Podcasts about sapir whorf

It's a fun science fiction trope: learn a mysterious alien language and acquire superpowers, just like if you'd been zapped by a cosmic ray or bitten by a radioactive spider. But what's the linguistics behind this idea found in books like Babel-17, Embassytown, or the movie Arrival? In this episode, your hosts Lauren Gawne and Gretchen McCulloch get enthusiastic about the science and fiction of linguistic relativity, popularly known as the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. We talk about a range of different things that people mean when they refer to this hypothesis: a sciencey-sounding way to introduce obviously fictional concepts like time travel or mind control, a reflection that we add new words all the time as convenient handles to talk about new concepts, a note that grammatical categories can encourage us to pay attention to specific areas in the world (but aren't the only way of doing so), a social reflection that we feel like different people in different environments (which can sometimes align with different languages, though not always). We also talk about several genuine areas of human difference that linguistic relativity misses: different perceptive experiences like synesthesia and aphantasia, as well as how we lump sounds into categories based on what's relevant to a given language. Finally, we talk about the history of where the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis comes from, why Benjamin Lee Whorf would have been great on TikTok, and why versions of this idea keep bouncing back in different guises as a form of curiosity about the human condition no matter how many specific instances get disproven. Click here for a link to this episode in your podcast player of choice here: https://episodes.fm/1186056137/episode/dGFnOnNvdW5kY2xvdWQsMjAxMDp0cmFja3MvMjA1OTQ5MDMwOA Read the transcript here: https://lingthusiasm.com/post/778588696756846592/transcript-episode-102-the-science-and-fiction-of Announcements: In this month's bonus episode we get enthusiastic about two sets of updates! We talk about the results from the 2024 listener survey (we learned which one of us you think is more kiki and more bouba!), and our years in review (book related news for both Lauren and Gretchen), plus exciting news for the coming year. Join us on Patreon now to get access to this and 90+ other bonus episodes. You'll also get access to the Lingthusiasm Discord server where you can chat with other language nerds. https://patreon.com/posts/123498164 For links to things mentioned in this episode: https://lingthusiasm.com/post/778588215614603264/lingthusiasm-episode-102-the-science-and-fiction

Today's slow drag is with “Mr. & Mrs. Hush” from the Grammy award-winning “Look Now,” released in 2018. The songwriting is credited to Elvis Costello. . . . Show Notes: Appreciation written, produced, and narrated by Remedy Robinson, MA,MFA Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/slow_drag_remedy/ Bluesky Social: https://bsky.app/profile/slowdragwithremedy.com Email: slowdragwithremedy@gmail.com   “Elvis Costello Wiki Resource, Podcasts” https://www.elviscostello.info/wiki/index.php?title=Podcasts Transcription: https://slowdragwithremedy.weebly.com Podcast music by https://www.fesliyanstudios.com Rate this Podcast: https://ratethispodcast.com/slowdrag Slow Drag with Remedy on Amazon Music: https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/1f521a34-2ed9-4bd4-a936-1ad107969046/slow-drag-with-remedy-an-elvis-costello-appreciation References: Elvis Costello Wiki Resource, “Mr. and Mrs. Hush” https://www.elviscostello.info/wiki/index.php?title=Mr._%26_Mrs._Hush   “Mr. and Mrs. Hush” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LdHjigna3gI   “Blindman's Bluff” https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803095512112   The Sapir Whorf hypothesis https://www.simplypsychology.org/sapir-whorf-hypothesis.html Purchase “The Most Terrible Time in My Life…Ends Thursday” Listen to the audiobook of “The Most Terrible Time in My Life…Ends Thursday” for free at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kq7n1pN8D1Y

Uma palavra mal traduzida pode significar um prato errado no restaurante durante sua viagem de férias ou a detonação da primeira bomba atômica. Traduzir é essencial para a interação humana ao longo da história, mas ela quase nunca acontece sem dramas e desentendimentos.Este é mais um episódio do Escuta Essa, podcast semanal em que Denis e Danilo trocam histórias de cair o queixo e de explodir os miolos. Todas as quartas-feiras, no seu agregador de podcasts favorito, é a vez de um contar um causo para o outro.Não deixe de enviar os episódios do Escuta Essa para aquela pessoa com quem você também gosta de compartilhar histórias e aproveite para mandar seus comentários e perguntas no Spotify, nas redes sociais , ou no e-mail escutaessa@aded.studio. A gente sempre lê mensagens no final de cada episódio!...NESTE EPISÓDIO•⁠ ⁠O Mokusatsu é chamado também de “arte japonesa do silêncio e da ambiguidade” e se tornou objeto de estudo no ocidente.•⁠ ⁠A BBC conversou com o linguista Caleb Everett sobre suas pesquisas com a percepção de tempo e números em línguas indígenas.•⁠ ⁠A Camila Zarur, em texto para a revista piauí em 2018, fez um glossário para explicar expressões cariocas usadas nos contos de Geovani Martins.•⁠ ⁠O livro de Nataly Kelly e Jost Zetsche é o “Found in Translation” e tem inúmeras histórias e anedotas envolvendo tradução.Kelly também conta sobre sua experiência como intérprete em chamadas de emergência no podcast Radiolab.•⁠ ⁠A frase inicial de “Moby Dick” é sempre tema quando uma nova tradução é lançada no Brasil. •⁠ ⁠A Constituição Brasileira ganhou uma versão oficial em nheengatu em 2023. Ela foi feita por um grupo de 15 indígenas bilíngues da região do Alto Rio Negro e Médio Tapajós.•⁠ ⁠O filme “A Chegada”, de Dennis Villeneuve, foi lançado em 2016 e pode ser visto no Prime Video . A obra foi inspirada no conto “Story of Your Life”, do autor americano Ted Chiang. •⁠ ⁠A Hipótese de Sapir-Whorf foi formulada pelos linguistas, Edward Sapir e Benjamin Lee Whorf nos anos 1930. Embora influente, ela não é totalmente aceita e recebe críticas de estudiosos da sociolinguística e da corrente cognitivista. •⁠ ⁠Para nos aprofundar na questão do Tratado de Waitigi na Nova Zelândia usamos a tese de doutorado “O mundo interligado: poder, guerra e território nas lutas na Argentina e na Nova Zelândia (1826-1885)”. de Gabriel Passetti, na USP, de 2010. •⁠ ⁠A lista de palavras únicas e sem tradução foi tirada do livro “The Meaning of Tingo”, de Adam Jacot de Boinod. ...AD&D STUDIOA AD&D produz podcasts e vídeos que divertem e respeitam sua inteligência! Acompanhe todos os episódios em⁠ aded.studio⁠ para não perder nenhuma novidade.

Send us a textAbout the guest: Ev Fedorenko is a neuroscientist at MIT. He lab studies the neural basis of language, speech, and thought in the human brain.Episode summary: Nick and Dr. Fedorenko discuss: the relationship between language and thought; the extent to which language is for thinking vs. communication; Noam Chomsky's Universal Grammar theory; Sapir-Whorf hypothesis; language acquisition & language learning; language networks in the brain; neuroanatomy & brain lateralization; large language models (LLMs) & machine intelligence; and more.Related episodes:M&M #141: Evolution, Language, Domestication, Symbolic Cognition, AI & Large Language ModelsM&M #20: Language, Symbolic Cognition, Evolution, Origins of the Human Mind | Terrence Deacon*This content is never meant to serve as medical advice.*Full episode available free on Substack & YouTube.Support the showAll episodes (audio & video), show notes, transcripts, and more at the M&M Substack Affiliates: MASA Chips—delicious tortilla chips made from organic corn and grass-fed beef tallow. No seed oils, artificial ingredients, etc. Use code MIND for 20% off. SiPhox Health—Affordable, at-home bloodwork w/ a comprehensive set of key health marker. Use code TRIKOMES for a 10% discount. Lumen device to optimize your metabolism for weight loss or athletic performance. Use code MIND for 10% off. Athletic Greens: Comprehensive & convenient daily nutrition. Free 1-year supply of vitamin D with purchase. Learn all the ways you can support my efforts

The intriguing world of Logical Empiricism and its impact on our understanding of reality. Discover the precision of scientific language, the role of formal languages in mathematics and logic, and the challenges of translating everyday language into an empirical framework. Uncover major critiques, including Quine's challenge to the analytic synthetic distinction and the limitations of the verification principle. Alternative perspectives like Pragmatism, Phenomenology, and Post-structuralism offer different insights into the relationship between language and reality. Contemporary developments in cognitive science and linguistics, the impact of paradigm shifts, the Sapir Whorf hypothesis, and the role of metaphors in scientific discourse.

İyi ki podcast serisinin yeni bölümü yayında!"DİL, Kültür ve Ahlak Bilgisi" Bu bölümde DİL kavramını yatırıyoruz masaya. Dil ve kültür ilişkisini irdeliyoruz.  Dil, bizim düşünce biçimimizin sınırlarını belirliyor. Kullandığımız ve kullanamadığımız dil, kelimeler ve cümleler dünyamızı şekillendiriyor. Genişletiyor ya da daraltıyor.  Biz dilimiz kadarız diyebilir miyiz? Agota Cristof ile başlıyoruz. Cristof'un sığınmacı olarak geldiği İsviçre'deki dil öğrenme yolcuğuna ve karşılaştığı zorluklara değiniyoruz yazdığı "Okumaz Yazmaz" kitabı ekseninde.  Peki biz okuyarak dilimizi ve düşüncelerimizin sınırlarını nasıl genişletebiliriz?  Sadece kendi dilimize ve kültürümüze ait olan kavramlar, ifadeler ve kelimeler başka dillerden kendine yer bulabiliyor mu? Anadilimiz ve içinde bulunduğumuz kültür varoluşumuzun karakteristik özelliklerimi taşıyor.  Lera Boroditsky'den Humboldt'a, Sapir-Whorf hipotezinden Noam Chomsky'e, pidgin ve kreol dillerinden, Arrival filmine; geniş bir yelpazede birlikte yüzüyoruz. Ve son olarak da soruyoruz: Konuştuğumuz yabancı diller arasında geçiş yaptığımızda karakterimiz de değişiyor mu? Hadi gelin hep birlikte irdeleyelim. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/iyiki/message

------------------Support the channel------------ Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/thedissenter PayPal: paypal.me/thedissenter PayPal Subscription 1 Dollar: https://tinyurl.com/yb3acuuy PayPal Subscription 3 Dollars: https://tinyurl.com/ybn6bg9l PayPal Subscription 5 Dollars: https://tinyurl.com/ycmr9gpz PayPal Subscription 10 Dollars: https://tinyurl.com/y9r3fc9m PayPal Subscription 20 Dollars: https://tinyurl.com/y95uvkao   ------------------Follow me on--------------------- Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/thedissenteryt/ Twitter: https://twitter.com/TheDissenterYT   This show is sponsored by Enlites, Learning & Development done differently. Check the website here: http://enlites.com/   Dr. Caleb Everett is a Senior Associate Dean in the College of Arts & Sciences at the University of Miami and a Professor in the Anthropology Department, with a secondary appointment in Psychology. He is a member of the inaugural class of Andrew Carnegie Fellows. His work explores language, cognition and behavior across the world's cultures. His latest book is A Myriad of Tongues: How Languages Reveal Differences in How We Think.   In this episode, we focus on A Myriad of Tongues. We discuss how sometimes people assume too much universality in language, and where linguistic diversity stems from. We explore how people talk about time, numbers, space and directions, social relationships, and colors and odors. We discuss how the environment influences the evolution of languages, focusing on the example of extreme ambient aridity, and also whistled languages. We talk about the limitations of studying grammatical patterns in idealized and written sentences. We discuss whether words are arbitrary, and if we can accurately translate every word and expression. Finally, we discuss the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, and the broader study of universality and diversity in human cognition. -- A HUGE THANK YOU TO MY PATRONS/SUPPORTERS: PER HELGE LARSEN, JERRY MULLER, HANS FREDRIK SUNDE, BERNARDO SEIXAS, OLAF ALEX, ADAM KESSEL, MATTHEW WHITINGBIRD, ARNAUD WOLFF, TIM HOLLOSY, HENRIK AHLENIUS, FILIP FORS CONNOLLY, DAN DEMETRIOU, ROBERT WINDHAGER, RUI INACIO, ZOOP, MARCO NEVES, COLIN HOLBROOK, PHIL KAVANAGH, SAMUEL ANDREEFF, FRANCIS FORDE, TIAGO NUNES, FERGAL CUSSEN, HAL HERZOG, NUNO MACHADO, JONATHAN LEIBRANT, JOÃO LINHARES, STANTON T, SAMUEL CORREA, ERIK HAINES, MARK SMITH, JOÃO EIRA, TOM HUMMEL, SARDUS FRANCE, DAVID SLOAN WILSON, YACILA DEZA-ARAUJO, ROMAIN ROCH, DIEGO LONDOÑO CORREA, YANICK PUNTER, CHARLOTTE BLEASE, NICOLE BARBARO, ADAM HUNT, PAWEL OSTASZEWSKI, NELLEKE BAK, GUY MADISON, GARY G HELLMANN, SAIMA AFZAL, ADRIAN JAEGGI, PAULO TOLENTINO, JOÃO ARBOSA, JULIAN PRICE, EDWARD HALL, HEDIN BRØNNER, DOUGLAS FRY, FRANCA BORTOLOTTI, GABRIEL PONS CORTÈS, URSULA LITZCKE, SCOTT, ZACHARY FISH, TIM DUFFY, SUNNY SMITH, JON WISMAN, WILLIAM BUCKNER, PAUL-GEORGE ARNAUD, LUKE GLOWACKI, GEORGIOS THEOPHANOUS, CHRIS WILLIAMSON, PETER WOLOSZYN, DAVID WILLIAMS, DIOGO COSTA, ANTON ERIKSSON, CHARLES MOREY, ALEX CHAU, AMAURI MARTÍNEZ, CORALIE CHEVALLIER, BANGALORE ATHEISTS, LARRY D. LEE JR., OLD HERRINGBONE, MICHAEL BAILEY, DAN SPERBER, ROBERT GRESSIS, IGOR N, JEFF MCMAHAN, JAKE ZUEHL, BARNABAS RADICS, MARK CAMPBELL, TOMAS DAUBNER, LUKE NISSEN, KIMBERLY JOHNSON, JESSICA NOWICKI, LINDA BRANDIN, NIKLAS CARLSSON, GEORGE CHORIATIS, VALENTIN STEINMANN, PER KRAULIS, KATE VON GOELER, ALEXANDER HUBBARD, BR, MASOUD ALIMOHAMMADI, JONAS HERTNER, URSULA GOODENOUGH, DAVID PINSOF, SEAN NELSON, MIKE LAVIGNE, JOS KNECHT, ERIK ENGMAN, LUCY, YHONATAN SHEMESH, AND MANVIR SINGH! A SPECIAL THANKS TO MY PRODUCERS, YZAR WEHBE, JIM FRANK, ŁUKASZ STAFINIAK, TOM VANEGDOM, BERNARD HUGUENEY, CURTIS DIXON, BENEDIKT MUELLER, THOMAS TRUMBLE, KATHRINE AND PATRICK TOBIN, JONCARLO MONTENEGRO, AL NICK ORTIZ, AND NICK GOLDEN! AND TO MY EXECUTIVE PRODUCERS, MATTHEW LAVENDER, SERGIU CODREANU, BOGDAN KANIVETS, ROSEY, AND GREGORY HASTINGS!

Alexx and Erik ponder the unponderable theology of Grob Gob Glob Grod, alongside far more ponderable questions like Martian monarchies, magic hats, tiny manticores, and fiery princess romances in this amazing analysis of two excellent Adventure Time episodes from season 4:E15 "Sons of Mars"E16 "Burning Low"And yes, you are correct: this is finally the BACON PANCAKES EPISODE. Grab your friends and join us for a thrilling ride!Check out these links!Check out these links!Fuck the Pain Away by Peaches (very NSFW)TypoglycemiaToki Pona (official site)Sapir–Whorf hypothesis (Linguistic Relativity Hypothesis)

Únete a Carlos Izquierdo en "Rompiendo el Límite" para un fascinante episodio que revela el poder transformador del lenguaje en nuestra mente y realidad.  Este viaje único a través de la psicolingüística y la neurociencia del lenguaje desentraña cómo nuestras palabras no solo reflejan, sino que también moldean nuestra cognición, emociones y percepciones. Basado en sólidas investigaciones científicas, descubrirás cómo la hipótesis de Sapir-Whorf, la psicología positiva y los estudios neurolingüísticos demuestran que el lenguaje que usamos influye significativamente en nuestra forma de pensar y ver el mundo.  Aprende cómo el lenguaje emocionalmente cargado afecta la atención y la memoria, y cómo reformular nuestros pensamientos puede cambiar nuestra percepción y comportamiento. Carlos te guiará a través de ejercicios prácticos y técnicas basadas en evidencia para mejorar tu bienestar emocional y relaciones interpersonales mediante el uso consciente del lenguaje. Descubre cómo pequeños cambios en tu lenguaje diario pueden tener un gran impacto en tu vida personal y profesional. Este episodio es esencial para cualquier persona interesada en desarrollo personal, psicología cognitiva, comunicación efectiva y auto-mejora. No te pierdas esta oportunidad de empoderarte a través del poder de tus palabras en "Rompiendo el Límite".    

Beeinflusst die Sprache, die wir sprechen, die Art und Weise, wie wir denken? Sapir, Whorf und zahlreiche andere Linguist*innen sagen: ja! Aber wie ließe sich so ein Einfluss feststellen? Und wie stark soll dieser Einfluss sein? Seit circa 100 Jahren gibt es die Sapir-Whorf-Hypothese, die aber in ihrer reinen Form längst schon keine Anhänger*innen mehr hat außer in der Fiktion.Ein Podcast von Anton und Jakob. Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/sprachpfade Twitter/X: @sprachpfade Mastodon: @sprachpfade@mastodon.social ___ Weiterführende Literatur: Lera Boroditsky (2003): Artikel „Linguistic relativity“, in: Lynn Nadel (Hg.): Encyclopedia of cognitive science, London: Macmillan, S. 917-922.Norbert Fries (2016): Artikel „Sapir-Whorf-Hypothese“, in: Helmut Glück, Michael Rödel (Hg.): Metzler Lexikon Sprache, 5. aktual. u. überarb. Aufl., Stuttgart: Metzler, S. 582.Basel Al-Sheikh Hussein (2012): „The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis Today“, in: Theory and Practice in Language Studies 2.3, S. 642-646.Woraus Jakob zitiert hat:Edward Sapir (1921): Language. An Introduction to the Study of Speech, New York: Harcourt, Brace & Co.Die erwähnte Studie zu die Brücke/el puente und der Schlüssel/la llave:Lera Boroditsky, Lauren A. Schmidt, Webb Phillips (2003): „Sex, syntax and semantics“, in: Dedre Gentner, Susan Goldin-Meadow (Hg.): Language in Mind. Advances in the Study of Language and Thought, Boston: MIT Press, S. 61-79.Veröffentlichungen von Paul Kay, der zur Sapir-Whorf-Hypothese, Sprachrelativismus und speziell Farben forscht.Alle Bücher ausleihbar in deiner nächsten Bibliothek! ___ Gegenüber Themenvorschlägen für die kommenden Ausflüge in die Sprachwissenschaft und Anregungen jeder Art sind wir stets offen. Wir freuen uns auf euer Feedback! Schreibt uns dazu einfach an oder in die DMs: anton.sprachpfade@protonmail.com oder jakob.sprachpfade@protonmail.com ___ Grafiken und Musik von Elias Kündiger: https://on.soundcloud.com/ySNQ6

這一集來到節目上的來賓，是在企業界非常受歡迎的英語講師：王梓沅老師，他擁有美國哥倫比亞大學、賓州大學雙常春藤名校的語言學習科學背景，致力於翻轉台灣的英語教育。 王梓沅老師也是創勝文教的共同創辦人，至今舉辦超過 1,000 場英語學習講座，並在Hahow好學校開設了最有系統的線上課程系列：《3D 英文筆記術》、《英文思維模板術》、《Can-Do 英文溝通術》，改變了上萬名學生的英語學習方式。 在這一集節目，王梓沅老師將與主持人劉軒一起探討台灣關注的英語教育議題，以及打破框架的學習方式！ ▬ ▬ ▬ ▬ ▬ ▬ 【王梓沅的高效英聽學習法：3 階段打造英聽腦】

In this episode, Tony speaks with Simon about Quentin Tarantino; guilty (genre) pleasures; franchise vs auteur films; traumatising movies they saw in their formative years; gory internet content; Zac Stacy assault; Denis Villeneuve's hyperrealist sci-fi; the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis; Simon's dreary cinematic palate; American vs European cinema differences; Mad Men's banal slice narrative; Ari Aster's modus + penchant for the macabre; Ann Dowd's versatility; and many other topics. -Recorded on Dec 4, 2021 -SPOILER WARNING for Lady Bird (2017); No Time to Die (2021); Casino Royale (2006); Quantum of Solace (2009); Skyfall (2012); Nude Nuns with Big Guns (2010); Dune (2021); Sicario (2015); Sicario 2 (2020); Arrival (2016); Free Guy (2021); We Need to Talk about Kevin (2011); Doubt (2008); Pig (2021); Hereditary (2017); The Matrix Trilogy; etc. -Get first access to more audio on Spotify, Google Podcasts, and Apple Podcasts. And feel free to drop us a line @televishenipod on X and Instagram, or by email: thetelevishenipodcast@gmail.com --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/the-televisheni-podcast/message

Robot, cyberspace och atombomb är ord som kommer från sci-fi-litteraturen, och språk är inte sällan en viktig del av handlingen inom science fiction och fantasy. Lyssna på alla avsnitt i Sveriges Radio Play. Språkets återkommande språkexpert Susanna Karlsson är en inbiten sci-fi-läsare och intresserar sig särskilt för den science fiction där språkvetenskap är den vetenskap som ligger till grund för handlingen och fiktionen.Susannas Karlssons tre science fiction-boktipsSnow crash av Neal Stephenson.The left hand of darkness av Ursula K. Le Guin.Babel, an arcane history av R. F KuangSpråkfrågor om science fiction och fantasyHar det funnits försök att komma på en svensk översättning av ”science fiction”?Vilka ord har gått från att vara science fiction-relaterade till att handla om verkliga saker?Vad spelar sapir-whorf-teorin för roll i science fiction?Hur går det till när språk konstrueras för fantasy och science fiction?Hur ska man hantera tempus och grammatik under tidsresor?Läs, lyssna och se mer om språk inom science fiction och fantasySe! David J Peterson som konstruerat språk för bland annat Game of Thrones recenserar hur bra skådespelarna är på att prata språken (från Vanity Fair 2019)Se! Filmen Arrival om en språkvetare som kommunicerar med utomjordingar (från 2016).Lyssna! Snedtänkt med Kalle Lind Om subkulturen science-fiction (från april 2020).Läs! Nationalencyklopedin om Sapir–Whorf-hypotesen.Språkvetare Susanna Karlsson, docent i nordiska språk vid Göteborgs universitet. Programledare Emmy Rasper.

This week on Studious, we explore the concept of linguistic relativity. Can the language we learn shape our experiences and perspectives? How much of our perspective hinges conceptually, and how much of it is culturally influenced. All this and more, this week on Studious. We also talk about linguistic relativity in relation to aliens. And somehow I completely breezed over Arrival, not to be confused with the Charlie Sheen vehicle, The Arrival. Warning: if you get triggered easily, perhaps sit this one out. I'm mild sauce level offensive. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/studiouspodcast/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/studiouspodcast/support

In this best of episode of Here to Help, Chris speaks to Katie Schmidt, Quality Assurance Engineer at Indeed. Katie will speak about her career in the gaming industry, how it led to a job in QA and the important role language plays in game design. Katie will also speak about Pride month and the importance of iPride in her journey. If you have ever wondered what we can learn about our own reality through game design or what exactly is the Sapir–Whorf hypothesis then this episode is one worth listening to.

Partendo dal discorso pronunciato dalla presentatrice Ambra Angiolini durante il concerto del 1 maggio parliamo di come e quanto il linguaggio determina la percezione e la creazione della realtà, citando l'ipotesi di Sapir-Whorf, le riflessioni di Lera Boroditsky e bell hooks e la ricerca di Pascal Gygax. Amare parole è un podcast del Post e condotto da Vera Gheno. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Arrival (2016) is a beautiful depiction of our relationship with language, time and each other. Join us as we explore Egyptian Hieroglyphs, alien languages, Sapir Whorf hypothesis and our perception of time. 'Despite knowing the journey, and where it leads, I embrace it'Follow us on TikTok to catch live recordings of the episodes:TikTok: @scienceatthemoviesInstagram: @scienceatthemoviesEmail: scienceatthemovies@gmail.com Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this episode, we explore the historical background to linguistic relativity or the so-called ‘Sapir-Whorf hypothesis’. Download | Spotify | Apple Podcasts | Google Podcasts References for Episode 31 Primary sources Boas, Franz, ed. (1911), Handbook of American Indian Languages,…Read more ›

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: The Natural State is Goodhart, published by devansh on March 20, 2023 on LessWrong. Epistemic Status: Meant to describe a set of beliefs that I have about accidental optimization pressures, and be a reference post for a thing I can refer back to later. Why do we live in worlds of bureaucracy and Lost Purpose? Because this is the default state of problem-solving, and everything else is an effortful push against Goodharting. Humans are all problem-solving machines, and if you want to experience inner misalignment inside your own brain, just apply anything less than your full attention to a metric you're trying to push up. People claim to want things like more legroom, or comfier seats, or better service, or smaller chances of delays and cancellations. But when you actually sit down and book a flight, they are ordered by cost, and if you're not a frequent flier then you generally choose the flight with the lowest sticker cost. This leads to a “race to the bottom” amongst airlines to push everything possible out of the sticker price and nickel-and-dime you—thereby causing the cheapest flights to actually be more expensive and worse. I was talking to a mentor of mine / giving her feedback and trying to work out how to best approach a problem. Sometimes I said things that she found helpful, and she noted these out loud. We then realized this disrupted conversation too much, so we changed to having her recognize my helpful sentences with a snap. This might have worked well, had I not immediately noticed my brain Goodharting towards extracting her snaps, instead of actually trying to figure out solutions to the problem and saying true things and improving my own models. There is a point that I'm trying to make here, which I think mostly fails to get made by the current writing on Goodhart's law. It's not just an explanation for the behavior of [people dumber than you]. Me, you, all of us, are constantly, 24/7. Goodharting towards whatever outcome fits our local incentives. This becomes even more true for groups of people and organizations. For example, EAG(x)s have a clear failure mode along this dimension. From reading retrospectives (EAGx Berkeley and EAGx Boston), they sure do seem to focus a lot on making meaningful connections and hyping people up about EA ideas and the community, and a lot of the retrospective is about how much people enjoyed EAG. I don't mean to call EAG out specifically, but instead to highlight a broader point - we're not a religion trying to spread a specific gospel; we're a bunch of people trying to figure out how to figure out what's true, and do things in the world that accomplish our goals. It does sure seem like we're putting a bunch of optimization pressure into things that don't really track our final goals, and we should step back and be at least concerned about this fact. Some parts of the rationality community do a similar thing. I notice a circuit in my own brain that Goodharts towards certain words / ways of speaking because they're more “rational.” Like, I personally have adopted this language, but actually talking about “priors” and “updates” and appending “or something” to the end of sentences does not make you better at finding the truth. You're not a better Bayesian reasoner purely because you use words that correspond to Bayesian thinking. (The counterargument here is the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, which weakens but does not kill this point—I think many of the mannerisms seen as desirable by people in the rationality community and accepted as status or ingroup indicators track something different from truth.) By default we follow local incentives, and we should to be quite careful to step back every once in a while and really, properly make sure that we are optimizing for the right purposes. You should expect the autopilot that runs ...

Link to original articleWelcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: The Natural State is Goodhart, published by devansh on March 20, 2023 on LessWrong. Epistemic Status: Meant to describe a set of beliefs that I have about accidental optimization pressures, and be a reference post for a thing I can refer back to later. Why do we live in worlds of bureaucracy and Lost Purpose? Because this is the default state of problem-solving, and everything else is an effortful push against Goodharting. Humans are all problem-solving machines, and if you want to experience inner misalignment inside your own brain, just apply anything less than your full attention to a metric you're trying to push up. People claim to want things like more legroom, or comfier seats, or better service, or smaller chances of delays and cancellations. But when you actually sit down and book a flight, they are ordered by cost, and if you're not a frequent flier then you generally choose the flight with the lowest sticker cost. This leads to a “race to the bottom” amongst airlines to push everything possible out of the sticker price and nickel-and-dime you—thereby causing the cheapest flights to actually be more expensive and worse. I was talking to a mentor of mine / giving her feedback and trying to work out how to best approach a problem. Sometimes I said things that she found helpful, and she noted these out loud. We then realized this disrupted conversation too much, so we changed to having her recognize my helpful sentences with a snap. This might have worked well, had I not immediately noticed my brain Goodharting towards extracting her snaps, instead of actually trying to figure out solutions to the problem and saying true things and improving my own models. There is a point that I'm trying to make here, which I think mostly fails to get made by the current writing on Goodhart's law. It's not just an explanation for the behavior of [people dumber than you]. Me, you, all of us, are constantly, 24/7. Goodharting towards whatever outcome fits our local incentives. This becomes even more true for groups of people and organizations. For example, EAG(x)s have a clear failure mode along this dimension. From reading retrospectives (EAGx Berkeley and EAGx Boston), they sure do seem to focus a lot on making meaningful connections and hyping people up about EA ideas and the community, and a lot of the retrospective is about how much people enjoyed EAG. I don't mean to call EAG out specifically, but instead to highlight a broader point - we're not a religion trying to spread a specific gospel; we're a bunch of people trying to figure out how to figure out what's true, and do things in the world that accomplish our goals. It does sure seem like we're putting a bunch of optimization pressure into things that don't really track our final goals, and we should step back and be at least concerned about this fact. Some parts of the rationality community do a similar thing. I notice a circuit in my own brain that Goodharts towards certain words / ways of speaking because they're more “rational.” Like, I personally have adopted this language, but actually talking about “priors” and “updates” and appending “or something” to the end of sentences does not make you better at finding the truth. You're not a better Bayesian reasoner purely because you use words that correspond to Bayesian thinking. (The counterargument here is the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, which weakens but does not kill this point—I think many of the mannerisms seen as desirable by people in the rationality community and accepted as status or ingroup indicators track something different from truth.) By default we follow local incentives, and we should to be quite careful to step back every once in a while and really, properly make sure that we are optimizing for the right purposes. You should expect the autopilot that runs ...

Support us! https://www.patreon.com/mlst MLST Discord: https://discord.gg/aNPkGUQtc5 Dr. Raphaël Millière is the 2020 Robert A. Burt Presidential Scholar in Society and Neuroscience in the Center for Science and Society, and a Lecturer in the Philosophy Department at Columbia University. His research draws from his expertise in philosophy and cognitive science to explore the implications of recent progress in deep learning for models of human cognition, as well as various issues in ethics and aesthetics. He is also investigating what underlies the capacity to represent oneself as oneself at a fundamental level, in humans and non-human animals; as well as the role that self-representation plays in perception, action, and memory. In a world where technology is rapidly advancing, Dr. Millière is striving to gain a better understanding of how artificial neural networks work, and to establish fair and meaningful comparisons between humans and machines in various domains in order to shed light on the implications of artificial intelligence for our lives. https://www.raphaelmilliere.com/ https://twitter.com/raphaelmilliere Here is a version with hesitation sounds like "um" removed if you prefer (I didn't notice them personally): https://share.descript.com/view/aGelyTl2xpN YT: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fhn6ZtD6XeE TOC: Intro to Raphael [00:00:00] Intro: Moving Beyond Mimicry in Artificial Intelligence (Raphael Millière) [00:01:18] Show Kick off [00:07:10] LLMs [00:08:37] Semantic Competence/Understanding [00:18:28] Forming Analogies/JPG Compression Article [00:30:17] Compositional Generalisation [00:37:28] Systematicity [00:47:08] Language of Thought [00:51:28] Bigbench (Conceptual Combinations) [00:57:37] Symbol Grounding [01:11:13] World Models [01:26:43] Theory of Mind [01:30:57] Refs (this is truncated, full list on YT video description): Moving Beyond Mimicry in Artificial Intelligence (Raphael Millière) https://nautil.us/moving-beyond-mimicry-in-artificial-intelligence-238504/ On the Dangers of Stochastic Parrots: Can Language Models Be Too Big?

https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/PCrTQDbciG4oLgmQ5/sapir-whorf-for-rationalistsCasus Belli: As I was scanning over my (rather long) list of essays-to-write, I realized that roughly a fifth of them were of the form "here's a useful standalone concept I'd like to reify," à la cup-stacking skills, fabricated options, split and commit, and sazen.  Some notable entries on that list (which I name here mostly in the hope of someday coming back and turning them into links) include: red vs. white, walking with three, setting the zero point[1], seeding vs. weeding, hidden hinges, reality distortion fields, and something-about-layers-though-that-one-obviously-needs-a-better-word.While it's still worthwhile to motivate/justify each individual new conceptual handle (and the planned essays will do so), I found myself imagining a general objection of the form "this is just making up terms for things," or perhaps "this is too many new terms, for too many new things."  I realized that there was a chunk of argument, repeated across all of the planned essays, that I could factor out, and that (to the best of my knowledge) there was no single essay aimed directly at the question "why new words/phrases/conceptual handles at all?"So ... voilà.

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: Sapir-Whorf for Rationalists, published by Duncan Sabien on January 25, 2023 on LessWrong. Casus Belli: As I was scanning over my (rather long) list of essays-to-write, I realized that roughly a fifth of them were of the form "here's a useful standalone concept I'd like to reify," à la cup-stacking skills, fabricated options, split and commit, setting the zero point, and sazen. Some notable entries on that list (which I name here mostly in the hope of someday coming back and turning them into links) include: red vs. white, walking with three, seeding vs. weeding, hidden hinges, reality distortion fields, and something-about-layers-though-that-one-obviously-needs-a-better-word. While it's still worthwhile to motivate/justify each individual new conceptual handle (and the planned essays will do so), I found myself imagining a general objection of the form "this is just making up terms for things," or perhaps "this is too many new terms, for too many new things." I realized that there was a chunk of argument, repeated across all of the planned essays, that I could factor out, and that (to the best of my knowledge) there was no single essay aimed directly at the question "why new words/phrases/conceptual handles at all?" So ... voilà. (Note that there is some excellent pushback + clarification + expansion to be found in the comments.) Core claims/tl;dr New conceptual distinctions naturally beget new terminology.Generally speaking, as soon as humans identify a new Thing, or realize that what they previously thought was a single Thing is actually two Things, they attempt to cache/codify this knowledge in language. Subclaim: this is a good thing; humanity is not, in fact, near the practical limits of its ability to incorporate and effectively wield new conceptual handles. New terminology naturally begets new conceptual distinctions.Alexis makes a new distinction, and stores it in language; Blake, via encountering Alexis's language, often becomes capable of making the same distinction, as a result. In particular, this process is often not instantaneous—it's not (always) as simple as just listening to a definition. Actual practice, often fumbling and stilted at first, leads to increased ability-to-perceive-and-distinguish; the verbal categories lay the groundwork for the perceptual/conceptual ones. These two dynamics can productively combine within a culture.Cameron, Dallas, and Elliot each go their separate ways and discover new conceptual distinctions not typical of their shared culture. Cameron, Dallas, and Elliot each return, and each teach the other two (a process generally much quicker and easier than the original discovery). Now Cameron, Dallas, and Elliot are each "three concepts ahead" in the game of seeing reality ever more finely and clearly, at a cost of something like only one-point-five concept-discovery's worth of work.(This is not a metaphor; this is in fact straightforwardly what has happened with the collection of lessons learned from famine, disaster, war, politics, and science, which have been turned into words and phrases and aphorisms that can be successfully communicated to a single human over the course of mere decades.) That which is not tracked in language will be lost.This is Orwell's thesis—that in order to preserve one's ability to make distinctions, one needs conceptual tools capable of capturing the difference between (e.g.) whispers, murmurs, mumbles, and mutters. Without such tools, it becomes more difficult for an individual, and much more difficult for a culture or subculture, to continue to attend to, care about, and take into account the distinction in question. The reification of new distinctions is one of the most productive frontiers of human rationality.It is not the only frontier, by a long shot. But both [the literal development of n...

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: Sapir-Whorf for Rationalists, published by Duncan Sabien on January 25, 2023 on LessWrong. Casus Belli: As I was scanning over my (rather long) list of essays-to-write, I realized that roughly a fifth of them were of the form "here's a useful standalone concept I'd like to reify," à la cup-stacking skills, fabricated options, split and commit, setting the zero point, and sazen. Some notable entries on that list (which I name here mostly in the hope of someday coming back and turning them into links) include: red vs. white, walking with three, seeding vs. weeding, hidden hinges, reality distortion fields, and something-about-layers-though-that-one-obviously-needs-a-better-word. While it's still worthwhile to motivate/justify each individual new conceptual handle (and the planned essays will do so), I found myself imagining a general objection of the form "this is just making up terms for things," or perhaps "this is too many new terms, for too many new things." I realized that there was a chunk of argument, repeated across all of the planned essays, that I could factor out, and that (to the best of my knowledge) there was no single essay aimed directly at the question "why new words at all?" So ... voilà. Core claims/tl;dr New conceptual distinctions naturally beget new terminology.Generally speaking, as soon as humans identify a new Thing, or realize that what they previously thought was a single Thing is actually two Things, they attempt to cache/codify this knowledge in language. Subclaim: this is a good thing; humanity is not, in fact, near the practical limits of its ability to incorporate and effectively wield new conceptual handles. New terminology naturally begets new conceptual distinctions.Alexis makes a new distinction, and stores it in language; Blake, via encountering Alexis's language, often becomes capable of making the same distinction, as a result. In particular, this process is often not instantaneous—it's not (always) as simple as just listening to a definition. Actual practice, often fumbling and stilted at first, leads to increased ability-to-perceive-and-distinguish; the verbal categories lay the groundwork for the perceptual/conceptual ones. These two dynamics can productively combine within a culture.Cameron, Dallas, and Elliot each go their separate ways and discover new conceptual distinctions not typical of their shared culture. Cameron, Dallas, and Elliot each return, and each teach the other two (a process generally much quicker and easier than the original discovery). Now Cameron, Dallas, and Elliot are each "three concepts ahead" in the game of seeing reality ever more finely and clearly, at a cost of something like only one-point-five concept-discovery's worth of work.(This is not a metaphor; this is in fact straightforwardly what has happened with the collection of lessons learned from famine, disaster, war, politics, and science, which have been turned into words and phrases and aphorisms that can be successfully communicated to a single human over the course of mere decades.) That which is not tracked in language will be lost.This is Orwell's thesis—that in order to preserve one's ability to make distinctions, one needs conceptual tools capable of capturing the difference between (e.g.) whispers, murmurs, mumbles, and mutters. Without such tools, it becomes more difficult for an individual, and much more difficult for a culture or subculture, to continue to attend to, care about, and take into account the distinction in question. The reification of new distinctions is one of the most productive frontiers of human rationality.It is not the only frontier, by a long shot. But both [the literal development of new terminology to distinguish things which were previously thought to be the same thing, or which were previously invisible] and ...

Link to original articleWelcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: Sapir-Whorf for Rationalists, published by Duncan Sabien on January 25, 2023 on LessWrong. Casus Belli: As I was scanning over my (rather long) list of essays-to-write, I realized that roughly a fifth of them were of the form "here's a useful standalone concept I'd like to reify," à la cup-stacking skills, fabricated options, split and commit, setting the zero point, and sazen. Some notable entries on that list (which I name here mostly in the hope of someday coming back and turning them into links) include: red vs. white, walking with three, seeding vs. weeding, hidden hinges, reality distortion fields, and something-about-layers-though-that-one-obviously-needs-a-better-word. While it's still worthwhile to motivate/justify each individual new conceptual handle (and the planned essays will do so), I found myself imagining a general objection of the form "this is just making up terms for things," or perhaps "this is too many new terms, for too many new things." I realized that there was a chunk of argument, repeated across all of the planned essays, that I could factor out, and that (to the best of my knowledge) there was no single essay aimed directly at the question "why new words at all?" So ... voilà. Core claims/tl;dr New conceptual distinctions naturally beget new terminology.Generally speaking, as soon as humans identify a new Thing, or realize that what they previously thought was a single Thing is actually two Things, they attempt to cache/codify this knowledge in language. Subclaim: this is a good thing; humanity is not, in fact, near the practical limits of its ability to incorporate and effectively wield new conceptual handles. New terminology naturally begets new conceptual distinctions.Alexis makes a new distinction, and stores it in language; Blake, via encountering Alexis's language, often becomes capable of making the same distinction, as a result. In particular, this process is often not instantaneous—it's not (always) as simple as just listening to a definition. Actual practice, often fumbling and stilted at first, leads to increased ability-to-perceive-and-distinguish; the verbal categories lay the groundwork for the perceptual/conceptual ones. These two dynamics can productively combine within a culture.Cameron, Dallas, and Elliot each go their separate ways and discover new conceptual distinctions not typical of their shared culture. Cameron, Dallas, and Elliot each return, and each teach the other two (a process generally much quicker and easier than the original discovery). Now Cameron, Dallas, and Elliot are each "three concepts ahead" in the game of seeing reality ever more finely and clearly, at a cost of something like only one-point-five concept-discovery's worth of work.(This is not a metaphor; this is in fact straightforwardly what has happened with the collection of lessons learned from famine, disaster, war, politics, and science, which have been turned into words and phrases and aphorisms that can be successfully communicated to a single human over the course of mere decades.) That which is not tracked in language will be lost.This is Orwell's thesis—that in order to preserve one's ability to make distinctions, one needs conceptual tools capable of capturing the difference between (e.g.) whispers, murmurs, mumbles, and mutters. Without such tools, it becomes more difficult for an individual, and much more difficult for a culture or subculture, to continue to attend to, care about, and take into account the distinction in question. The reification of new distinctions is one of the most productive frontiers of human rationality.It is not the only frontier, by a long shot. But both [the literal development of new terminology to distinguish things which were previously thought to be the same thing, or which were previously invisible] and ...

Link to original articleWelcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: Sapir-Whorf for Rationalists, published by Duncan Sabien on January 25, 2023 on LessWrong. Casus Belli: As I was scanning over my (rather long) list of essays-to-write, I realized that roughly a fifth of them were of the form "here's a useful standalone concept I'd like to reify," à la cup-stacking skills, fabricated options, split and commit, setting the zero point, and sazen. Some notable entries on that list (which I name here mostly in the hope of someday coming back and turning them into links) include: red vs. white, walking with three, seeding vs. weeding, hidden hinges, reality distortion fields, and something-about-layers-though-that-one-obviously-needs-a-better-word. While it's still worthwhile to motivate/justify each individual new conceptual handle (and the planned essays will do so), I found myself imagining a general objection of the form "this is just making up terms for things," or perhaps "this is too many new terms, for too many new things." I realized that there was a chunk of argument, repeated across all of the planned essays, that I could factor out, and that (to the best of my knowledge) there was no single essay aimed directly at the question "why new words/phrases/conceptual handles at all?" So ... voilà. (Note that there is some excellent pushback + clarification + expansion to be found in the comments.) Core claims/tl;dr New conceptual distinctions naturally beget new terminology.Generally speaking, as soon as humans identify a new Thing, or realize that what they previously thought was a single Thing is actually two Things, they attempt to cache/codify this knowledge in language. Subclaim: this is a good thing; humanity is not, in fact, near the practical limits of its ability to incorporate and effectively wield new conceptual handles. New terminology naturally begets new conceptual distinctions.Alexis makes a new distinction, and stores it in language; Blake, via encountering Alexis's language, often becomes capable of making the same distinction, as a result. In particular, this process is often not instantaneous—it's not (always) as simple as just listening to a definition. Actual practice, often fumbling and stilted at first, leads to increased ability-to-perceive-and-distinguish; the verbal categories lay the groundwork for the perceptual/conceptual ones. These two dynamics can productively combine within a culture.Cameron, Dallas, and Elliot each go their separate ways and discover new conceptual distinctions not typical of their shared culture. Cameron, Dallas, and Elliot each return, and each teach the other two (a process generally much quicker and easier than the original discovery). Now Cameron, Dallas, and Elliot are each "three concepts ahead" in the game of seeing reality ever more finely and clearly, at a cost of something like only one-point-five concept-discovery's worth of work.(This is not a metaphor; this is in fact straightforwardly what has happened with the collection of lessons learned from famine, disaster, war, politics, and science, which have been turned into words and phrases and aphorisms that can be successfully communicated to a single human over the course of mere decades.) That which is not tracked in language will be lost.This is Orwell's thesis—that in order to preserve one's ability to make distinctions, one needs conceptual tools capable of capturing the difference between (e.g.) whispers, murmurs, mumbles, and mutters. Without such tools, it becomes more difficult for an individual, and much more difficult for a culture or subculture, to continue to attend to, care about, and take into account the distinction in question. The reification of new distinctions is one of the most productive frontiers of human rationality.It is not the only frontier, by a long shot. But both [the literal development of n...

Language—who can use it, and how well—has been in the news recently. If you haven't heard, a recent AI language model was released for public use. It's a chatbot from the company OpenAI called ChatGPT. And its capabilities are, to use a technical term, astounding. It can draft essays at an advanced undergraduate level on just about any topic. It can write a scene for a movie script along any premise you specify. It can plan a set of meals for you this week, provide the recipes, compile a shopping list, and tell you how what you're eating will affect your overall health and fitness goals. And in terms of grammar and sentence construction, it makes no mistakes. Literally none. This isn't your grandmother's chatbot.This episode is not about how ChatGPT works; it is about our current understanding of how language works. With advances in AI allowing us to create more sophisticated programs for using language, that understanding may change in the near future. But even with all the recent advances, the underlying logic behind how these kinds of programs work and what they can teach us about human language goes back decades in research on cognitive science and artificial intelligence. It seems like there's something about ChatGPT that understands the words it's using. The truth is we don't know yet. It's too soon to tell.What we do know is that we humans understand the words we use, and why we're capable of doing that is one of the great and fantastic puzzles of our species. My guest today, Gary Lupyan, is one of my favorite sources of insights about that puzzle. Gary is a professor of psychology at the University of Wisconsin, Madison. He studies language, particularly semantics, from a cognitive science perspective.This conversation is about Gary's point of view on language, words, and how we use them to both construct an understanding of the world and convey it to those around us. It's not necessarily about endorsing a big sweeping theory. But to put together some of the pieces of what we know, what we don't know, and what we may have misunderstood about language.For example, take the famous Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. This is the idea that language determines thought—that if you were to speak a language other than the one(s) already you do, it could potentially lead to an entirely different way of seeing the world. And really, the big picture of Sapir-Whorf has been settled. The truth, honestly, is not that exciting. Language does determine thought—but only a little, and not in any ways that can't be worked around. As Gary describes it, language is a system of categories. The language we speak can orient us toward different delineations of those categories with the world. But no language prevents us from seeing or comprehending any category outright. What's really fascinating here is not the broadest aspects of the overarching theory, but the implications for specific cases. There are versions of this that we touch on a lot throughout this conversation.But in terms of grand theories, a general theme emerged in our conversation of describing ideas about language on a spectrum: from Chomsky to Tomasello. Noam Chomsky you've probably heard of. He's one of the most prolific scholars of the second half of the twentieth century. He was a founding father of cognitive science, and to a large degree single-handedly determined the trajectory of linguistics for a period of almost thirty years. His most famous construction is "colorless green ideas sleep furiously." It's a totally legitimate English sentence, but one that expresses an illegitimate concept. It is representative of Chomsky's focus on structure: he didn't care about whether or not anyone had ever used that sentence; he just cared that it was possible to do so.Michael Tomasello, on the other hand, takes a usage-based approach to language. Mike has been a guest on this show and is another cognitive scientist who has had a big impact on my own thinking. He believes the way to make sense of language is as a tool, one that allows us to communicate with the other members of our species. Structure is important. But how language is used in real-life social settings is more important. Spoiler alert: both Gary and I are much more sympathetic to Tomasello's characterization of language than we are to Chomsky's. Nonetheless, both theoretical approaches offer important insights about language and the way we humans use it.The way I approached this conversation was essentially to ask Gary the biggest questions I could come up with about language: What's it for? How do words get their meanings? What was protolanguage like? What parts of language are determined by critical periods? Then just see where he takes it from there.Overall, this conversation was really a joy to have. We cover a lot of my favorite topics in cognitive science. Language is something I can get really worked up about, and it was fun to be able to talk about it with someone who is so much more knowledgeable than I am. For anyone who has ever used words or had words used on them, I think you'll find something to enjoy in this conversation.At the end of each episode, I ask my guest about three books that have most influenced their thinking. Here are Gary's picks:* Vehicles: Experiments in Synthetic Psychologyby Valentino Braitenberg (1984)A cult classic: the perfect book for thinking about thinking.* Consciousness Explainedby Daniel Dennett (1991)It's not about getting all the details right; it's about inspiring further thinking.* 4 3 2 1: A Novelby Paul Auster (2017)The most ambitious effort by a novelist at the top of his game. For students of the epic conceptual masterpiece.Honorable mention: My favorite book on Language, by Michael Tomasello, if you're interested in the technical details of what we talked about:* Constructing a Language: A Usage-Based Theory of Language Acquisition(I hope you find something good for your next read. If you happen to find it through the above links, I get a referral fee. Thanks!) This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit codykommers.substack.com/subscribe

Según la hipótesis de Sapir-Whorf, cada idioma determina la visión del mundo que tiene la correspondiente comunidad que lo habla. Este es el principal postulado del relativismo lingüístico. ¿En qué se diferencia del universalismo de Noam Chomsky? En este capítulo de El Libro Rojo recibo de nuevo a Daniel Pinto, doctor en Estudios Lingüísticos por la Universidad de Vigo.

------------------Support the channel------------ Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/thedissenter PayPal: paypal.me/thedissenter PayPal Subscription 1 Dollar: https://tinyurl.com/yb3acuuy PayPal Subscription 3 Dollars: https://tinyurl.com/ybn6bg9l PayPal Subscription 5 Dollars: https://tinyurl.com/ycmr9gpz PayPal Subscription 10 Dollars: https://tinyurl.com/y9r3fc9m PayPal Subscription 20 Dollars: https://tinyurl.com/y95uvkao This show is sponsored by Enlites, Learning & Development done differently. Check the website here: http://enlites.com/ Dr. Nick Enfield is Professor and Chair of Linguistics at the University of Sydney and director of the Sydney Centre for Language Research. His latest book is Language vs. Reality: Why Language Is Good for Lawyers and Bad for Scientists. In this episode, we focus on Language vs. Reality. We talk about the premise of the book of language as both destroyer and creator. We discuss how language and reasoning are more about convincing people, rather than getting at the truth. We talk about perception and language as two steps of reduction of reality, and the idea of language as an interface for coordination. We discuss how different languages capture different aspects of reality. We get into psychological phenomena like priming and framing. We talk about framing in politics and the media. We discuss the idea of public discourse as a market for justifications, rather than a market for ideas. We go through the functions of stories. We discuss the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. Finally, we ask if we can know what are the best ways of talking about things. -- A HUGE THANK YOU TO MY PATRONS/SUPPORTERS: KARIN LIETZCKE, ANN BLANCHETTE, PER HELGE LARSEN, LAU GUERREIRO, JERRY MULLER, HANS FREDRIK SUNDE, BERNARDO SEIXAS, HERBERT GINTIS, RUTGER VOS, RICARDO VLADIMIRO, CRAIG HEALY, OLAF ALEX, PHILIP KURIAN, JONATHAN VISSER, JAKOB KLINKBY, ADAM KESSEL, MATTHEW WHITINGBIRD, ARNAUD WOLFF, TIM HOLLOSY, HENRIK AHLENIUS, JOHN CONNORS, PAULINA BARREN, FILIP FORS CONNOLLY, DAN DEMETRIOU, ROBERT WINDHAGER, RUI INACIO, ARTHUR KOH, ZOOP, MARCO NEVES, COLIN HOLBROOK, SUSAN PINKER, PABLO SANTURBANO, SIMON COLUMBUS, PHIL KAVANAGH, JORGE ESPINHA, CORY CLARK, MARK BLYTH, ROBERTO INGUANZO, MIKKEL STORMYR, ERIC NEURMANN, SAMUEL ANDREEFF, FRANCIS FORDE, TIAGO NUNES, BERNARD HUGUENEY, ALEXANDER DANNBAUER, FERGAL CUSSEN, YEVHEN BODRENKO, HAL HERZOG, NUNO MACHADO, DON ROSS, JONATHAN LEIBRANT, JOÃO LINHARES, OZLEM BULUT, NATHAN NGUYEN, STANTON T, SAMUEL CORREA, ERIK HAINES, MARK SMITH, J.W., JOÃO EIRA, TOM HUMMEL, SARDUS FRANCE, DAVID SLOAN WILSON, YACILA DEZA-ARAUJO, IDAN SOLON, ROMAIN ROCH, DMITRY GRIGORYEV, TOM ROTH, DIEGO LONDOÑO CORREA, YANICK PUNTER, ADANER USMANI, CHARLOTTE BLEASE, NICOLE BARBARO, ADAM HUNT, PAWEL OSTASZEWSKI, AL ORTIZ, NELLEKE BAK, KATHRINE AND PATRICK TOBIN, GUY MADISON, GARY G HELLMANN, SAIMA AFZAL, ADRIAN JAEGGI, NICK GOLDEN, PAULO TOLENTINO, JOÃO BARBOSA, JULIAN PRICE, EDWARD HALL, HEDIN BRØNNER, DOUGLAS P. FRY, FRANCA BORTOLOTTI, GABRIEL PONS CORTÈS, URSULA LITZCKE, DENISE COOK, SCOTT, ZACHARY FISH, TIM DUFFY, TRADERINNYC, TODD SHACKELFORD, AND SUNNY SMITH! A SPECIAL THANKS TO MY PRODUCERS, YZAR WEHBE, JIM FRANK, ŁUKASZ STAFINIAK, IAN GILLIGAN, LUIS CAYETANO, TOM VANEGDOM, CURTIS DIXON, BENEDIKT MUELLER, VEGA GIDEY, THOMAS TRUMBLE, AND NUNO ELDER! AND TO MY EXECUTIVE PRODUCERS, MICHAL RUSIECKI, ROSEY, JAMES PRATT, MATTHEW LAVENDER, SERGIU CODREANU, AND BOGDAN KANIVETS!

In this episode of Here to Help Chris speaks to Katie Schmidt, Quality Assurance Engineer at Indeed. Katie will speak about her career in the gaming industry, how it led to a job in QA and the important role language plays in game design. Katie will also speak about Pride month and the importance of Indeed's internal Inclusion Resource Group -  iPride in her journey. If you have ever wondered what we can learn about our own reality through game design or what exactly is the Sapir–Whorf hypothesis then this episode is one worth a listen.

General Visit Simon's website for information about him and to buy his book ‘SPEECH! How Language Made Us Human': https://www.simonprentis.net/ Follow Simon on Twitter: https://mobile.twitter.com/memesovergenes References Two for Tea interview with Sean B. Carroll: https://soundcloud.com/twoforteapodcast/77-sean-b-carroll-revolutionising-our-understanding-of-evo-biology The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis (linguistic relativity): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_relativity Simon's Areo article on Ukraine and the United Nations: https://areomagazine.com/2022/03/25/ukraine-why-arent-we-talking-about-the-un/ Timestamps 00.00 Opening and introduction. 2:25 Simon reads from his book ‘SPEECH! How Language Made Us Human'. 13:00 Animal sounds vs. human language. Simon's theory of the key to and origins of language: the “digitisation of noise.” 17:25 The evidence for Simon's theory. 22:07 Nature and language as digital; an analogy with DNA and evo devo. 26:04 The revolutionary power of language for humanity. Iona reads from Simon's book—language as an act of transportation, both connecting us with others and distancing us from the immediate basis of experience. Plus: the dangers of being trapped by language (“the trap of identity”, “the trap of culture”, etc.) and a Babylonian diversion. 37:27 Japanese enka music and Jero, the black American enka singer: a cautionary tale against feeling one's culture is special and unique. This is true at the individual level, too. This is an illusion caused by language. Further discussion and examples of this illusion and how it (sometimes dangerously) misleads and divides us. The artificiality of culture: our natures are all calibration, stemming from language and culture. Simon's Japanese experience. 49:48 Simon's views on the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis (linguistic relativity). 55:01 The power of music and its (lack of?) relation to language. Did language drive the growth of the brain? 1:04:36 Do books offer a kind of vicarious experience? Can we really communicate experience and thought to others via language? Is the world headed in the direction of a universal culture (but not a monoculture!)? 1:07:06 Using language and argument instead of violence. Is democracy an evolutionarily stable strategy? How do we apply this at the global level, not just the national level? Why the United Nations fails at this. 1:14:04 Last words and outro.

Connect with Contributors:Dr. Leslie Car: lesliecarr.comRadhika Dirks: @radhikadirks on Instagram and https://xlabs.ai/ Links Mentioned in the Episode:The Fabric of the Cosmos with physicist Briane Greene on PBS: https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/series/the-fabric-of-the-cosmos/Donald Hoffman TED talk Do we see reality as it is?: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYp5XuGYqqYHyperspace by Michio Kaku (Leslie's favorite book about theoretical physics and the magical nature of reality): https://www.amazon.com/Hyperspace-Scientific-Parallel-Universes-Dimension/dp/0385477058Physics and Philosophy: The Revolution in Modern Science by Werner Heisenberg https://www.amazon.com/Physics-Philosophy-Revolution-Modern-Science/dp/0061209198Science, Order, and Creativity: A Dramatic New Look at the Creative Roots of Science and Life by David Bohm https://www.amazon.com/Science-Order-Creativity-Dramatic-Creative/dp/0553344498The article about the placebo effect and knee surgery: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/07/020712075415.htmAn explanation of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis of linguistic relativity: https://www.theguardian.com/education/2014/jan/29/how-words-influence-thoughtAn explanation of Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/goedel-incompleteness/

Tomado del libro 50 Teorías Psicológicas Fascinantes y Sugerentes de Christian Jarrett.

In this episode, we take a different tack from discussions about John's most recent book Woke Racism. We discuss whether "anti-wokeness" is a new religion, how to engage with and persuade the people John calls "The Elect," how grave a threat "wokeness" really is compared to other contemporary issues, Critical Race Theory in schools, and the consequences of centering race in one's identity. We also go on to chat about language and semantics, the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, the popularity of "Latinx," the ever-evolving social taboo that is "the N-word," and more. Dr. John McWhorter is an associate professor of linguistics at Columbia University, an op-ed columnist at the New York Times, and the author of a number of books on topics ranging from linguistics to race relations such as the Power of Babel: A Natural History of Language, and Losing the Race: Self Sabotage in Black America.

Luke and Juliane discuss language, the Sapir–Whorf hypothesis, and Babel-17 by Samuel R Delaney. Buy this book at , or discuss this book at Goodreads.com Luke blogs at: https://www.lukeburrage.com/blog Follow Luke on twitter: https://twitter.com/lukeburrage Luke writes his own novels, like “Minding Tomorrow”, “Combat”, “Get that rat off my face!” and “The Monster Story Conference”, so […]

Does language influence how we think? Could it affect your conception of time, or the colours you see, or even your ability to count? These questions are at the heart of what's called the theory of linguistic relativity, sometimes known as the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. Your teacher is Tiger Webb, the ABC's Language Specialist.

Does language influence how we think? Could it affect your conception of time, or the colours you see, or even your ability to count? These questions are at the heart of what's called the theory of linguistic relativity, sometimes known as the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. Your teacher is Tiger Webb, the ABC's Language Specialist.

-Our listenership numbers in the several hundreds, which was news to me when I found out.-The Sapir-Whorf theory, Judah Smith on leadership, and how what you says determines how you think.-We officially named the gorilla mascot. Tune in to find out!-Main Site has been bananas recently, the Journal appears stagnant, and CrossFit's discussion boards are DEAD.-Top 15 Superheroes according to the internet, and our favorites.-Airlines might weigh you to determine your ticket price? But I was gonna bulk.-A man in Spain died in a dinosaur statue.-Overrated/Underrated: Paid programming, the Bond franchise, face tats, and Bible verse tattoos.

Welcome (or welcome back) to Mind Over Chatter, the Cambridge University Podcast! One series at a time, we break down complex issues into simple questions. In this second series, we're talking all about the future. We'll explore the nature of time itself - What even is the future? And is it in front of or behind us? - and we'll also cover some of today's most pressing questions, like how will artificial intelligence impact democracy?We're going to be talking to people from all over the University of Cambridge… from linguists and philosophers to historians, biologists, demographers and many more besides!We'll cover everything: from the physics of time to Sapir-Whorf, the first linguistic theory to join Starfleet; from the fabulous fabulations of futures past to Elon Musk, Mars, and James' measly net worth; from the future of wellbeing and mental health to an overabundance of Pop Tarts; from using participatory research to help create a more just future to the unequal distribution of My Little Ponies; from the future of artificial intelligence to animism and Hello Barbie; and from the future of reproduction to the maternal instincts of Darth Vader.Please take our survey.How did you find us? Do you want more Mind Over Chatter in your life? Less? We want to know. So we put together this survey. If you could please take a few minutes to fill it out, it would be a big help.

In the third and final part of our series on language we consider the philosophical question: Do we need language to think? This question is often articulated as the Sapir Whorf hypothesis. We examine the question from its historical perspective, Boas, Sapir and Whorf's anthropological investigations, Lenneberg's formulation of a strong and weak version of the hypothesis, the relationship between language and cognition, what we've learned from Piaget's study of childhood development, how bilingualism and translatability inform thought and how this leads us to our old friend, culture. Spoiler alert: the conclusion is unsatisfying (at least to me), but we still uncover some interesting aspects of human cognition and language along the way.Show notesThe Here and Now Podcast Language SeriesArrival Imdb Linguistic relativity - WikipediaWilhelm von Humboldt - WikipediaFranz Boas - WikipediaEdward Sapir - WikipediaBenjamin Lee Whorf - WikipediaThe Language Animal - Charles TaylorChange of language, change of personality? – Psychology Today20 words that don't exist in English but really should - InsiderFive ways of learning how to talk about events – Berman & SlobinFrog, where are you?The Here and Now Podcast on FacebookThe Here and Now Podcast on TwitterSend me an emailSupport the show (https://www.patreon.com/thehereandnowpodcast)

Stephen Wolfram answers general questions from his viewers about science and technology as part of an unscripted livestream series. Questions include: ​Why do some people commonly refer the internet to the World Wide Web? Isn't The world wide web a bunch of networks or website on the internet? - ​Is there a philosopher who had developed a system which is close to your perspective right now? - What are your tips about writing essays? - Why does the electron and the proton have the same amount of charge? - Why can't magnetic monopoles exist? - Bearing in mind the current topic, as well as thinking about Sapir-Whorf hypothesis - do you ever think about how humans might be 'thinking' in the future... (thinking paradigms of thought related to the future) - Do I have an opinion about such and such papers? - I don't know if Stephen was asked this question during these, but let me ask: Hello Stephen, how are you? - Would you advise today's gen Z to become independent researchers rather than academics? - Do you like Turtles? See the full Q&A video playlist: https://wolfr.am/youtube-sw-qa

Do you love the movie Arrival? Because we do! We nerd about this beautiful film, compare it to the short story on which it is based, and delve into a little of the psychology, ethics, and metaphysics of it all. DISCLAIMER: There ARE spoilers. NOTES: We bring up the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, so if you're curious about it and want to read a good explanation of the hypothesis in relation to Arrival, check out this Smithsonian article. CREDITS: Music - "Spilled Milk" by Scott Kubie and Jon Peterson

After reading How Dead Languages Work (Oxford University Press 2020), Coulter George hopes you might decide to learn a bit of ancient Greek or Sanskrit, or maybe dabble in a bit of Old Germanic. But even if readers of his book aren't converted into polyglots, they will walk away with an introduction to the (in)famous Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, which is responsible for the inaccurate meme claiming that Inuits understand snow more deeply than other cultures because their language has one hundred (one thousand?) words for it. George criticizes this hypothesis, but through his six chapters, uses examples of ancient languages to argue that a subtler form of that hypothesis is apt: languages aren't fungible, and the properties of different languages are interwoven with their literary traditions. The book takes readers through Greek, Latin, Old English and the Germanic Languages, Sanskrit, Old Irish and the Celtic Languages, and Hebrew, introducing their phonology, morphology, lexicons, grammar, and excerpting passages from texts such as the Illiad, Beowulf, and the Rig Veda, to illustrate how the flavor of a language is always lost a little in translation. Malcolm Keating is Assistant Professor of Philosophy at Yale-NUS College. His research focuses on Indian philosophy of language and epistemology in Sanskrit. He is the author of Language, Meaning, and Use in Indian Philosophy (Bloomsbury Press, 2019) and host of the podcast Sutras (and stuff). Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

After reading How Dead Languages Work (Oxford University Press 2020), Coulter George hopes you might decide to learn a bit of ancient Greek or Sanskrit, or maybe dabble in a bit of Old Germanic. But even if readers of his book aren't converted into polyglots, they will walk away with an introduction to the (in)famous Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, which is responsible for the inaccurate meme claiming that Inuits understand snow more deeply than other cultures because their language has one hundred (one thousand?) words for it. George criticizes this hypothesis, but through his six chapters, uses examples of ancient languages to argue that a subtler form of that hypothesis is apt: languages aren't fungible, and the properties of different languages are interwoven with their literary traditions. The book takes readers through Greek, Latin, Old English and the Germanic Languages, Sanskrit, Old Irish and the Celtic Languages, and Hebrew, introducing their phonology, morphology, lexicons, grammar, and excerpting passages from texts such as the Illiad, Beowulf, and the Rig Veda, to illustrate how the flavor of a language is always lost a little in translation. Malcolm Keating is Assistant Professor of Philosophy at Yale-NUS College. His research focuses on Indian philosophy of language and epistemology in Sanskrit. He is the author of Language, Meaning, and Use in Indian Philosophy (Bloomsbury Press, 2019) and host of the podcast Sutras (and stuff). Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Esta batalla es especial porque tiene muchísimos frentes, tantos que nos vemos desafiados y elegimos batallar con tres armas: la perspectiva de Steven Pinker, la perspectiva de Michel Foucault, y la perspectiva de Sapir-Whorf. Todos estos autores nos dicen cosas diferentes sobre cómo establecer esta relación entre la mente humana y la lengua, cosas que esperamos transmitir de manera muy general en este episodio. Acompañanos en esta Guerra de Palabras para contestar todas estas incógnitas (y muchas otras más). Nos podés escuchar en Spotify, Apple Podcast, iVoox, Google Podcast y iTunes. También seguinos en nuestras redes donde estarás al tanto de las últimas novedades: estamos en Instagram @wowpodcastuy y Facebook @wowpodcast.uy. Si nos escuchás por Apple Podcast, te pedimos que nos califiques con estrellas o nos dejes una reseña en esa misma app.

Idioma é sinônimo de identidade cultural? Vale a pena aprender mais de um? E considerando o contexto brasileiro, em especial, algo que não seja o (ou além do) inglês? Se sim, em quais sentidos ? E com quais métodos? Veja.Bem. VB no Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/5hhZ0QPO82fXYGJedyRRrJ iPED (https://www.iped.com.br/vejabem)– Plataforma online de educação à distância –Concorra a um curso premium grátis ao doar a partir de R$5 no Padrim (https://www.padrim.com.br/vejabempodcast) ETS2 Rotas Brasil (site) e canal no YouTube PESQUISA DEMOGRÁFICA VB — https://goo.gl/forms/kEH1tJDik1lU2gj73 (10 segundos, please help!) Contate-nos por nosso WhatsApp (19-98908-1238) e/ou email: vejabem@vejabempodcast.com.br Encontre-nos também no: Facebook , YouTube e Twitter (Uiliam) Epis Citados (links Spotify): VBMais 35 – Linguagem VBMais 36 – Como Falar Bem VBMais 37 – Atenção Referências: Sapir–Whorf hypothesis (Linguistic relativity) – artigo, Wikipedia The Strange Persistence of First Languages -artigo, Nautil.Us Is Learning a Foreign Language Really Worth It? (Ep. 158) – podcast, Freakonomics Why Don't We All Speak the Same Language? (Earth 2.0 Series) (Ep. 300) – podcast, Freakonomics The Mystery of People Who Speak Dozens of Languages -artigo, The New Yorker Creating bilingual minds | Naja Ferjan Ramirez | TEDxLjubljana – vídeo, Ted Talk, (indicação de um Padrinho –valeu, Mauro!) The secrets of learning a new language – vídeo, Ted Talk Language Learning With Netflix – extensão p/ Google Chrome Cursos IPED no tema (com 20% de desconto exclusivos do VB):

Popular linguistic theories like, Sapir–Whorf hypothesis, give us the idea that language determines how and what we think. However, looking at the psychology behind how we use language points in another direction. In this edition of Two Guys on Your Head, Dr. Art Markman and Dr. Bob Duke talk about how nouns can teach us […]

Prepare for a deep exploration Of partnership and conversation, Surrender and tears, Attraction and fears: What we did on our spiritual staycation. Part 2 of what we learned on our spiritual staycation: “my life”, E-Prime, the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, spiritual partnership, and our biggest takeaway from our spiritual staycation. (Hint: It has to do with Seafarers […]