Your language defines your perception of reality

[_MeDotOrg]

Blame Amy Schumer.

I rarely watch television, unless it's a live event. Today I was scrolling through a list of YouTube videos when I saw Amy Schumer I FEEL PRETTY backlash. My brain considered watching the video, "What will I learn?", asked my brain. What invaluable nugget of cultural information will be imparted by learning of the backlash to I FEEL PRETTY? Anyway, part of my brain just groaned from the weight of having to keep up with every slight in the zeitgeist of popular culture.

Surprisingly, my mind was rebelling against cultural junk food. In desperation, I pressed the under-utilized TED button on my browser. The video I selected was HOW LANGUAGE SHAPES THE WAY WE THINK. There are cultures that have no left and right, where orientation is by the 4 directions of the compass. There are cultures where there are no exact numbers, like seven or eight. But there are subtler differences: Russians have two distinct words for blue, and their brains react differently when shown light blue or dark blue. Languages use masculine and feminine forms, and ascribe masculine and feminine characteristics to objects based upon the gender assigned. Language creates a frame of reference that we use use to experience the world. I think that everyone knows that, but the ways that cultural variations in language shape perception are both subtle and powerful. Think of the differing weights we can give numbers:

Without mathematics, there's nothing you can do. Everything around you is mathematics. Everything around you is numbers. Shakuntala Devi

A good decision is based on knowledge and not on numbers. Plato

I'm writing a book. I've got the page numbers done. Steven Wright

[_Maksutov]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspeak

"Newspeak is a controlled language, of restricted grammar and limited vocabulary, a linguistic design meant to limit the freedom of thought—personal identity, self-expression, free will—that ideologically threatens the régime of Big Brother and the Party, who thus criminalized such concepts as thoughtcrime, contradictions of Ingsoc orthodoxy."


.........

Thought control
"The purpose of Newspeak was not only to provide a medium of expression for the world-view and mental habits proper to the devotees of IngSoc, but to make all other modes of thought impossible. Its vocabulary was so constructed as to give exact and often very subtle expression to every meaning that a Party member could properly wish to express, while excluding all other meaning and also the possibility of arriving at them by indirect methods. This was done partly by the invention of new words, but chiefly by eliminating undesirable words and stripping such words as remained of unorthodox meanings, and so far as possible of all secondary meaning whatever."[10]

The Oldspeak word free existed in Newspeak, but could only be used in terms of something not present, as in the sentences "The dog is free from lice." and "This field is free from weeds." Politically, the word free could not denote free will, because such a humanist concept does not exist in the society of Oceania.[11] The linguistic design of Newspeak is for thought control, by diminishment of the user's range of thought, which is realised with a minimal vocabulary of limited denotation and connotation; hence words such as: crimethink (thought crime), doublethink (accepting contradictory beliefs), and Ingsoc (English Socialism).[10]

The character Syme discusses his work on the latest edition of the Newspeak Dictionary: "By 2050—earlier, probably—all real knowledge of Oldspeak will have disappeared. The whole literature of the past will have been destroyed. Chaucer, Shakespeare, Milton, Byron—they'll exist only in Newspeak versions, not merely changed into something different, but actually contradictory of what they used to be. Even the literature of The Party will change. Even the slogans will change. How could you have a slogan like "Freedom is Slavery" when the concept of freedom has been abolished? The whole climate of thought will be different. In fact there will be no thought, as we understand it now. Orthodoxy means not thinking—not needing to think. Orthodoxy is unconsciousness."[7]

[_moksha]

Pretty sure this can be validated by examining the attitudes of people who use the N-word rather than African. Or those who use the expression "making love" rather than "knocking off a piece". Being raised with either euphemisms or cacophonies would have a big impact on how you perceive the world.

SI Hayakawa might point to Dr. Peterson standing in a field and ask in you see an organized pattern of organic molecules or a superb practitioner of apologetics. You might give at Hayakawa a side glance and say you see an old guy with a mustache who is out standing in his field even without his dowsing rod.

I think there are some very valid ideas found in neurolinguistics.

[_Some Schmo]

I've suspected for a very long time that humans vastly underrate the influence of language on culture, that culture is directed/dictated more by language than anything else. We tend to judge people on how they communicate. Everything we do can be boiled down to telling stories and interpreting what they mean. The more meaningful, the better. People love good story tellers.

One might say humans are slightly obsessed with meaning, often to their own detriment. They assign meaning inappropriately, where it wasn't intended or doesn't represent anything resembling reality.

One of the most interesting things about listening to media sources outside your own bubble is how the language itself sounds a little different. Both the left and the right have their own keywords and ways of phrasing/framing certain issues, and both types of parlance are mocked by the other side of the aisle.

[_Maksutov]

I've suspected for a very long time that humans vastly underrate the influence of language on culture, that culture is directed/dictated more by language than anything else. We tend to judge people on how they communicate. Everything we do can be boiled down to telling stories and interpreting what they mean. The more meaningful, the better. People love good story tellers.

One might say humans are slightly obsessed with meaning, often to their own detriment. They assign meaning inappropriately, where it wasn't intended or doesn't represent anything resembling reality.

One of the most interesting things about listening to media sources outside your own bubble is how the language itself sounds a little different. Both the left and the right have their own keywords and ways of phrasing/framing certain issues, and both types of parlance are mocked by the other side of the aisle.

Yes indeed. How is it that some words are obscene and others are holy? That some words inspire belief and trust and others discontent and suspicion?

Words have power. Even now.

[_huckelberry]

I think people make observations they find useful and then create words for that. People create ideas and then have to create words or manipulate words to fit those. New context creates new meaning for old sounds. (he is gay)

Once the word and or word meaning is created we can share complicated meanings with that facilitating further expansion of ideas.That is an advantage for a people with larger language. It facilitates sharing and learning.

I am a bit puzzled by the intention of the opening remarks. Russian has two words for blue. Big deal. If you ever fiddle around with painting you find a whole group of words for blue. (such as indigo, ultramarine etc). Childrens wax crayons can provide a different set of words. (periwinkle)

The word twelve is not just a word which identifies something, it contains the whole range of understanding of integers and arithmetic. These are foundation for the larger range of ideas, mathematics. A person who does not have the words for arithmetic would need to , and could learn the idea of integers. They could use the English or Spanish words for integers or make up their own. Nobody will do either unless the learn the idea behind them.

[_Kittens_and_Jesus]

Despite the fact that we would describe the sky during most of the daytime as "blue", "blue" is relatively new word for describing a color. Other than the sky and certain bodies of water at certain places and times it is not a common color in nature.

[_subgenius]

Despite the fact that we would describe the sky during most of the daytime as "blue", "blue" is relatively new word for describing a color. Other than the sky and certain bodies of water at certain places and times it is not a common color in nature.

yeah, hella uncommon....crazy how it got to be one of only 3 "primary" colors.

[_Res Ipsa]

http://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/early/ ... 9.full.pdf It is kind of cute that sub thinks that being a primary color has something to do with how common it is.

[_Jersey Girl]

yeah, hella uncommon....crazy how it got to be one of only 3 "primary" colors.

Pop quiz!

Q: What is a primary color and why?

You should have learned this in early childhood.