Arrival

it's correct superficially, however it does not influence ALL of thought. There is plenty of thought that happens prior to its synthesis with language. In some conceptual situations language does drastically modify the perception of the speaker.

Sapir-whorf hypothesis is disproven. If there is a language, then there exists a combination of words to create the equivalent concept.

It's entirely incorrect and like the rest of social science, it's a nexus of confirmation bias.

Eskimos have a handful of words for snow because they live their lives surrounded by snow and pay a lot of attention to the different types of snow. It is not the reverse. Every time someone mentions the sapir-whorf hypothesis, william of ockham spins in his grave.

What you're arguing seems to be that languages are born fully evolved and fully grown. I'm just being pedantic about the "if a language exists" part. I'm reminded of the story about the color blue usually being the last color that gets a name in a language.

VERY good posts, I'll be looking forward to the 15 replies in two hours

OP here, for those who argue that even the weak version of the SW is incorrect, what do you think about this?
youtube.com/watch?v=u6eXw0AAKZ8

you're reminded of things that are inaccurate

Send peer reviewed articles, not youtube videos ffs

...

Can you atleast watch the video?
It's about a real language that lacks tenses, and the implications on perception of time.

What would thought be like without a language? Would it just be feelings, emotions and images?

Leads to poop eating.

>as some languages have gender-nouns
So mine mother language is russian where this is an issue.
I work in Belgian company where everyone and their dog speaks french with exactly same noun-gender thing.
The funny part is: most of genders are inverted in our languages, there are lot less hits then misses, which makes me to believe this gendered-noun construction comes from language constraint and doesn't really mean anything.
Ofc no other effects as french guys treating tables more respectfully because that is "she" in comparison to me, to whom its "he"

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_deprivation

You don't know what a language means.

Start here:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language

Hello, do you have a minute to talk about Adolf Hitler?

Nah, the fag you're replying to is probably one of those "if it isn't physics or math, it's not science" faggots.

I do. What about him?

Everyone thinks in words and images. What goes on in your head when you think? do you not have that little voice in your head thinking?

Some people do not have an inner voice/narrator. To them, it's merely a monotone white noise.

No. I already study linguistics, I don't need retarded pop sci youtube videos.

>I already study linguistics
so you already know everything there is to know?
you seem very low in open-ness
>I don't need retarded pop sci youtube videos
how do you know it's retarded if you refuse to watch it?
I'm not here to throw around studies and have a formal debate, I just want a general discussion about these ideas as they are fascinating to me
stop being so arrogant and closed off, and be open to new things for a change

I don't have a voice in my head for normal through. I don't think in words for normal thought. I use moving images for most things and static when something is obviously static. Word thought only occurs when I'm physically writing, but only when I'm concentrating on the words directly. Otherwise, the text gets written on autopilot while I think in images. Voice thought only occurs when I'm reading something and trying to read it as though someone is speaking it at a normal speed. Like I'll listening to an audio book. I only do that for fiction, because I think pacing and reflection is important.

Actively thinking in words all the time or having a voice in my head is about as alien as thinking Base 16 instead of Base 10.

>monotone white noise.

Even that is weird.

Not him, but t hat video doesn't even name the linguist it mentions. Thankfully, his art had the name,

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hopi_time_controversy#Ekkehart_Malotki
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ekkehart_Malotki

When you have something to add to the discussion, stop and think just how far back through citations you can go to get to the source of the tidbit of info you want to present. You may get better results and responses from people you wish to inform.

books.google.com/books/about/Hopi_Time.html?id=XSeGmS4uXykC
journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/466431

so what do you think about the video?

This was terrifying as fuck.

>I'm reminded of the story about the color blue usually being the last color that gets a name in a language.
that story is mostly bullshit

This is really foreign to me. My thoughts are a constant conversation I have with myself. So much so that it's impossible for me to stop the conversation.

As a French speaker, I tend to assume some animals like spiders and bees are all female, because the noun is feminine in French. I once saw an English person speaking about his pet spider and saying "he's a cool dude", and the mere idea of imagining a male spider made me giggle. Of course I know there are male spiders but my immediate mental representation of them is always female.

There are debates about that kind of stuff currently in France. Typically, prestigious job titles tend to be masculine (STEM jobs, high responsibility positions), and people think this might reinforce gender stereotypes. There are some attempts to try and make up some new "neutral" gender.

>From personal experience, I was astounded to learn that some people, "think in words".
not some people, everyone that can speak
deaf people think in sign language, which is still words in another form

Helen Keller described it in her autobiography (because she had no way of communicating until she was taught sign language), she it was very different and sort of animalistic
it would have to be different for someone that could see, though

Stop using "sapir-whorf hypothesis" it's inaccurate and name-names should be discouraged in all cases. Use "linguistic relativism".

It is obviously correct, a cursory surface glance at the nature of language (especially if you're a polyglot), results in it being nearly axiomatic. However, some magic bullshit the super-secedes physics and biology is entirely false. The question is: how strong is linguistic relativism? Not whether or not it's correct.

Learning a language will inform and influence your perspective, committing this language to your internal subvocalisation, rather than using it relative to you present internal subvocalised language (generally your native language), is how you genuinely change how you think.

This is only semi-related as it relates more to math than linguistics, but I've always wondered if this is part of the reason that ancient architectural engineering looks, to us from a modern perspective, disproportionately advanced compared to other technologies of those times. Specifically in that, before algebra was created and used widely, the language of math was largely geometric, and proofs were frequently expressed in terms of geometry and were very visual. I think it's plausible that, when the basis of your mathematical thinking is more visual than abstracted expressions, it would make certain types of architectural and mechanical creativity much more intuitive.

I'm not the man you were replying to, but most of my thoughts don't exist as a sentence or words until I need to say them aloud or type them out. As a result, I fail to see how a different language would really change my thought process significantly.

Just adding to this:
I can think in sentences, for example I could think to myself "I should go get something to eat" but unless I'm making myself do so, it's more of a thought where the act going to eat is one whole sensation without words. In fact if I forced myself to think in complete sentences it would feel really strange.
Even for more abstract thoughts, it's mostly the same although I do think some words occasionally. For example if I'm comparing things in my mind, I may think of the pros without actually forming mental words as I would if I were reading, but then might take the time to think the word "however" in its entirety and then think of the cons wordlessly. I'm not sure if that is similar to what the other poster has, but I would assume most people actually think like I do, since forming complete sentences and saying then mentally would make thinking about anything ridiculously time consuming.

But in the case of bees that's kind of true, I guess.

In my language, if you don't know the gender then use the masculine. I don't see a problem with that and no need to apologize or use pompous gender neutral writing.

For me it was the other way around. I realized that I don't really think in thoughts.

It's like the act of observation or driving a car. It just is, and not everything has a name. When you see that a square peg fits in a square hole, there are no words involved.

Or at least I don't expect there to be for most people.

Not him, but I think in images and, well, thoughts. I don't use words in my everyday thinking, I only have an internal dialogue if I'm thinking really intensely about something

There's no noise for me.

That's how I think. I don't have to verbalize everything in my head, I just know. If I'm hungry, I don't say "I should get something to eat" in my head, I just think of food.

Only if the language is Turing complete

t. CompSci

No Mr. Alien, you can't say things like that. All the sjws will get upset and ban you from the internet. Just look at all the ai bots that tried to talk about hitler

user doesn't want to potentially waste time on a potentially bullshit video that on some level is dependant on ad revenue or sponsors to exist. That does not mean user lacks "openness" to new ideas. user even asked for the peer-reviewed articles of the idea instead.

Another user here. I think I only think in complete sentences when trying to simulate how others might react to something I do. Example: questions classmates might have on my presentation, or how a date might like my gift.

But when I think to myself, I don't end up using complete sentences because it is too slow. I can complete the sentences, or even entire topics without words, but new topics are generally started with words.

No, it's considered pseudoscience.

Yes, this is called spatial ability. Deaf people utilize sign language which manipulates spatial space. Deaf people have superior spatial skill which is clearly demonstrated in various IQ studies.

just adding to the thread

it's been shown that those who have a spoken language think faster than those who do not.

r was it just any language at all vs some language?

I'm the same. I don't think in words and I was shocked to find that all my friends do. I've not yet been able to explain to them how my thoughts work in a way that feels satisfying, and it was years ago the conversation first took place.

That said I'm half convinced that no one thinks in words, and people only mistakenly believe that they do because a wordless thought can easily and instantly be translated into one conveyed with words.

and your argument goes right in the trash. if you need to specify your gender to gain argumentitive footing then you don't really beleive what you're saying.

Many p zombies in this thread.

very interesting user.

I have a verbal IQ of 140, but personally I do not think in words. I like words - it's nice how you can go at it with little effort and just say what you think, or you can put a little more effort in and work to accomplish a more pointed meaning - or multiple meanings - in a sentence.

Thinking in words slows the whole process down. Without words, thoughts are "pure" in that they come with nothing attached.

maybe you're right. but i doubt anybody who describes a "little voice in their head" could really just be mistaking it for something else.

100%

>if you need to specify your gender to gain argumentitive footing then you don't really beleive what you're saying.
What do you mean?

>no, MY thinking is unique, not yours
>I dont think in thoughts
Unless you are combining smells and tastes with numbers you can fuck right off with your special snowflake agenda.The only thing unique about your thinking is you are too fucking retarded to understand people are describing the same experience with different terminology.

>I could think to myself "I should go get something to eat"
I don't think anyone, or at least most people, think in words for every little feeling like this.

>a way of speaking must affect how one perceives the world

When I was an Engineering student I thought about this and here is my conclusion.
A language is way of understanding the universe the same was a coordinate system is. Some things are easier to understand and express in a spherical coordinate system or a cylindrical system but all coordinate systems CAN express the same ideas (formulas and equations). Cartesian coordinates are mainly used but they are NOT BETTER than cylindrical coordinates or any other coordinate system. A wise mathematician/engineer learns to use ALL the coordinate systems. Many problems become simple to solve by using the "correct" coordinate system.

Too unrealistic. Almost a joke.

They weren't using their gender for their argument, they were pointing out the fact that I mistakenly assumed their gender.

Or their pronouns at least.

The way I see it, language doesn't change one's worldview, but merely reflects it. Languages change in part because native speakers are constantly trying to express their ideas as simply as possible, and over time this leads to linguistic innovation and change. Thus, as a speech community's worldview changes, the language they speak often changes as well.

In English, "him" is exclusively masculine. The neutral gender is the plural "they". It's not pompous, it's grammar.

But can you imagine sounds/music/other people talking?

This but I came to that conclusion after learning different programming languages and numerical bases.

>This but I came to that conclusion after learning different programming languages and numerical bases.

Thanks!
Computer languages and bases is an even better explanation then using coordinate systems.

>Now, where did I hear this absurd theory before...?
>Oh! Arrival, the movie.
>Wait...this was all based on many books and publications?
Wow, the world is more retarded than I can ever imagine. Only linguists really try to observe the concepts surrounding categories, but most people simply use the categories and don't automatically think in metaphors. Even if a metaphor was used to construct a category, many people don't even notice the metaphor in daily usage.

In this video (), the author states that in a language called Aymara we face past and the future is behind us, which he is contrasting with English (and other IE languages?). The people who constructed Aymara are obviously pointing to the asymmetry of knowledge, and they are making use of this asymmetry to describe their experience. Past is known (seen), and future is unknown (cannot be seen). In fact, it is a spatial idea due to the experience of seeing. I bet people using Aymara use these categories and don't give too much attention to this 'concept of knowledge'. IE languages probably got the time going the opposite direction to Aymara (face the future) from the concept of walking; you move forward into future but not the past. Besides, it hardly matters how these categories were setup because they all serve to distinguish time.

When I talk about female and male connectors (electronics, plumbing, etc.), I do not automatically think that the entire world is about sex. Languages build upon existing ideas because it's the easiest way to do so.

And, I bet there is not one language on this planet that cannot distinguish past, present, and future. A tenseless language does it differently, but it still does distinguish these realities. If a language cannot distinguish such a core concept, then it obviously cannot convey any important experiences.

To me the idea of a little voice actually thinking out thoughts is bizarre. But I have a very decent thoughts-to-words translator that I'm using right now, and I'm thankful for that.

Fact is, there are a number of different styles of cognition that people use.

Just Google it you idiot. The strong hyp is false and the weak is somewhat true. Language clearly influences thought, but arrival is still ridiculously dumb.

It really isn't. It's well documented, actually.

Look at feral children, the ones raised in the wild by dogs or other animals. They never relearn the ability to process and perceive like we do properly. Their language is that of the animal.

>inner voice/narrator
fucking normie retards

definetly not to the point of violating causality and reversing the arrow of time/entropy.

What volume is your inner voice?

Only when I'm reading text or trying to put together a sentence

have you been tested for psychopathy?

>From personal experience, I was astounded to learn that some people, "think in words".

I'm similar but I start to think in words when I'm really tired or drunk as fuck.
My hypothesis is that the internal voice is communication between hemispheres. Apparently most people have shitty corpus callosum so they have to compress their ideas 100% of the time to communicate. The minority that has higher bandwidth doesn't have to.

Anecdotally, but every good coder I asked also doesn't think in words. The only people who do so constantly are brainlets doing some rote tasks.

in English "him" is used when an individual's gender is unknown.

How does imagined speech use less bandwidth? The current theory is that there is"full" and "condensed" internal speech, maybe you use the latter most of the time

Uh... by definition? Speech is translation of ideas into words, the difference between a painting and describing a painting. Lossy compression.

>Like that old "voice in your head" type of thing too. Weird shit.
I'm a bit the same, I've posted about it before too. I have no internal voice and not a "mind's eye" either, I can't consciously visualize anything except in the hypnagogic state (and then I have little control). Also I don't daydream, which is apparently an actual thing and not just a figure of speech.
lesswrong.com/lw/dr/generalizing_from_one_example/
Nice article and there's some related stuff about visualizing on lesswrong too.
>There was a debate, in the late 1800s, about whether "imagination" was simply a turn of phrase or a real phenomenon. That is, can people actually create images in their minds which they see vividly, or do they simply say "I saw it in my mind" as a metaphor for considering what it looked like?

>As a French speaker, I tend to assume some animals like spiders and bees are all female, because the noun is feminine in French. I once saw an English person speaking about his pet spider and saying "he's a cool dude", and the mere idea of imagining a male spider made me giggle. Of course I know there are male spiders but my immediate mental representation of them is always female.
lol that's really funny, never thought about it like that (but then again we don't have le/la in dutch).

This shit has nothing to do with psychopathy.

>My hypothesis is that the internal voice is communication between hemispheres.
Look up "The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind"

Here's the other lesswrong post
>lesswrong.com/lw/gq6/visual_mental_imagery_training/
and here's the linked paper with a survey
>psychclassics.yorku.ca/Galton/imagery.htm

>philosophy has no place in science
>also linguistics, the ability to express oneself and organize thoughts, is also not science
fuck off faker

i primarily think in words, but use visualization alongside it.

>To what extent is the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis correct?
To anyone with a mathematical background, the truth of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is overwhelmingly obvious. A large part of the reason you study topics in mathematics is that by studying mathematical structures, you build a new vocabulary of concepts in your mind, which in turn allow you to do a higher level of thinking. The concepts that form your vocabulary strongly influence what thoughts you can have, which is why mathematics is largely about learning more mathematical vocabulary. (Compare the mathematical thinking of a person who knows what a group is to someone one who doesn't.)

>How well-regarded is it in linguistics/philosphy?
I believe it's controversial. I can't imagine why.

>then there exists a combination of words to create the equivalent concept.
but not in the same exact way and/or length
certain languages introduce concepts in very small sizes

>I believe it's controversial. I can't imagine why.
Because linguists are brainlets. They also almost unanimously accept the universal grammar hypothesis.

reminder words compress iddas to be transferred between people

>compress
more like rape
if only a more pure form of communication were possible

>I can't consciously visualize anything except in the hypnagogic state

Omg that sucks
I find it very easy to visualize things, I daydream constantly. It's not a figure of speech, it's like playing in a vr game in your head for lack of a better analogy

>Look up "The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind"

Heh I actually did years ago, after reading snowcrash.

>To anyone with a mathematical background, the truth of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is overwhelmingly obvious.

Wrong... the question is to what extent human thought system is coded genetically and to what extent it's learned. It's not obvious in any way what is. For example fear of snakes and spiders in particular appear to be encoded on the genetic level.

"the question"? That is not the question I was talking about at all, and neither is it the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. Stay on topic.