4 ms·

Despite this being very obviously true to any mathematician or computer scientist, this idea is incredibly controversial among linguists and "educators". The l

Despite this being very obviously true to any mathematician or computer scientist, this idea is incredibly controversial among linguists and "educators". The linguistic analogue, (although the exact example of notation does solidly fit into the domain of linguistics) is the so called sapir-whorf hypothesis, which asserts that what language you learn determines how you think. Because natural languages are cultural objects, and mapping cultures into even a weak partial order (like how a person thinks) is simply verboten in academia. This has profound consequences in education too, where students are disallowed from learning notation that would allow them to genuinely reason about the problems that they encounter. I admit to not understanding this one.

andoando 1y ago
Sapir whorf doesnt negate the possibility of forming the same ideas using more primitive constructs. The ability of any language speaker being able to learn the same mathematics or computer program goes to show that. Id contest that spoken/written language is even necessary for thinking. At the very least, there is a large corpus of thought which does not require it (at some point humans spoke no or very little words, and its their thought/intention to communicate that drove the formation of words/language), so its silly to me to think of learned language as some base model of thought.
- mathgradthrow 1y ago
  When you learn another language (mathematics, programming), the sapir whorf hypothesis no longer makes the same predictions.
taeric 1y ago
I've had arguments on the sapir-whorf idea before. Sucks, as I'm not familiar with the environment that it originated, but it seems that people seemed to have taken an encoding idea and expanded it to experience, writ large. That is, people will lay claim that some societies that have the same word for the color of the sea and the color of grass to indicate that they don't experience a difference between the two. Not just that they encode the experiences into memories similarly, but that they don't see the differences. You get similar when people talk about how people don't hear the sounds that aren't used by their language. The idea is that the unused sounds are literally not heard. Is that genuinely what people push with those ideas? The argument of notation, as here, is more that vocabulary can be used to explore. Instead of saying you heard some sound, you heard music. Specific chord progressions and such.
- 7thaccount 1y ago
  I think they push the opposite...mainly a weak Sapir Whorf, but not a strong one. You still have a human brain after all. Do people in Spain think of a table as inherently having feminine qualities because their language is gendered? Probably to some very small amount. There is a linguist claiming a stronger version after translating and working with the piriue (not spelling that right) people. Chomsky refuses to believe it, but they can't falsify the guy's claims until someone else goes and verifies. That's what I read anyway. Edit: Piraha people and language https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirah%C3%A3_language https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirah%C3%A3_language
  - taeric 1y ago
    Funny, as I was seeing a lot of people try and push that the gender of language is fully separate from gender of sex. The idea being that there was no real connection between them. I always find this a tough conversation because of how English is not a heavily gendered language. I have no idea how much gender actually enters thinking in the languages that we say are gendered. My favorite example of this used to be my kids talking about our chickens. Trying to get them to use feminine pronouns for the animals is basically a losing game. That cats are still coded as primarily female, despite us never having a female cat; is largely evidence to me that something else is going on there. I'm curious if you have reading on the last point. Can't promise to get to it soon, but I am interested in the ideas.
    - 7thaccount 1y ago
      I edited my previous comment. See here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirah%C3%A3_language https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirah%C3%A3_language There are also a ton of videos and blog posts on the subject.
      - taeric 1y ago
        Thanks! I should have been clear on the request, too. I'm curious if there are any good high density reads, as well as if there are some to avoid. It can be easy to fall into poor sources that over claim on what they are talking about. And I don't mean nefariously. Often enthusiasm is its own form of trap.

andoando 1y ago

Sapir whorf doesnt negate the possibility of forming the same ideas using more primitive constructs. The ability of any language speaker being able to learn the same mathematics or computer program goes to show that. Id contest that spoken/written language is even necessary for thinking. At the very least, there is a large corpus of thought which does not require it (at some point humans spoke no or very little words, and its their thought/intention to communicate that drove the formation of words/language), so its silly to me to think of learned language as some base model of thought.

mathgradthrow 1y ago
When you learn another language (mathematics, programming), the sapir whorf hypothesis no longer makes the same predictions.

taeric 1y ago

I've had arguments on the sapir-whorf idea before. Sucks, as I'm not familiar with the environment that it originated, but it seems that people seemed to have taken an encoding idea and expanded it to experience, writ large. That is, people will lay claim that some societies that have the same word for the color of the sea and the color of grass to indicate that they don't experience a difference between the two. Not just that they encode the experiences into memories similarly, but that they don't see the differences. You get similar when people talk about how people don't hear the sounds that aren't used by their language. The idea is that the unused sounds are literally not heard. Is that genuinely what people push with those ideas? The argument of notation, as here, is more that vocabulary can be used to explore. Instead of saying you heard some sound, you heard music. Specific chord progressions and such.

7thaccount 1y ago
I think they push the opposite...mainly a weak Sapir Whorf, but not a strong one. You still have a human brain after all. Do people in Spain think of a table as inherently having feminine qualities because their language is gendered? Probably to some very small amount. There is a linguist claiming a stronger version after translating and working with the piriue (not spelling that right) people. Chomsky refuses to believe it, but they can't falsify the guy's claims until someone else goes and verifies. That's what I read anyway. Edit: Piraha people and language https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirah%C3%A3_language https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirah%C3%A3_language
- taeric 1y ago
  Funny, as I was seeing a lot of people try and push that the gender of language is fully separate from gender of sex. The idea being that there was no real connection between them. I always find this a tough conversation because of how English is not a heavily gendered language. I have no idea how much gender actually enters thinking in the languages that we say are gendered. My favorite example of this used to be my kids talking about our chickens. Trying to get them to use feminine pronouns for the animals is basically a losing game. That cats are still coded as primarily female, despite us never having a female cat; is largely evidence to me that something else is going on there. I'm curious if you have reading on the last point. Can't promise to get to it soon, but I am interested in the ideas.
  - 7thaccount 1y ago
    I edited my previous comment. See here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirah%C3%A3_language https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirah%C3%A3_language There are also a ton of videos and blog posts on the subject.
    - taeric 1y ago
      Thanks! I should have been clear on the request, too. I'm curious if there are any good high density reads, as well as if there are some to avoid. It can be easy to fall into poor sources that over claim on what they are talking about. And I don't mean nefariously. Often enthusiasm is its own form of trap.