51–60 of 79 posts
Very good.
What I'm getting at here is that this idea of Mandela's also applies to samewise monolingual speakers — as we each have our own idiolect, so far as descriptivist linguists are concerned.
Double very good.
Out of curiosity, just checked the referenced paper[1] and there is no Korean/Japanese/French version of the questionnaire they used. It's disappointing. We all know these kinds of polls can be easily gamed by subtle (or not-so-subtle) phrasing, and without the questions actually used, I have no way of knowing if the "Foreign Language Effect" actually exists or if their choice of words in the translation affected the…
An average person, talks to himself multiple times in a day, evaluating decisions, simulating how things are/should be, thinking about course of action etc etc.
This is done in a language, which often ends up as mother tongue to the outside world.
But the missing link here is the mental stamina. The brain has a native locale language, but if the information is coming in any other language, which needs to be understood (decoded) first into the locale language, it consumes stamina & time.
But in the case of it being actually in the language in brain's native language, less time & stamina would be consumed in the same conversation, and more time and stamina would be left for actual thinking/analysis/evaluation/etc.. leading to better understanding between people.
Peace!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You misspelled "freedom fighter" and deserve downvotes for attempting to shut down discussion with a bogus analogy.
Umkhonto we Sizwe did go to hell after he was imprisoned and become a terrorist organization, but it's hard to blame someone locked up in prison for that. I don't see any standard by which you could claim Mandela was a terrorist, which wouldn't also sweep up some of America's founders. Mandela was no Gandhi, no saint. He resorted to discriminate violence when otherwise thwarted in fighting against injustice. But give…
Out of curiosity, just checked the referenced paper[1] and there is no Korean/Japanese/French version of the questionnaire they used. It's disappointing. We all know these kinds of polls can be easily gamed by subtle (or not-so-subtle) phrasing, and without the questions actually used, I have no way of knowing if the "Foreign Language Effect" actually exists or if their choice of words in the translation affected the…
Psychology studies are (in my general opinion) notoriously poor science to the point that the vast majority of them are worthless fluff useful only for sensational headlines.
But, I'm sure that your general opinion is well-informed as well, or you wouldn't make such strong claims about a very broad field. What's your background in psychology, and what makes you say the things you do about it?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Coming from the metric systems, I've been starting to learn the US measurements, eg. I have memories and know how much is "a pound of meat". I still don't get cups or the fluid measurements though, except that 12 oz a beer bottle and 16 oz is a medium soda bottle (medium in European terms).
Some imperial measurements are pretty random (1 mile = 1720 yards, 1 yard = 3 feet?), but many of the commonly used ones are just based on fractions or convenient values instead of everything being base 10. Maybe this will help with the fluids. Looking at a table of fluid measurements, it is easy to see it is just a base 2 system. 2^-1 oz = .5 oz = 1 tablespoon 2^0 oz = 1 oz = 1 oz (2 tablespoons) 2^1 oz = 2 oz = 1/4…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Being careful with what you speak and write is naturally good advice. A worthless scientific article doesn't make the opposite of it's conclusion true.
For what it is worth, I have anecdotal evidence that thinking in a foreign language in fact does somewhat inhibit emotional and experiential (common sense) subsystems. So beware.
Out of curiosity, just checked the referenced paper[1] and there is no Korean/Japanese/French version of the questionnaire they used. It's disappointing. We all know these kinds of polls can be easily gamed by subtle (or not-so-subtle) phrasing, and without the questions actually used, I have no way of knowing if the "Foreign Language Effect" actually exists or if their choice of words in the translation affected the…
Well, actually more than how you put it, its actually the language people use INSIDE OF THEIR BRAIN that matters. An average person, talks to himself multiple times in a day, evaluating decisions, simulating how things are/should be, thinking about course of action etc etc. This is done in a language, which often ends up as mother tongue to the outside world. But the missing link here is the mental stamina. The brain…
The idea that there is a "mother tongue" of your thoughts is a common misconception. You can consciously think about speech and language, but it's an exception to how your brain usually operates.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Psychology studies are (in my general opinion) notoriously poor science to the point that the vast majority of them are worthless fluff useful only for sensational headlines.
As someone with personal experience inside academic psychology and academic computer science, it's my impression that psychology is far stronger as a field, having a much more rigorous community dedicated to scientific truth, and exhaustive standards of review and experimental design. But, I'm sure that your general opinion is well-informed as well, or you wouldn't make such strong claims about a very broad field. Wh…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Psychology studies are (in my general opinion) notoriously poor science to the point that the vast majority of them are worthless fluff useful only for sensational headlines.
As someone with personal experience inside academic psychology and academic computer science, it's my impression that psychology is far stronger as a field, having a much more rigorous community dedicated to scientific truth, and exhaustive standards of review and experimental design. But, I'm sure that your general opinion is well-informed as well, or you wouldn't make such strong claims about a very broad field. Wh…
I don't believe you are being genuine here at all. This passive-aggressive, sarcastic response is not appreciated. If you don't like what I wrote, respond directly and honestly.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Psychology studies are (in my general opinion) notoriously poor science to the point that the vast majority of them are worthless fluff useful only for sensational headlines.
As someone with personal experience inside academic psychology and academic computer science, it's my impression that psychology is far stronger as a field, having a much more rigorous community dedicated to scientific truth, and exhaustive standards of review and experimental design. But, I'm sure that your general opinion is well-informed as well, or you wouldn't make such strong claims about a very broad field. Wh…
Nobel prize winner Daniel Kahneman[1] would disagree with you, along with social psychologist Jonathan Haidt[2].
[1] http://www.nature.com/news/nobel-laureate-challenges-psychol...