the correlation between language, thoughts and intelligence

[kidcolin]

oh.. OK. That's what I thought you meant. In my post, I meant the former.

[Aloysius]

Cool article:

[ QUOTE ]
In fairness to Reuters, the "one-two-many" mistake is strongly encouraged by Gordon's Science article, whose abstract reads:

Members of the Pirahã tribe use a "one-two-many" system of counting. I ask whether speakers of this innumerate language can appreciate larger numerosities without the benefit of words to encode them. This addresses the classic Whorfian question about whether language can determine thought. Results of numerical tasks with varying cognitive demands show that numerical cognition is clearly affected by the lack of a counting system in the language. Performance with quantities greater than 3 was remarkably poor, but showed a constant coefficient of variation, which is suggestive of an analog estimation process.

[/ QUOTE ]

Meaning (if the debunking is true) that the Piraha did, conceptually, understand there is a difference between say 4 and 7 items, just could not verbalize it? That makes more sense to me than:

[ QUOTE ]
The hypothesis is that because they only have one word for any group of things larger than that, they literally cannot comprehend the difference. It doesn't matter whether there are 5 rocks or 35 rocks; their brains perceive them as the same.

[/ QUOTE ]

-Al

[GuyOnTilt]

Hm, seems so. I'm pretty sure Reuters was the place I read about this too.

[Blarg]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I just skimmed the thread so maybe this has already been mentioned, but a large vocabulary is also one of the best indicators of a high IQ.

[/ QUOTE ]
You hear that a bigger vocabulary is a sign of higher intelligence, but the truth is it may be the converse. The size of vocabulary may have a very large part in determining how intelligent you are.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think a large part of intelligence is the ability to make useful associations, and perhaps to make them with practical speed. A good vocabulary gives you a greater number of discrete concepts to make connections between. It's much harder and slower, in comparison, to make connections from one bit of unverbalized haze to another, and having more doesn't multiply your arsenal nearly as well as having more concepts actually narrowed down into language.

[Bork]

[ QUOTE ]
In fairness to Reuters, the "one-two-many" mistake is strongly encouraged by Gordon's Science article, whose abstract reads:

Members of the Pirahã tribe use a "one-two-many" system of counting. I ask whether speakers of this innumerate language can appreciate larger numerosities without the benefit of words to encode them. This addresses the classic Whorfian question about whether language can determine thought. Results of numerical tasks with varying cognitive demands show that numerical cognition is clearly affected by the lack of a counting system in the language. Performance with quantities greater than 3 was remarkably poor, but showed a constant coefficient of variation, which is suggestive of an analog estimation process.

[/ QUOTE ]


The language isn't what is limiting them. The reason their language is like that is because they rarely have to do the kinds of numerical tasks they were tested on. They performed poorly because they were not familiar with those tasks. To conclude that they performed poorly because their language doesn't describe numbers is heinously unscientific. The reason their language is like that is because they haven't needed to develop a more precise system. It's as though the scientists are assuming they have the same schooling experiences as we do except they just use a different language. They are not controlling the variables and hence doing bad science. Sixteen year olds in Japan are much better at math than 16 year olds in the USA. Should I conclude that it is because of our limiting language?

The reason people seem limited in the areas which their language doesn't have words for is because they are almost always unfamiliar with those tasks/concepts. It has pretty much zilch to do with language.

[MicroBob]

Reminds me of a book I read about the 'invention' of the number zero.
They didn't have a word or number for 0 many centuries ago.


I think ElD is definitely onto something when he makes a specific distinction between other romance languages that are somewhat similar to English vs. the languages that are REALLY different from English.
I would think that those who can speak English and Chinese or Japanese or Hebrew or something that is probably structured REALLY differently would have a better chance of being able to think more creatively and see different situations from perspectives that wouldn't even occur to some of us mono-lingual type of guys.

Reminds me of a good friend of mine from high-school who is probably the smartest person I have ever met. Super-genius and I don't even want to speculate what his IQ is.
I could still beat him at chess though.
He went to Harvard and was cleaning up on Wall Street but was bored with that fairly quickly and later moved to Japan to learn Japanese I think pretty much from scratch and get his PhD in ancient Japanese literature or something.

[Aloysius]

[ QUOTE ]
Sapir and Whorf and their work are pretty much a joke among philosophers. Their stuff is usually reserved for sociology courses (where it is just as laughably stupid).


[ QUOTE ]
Among the most frequently cited examples of linguistic determinism is Whorf's study of the language of the Eskimo people, who were thought to have numerous words for snow. He argues that this modifies the world view of the Eskimo, creating a different mode of existence for them than, for instance, a speaker of English.

[/ QUOTE ]
-from wiki

lol

[ QUOTE ]
You might think that "tree" means the same thing, everywhere and to everybody. Not at all. The Polish word that means "tree" also includes the meaning "wood." The context or sentence pattern determines what sort of object the Polish word (or any word, in any language) refers to. In Hopi, an American Indian language of Arizona, the word for "dog," pohko, includes pet animal or domestic animal of any kind. Thus "pet eagle" in Hopi is literally "eagle-dog"; and having thus fixed the context a Hopi might next refer to the same eagle as so-and-so's pohko.

[/ QUOTE ]



-Whorf http://sloan.stanford.edu/mousesite/...ghtReality.htm


These guys are the epitome of contrived and confused.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bork (other linguists) - be interested in hearing more about this. GoT's article references Whorfian "linguistic determinism" also. Is it really a joke in academic circles? Or just your personal opinion? FWIW, I took alot of philosophy and lit crit classes in undergrad, and I tend to side with the "most of this is BS" point of view.

-Al

[suzzer99]

I've read most of that zero book. Really fascinating.

[Point Point]

The Maidu Indians only have three colors: lak (red), tit (green-blue), and tulak (yellow-orange-brown). "Paris Hilton has small green-blue".

The people of Tonga and many Pacific Island nations don't have a word for "depression".

Humberto Brenes does not have a word for "opponent". All of his opponents he refers to as "friends". "The friend in seat 5, I forget his name, gave me a bad beat when he got runner-runner to beat my Aces."

Skiiers have at least 5 words for snow.

[Bork]

[ QUOTE ]

Bork (other linguists) - be interested in hearing more about this. GoT's article references Whorfian "linguistic determinism" also. Is it really a joke in academic circles? Or just your personal opinion? FWIW, I took alot of philosophy and lit crit classes in undergrad, and I tend to side with the "most of this is BS" point of view.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is a joke among philosophers of language. From studying philosophy of language I got the impression that some sociologists and psychologists still ascribe to and lecture on a Whorfian view. This is despite the fact that is based on poor science and is philosophically confused. So I think in some academic circles it may be standard..

Whorf didn't understand basic linguistic distinctions and most of his science was pretty much made up. For example he never met an actual Hopi, but claimed to be an expert on their language. He made tons of false claims about the culture's and languages which he was an 'expert' on. The Inuit one is a perfect example that is still taught in academic circles.

Here is some criticism of him and Sapir.
http://www.aber.ac.uk/media/Students/njp0001.html