You might find the Sapir–Whorf hypothesis interesting, in the context of your article - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_relativity. I bumped into the concept reading Samuel R. Delaney's Babel-17, which I found fascinating and which has really struck w/ me.
That said, maybe a slightly different way to think about this is that it's incredibly hard to shake your priors when trying to understand anything (and maybe you shouldn't always want to), and language itself is very clearly one of the most foundational priors we bring to almost any situation.
Barbara Tversky has also explored the limitations of language and has actually suggested that spatial thinking is the foundation of all thinking. If you *think* about it we existed in space and interacted with the world around us before we formed language. Therefore, language is a reductive proposition about the world around us. I point at a hard roundish thing on the ground and say "rock" and you agree it is a "rock", but that hardly conveys the full meaning of the rock. It doesn't convey how the rock was formed, is it whole or a piece of a larger rock, how does it interact with you, me, or other rocks, and it restricts the inferences we can draw from the proposition. However, visual representations (ex diagrams) provide a platform for making inferences, checking for coherence, and completeness that a string of words (aka sentence) cannot. She did a TKP podcast here:
Splendid article.I hesitate to describe it as thoughtful.It may explain why a Renoir or a Matisse trades for 50 million dollars,but does not explain why a Picasso trades for similar money.
The only thing I'll disagree with ... "One hundred thousand years is pretty much an eyeblink."
I know you are speaking metaphorically, but even metaphorically, I disagree.
Otherwise, 100%. Language is the answer to, and source of, the worst of the didactic approaches to things -- "do it because I SAY so". Someone says that to you, there are no words necessary to shake head "no" and walk away. Is flipping the bird sign language? :)
Cognitive Flexibility Theory has a lot to say about the idea of “unlearning.” Knowledge is the active construction of conceptual understandings, and these structures can become knowledge shields which impede “advanced learning.” We are typically introduced to a concept in its simplest form and then layer on more complexity as learning advances but this linear approach inhibits advanced learning which is the ability to flexibly apply knowledge across different cases. When we learn linearly we are prone to reductive understanding and misunderstandings result that build knowledge shields over time due to their fluency. So advanced learning requires active assembly of knowledge from different concepts across different cases with a focus on the interconnectedness of the cases and concepts. This like bottoms up knowledge construction on first principles. A poor analogy would be if you learned everything there was to know about heart attacks but couldn’t diagnose a fit, 30yr old who was having one because you know that fit 30yr olds are not likely to have a heart attack.
You might find the Sapir–Whorf hypothesis interesting, in the context of your article - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_relativity. I bumped into the concept reading Samuel R. Delaney's Babel-17, which I found fascinating and which has really struck w/ me.
That said, maybe a slightly different way to think about this is that it's incredibly hard to shake your priors when trying to understand anything (and maybe you shouldn't always want to), and language itself is very clearly one of the most foundational priors we bring to almost any situation.
Just gave this a very hearty skim and it's one of the most interesting wiki entries I've read, ty!!!
One of those videos a person watches every year or so. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JX8qOoyxt8s&t=28s
Barbara Tversky has also explored the limitations of language and has actually suggested that spatial thinking is the foundation of all thinking. If you *think* about it we existed in space and interacted with the world around us before we formed language. Therefore, language is a reductive proposition about the world around us. I point at a hard roundish thing on the ground and say "rock" and you agree it is a "rock", but that hardly conveys the full meaning of the rock. It doesn't convey how the rock was formed, is it whole or a piece of a larger rock, how does it interact with you, me, or other rocks, and it restricts the inferences we can draw from the proposition. However, visual representations (ex diagrams) provide a platform for making inferences, checking for coherence, and completeness that a string of words (aka sentence) cannot. She did a TKP podcast here:
https://fs.blog/knowledge-project-podcast/barbara-tversky/
Splendid article.I hesitate to describe it as thoughtful.It may explain why a Renoir or a Matisse trades for 50 million dollars,but does not explain why a Picasso trades for similar money.
The only thing I'll disagree with ... "One hundred thousand years is pretty much an eyeblink."
I know you are speaking metaphorically, but even metaphorically, I disagree.
Otherwise, 100%. Language is the answer to, and source of, the worst of the didactic approaches to things -- "do it because I SAY so". Someone says that to you, there are no words necessary to shake head "no" and walk away. Is flipping the bird sign language? :)
Cognitive Flexibility Theory has a lot to say about the idea of “unlearning.” Knowledge is the active construction of conceptual understandings, and these structures can become knowledge shields which impede “advanced learning.” We are typically introduced to a concept in its simplest form and then layer on more complexity as learning advances but this linear approach inhibits advanced learning which is the ability to flexibly apply knowledge across different cases. When we learn linearly we are prone to reductive understanding and misunderstandings result that build knowledge shields over time due to their fluency. So advanced learning requires active assembly of knowledge from different concepts across different cases with a focus on the interconnectedness of the cases and concepts. This like bottoms up knowledge construction on first principles. A poor analogy would be if you learned everything there was to know about heart attacks but couldn’t diagnose a fit, 30yr old who was having one because you know that fit 30yr olds are not likely to have a heart attack.
https://nautil.us/the-kekul-problem-236574/
If anyone has the correct link for the Cormac McCarthy paper can they post it please?