the correlation between language, thoughts and intelligence

[Bork]

If you read a lot you are not only learning information, you are also honing the skill of learning information. You will understand more words and perspective, and teach your brain methods for sifting, evaluating, and sorting the thoughts of others. If you are really good at that you learn things faster and are practically smarter. I don't know what the true definition of intelligence is, but for me I think ability to learn is a major aspect of it. I think the kid's that read a lot early tend to have been born smarter and are teaching themselves to learn more efficiently than the non-readers.

[Pyromaniac]

[ QUOTE ]
Cool experiment - but it just proves that our judgment / feelings are impacted by our context, no?

[/ QUOTE ]

yes, but I'd say it was the other way around. The context of the experiment was designed to provoke/evoke a feeling. It was deliberate - without this context, there would've been no feeling.

So then it was, Now that we've caused these men to have this weird feeling in their gut, let's see what happens - how do they process it?

The suggestion is that the internal dialogue (subconsciously) goes something like this: "Wow I've got this unsettled feeling, what is this feeling, is it fear-of-heights/death...No, can't be that, that wouldn't be manly...hmm, here's this girl, this...attractive girl, yes, that's what this feeling must be, I find her very attractive, that's it"

That's how I understand it. They called the misattribution of arousal, I think.

Maybe this should be in teh PUA thread. I don't think it's much different from the take-girl-to-scary-movie ploy, no? Girl gets aroused/adrenalized by the movie, gets that internal butterfly feeling...sees guy she's with, thinks (subconsciously) that those emotions are connected to him. The LA Times article suggests rollercoasters as a similar thing.

[Aloysius]

Pyro - well you seem to be suggesting that, I guess, being able to pinpoint the feeling using specific language would... eliminate the misattribution of arousal? Not sure if that's the case. But:

[ QUOTE ]
yes, but I'd say it was the other way around. The context of the experiment was designed to provoke/evoke a feeling. It was deliberate - without this context, there would've been no feeling.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a good distinction.

BTW - there is nothing like "holy [censored] we almost died sex".

-Al

[Blarg]

We know about chess prodigies. Similar things are noted to happen with the game of Go. Kids can learn it incredibly quickly, and even kids comparatively mediocre among their peers at the game can quickly dispense with adults who have learned the game later in life but been playing for years. This is because the kids have not just learned the game, but their brains acquire a deep, even instinctive knowledge of how the game itself works and is played. They learn to "think in the language of Go." They are not playing Go with a brain. They are playing with a Go brain.

[A S U]

[ QUOTE ]
Having a larger vocabularly has strong correlation with financial success in life.

[/ QUOTE ]

tell that to Anacardo.

[smurfitup]

[ QUOTE ]
This also reminds me of a psych study that I read once (but no one else ever seems to have heard of it, so I trot it out given any excuse to do so):

They put a woman in the middle of a suspension bridge over a high gorge, then had each participant walk out over the bridge and stand there, swaying over open air, and answer a bunch of questions (dummy questions). Afterwards, someone else asked them to rate the interviewer's attractiveness.

Then they repeated this, but with the female interviewer on a street corner. Same woman, same outfit/clothing, same clipboard of questions...just no bridge in the air. These men rated her lower in attractiveness than the men who'd been on the bridge.

The cognitive psychological explanation was that the men on the bridge had some *unnamed feeling* inside them, and when they (internally, subconsciously) tried to figure out what it was and put it into language and make sense of it, they decided it was interpreted as "physical attraction" to the woman on the bridge. Whereas what the feeling *really* (if that word applies here) was, was "anxiety/fear" from being on the bridge.

So our feelings exist only insofar as we're able to define them through language. And if we define them incorrectly, that's what they become.

[/ QUOTE ]

it's called misattribution of arousal. i'm a big psych nerd =)
i love how social psychology underscores the fact that there is no absolute reality.

[Pyromaniac]

[ QUOTE ]
well you seem to be suggesting that, I guess, being able to pinpoint the feeling using specific language would... eliminate the misattribution of arousal? Not sure if that's the case.

[/ QUOTE ]

yes, I think so. I think if (instead of playing the psych study mindgames) were to interview the men after they got off the bridge, and were to say "hey, it looks like your heartrate is up, why do you think that is? Is it A) you found the woman on the bridge really attractive, or B) being on that bridge was really damn scary", I think a lot of them would have the eureka moment.

so yes, I think if they could consciously pinpoint the feeling using specific language, in many cases they'd correct the misattribution. There'd be some macho posturing, "nah i wasn't afraid, she was hot".

So, yea, this is a little different from the rest of the thread, which is about not having the language. here, they have the language (they know what fear is and what physical attraction is, and that they feel similar)--they just don't have the opportunity to consciously put it on the workbench.

[ QUOTE ]
BTW - there is nothing like "holy [censored] we almost died sex".

[/ QUOTE ]

I've never tried it but I've always thought skydiving would be great for this [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

[Blarg]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Cool experiment - but it just proves that our judgment / feelings are impacted by our context, no?

[/ QUOTE ]

yes, but I'd say it was the other way around. The context of the experiment was designed to provoke/evoke a feeling. It was deliberate - without this context, there would've been no feeling.

So then it was, Now that we've caused these men to have this weird feeling in their gut, let's see what happens - how do they process it?

The suggestion is that the internal dialogue (subconsciously) goes something like this: "Wow I've got this unsettled feeling, what is this feeling, is it fear-of-heights/death...No, can't be that, that wouldn't be manly...hmm, here's this girl, this...attractive girl, yes, that's what this feeling must be, I find her very attractive, that's it"

That's how I understand it. They called the misattribution of arousal, I think.

Maybe this should be in teh PUA thread. I don't think it's much different from the take-girl-to-scary-movie ploy, no? Girl gets aroused/adrenalized by the movie, gets that internal butterfly feeling...sees guy she's with, thinks (subconsciously) that those emotions are connected to him. The LA Times article suggests rollercoasters as a similar thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

This dovetails with my guess at how a lot of PUA stuff probably works, and with some of my own modest success and understanding. Also why in chick threads here before, I have often mentioned how good it is to go on sports dates with women -- to the beach or whatever. Get them feeling energetic and physical, loose and vigorous, maybe get a few endorphins in there, and at least some of that feeling great is very likely to get ascribed to you instinctually. Anytime you can put yourself in the way of a good association, no matter where it comes from, it's like free money.

[suzzer99]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
well you seem to be suggesting that, I guess, being able to pinpoint the feeling using specific language would... eliminate the misattribution of arousal? Not sure if that's the case.

[/ QUOTE ]

yes, I think so. I think if (instead of playing the psych study mindgames) were to interview the men after they got off the bridge, and were to say "hey, it looks like your heartrate is up, why do you think that is? Is it A) you found the woman on the bridge really attractive, or B) being on that bridge was really damn scary", I think a lot of them would have the eureka moment.

so yes, I think if they could consciously pinpoint the feeling using specific language, in many cases they'd correct the misattribution. There'd be some macho posturing, "nah i wasn't afraid, she was hot".

So, yea, this is a little different from the rest of the thread, which is about not having the language. here, they have the language (they know what fear is and what physical attraction is, and that they feel similar)--they just don't have the opportunity to consciously put it on the workbench.

[ QUOTE ]
BTW - there is nothing like "holy [censored] we almost died sex".

[/ QUOTE ]

I've never tried it but I've always thought skydiving would be great for this [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Is it bad that in .2 seconds of skimming down this post my eye seizes on 'misattribution' because of it's similarity to another word?

[Bork]

[ QUOTE ]
it's called misattribution of arousal. i'm a big psych nerd =)
i love how social psychology underscores the fact that there is no absolute reality.


[/ QUOTE ]

How does men finding women more attractive on scary bridges underscore the 'fact' that there is no absolute reality. Also what do you mean by the claim that there is no absolute reality?