS.
            Except that, outside of locating the blocks in areas of very low friction, the 50 lb block won't move. It's like the old joke about the mathematician located on a desert island with canned foo
            • On the other hand "everyone knows" (except people who watch Mythbusters) that if you shoot a 150-lb person with a 10-gram bullet, that the velocity of the bullet will cause the person to fly back several feet.

              Quite quite... much better example. I was trying to think of something that everyone just "knew", but understood wrong. I suppose the notion that there's no gravity in space would have worked also.

        • The Eskimo kid would learn early-on that snow has different forms, and that life depended on knowing how to behave in their vicinity. The fact that those types of snow probably were adressed by a multitude of recursive suffixes to a root noun can only have some effect on a learning brain. Why should a brain under these conditions develop the same patterns as the brain of a kid that lives with guys that call everything "the white stuff"?

          Obviously, a kid who grows up around snow knows more about it than so

  • Huhu almost (Score:5, Informative)

    by stonecypher ( 118140 ) <stonecypher&gmail,com> on Wednesday February 01, 2006 @01:02PM (#14617558) Homepage Journal
    It's actually called the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis [wikipedia.org], because it was primarily Edward Sapir's work.
    • I've taken the time to hunt through used bookstores to find and read Sapir, Boas and Whorf, along with the Danish (?) English master, Otto Jespersen. I enjoyed reading Whorf the most as his thought processes were wonderfully clear to me, and, accordingly, I was able to form an opinion of his ideas satisfactory for my purposes. Whorf was trained as a Chemical Engineer, perhaps this is why I found his writings clear and informed.

      One of the ideas I formed was the tendency of many languages ( native north ameri

      • I've taken the time to hunt through used bookstores to find and read Sapir, Boas and Whorf

        Dude, if you don't do it for the atmosphere and leg-work, use Abebooks [abebooks.com] :)
    • Don't you mean the GNU/Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis?

  • Oh please oh please oh please oh please... (Score:4, Funny)

    by Cranky Weasel ( 946893 ) on Wednesday February 01, 2006 @01:03PM (#14617565) Homepage
    ...may the barrage of bad Star Trek jokes be peppered with the occasional enlightening, thoughtful tidbit...

  • The Whorf hypothisis? (Score:4, Funny)

    by Cro Magnon ( 467622 ) on Wednesday February 01, 2006 @01:08PM (#14617637) Homepage Journal
    Sorry, but a Klingon warrior knows as much about language as a pointy-eared Vulcan does about child care.

  • There was a similar study. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by OneBigWord ( 692129 ) on Wednesday February 01, 2006 @01:12PM (#14617681) Homepage
    I remember a similar study where a culture with only four words for colors could still distinguish different 'English' colors. It doesn't seem too surprising that it may take them a little longer.

    • Re:There was a similar study. (Score:5, Interesting)

      by lawpoop ( 604919 ) on Wednesday February 01, 2006 @01:28PM (#14617886) Homepage Journal
      The human eye can distinguish millions of colors. This is true regardless of color names in a language.

      You might be thinking of _Basic Color Terms_, or one of the studies used to counter it. _Basic Color Terms_ was an interesting anthropological and historical theory. Brent Berlin and Paul Kay looked at anthropological data and classical literature and came up with the theory that there are only 11 basic color categories in language. So for instance, if you hear that a tribe has only 6 different color words, they could tell you exactly what they are.

      There are a lot of studies that either supported or offered evidence against this theory. It's pretty interesting, IMHO.

      FWIW, here are the colors:
      1. Dark (or black, if you have 3 or more colors)
      2. Light (or white, if you have more than 3 colors)
      3. Red
      4. Yellow or Green (pick one)
      5. Yellow or Green (pick whichever you didn't pick above)
      6. Blue
      7. brown
      8. purple
      9. pink
      10. orange
      11. gray


      The thing about their theory is that you have the colors in this order. So if your tribe has two color words, they are dark and light. If you have 4 words, they are black, white, red, and either yellow or green.

      Berlin and Kay went into depth describing exactly what counted as a color. For instance, a descriptive word that applies solely to an object or material, such as copper, was discluded ( I think there as usage from Homer that Berlin and Kay discluded ). There was an ethnography where an anthropolgist tried to use a descriptive term for the color of a green plant to describe a green dress. The people he was with only had black, white and red; they held that the term he was using could only be applied to that particular plant. The anthropologist thought it was a general term for green, but no, it only applied to a particular plant species, not any plant, nor any other green thing.

      • Re:There was a similar study. (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Valdrax ( 32670 ) on Wednesday February 01, 2006 @02:28PM (#14618620)
        I already know of two languages that doesn't follow this order -- Japanese and the language mentioned in the article, Tarahumara. Much like Tarahumara, Japanese has a word that covers both blue and green (aoi). However, Japanese also has a word that covers just green (midori).

        However, Japanese has had words for brown, purple, and several different words for grey but not distinct words for orange and pink (I'm ignoring X-iro words which mean "color of X" like momoiro for the color of peaches or oranjiiro for the color of oranges). It is interesting though that (gosai) means "the five colors" -- black, white, red, yellow, and green/blue.

        It is interesting to note that in my limited experience is seems that the more civilized and thus artistic a culture becomes, the more words for colors they invent or co-opt.
        • ...seems that the more civilized and thus artistic a culture becomes, the more words for colors they invent or co-opt.

          Thus we can see that interior designers are clearly the most civilized and artistic culture in the world, having at last count no fewer than 174 different words for "off-white".

        • That's really interesting. In the back of the book, they go over their different source languages. I don't remember if they said anything about Japanese.

          One interesting discussion was Russian -- it clearly has two seperate words for blue. They hypothesized that dark blue (or light blue) might be the "12 word".

          I've been trying to figure out why there would be this order for words. The first few are easy to make up a reason for -- black and white, light and dark, used for contrasting. Red is a common indi
          • I forgot that the Japanese word for brown is "chairo" or "the color of tea."

            Red is an obvious first word thanks to how much it jumps out at us and because of the natural significance of seeing the color of blood. Green and yellow seem natural to distinguish plants. Blue seems to me to be a natural next thing given its presence in the sky, sky reflecting water, eye colors, and veins. I'm a little surprised that brown comes before the various "flower colors" or orange, pink, and purple, but it is far more
            • Well, I'm stuck at blue. Yes, there are some things that are blue, but you don't need to talk about their blueness. Why would you need to talk about blue veins? They don't stay blue when you cut the body open (whether human or animal), and the are only visible through very pale, white human skin. Blue eyes are an extreme rarity in most of the world -- that doesn't explain why some Indians in South America would have a word for blue if they have only 7 color words. Nobody has blue eyes in that tribe -- it's
        • It's possible that the reason Japanese has a word that means blue-green is by association with the Chinese word that also means blue-green. The kanji symbol [unicode.org] that means blue-green has "aoi" is its "kun" (native Japanese) reading. The "on" (ancient Chinese-derived pronounciations) are sei and sho'. Did "aoi" exist before it was associated with the kanji, or was it invented afterward, giving rise to a Japanese word for a Chinese-derived concept? Which came first, midori or aoi?

          The "midori" kanji [unicode.org] also has Chi

      • Russian doesn't seem to fit this hypothesis. There are words for black, white, red, yellow, green. There are two fundamentally distinct words for blue (roughly, "light blue" and "dark blue" -- to a Russian-speaker, the two colors are fundamentally different, just like green and blue are fundamentally different to an English-speaker). There is a word for brown, a word for orange, and a word for gray. However, the words for "purple" and "pink" (fioletovyj and rozovyj) are only recent borrowings from French --
        • In the back of the book, Berlin and Kay talk extensively about Russian's two words for blue. It's been a while since I read it, so I don't remember whether they talk about pink and purple.

  • Oh no... (Score:4, Funny)

    by the_demiurge ( 26115 ) on Wednesday February 01, 2006 @01:16PM (#14617726) Homepage
    If language does have such a profound effect on our thought processes, does this mean the Time Cube guy is right, and "Teachers are hired evil word pedants who enslave childish minds to a lifetime stupidity."?

    Are we really "educated as a stupid android slave to the evil Word Animal Singularity Brotherhood"?

    I'm scared. :-(

  • But what. . . (Score:5, Funny)

    by smooth wombat ( 796938 ) on Wednesday February 01, 2006 @01:20PM (#14617777) Journal
    if I pass the dutchie on the left-hand side? What then?

  • implications (Score:3, Interesting)

    by rodentia ( 102779 ) on Wednesday February 01, 2006 @01:22PM (#14617806)

    This is a really outstanding result and leads to some interesting new territory. It would seem that there may well be two (or more?) discrete cognitive processes mediating reality for mind. Another blow to the idea of a comprehensive, unitary consciousness and the corresponding myth of a radical alterity labelled unconscious.

    • Do you think there is some part of the brain/mind that believes that it *is* a unitary consciousness? I mean, even thought I understand that there are different parts of my body and consciousness that do things that I'm unaware of, I still *feel* like a single, global consciousness.
    • This is a really outstanding result and leads to some interesting new territory. It would seem that there may well be two (or more?) discrete cognitive processes mediating reality for mind. Another blow to the idea of a comprehensive, unitary consciousness and the corresponding myth of a radical alterity labelled unconscious.

      What?! Next you are going to say something about there being no tooth fairy or easter bunny? Thanks, but no thanks.

  • Childhood learning... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by hhr ( 909621 ) on Wednesday February 01, 2006 @01:23PM (#14617816)
    I wonder if this is like native asians and the letters 'r' and 'l'-- if you don't learn the difference when you are young then your brain will have problems thinking that way.

    If so, it would mean that it's not the language that causes you to think differently, but a seperate skill that you also use to speak the language. In this case of the Tarahumara speakers, it's distinquishing green and blue. They never needed to do so, so now they have problems when tested for it.

    • Or like the rising and falling tones in Chinese. It's quite odd as a native English speaker to start trying to integrate pitch to what constitutes a word.
      • I don't know about Chinese but Japanese is very similar - meaning is conveyed by pitch changes that most occidental speakers are unfamiliar with - many Japanese people say that American's trying to speak Japanese generally sound like they're singing - I'm guess because our pitch follows rhythmic patterns as opposed to semantic patterns, which of course singing in any language would have to do...
    • I wonder if this is like native asians and the letters 'r' and 'l'-- if you don't learn the difference when you are young then your brain will have problems thinking that way.

      This is a nature of phonemic distinction. Few people retain the ability to adapt to new phonemics after a certain age (somewhere around puberty). The is the cause of all accents, not just asians (specifically Japanese) and the letters 'r' and 'l'.

      They learned a language with a phomene that is different from both 'r' and 'l' as they a
    • It's not that bad -- it just takes a lot more conscious work when you get older to stop it. My Japanese professors in college were very good a pronouncing the difference. The big place where one of them failed to sound native was the pitch and rhythm of speaking in English, but they all had "L" & "R" down cold.

      In my experience, the truly difficult thing to master about pronunciation is pitch and rhythm (which is mostly in the vowels), especially if you're trying to learn a tonal language like Mandarin

  • Conclusions Sound? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ObsessiveMathsFreak ( 773371 ) <obsessivemathsfr ... om.net minus bsd> on Wednesday February 01, 2006 @01:35PM (#14617972) Homepage Journal
    The researchers found that participants responded more quickly when the color of the odd-man-out had a different name than the color of the other squares -- as if the linguistic difference had heightened the perceptual difference -- but this only occurred if the odd-man-out was in the right half of the visual field, and not when it was in the left half. This was the predicted pattern.

    The conclusions seem sound. The experiment even proved its aim that only the left half of the brain shows a difference. As the article mentions, the linguistic distinction seems to heighten the left hemisphere's ability to distinguish the actual color distinction. But does this show a fundamental difference in thought processes, or simply a type of learned response.

    For example, imagine an experiment whereby you walk down the street wearing a T-shirt with a CCCP logo on it. Most people born after say, 1980 might not even bat an eyelid. Someone who grew up amid the 50's red scare, practicing taking shelter under their school desk, might suddenly find their eye transfixed on the logo, their heart rate increasing, and a sudden urge to duck beneath the nearest school desk.

    So does something similar occur when you've been taught your whole life that blue and green are different colors, verses say, being told that green was just a kind of yellowy blue?

  • Neurolinguistic oversimplification? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Floody ( 153869 ) on Wednesday February 01, 2006 @01:36PM (#14618000)
    I believe this is somewhat of a simplification. It may be applicable in terms of auditory perception and processing, but as everyone knows, language is much more than the sum of individual words.

    Neurolinguistic events are examples of associative cascade events. This is illustrated by the classic example: "Don't think of an elephant." Immediately after reading and comprehending the linguistic elements of the sentence, each and every reader of this post made the applicable associative connections resulting in the contemplation (even if minor and short-lived) of one of our long-nosed pachyderm friends. Even if it was understood that the instruction was not to make the association, by the time this level of awareness was achieved, the cascade was already in progress and unstoppable.

    The context of such associative cascades (especially more sophisticated varieties) is largely cultural; however the portions of the brain most likely to respond is based on each association in the chain and its relative contextual weight, rather than the phonetics of the original sound itself.

    Lyrical forms of linguistics, such as poetry and song, are particularly powerful because they offer a way to rapidly trigger abstract associations not related to logic, speech or visual images.

  • Sapir Whorf is BS (Score:5, Interesting)

    by lawpoop ( 604919 ) on Wednesday February 01, 2006 @01:37PM (#14618013) Homepage Journal
    There's no way that Sapir Whorf can be true. If it were, that means that, just off the top of my head, we couldn't lie, entertain theoretical possibilities, hear two sides of the same event, understand that we were misinformed earlier but have correct information now, tell a fictional story, etc.

    Stephen Pinker does a good job of debunking Sapir Whorf in _The Language Instinct_. The classic examples of the number of Eskimo words for snow is actually not true -- Inuit language has a lot of suffixes, but there are only a few different root words for snow. English has about as many root words for snow.

    The other example was factory workers or something who mistakenly disposed of cigarette butts in 'empty' barrels that were actually full of flammable fumes. Well, the workers weren't fooled by language; there were fooled by invisible fumes. An empty barrel looks exactly like one full of fumes.
    • Yes, Steven Pinker is excellent on this. The other example I remember him pointing is the German word Schadenfreude (the malicious satisfaction obtained from the misfortune of others). There is no Engligh word for that, but that doesn't mean English speakers don't know what that is or have no feelings like that. If you find and English speaker who doesn't know what Schadenfreude means, and you tell them, a likely response might be - "Cool, there's actually a word for that?!"
      • I beleive this is called "gloating"

      • The other example I remember him pointing is the German word Schadenfreude (the malicious satisfaction obtained from the misfortune of others). There is no Engligh word for that

        Sure there is: Schadenfreude. We'll take words from anywhere; we're not proud.

      • You sir, just shot yourself in the foot. I can understand "Schadenfreude" iff I already have an understanding of the components of set A (A={the, malicious, satisfaction, obtained, from, the, misfortune, of, others}). Since english allows the members of set A to be expressed, english also allows "Schadenfreude" to be understood.
        Now, I could be incorrect here, but I'm pretty sure the idea here is that if Sapir-Whorf were the case, and if you were missing an understanding of any members of A, you would not
    • I think the strong form of Sapir-Whorf is generally taken to be that - too strong. However, Steven Pinker is not the only authority on the subject, and there are plenty of smart people who think that there is something to the weaker form of this (something like "the categories present in the speaker's native language must be attended to by the speaker"). This would mean that you can, in fact, learn concepts like "schadenfreude" but also if concepts like "schadenfreude" are present in your language you are
      • Well, I haven't encoutered any of the weak forms of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. Sorry I am undereducated ;)

        I didn't understand the point of the article you linked to. Was it that the speakers described in the article use absolute cardinal direction when talking about movement in space? If that's so, isn't that just like saying "on its east side" instead of "on starboard", just using seperate words instead of inflections?

        I've heard several scenarios where some language has some kind of information in an i
        • If that's so, isn't that just like saying "on its east side" instead of "on starboard"

          If I may jump in ... It's not "just like saying". It's thinking in absolute coordinates (and perceiving yourself to be relative to an absolute coordinate system). But have you ever seen a native English speaker adjusting his position in present space to indicate the correct absolute direction of a past event? I don't think I have
          • Well, here in Columbus Oh, if you ask someone for driving directions, they will usually rotate their bodies to cardinal directions with each turn in the directions. I do it myself. Or, if you are in limited space, you point your body to the final destination, and then use your arm or hand to indicate the cardinal direction turns.

            And besides, if you are capable of saying it, doesn't that require you to be capable of *thinking* it in the first place, or am I missing the point here?
            • So if they tell an account of their near car-accident the other way, they will indicate the actual compass direction the other guy came from?

              Say, yesterday they headed south in their car, and the other guy came came from western direction.
              In your conversation today they stand facing north. Will they actually point to the left to indicate the direction their opponent came from?

              I have never seen this.

      • Re:Sapir Whorf is BS (Score:3, Insightful)

        by radtea ( 464814 )
        This would mean that you can, in fact, learn concepts like "schadenfreude" but also if concepts like "schadenfreude" are present in your language you are probably more attuned to them..

        Which is so weak as to be completely uninteresting because it is completely obvious. It is only by the introduction of the strong form of the S-W hypothesis that anyone ever gets any heat in this debate, and yet at the end of the day everyone (sane) agrees that the strong form is trivially wrong.

        The whole Sapir-Worf debate i

    • Re:Sapir Whorf is BS (Score:3, Interesting)

      by g2devi ( 898503 )
      Have a look at this link:

      http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3582794.stm [bbc.co.uk]

      It's a concrete example how language limits what an Amazonian tribe can understand and how it limits what they are able to do.

      • Wow, people without a word for "8" and "10" cannot remember whether they were shown eight or ten elements previously. It's like they'd have to visually remember it.

        I'll give you a task. WITHOUT counting, tell me how many periods are at the end of this sentence..........

        Now, without counting tell me if it matches the number after this one.........

        The reason we can tell the difference is because we count up the dots then memorize the number, then count up the other dots then we relate those numbers together
      • Numbers are a special case. We spend a long time teaching children how to count properly in public schools. They've known 1 through 10 since they were 3 years old, but they still can't use them properly until like the 3rd or 4th grade. It's not a matter of language, is a matter of concept and understanding.

        • Re:Sapir Whorf is BS (Score:3, Interesting)

          by g2devi ( 898503 )
          But how much of a special case is it? Our language has a word for the concept of "one more", and so we're capable of expressing the concept of counting in words, and thus arithmetic.

          Apparently it's possible to teach 3rd and 4th grade students about binary arithmetic just by asking directed questions:
          http://www.garlikov.com/Soc_Meth.html [garlikov.com]
          The class already knew the concept of binary arithmetic, they just didn't know how to express it.

          This tribe should already u

          • Re:Sapir Whorf is BS (Score:3, Informative)

            by lawpoop ( 604919 )
            "What I think Whorf was trying to say is that words are the way our minds can express and understand concepts. If we don't have a word, but we can express a concept in a language, then the language we use doesn't limit us."

            You are right on both counts. What you are missing is that Whorf disagrees with your second sentence -- Whorf would say that language *limits* our expressive ability. Most linguists would argue that language *enables* expression. If there is a concept that we don't have a word or phrase
      • It's a concrete example how language limits what an Amazonian tribe can understand and how it limits what they are able to do.

        How do you know that it's the language and not something else, perhaps genetic. You have to do the obvious experiment, teach one of those fellows English and see if they can count. If they can, it indicates that the innumeracy is because of their language. If they can't count, or can't learn english, there are probably other factors than just the language.
    • That's the so-called "strong" Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. But the strong version has only ever been a straw-man, invented by people like Pinker to have something to debunk. The so-called "weak" version is what people actually study.

  • This reminds me of a saying... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by vertinox ( 846076 ) on Wednesday February 01, 2006 @01:47PM (#14618131)
    "It is easy problem to learn the things we do not know. The harder problem is trying know things that we do not know that we do not know."

    Personally, I wonder if I am limited by the English language to thoughts I wish to express. Maybe my mind is a computer, the neurons the cpu, my memories is the hard drive storage, but my language is the OS.

    However, what if I have Qbasic for DOS for my speaking language? No matter how powerful my brain is, I can't use this to create say "Doom 4" though expression for the mind. I'd need a specialized C++ compiler that optimized neurons in such a pattern to acheive this.

    What if that language doesn't exist yet? Is it possible that my brain could have thoughts and emotions, but can't because I can't use language to express them.

    On the bright side, English is a quickly mutating bastard language which seems fairly evolvable but sometimes I wonder if I should learn Japanese, Russian, or German and then end up with a new outlook on life.

    • And now for something totally different (Score:5, Interesting)

      by softweyr ( 2380 ) on Wednesday February 01, 2006 @02:08PM (#14618385) Homepage
      I wonder if I should learn Japanese, Russian, or German and then end up with a new outlook on life

      Why settle for mundane utility languages? Learn Navajo or Swahili or Inuit, then design a programming language based on the linguistic concepts and world view you've now acquired. A Navajo-based computing language would be interesting, it would perhaps specialize in calculating only that which is actually worth calculating. Of course such a language would completely eliminiate Slashdot from existence.

    • Something like this was in the novella Gulf, by Robert Heinlein.
      Not to spoil anything, but superintelligent people were learned and used a language that was much more compact, expressive, nuanced, and abstract than previously, so they could communicate faster and with more precision, as well as think more quickly and more abstractly.
    • What if that language doesn't exist yet? Is it possible that my brain could have thoughts and emotions, but can't because I can't use language to express them.

      This notion is the exact position that the strong Sapir-Whorf hypothesis takes. And nearly the entire linguistic community has concensus that this strong assertion Sapir-Whorf is not correct.

      Consider any arguement/debate you've been in, and you hit a brick wall trying to think of a way to say something. "I know what I want to say, I just can't think
    • On the bright side, English is a quickly mutating bastard language which seems fairly evolvable but sometimes I wonder if I should learn Japanese, Russian, or German and then end up with a new outlook on life.

      I would say so. I still remember that when I was learning French there was a moment of epiphany when I started to actually think in French, as opposed to doing translation on the fly. Some things were easier to consider that way, and there was a noticable difference in my thought patterns. Scary an
  • or did they prove that the constant exposure to paint samples has sharpended our ability to distinguish color? I blame marketing.
  • I did RTFA, but it wasn't clear to me how exactly the color tests were being used to judge perception. What interests me is that other studies have shown that those populations who historically have lived nearer the equator have eyes that filter greens and blues differently than do other ethnic populations who lived further north or south (the pigments in the eyes are different, causing those in climes with less sunlight to usually have lighter colored eyes). I would be interested in seeing this experiment

  • Hmm (Score:3, Interesting)

    by TrevorB ( 57780 ) on Wednesday February 01, 2006 @02:33PM (#14618682) Homepage
    I find this interesting, because at the age of four, I was legally blind in my right eye. There was no damage, the eye was just dramaticly lazy, and incredibly far sighted. The correction was so strong that without my glasses I could barely see a foot square letter 10 feet away. My left eye, at the time was perfectly normal.

    Years of patching have brought my right eye very close to normal. With time my left has drifted into near sightedness, leaving me nearsighted in my left eye and farsighted in my right.

    However even now my vision is almost exclusively left eyed. My perceived field of vision is biased towards my left, making me turn my head slightly to my right to "face" someone. The information from my right eye is there, it just feels a lot like peripheral vision. I read exclusively with my left eye. My brain actually has data from both eyes, but has difficulty co-ordinating them. Sometimes it uses the double vision to judge distance, but other times, my brain seems pretty good at shutting down the right-eye image when I'm reading. This is all done subconciously, I don't realize I'm doing it a lot of the time.

    I'm still trying to figure out exactly what this would mean related to this article. That I'm unbiased by language? That I'm a wishy washy pinko liberal? I'd like to think that this means my perception of the world is unbiased. More than likely all of these explanations are absolute junk.

    (See, I can't make up my mind. :)

    Side note: Of course with eye problems like this we've watched very carefully for eye problems in our own children. Our oldest's eyes are fine, but my youngest daughter is very farsighted (5.5/6 diopters). People, Watch for and catch eye problems with your own kids BEFORE they turn four. Early corrective measures (potentially surgery, don't be afraid of it) can have a dramtic effect on proper vision into adulthood.
  • A lot of sci-fi books took already the idea of that the language in which we think changes us. If well is not exactly about a born language, reading Babel 17 of Samuel R. Delany is always an enjoyable experience.

  • Distinguish colors in diff. languages (Score:4, Funny)

    by witte ( 681163 ) on Wednesday February 01, 2006 @03:00PM (#14619011)
    Using different languages can make an *enormous* difference in how easy it is for one to distinguish between, for example, blue and green !

    Just look at the following Fine Example :

    HTML : #0000FF - - - #00FF00
    Perl : \0032 - - - \0033
    BASIC : Navy - - - Chartreuse

    Clearly, hexidecimal notation of HTML is far superior in clarity to all other languages !
  • The whole idea of left/right brain split has become far less popular among actual brain researchers. Granted, certain brain structures occupy different areas of the entire brain, but it's not a split processor as was promoted in the 1980s (Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain, for example.)

    Beyond that, it sure is refreshing to know that money was spent to "discover" through "research" that people whose language doesn't have words for something find it harder to describe the something than those people who

Slashdot Top Deals

God made the integers; all else is the work of Man. -- Kronecker

Close