> I am not sure who funds this type of garbage but it shows that "science" is rifle with ridiculous findings. This is just such a bad-faith, effortless, shallo

> I am not sure who funds this type of garbage but it shows that "science" is rifle with ridiculous findings. This is just such a bad-faith, effortless, shallow dismissal. If you wish to criticise the study, please do it on the basis of the methodology and not just because you think that somehow it can't be true. > This is like that "research" where speakers of different languages percieve time in different ways. This was a claim put forward by Benjamin Lee Whorf in the 1940s which has been discredited since at least the 80s: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hopi_time_controversy https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hopi_time_controversy Also, it was always conjectural and never grounded in solid empiric evidence in the way that is at least attempted in the article you're criticising here (whether successfully or not). And for good reason: at that time, linguistics simply wasn't yet as developed a field as it is now and doing experiments like we can do them today would probably have been hard to conceive. For all his faults, Benjamin Lee Whorf is one of the fathers of modern linguistics, and it's not right to criticise him based on today's standards.