Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Language is primarily a tool for communication rather than thought [pdf]

gwern.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

371–380 of 404 posts

Re: Language is primarily a tool for communication rather than thought [pdf]

#371

Post by romseb »

calini wrote: post #367

I'm bilingual, people keep asking me what language I think 'in', and I don't think I think _in_ a language. For lack of a better way of describing it, I rather think in concepts, sometimes the voice in my head likes to play along by imagining the words representing those concepts, sometimes in English, sometimes in Romanian, but the words are not necessary. In dev words, I guess I think in structs and then optionally…

I am the same and would say it could be a form or side effect of aphantasia.[1]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aphantasia

Re: Language is primarily a tool for communication rather than thought [pdf]

#372

Post by teeray »

boerseth wrote: post #366

There are many that would strongly object to this conclusion. I have heard friends describe their inner life as almost entirely verbal, that they "think in words", and are totally unable to relate to anything else. When we say "communication", I think there is an implication that the goal is communication with others. But there is also value in communication with oneself. To verbalize is to condense ones thoughts int…

I surprised my freshman-year Spanish teacher on the last day of classes when he did an AMA. I asked "do you think in Spanish"? This question was nonsense to him—another student got it, but he was baffled by what I was asking. It wasn't until years later when I found out that some people didn't have an internal monologue that his confusion made sense.

Re: Language is primarily a tool for communication rather than thought [pdf]

#374

Post by VyseofArcadia »

jpt4 wrote: post #361

Which is to say, language is a tool for rigorization.

I like this a lot. A habit I picked up in grad school for math was to, if I thought I understood something, really check my understanding of it by re-explaining it to myself. Serializing thoughts into language is a pretty great way of catching holes and errors in reasoning.

I suspect this is also why rubber duck debugging works.

Re: Language is primarily a tool for communication rather than thought [pdf]

#375

Post by patapong »

calini wrote: post #367

I'm bilingual, people keep asking me what language I think 'in', and I don't think I think _in_ a language. For lack of a better way of describing it, I rather think in concepts, sometimes the voice in my head likes to play along by imagining the words representing those concepts, sometimes in English, sometimes in Romanian, but the words are not necessary. In dev words, I guess I think in structs and then optionally…

Same here... Am also bilingual, and I seem to think in language only when I think _about_ language, e.g. when I plan what I could say or write. Otherwise, it is concepts or images.

Re: Language is primarily a tool for communication rather than thought [pdf]

#376

Post by ogig »

boerseth wrote: post #366

There are many that would strongly object to this conclusion. I have heard friends describe their inner life as almost entirely verbal, that they "think in words", and are totally unable to relate to anything else. When we say "communication", I think there is an implication that the goal is communication with others. But there is also value in communication with oneself. To verbalize is to condense ones thoughts int…

I think in words. There is always an internal dialogue. Even when doing music, or painting, I'm always anticipating what's next by some words; here comes the bridge, goes to Am now, gonna paint leaves in this shape, or maybe this other. I can visualize things and sounds, but words are always involved. That's probably why I'm not very talented at music or painting.

Re: Language is primarily a tool for communication rather than thought [pdf]

#377

Post by noiv »

boerseth wrote: post #366

There are many that would strongly object to this conclusion. I have heard friends describe their inner life as almost entirely verbal, that they "think in words", and are totally unable to relate to anything else. When we say "communication", I think there is an implication that the goal is communication with others. But there is also value in communication with oneself. To verbalize is to condense ones thoughts int…

I've abandoned the idea of all humans use language the same way a long time ago. However I hope everybody does not use language as a tool to drive a car and looking at the work of Srinivasa Ramanujan I'm pretty sure no language was involved before it sparked.

"Language is a virus", Laurie Anderson ♫

Re: Language is primarily a tool for communication rather than thought [pdf]

#378

Post by kapodc »

interiorchurch wrote: post #365

This would be sort of a death blow to much of postmodernism, no? "Reality is structured like a language and the free play of symbols reigns over all"-style thinking was very popular at one time, but this would rule against it.

Not completely. The Postmodernists do use language to shape people's thought by redefining words and eliminating wrongthink words. And they have been successful.

But they mainly influence people who are not thinking to begin with. Or, to put it more mildly, do not have time to think about every issue and therefore adopt the current mainstream propaganda.

So in the sense "Can we conjure up a fake reality that many people will believe?" they are right". In the sense that "language is reality or even thought they are of course wrong.

Re: Language is primarily a tool for communication rather than thought [pdf]

#379

Post by poincaredisk »

teeray wrote: post #372
boerseth wrote: post #366

There are many that would strongly object to this conclusion. I have heard friends describe their inner life as almost entirely verbal, that they "think in words", and are totally unable to relate to anything else. When we say "communication", I think there is an implication that the goal is communication with others. But there is also value in communication with oneself. To verbalize is to condense ones thoughts int…

I surprised my freshman-year Spanish teacher on the last day of classes when he did an AMA. I asked "do you think in Spanish"? This question was nonsense to him—another student got it, but he was baffled by what I was asking. It wasn't until years later when I found out that some people didn't have an internal monologue that his confusion made sense.

Are there really people with no internal voice at all? I understand that not everyone has this constant internal chat as I do, but it's hard to me to imagine, for example, solving math problems without "thinking" the numbers aloud.

Re: Language is primarily a tool for communication rather than thought [pdf]

#380

Post by BitwiseFool »

teeray wrote: post #372
boerseth wrote: post #366

There are many that would strongly object to this conclusion. I have heard friends describe their inner life as almost entirely verbal, that they "think in words", and are totally unable to relate to anything else. When we say "communication", I think there is an implication that the goal is communication with others. But there is also value in communication with oneself. To verbalize is to condense ones thoughts int…

I surprised my freshman-year Spanish teacher on the last day of classes when he did an AMA. I asked "do you think in Spanish"? This question was nonsense to him—another student got it, but he was baffled by what I was asking. It wasn't until years later when I found out that some people didn't have an internal monologue that his confusion made sense.

I have an internal monologue and I struggle to imagine how someone can think without one. Yet I also wonder if bypassing the need to articulate thoughts in words is actually more efficient. Do those people have a higher thought throughput? I suspect we may never know.
Post reply on HN