4 ms·

Wasn’t Sapir-Whorf pretty much debunked? Is there a difference in what is being claimed here or is it resurrecting it under a different name?

by mwigdahl 11mo ago

dragonwriter 11mo ago
This seems like the (broadly accepted, AFAIK) weak form of Sapir-Whorf (language has impacts on cognition) but not the (generally viewed as debunked) strong form (language places strict limits on the bounds of possible thought).
- Kim_Bruning 11mo ago
  I'm actually on the fence about strong Sapir-Whorf now. It's rather suss that machines started exhibiting some form of <reasoning> capabilities the minute they could successfully parse natural language, and not a moment before.
Mathnerd314 11mo ago
To summarize the Wikipedia article on linguistic relativity, the "strong" hypothesis that language determines thought has been debunked. But there are many things that a language influences. To use a computer analogy, all mainstream programming languages are Turing complete, so you can express any computation in them. In this sense the language does not determine what programs you can write. But in practice, as any computer person will tell you, different languages are good at different things. And that is kind of this paper, they cite a lot of examples where English has poor vocabulary or odd quirks, and show by comparison to other languages that this measurably affects conclusions about certain cognitive abilities. The issue they're complaining about is like if you benchmarked Python programs and tried to draw conclusions about the speed limits of computing, but never tried C++ or assembly.
- BenFranklin100 11mo ago
  Its ridiculous to compare human language to a programming language, even by analogy. They are entirely different domains.
  - Mathnerd314 11mo ago
    Tell it to the papers: https://www.cs.drexel.edu/~csg63/publications/onward24/onward24.pdf https://www.cs.drexel.edu/~csg63/publications/onward24/onwar... https://arxiv.org/pdf/1808.03916 https://arxiv.org/pdf/1808.03916 As vague analogies go, much more ridiculous and vague things have been published and peer reviewed and even gotten significant citations. Like ecological niches and invasive species, DNA as genetic blueprints, selfish genes, ... About all that can be said about these is that they are closer to the truth than what came before, and that if you actually learn the field then you can appreciate how they kind of get it right.
    - DrierCycle 11mo ago
      Yet what about aphasia? There seems to be direct evidence that thought, action, language are in conflict rather than seamless, so language plays a weird role in that some of us are programmed and others are blissfuly unconnected to their effects. If aphasia is evidence that some of us don't use language to think, then language is nothing more than a programming language. Whatever programming language using language is irrelevant to people with aphasia.
      - Mathnerd314 11mo ago
        Typically people develop aphasia after a stroke. This provides a natural before/after comparison. When for example Mark Brodie had a stroke, he wasn't able to speak - and he also wasn't able to read or write computer programs. This indicates that natural and programming languages use overlapping regions of the brain. Regarding language being in conflict with other modes of thinking, there is indeed a "savant" effect of aphasia, where after an aphasia-inducing stroke people suddenly develop amazing abilities in visual art, music, or mathematical thinking. But it is not consistent - most people don't develop these. And it comes with impairment of emotions, memory, etc. So really what the evidence suggests is that some people suppress parts of their brain, and these injuries unlock that potential because the suppression mechanisms break. It's most likely a cultural thing - people act how they are "expected" to act. There is some evidence that females actually have more biological capability for math (in cultures with very high gender equality) but typically you see less performance, so the conclusion is that the culture essentially "programs" in the lower performance. It is probably the same with the supposed "conflict" between thought, action, and language - the culture treats these as distinct modes and inhibits cross-modal thinking like synesthesia.

Wasn’t Sapir-Whorf pretty much debunked? Is there a difference in what is being claimed here or is it resurrecting it under a different name?

dragonwriter 11mo ago

This seems like the (broadly accepted, AFAIK) weak form of Sapir-Whorf (language has impacts on cognition) but not the (generally viewed as debunked) strong form (language places strict limits on the bounds of possible thought).

Kim_Bruning 11mo ago
I'm actually on the fence about strong Sapir-Whorf now. It's rather suss that machines started exhibiting some form of <reasoning> capabilities the minute they could successfully parse natural language, and not a moment before.

Mathnerd314 11mo ago

To summarize the Wikipedia article on linguistic relativity, the "strong" hypothesis that language determines thought has been debunked. But there are many things that a language influences. To use a computer analogy, all mainstream programming languages are Turing complete, so you can express any computation in them. In this sense the language does not determine what programs you can write. But in practice, as any computer person will tell you, different languages are good at different things. And that is kind of this paper, they cite a lot of examples where English has poor vocabulary or odd quirks, and show by comparison to other languages that this measurably affects conclusions about certain cognitive abilities. The issue they're complaining about is like if you benchmarked Python programs and tried to draw conclusions about the speed limits of computing, but never tried C++ or assembly.

BenFranklin100 11mo ago
Its ridiculous to compare human language to a programming language, even by analogy. They are entirely different domains.
- Mathnerd314 11mo ago
  Tell it to the papers: https://www.cs.drexel.edu/~csg63/publications/onward24/onward24.pdf https://www.cs.drexel.edu/~csg63/publications/onward24/onwar... https://arxiv.org/pdf/1808.03916 https://arxiv.org/pdf/1808.03916 As vague analogies go, much more ridiculous and vague things have been published and peer reviewed and even gotten significant citations. Like ecological niches and invasive species, DNA as genetic blueprints, selfish genes, ... About all that can be said about these is that they are closer to the truth than what came before, and that if you actually learn the field then you can appreciate how they kind of get it right.
  - DrierCycle 11mo ago
    Yet what about aphasia? There seems to be direct evidence that thought, action, language are in conflict rather than seamless, so language plays a weird role in that some of us are programmed and others are blissfuly unconnected to their effects. If aphasia is evidence that some of us don't use language to think, then language is nothing more than a programming language. Whatever programming language using language is irrelevant to people with aphasia.
    - Mathnerd314 11mo ago
      Typically people develop aphasia after a stroke. This provides a natural before/after comparison. When for example Mark Brodie had a stroke, he wasn't able to speak - and he also wasn't able to read or write computer programs. This indicates that natural and programming languages use overlapping regions of the brain. Regarding language being in conflict with other modes of thinking, there is indeed a "savant" effect of aphasia, where after an aphasia-inducing stroke people suddenly develop amazing abilities in visual art, music, or mathematical thinking. But it is not consistent - most people don't develop these. And it comes with impairment of emotions, memory, etc. So really what the evidence suggests is that some people suppress parts of their brain, and these injuries unlock that potential because the suppression mechanisms break. It's most likely a cultural thing - people act how they are "expected" to act. There is some evidence that females actually have more biological capability for math (in cultures with very high gender equality) but typically you see less performance, so the conclusion is that the culture essentially "programs" in the lower performance. It is probably the same with the supposed "conflict" between thought, action, and language - the culture treats these as distinct modes and inhibits cross-modal thinking like synesthesia.