29 ms·
This is your reminder, should you want to go off the deep end into Sapir-Whorf linguistic relativism, that peoples whose languages did not have words to linguis
by ubernostrum 9y ago
This is your reminder, should you want to go off the deep end into Sapir-Whorf linguistic relativism, that peoples whose languages did not have words to linguistically distinguish certain colors (such as blue and green) nonetheless demonstrably produced works (such as textiles) with patterns which required the ability to visually distinguish those colors, and that the strongest evidence we know of suggests merely that having a word for a color helps you to recognize it more quickly than if you don't have a word for it, rather than toggling whether you are capable of perceiving it.
- tudorw 9y agoThanks, that's for me, your position ties with what I've read about cognition recently, that when we use a new word, it's like a shortcut for the brain, the more we use a word, the more the shortcut is reinforced. There was also that bit about Homer describing the sea as the same colour as wine, here's a good tear down of that http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/bodysphere/features/5267698 http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/bodysphere/feat...
- jsjohnst 9y agoI agree. I’ve always felt that they could see the difference in color immediately, just not readily be able to describe it to others.