Does Language Change How We Think?

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

There is a visual language which exists apart from spoken or written language. This visual language is a universal language. For example, I can bring a cat to show and tell, where there are students from all over the world. These students collectively speak say 100 languages and all have different words/sounds for the cat.

But at the visual level, we all see the same thing (visual input is the same, regardless of language). There may be a hundred different audio inputs used to describe what they see (cultural human), but we all have one common visual input; collective human. Each person does not see something different, even though each will use a different audio characterization to represent what they see.

The main advantage of the collective visual language is the internal speed at which we can process visual details. If you watched a hockey game you can't talk fast enough to keep up with all the details. The audio can only highlight in real time.

The disadvantage of the collective human visual language, is we can't directly transfer internal visuals to others; thought transference. Everyone who see the cat, at the same time, understands we are all visualizing the same. But beyond that real time, it hard to transfer using only the visual connection. Cultural audio language is an intermediate step that can be used to transfer visualization. I can use language to describe what I saw allowing others to visualize within their mind's eye, like they are there.

One thing with audio language, that is taboo in linguistic discussions ( I have tried many times) is lying and spin. You can't just trip out when you see the cat so it becomes a dog, visually. But audio is different and it allows us to trip out easier via lie and spin.

Say I was selling a used car and I needed to transfer the universal visual of a perfect motor vehicle, even though it is a junk. I would see a junk if we were both looking at it as two mechanics. Instead I can use language to transfer the wrong visual. I would need to do a complex magic trick to fool you visually. But with audio it only takes a few breaths.

Fictional writing is sort of like lying and spin, except the author tells the audience up front; this is not real but fiction. The audience knows this and the author will induce false visuals so one can have fun with the unique blends of visual language. When politicians do it, they don't tell you it is fiction. If you don't fact check the visuals, then you might assume this is an accurate transfer of the universal visual language. Language can distort the visual language but can periodically be used to accurately describe the universal imagery.

I don't always use audio language when I create new ideas since it is too slow. A picture is worth a thousands words, so it is faster to use the visual language to move block data. But to transfer to others I need to translate visual to audio to induce the visual.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I've actually begun to loathe the expression, simply because it is far too easy to succumb to emotional representation without background knowledge.
Take your example above... it only takes one newspaper to publish a photo of a Sunni executing a Shiite (for the sake of example, and with particular reference to a famous Asian photo I won't bother posting) to have 8/10 readers immediately sympathetic to a cause without any real knowledge of it. Pictures are an appeal to emotion, a fact the media has been aware of for a very long time and have used to advantage.

More Ot... I've read an article a year or two ago discussing the apparent success of Asian students in Australia compared to their locally-born counterparts. While there was more than one factor in play, the article determined that at least part of the reason was that multi-linguistic students have more avenues of approach to problem solving than they might have otherwise.
It was a while ago, not going to try to track it down now.

 

Again this is confusing the order of what comes first: thoughts or words. Thought precedes words, if some animals devoid of language can count, if deaf children not taught any sign language generate their own language, if yanomami can conceive of numbers greater then "one,two,many" yet have difficulty describing it because their language lacks the words then clearly thought precedes words, words do not control though, thought controls words! The interaction is of course more complex then that, yes words can help crystallize thinking, transmit it, give people thoughts they alone would have never thought off, but in general thought rules over words and only a little bit the inverse. Your not going to be able to create a "new speak" that manipulates people into being obedient they will revolt, even if they don't know have a word for revolt.

 

Of course thought precedes words. However, language gives thought form and substance. The argument in play is that multiple languages give thought more direction than it might otherwise have.

 

Question: specific languages or just language in general?

If specific language interaction can twist thought in ways other combinations don't that in favor of Sapir–Whorf hypothesis, if not then this is just a matter of language combinations allowing the user to more accurately express their thought. Tons of artificial language experiments have been done to try to control thought, most failing horribly.

 

As the complexity increase there is divergence. But simple things remain converged. If I brought out a dog to show 1000 subjects, it is doubtful everyone will see a different animal, but rather all will see a dog. But as we increase the level of detail needed to be observed, audio language filters will bias the result. The photons that enters the eyes, going into the brain are the same for all; raw input data. It is how this raw data stream is filtered that will make it diverge for each person. Language helps to create this filter.

If we take a group of 100 leading scientists, who are all experts in the same filed, and show them something in their field they are all experts in, the divergence is minimal; due to similar filters. They would all get excited if any one of them noticed a nuance out of place. In politics the language filter can make one see things that are not even there; basis for mud slinging.

Say I was afraid of cats and someone brings out a cat. I may only see its fangs and claws and not notice the soft fir since my exceptions contain fear and I will object visuals of fear to satisfy expectations. Without language the filter is more transparent; natural. Without language, since there is no way to communicate anything unnatural, everyone sees the same. The divergence is a good litmus test on how misleading language can make the mind in terms of evaluating a visual input stream consistent to all.

Hypnosis allows us to remove the language filters so we all can relate a more pure visual stream.

 

As the sample group who observe becomes composed of experts in dog breeds, there remains convergence; all see the same thing. If we start to add layman and people who know nothing about dogs to this group, we get divergence or narrowing convergence; dog.

Say I taught a bunch of good students, misinformation about dog breeds and called a german shepherd a poodle and a poodle a terrier. They will "see" the correct visuals, but will use language to define what they see, just as they were taught. In their own mind, they see what is correct but will use language for the wrong word association in culture. The outsider could mistake this wrong label for them seeing a poodle when it is a german shepherd. But it is not the visual that is wrong but the words learned or understood.

I know fathers, who have many children, and who will cycle through all the names when looking or talking about of one of them. He sees the correct child, but the accepted verbal tag does not stick properly so he cycle through all the names. He is not seeing all the faces of all his children like a changing hallucination. The visual is specific but the divergence occurs at the verbal.

An interesting example was the sales pitch of "The Affordable HealthCare Act". These words were designed to make you visualize a healthcare path toward cheaper healthcare for all. But in reality, the costs have predictably gotten worse. This was a tactic that taught the great dame was a toy poodle to the clueless, who would not visually check reality to confirm language with visual. Instead they were induced by language to trip out visually, without a visual reality check, until it was too late to see visual reality. We need more accountability for out leaders who lie, so we can protect the clueless from themselves, since they can sink a ship and not know it.

It is important to know the visual and audio can converge and diverge with visual naturally convergent.