The quote I used was from the story. And I said it "seems distinctly wrong to me." If you are pushing that the accepted idea is more nuanced, I'm open to that

The quote I used was from the story. And I said it "seems distinctly wrong to me." If you are pushing that the accepted idea is more nuanced, I'm open to that. If you say that I am just wrong, I'm also open to that. As it is, it seems hard for me to take from the lead in on this article. I'll note that later quotes at least took it in a much softer interpretation. “We can categorize without language, but the speed and the efficiency with which we categorize can be boosted” is far different from the article's, "As a result, they see colors in the world in slightly a different way." That is, it seems far easier to accept that they categorize the world in a different way. But just because I said there are some birds in the yard, doesn't mean that I can't see the difference between jays, woodpeckers, and my chickens. Heck, just because I don't know the breed names of my chickens doesn't mean that I can't tell I have several breeds. If I say I have a collection of fowl, that doesn't mean I don't understand I have ducks and chickens. (Similarly, if I have some ducks, that doesn't mean I don't know the difference between drakes and ducks.) Your last paragraph really takes this to the much softer "we remember based on our vocabulary." And, that doesn't seem nearly as controversial. Again, though, the article had "they see colors in the world in slightly a different way." Which, yeah, I still feel is very wrong. Your memory is not necessarily how you experience and see things. It is more how you encoded them into your memory.