Hypothesis: Language, the ability to speak it, learn it, and to express it silently to oneself is at the core of all civilisation.

There is a correlation between vocabulary and human development, that is undeniable, but is there causality?

Let me introduce an example. How developed is the vocabulary of a crack-gang member in the slums of a United States city?

His ability to express himself is limited to the vocabulary of his environment, which is in this case very limited.

Let's compare this individual with a member here at Oh the Humanities. A member here at this forum will in most cases have a vocabulary substantially larger than his Crack-gang counterpart, he will most certainly be able to express his emotions better than his counterpart, but has he created a better life for himself? Is he self-determined?

Sounds like the Sapir–Whorf hypothesis, which has, for one reason or another, fallen out of favour in academic circles.

Hypothesis: Language, the ability to speak it, learn it, and to express it silently to oneself is at the core of all civilisation.


Go to New Guinea next time you have a chance. Are the natives without speech?

That is why I suggest science fiction for grammar school kids. Especially sci-fi with REAL SCIENCE. It introduces concepts and vocabulary of science in an entertaining manner. They can make science more interesting than the science books actually. You can find stuff there that most people won't encounter until college.

Sounds like the Sapir–Whorf hypothesis, which has, for one reason or another, fallen out of favour in academic circles.

I think pseudo-intellectuals need to create controversy and vary the popularity of ideas to keep the laymen confused. If good accurate information became widely known then how could the intellectual elite maintain the pretense of being an intellectual elite.

DT

I believe language is not at the core, but the core of civiliZation.

The ability to communicate ideals, and record them, that are unknown or new to another enable people to grow and evolve.

Without language this would be impossible and we would all be limited to what we alone are capable of without preexisting knowledge and teamwork.
Which would result in no progression and thus no civilization.

civiliZation.


Actually it can be spelled either way, in my neck of the woods it happens to be with an s.

I think pseudo-intellectuals need to create controversy and vary the popularity of ideas to keep the laymen confused. If good accurate information became widely known then how could the intellectual elite maintain the pretense of being an intellectual elite.

DT

Those intellectual elite who remain in cutting edge research will continue to remain the intellectual elite, as the ordinary layman can only learn what has already been researched and cannot conduct his own research.

To suggest that there is some kind of conspiracy within the scientific domain to limit lay knowledge is simply absurd.

There was an experiment done awhile back, where a chimpanzee was in a cage with a banana hanging outside of his grasp. If a stick was placed in his viewpoint of the banana, he would use this stick to get the banana. BUT if the stick was behind the ape outside of his viewpoint, he wouldn't know to use this stick and reach the banana.
Thats pretty darn interesting.
This intelligent creature does not get the banana unless he sees it in the same frame as the stick.
This seems to mean that because the ape does not have a name for these things, these concepts cannot be used unless viewed together.
We have the name stick, and the name banana, therefor we can hold both of these things in our minds, even though both are not seen simultaneously.
Because of its lack of understanding symbols, this extraordinarily intelligent animal is limited in such a ridiculous way.

Language is important and frames like any understanding we can have. It's just a set of symbols, though. It's one of the most efficient/adaptive set of symbols we have to understand things. So while I wouldn't say it's at the core (I say the human capability for symbol creation/interpretation is.) It is, however, one of the best skill in our symbolic repertoire, and is able to convey things like logic or to grasp many concepts in a way that cannot be handled by other symbols. And it also allows for some level of specificity ("verbatim") that would be unprecedented. It's definitely central in the society of today, though. One way to tell is to imagine us suddenly losing language. Society would grind to a halt until we manage to fashion a new society via different means communication.

edit:

That is why I suggest science fiction for grammar school kids. Especially sci-fi with REAL SCIENCE. It introduces concepts and vocabulary of science in an entertaining manner. They can make science more interesting than the science books actually. You can find stuff there that most people won't encounter until college.



I think pseudo-intellectuals need to create controversy and vary the popularity of ideas to keep the laymen confused. If good accurate information became widely known then how could the intellectual elite maintain the pretense of being an intellectual elite.

DT

Also, I like this idea.

I think pseudo-intellectuals


I have asked before and I shall ask again DT, where does one draw the line between a pseudo-intellectual and his fully fledged counterpart?

I have asked before and I shall ask again DT, where does one draw the line between a pseudo-intellectual and his fully fledged counterpart?

Well obviously you are going to have to draw the line for yourself but there is one basic characteristic that I pay attention to in order to recognize them.

Pseudo-intellectuals tend to be people with knowledge who try to pretend that its possession is proof of intelligence or that it is intelligence. A common tactic is using lots of big words while actually saying little to nothing. These people have a vested interest in keeping other people ignorant and confused. I have found that people that are really smart are quite willing to exchange information but they may not necessarily give it away for free. The pseudos don't like people smarter than they are.

For instance I find it really funny how many economists attack John Kenneth Galbraith yet I find his writing far more accessible and enlightening then most other economists'. But I never heard Galbraith suggest mandatory accounting in the schools either.

Watch the movie Amadeus and pay attention to Antonio Salieri. That is the story of a genius and a pseudo.

On relating language to the core of civilization it does look to me like most of the Greek and Latin garbage used in European scholarship seems more useful in making knowledge difficult to access than it helps in enlightening people. It is like "laymen" are supposed to be kept ignorant by artificial barriers to knowledge.

DT

To suggest that there is some kind of conspiracy within the scientific domain to limit lay knowledge is simply absurd.

What percentage of the people with degrees in science do you think are actually doing cutting edge research? Most are just people with degrees trying to make a living.

How do you explain this:

http://www.amazon.com/Trouble-Physics-String-Theory-Science/dp/061891868X

A lot of the problem is too many people don't have a clue when people with PhDs are handing them a load bullshit. But they want to respect our intellectual institutions and the people with degrees from them. I think a lot of this stuff about nanotechnology is bullshit. It just makes what some people think is good science fiction.

Imagine nano-robots in your blood stream. Do any of the sci-fi stories that use such technology ever explain what they supposedly use as a power source. Plus most power sources produce waste heat. Your body produces waste heat. So how much waste heat would these nanites produce and how could a human body cope with it.

Look at the Star Wars project under Ronald Raygun. The obvious thing for the Russians to do would have been to put reflective coatings on their missiles and make laser firing satellites ineffective. I laughed at that as soon as I saw the cartoons explaining it on television. But how many "scientists" made money off the government doing research on that nonsense? Is it working yet?

DT

Pseudo-intellectuals tend to be people with knowledge who try to pretend that its possession is proof of intelligence or that it is intelligence. A common tactic is using lots of big words while actually saying little to nothing. These people have a vested interest in keeping other people ignorant and confused. I have found that people that are really smart are quite willing to exchange information but they may not necessarily give it away for free. The pseudos don't like people smarter than they are.

For instance I find it really funny how many economists attack John Kenneth Galbraith yet I find his writing far more accessible and enlightening then most other economists'. But I never heard Galbraith suggest mandatory accounting in the schools either.

Watch the movie Amadeus and pay attention to Antonio Salieri. That is the story of a genius and a pseudo.



I agree that so called 'experts' may have a habit of exaggerating the truth, to help establish their theories - the fame and attention they might receive, or for whatever reason.

On relating language to the core of civilization it does look to me like most of the Greek and Latin garbage used in European scholarship seems more useful in making knowledge difficult to access than it helps in enlightening people. It is like "laymen" are supposed to be kept ignorant by artificial barriers to knowledge.

Sounds about right. But this permeates every area of specialisation doesn't it? I'm doing statistics this year, and I'm amazed at the amount of jargon you have to churn through. Things that could be put in easier terms, you know, I've even questioned my teacher: "Why didn't you just call it X"
Not literally X but X in place of whatever it was that we were talking about.

I guess the point I was suggesting in the first place was more that the more language one knows, the more one is able to express ones self, and also, the more aware we are of our surroundings. So say for example, if we didn't know any language, we would be like an animal. That language isfundamental in our development as human-beings.

Eg. That case of the Russian boy (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1580159/Russian-%27bird-boy%27-discovered-in-aviary.html) who was neglected and raised among birds.


I don't know if I agree with the theory, but I just think it's an interesting way of looking at things.

A common tactic is using lots of big words while actually saying little to nothing.

I think you just described the last 4 years of my postings here at totse :( Oh well, I guess awareness is the first step.

Sounds about right. But this permeates every area of specialisation doesn't it?

The so called competition in this society creates an incentive for people to hide information. It is a tactic that doesn't take a lot of thought. It is curious that with more powerful and cheap computers that the new languages and software tools seem to be getting harder to use. LOL Python seems harder to understand than C. And I recently saw a video with some instructor telling students to avoid C.

The time seems ripe for some kind of cyber-info revolution.

This sounds rather Marxist but how the economy works is one of the other things at the core of civilization. Networked computers being part of that core are a new thing in history.

I guess the point I was suggesting in the first place was more that the more language one knows, the more one is able to express ones self, and also, the more aware we are of our surroundings

This is off the top of my head but it is like 3 stages. An enlightening stage where more words are actually introducing more ideas and information. Then there is an entertainment stage where having more words for the same idea keeps language from being boring and makes poetry possible. But then there is an obfuscation stage where it just gets in the way and plenty of people deliberately use that 3rd stage.

I had to learn to spell ANTIDISESTABLISHMENTARIANISM in grade school. I just thought it was silly at the time but looking back I would say it was 3rd stage sabotage. This so called education is sabotaging a lot of kids. Boring them out of their skulls learning useless idiotic drivel. But it eliminates competition in a class structured society. Then they talk about education to eliminate poverty. The brain development that occurs during grade school years will never happen again. LOL

DT

yo dood have u ever realized how smart those ppl living in the ghettos n slums r? they speak so wierdly cuz it's all in CODE man, they speak in code.

(that's all i have to cmt, i didn't read much of it since i have to go do this math test shit fyi ppl)

Interresting.

I don't think that the number of words really matters but the effectiveness of expressing yourself. English has a rather large vocabulary thus it would make sense that someone who didn't learn for a long time is less able to express themselves towards other English speakers who have learnt a substantial part of the English vocabulary.

Then again there are language's in the world with a much smaller vocabulary. Japanese per example. This does not mean an English speaking person is more developed and more effective. English has multiple words for the same "object" whereas Japanese mostly only has one and in many cases multiple "objects" are named with one word.

Envirement has a great impact on someone's learning ability and the end result. Like the OP said the average crackhead junky will not prove to be a shining example of extensive vocabularies no matter what language it is. I for example am not a native English speaker but my vocabulary is quite extensive, so is my German vocabulary and of course my native language (Dutch) I master the best. I can deem myself lucky that I have the ability to learn other languages and many other wisdoms in my life whereas other people in a different envirement (crackhead in da hood) is not so lucky and dispite he is using his native language I am still able to offer a much larger vocabulary to converse with.

Actually it can be spelled either way, in my neck of the woods it happens to be with an s.

he has a point