POPULARITY
Containing Matters of Milkweeds.Timestamps:introductions, recent non-podcast reads (0:00)general overview and discussion of linguistics and science fiction (28:28)Ursula K. Leguin - "Author of the Acacia Seeds" (1974) (1:06:09)Bibliography:Akmajian, Adrian et al. - "Linguistics: An Introduction to language and Communication" (2001)Ahearn, Laura M.- "Living Language: An Introduction to Linguistic Anthropology" (2021)Alim, H. Samy - "The Oxford Handbook of Language and Race" (2020)Artichoke - "Le Guin the Reconstructionist" https://onionandartichoke.wordpress.com/2016/04/01/le-guin-the-reconstructionist/Bakker, Peter, Yaron Matras - "Contact Languages: A Comprehensive Guide" (2013)Burton, Strange et al. - "Linguistics for Dummies" (2012)Dyke, Heather - "Weak Neo-Whorfianism and the Philosophy of Time," Mind and Language, volume 37 (2022)Everett, Caleb - "A Myriad of Tongues: How Languages Reveal Differences in How We Think" (2023)Freedman, Carl (ed). - "Conversations with Ursula K. Le Guin" (2008)Le Guin, Ursula K. - "The Wave in the Mind: Talks and Essays on the Writer, the Reader, and the Imagination" (2004)Le Guin, Ursula K. - "Dancing at the Edge of the World: Thoughts on Words, Women, Places" (1989)Sapir, Edward, Pierre Swiggers - "General Linguistics" (2008)Sebeok, Thomas - "Perspectives in zoosemiotics" (1972)Spivack, Charlotte - "Ursula K. Le Guin" (1984)Stableford, Brian - "Science Fact and Science Fiction: An Encyclopedia" (2006)wonders"Westfahl, Gary (ed.) - "The Greenwood encyclopedia of science fiction and fantasy: themes, works, and White, Donna - "Dancing with Dragons: Ursula K. LeGuin and the Critics" (1999)Whorf, Benjamin Lee et al.- "Language, Thought, and Reality: Selected Writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf" (2012)
Welcome to the Personal Development Trailblazers Podcast! In this episode, we dive reframing love, life, and addiction. Quincy Whorf has been a dedicated personal development coach, keynote speaker and workshop leader for over 20 years. Her insights and gift for finding deeper meaning in people's trauma as well as reframing the way someone looks at something, has made her a sought-out communicator and leader in this space. Having worked with hundreds of 1 on 1 clients, as well as groups over the years, she has watched her tools and theories come to life and transform people's lives. Quincy's firm, Quincy Whorf Consulting, focuses on helping people of all ages find freedom from addiction, trauma, anxiety, depression and perfectionism. Her only hope it to influence people into becoming their highest version of themselves so they can live the life they were meant to live. Connect with Quincy on socials here: @quincywhorfconsulting on Tik Tok, FB, IG, YouTube Grab Quincy's freebie here: Use code Trailblazer1000 to get $1000 off Quincy's current love and relationships group program. =================================== If you enjoyed this episode, remember to hit the like button and subscribe. Then share this episode with your friends. Thanks for watching the Personal Development Trailblazers Podcast. This podcast is part of the Digital Trailblazer family of podcasts. To learn more about Digital Trailblazer and what we do to help entrepreneurs, go to DigitalTrailblazer.com. Are you a coach, consultant, expert, or online course creator? Then we'd love to invite you to our FREE Facebook Group where you can learn the best strategies to land more high-ticket clients and customers. Request to join here: https://www.facebook.com/groups/profitablecoursecreators QUICK LINKS: APPLY TO BE FEATURED: https://app.digitaltrailblazer.com/podcast-guest-application GET MORE CLIENTS: https://app.digitaltrailblazer.com/client-acquisition-accelerator-pdf DIGITAL TRAILBLAZER: https://digitaltrailblazer.com/ JOIN OUR FREE FACEBOOK GROUP: https://www.facebook.com/groups/profitablecoursecreators
Welcome back to the Healthy Healer podcast! In this episode, we delve deeper into Quincy Whorf's transformative journey from addiction to purpose. Quincy, a clarity coach, shares insights on teenage vulnerability to addiction and offers advice for parents. She emphasizes self-investment for growth, discusses reframing trauma, and highlights the redemptive power of our shared struggles. Join us for a brief yet impactful exploration of Quincy's decades of recovery, providing hope and understanding for all on the healing path. Here are some key takeaways from this interview: 1. Quincy shares openly about her personal journey from addiction and trauma to finding her purpose in helping others going through similar struggles. Her story is one of remarkable transformation. 2. She provides insight into the mindsets and vulnerabilities that lead teenagers down the path of addiction, as well as advice for how parents can best communicate with at-risk kids. 3. Quincy discusses her work as a "clarity coach" - helping people reframe past traumas and see events/patterns in their lives from a more empowering perspective. This shifts their decision-making. 4. She talks about the importance of being willing to invest in our own growth and face uncomfortable truths about ourselves in order to become our best selves. We have more potential than we realize. 5. Quincy stresses that our painful experiences, while not to be relished, equip us with greater empathy and wisdom we can offer to others walking similar roads. Our suffering can be redemptive. 6. She shares vulnerably from her decades of experience in recovery and coaching to provide listeners hope and a compassionate understanding. Her story and perspectives uplift. Links: www.quincywhorf.com quincy@quincywhorfconsulting.com https://www.facebook.com/quincywhorf https://www.linkedin.com/in/quincywhorf/ Show Notes: Addiction, recovery, and personal growth. 0:00 Childhood trauma and recovery. 4:26 Personal growth and addiction recovery. 8:21 Addiction and its risk factors for teenagers. 14:53 Trauma, anxiety, and self-discovery. 18:45
In episode 107 of The Gradient Podcast, Daniel Bashir speaks to Professor Ted Gibson.Ted is a Professor of Cognitive Science at MIT. He leads the TedLab, which investigates why languages look the way they do; the relationship between culture and cognition, including language; and how people learn, represent, and process language.Have suggestions for future podcast guests (or other feedback)? Let us know here or reach us at editor@thegradient.pubSubscribe to The Gradient Podcast: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Pocket Casts | RSSFollow The Gradient on TwitterOutline:* (00:00) Intro* (02:13) Prof Gibson's background* (05:33) The computational linguistics community and NLP, engineering focus* (10:48) Models of brains* (12:03) Prof Gibson's focus on behavioral work* (12:53) How dependency distances impact language processing* (14:03) Dependency distances and the origin of the problem* (18:53) Dependency locality theory* (21:38) The structures languages tend to use* (24:58) Sentence parsing: structural integrations and memory costs* (36:53) Reading strategies vs. ordinary language processing* (40:23) Legalese* (46:18) Cross-dependencies* (50:11) Number as a cognitive technology* (54:48) Experiments* (1:03:53) Why counting is useful for Western societies* (1:05:53) The Whorf hypothesis* (1:13:05) Language as Communication* (1:13:28) The noisy channel perspective on language processing* (1:27:08) Fedorenko lab experiments—language for thought vs. communication and Chomsky's claims* (1:43:53) Thinking without language, inner voices, language processing vs. language as an aid for other mental processing* (1:53:01) Dependency grammars and a critique of Chomsky's grammar proposals, LLMs* (2:08:48) LLM behavior and internal representations* (2:12:53) OutroLinks:* Ted's lab page and Twitter* Re-imagining our theories of language* Research — linguistic complexity and dependency locality theory* Linguistic complexity: locality of syntactic dependencies (1998)* The Dependency Locality Theory: A Distance-Based Theory of Linguistic Complexity (2000)* Consequences of the Serial Nature of Linguistic Input for Sentential Complexity (2005)* Large-scale evidence of dependency length minimization in 37 languages (2015)* Dependency locality as an explanatory principle for word order (2020)* Robust effects of working memory demand during naturalistic language comprehension in language-selective cortex (2022)* A resource-rational model of human processing of recursive linguistic structure (2022)* Research — language processing / communication and cross-linguistic universals* Number as a cognitive technology: Evidence from Pirahã language and cognition (2008)* The communicative function of ambiguity in language (2012)* The rational integration of noisy evidence and prior semantic expectations in sentence interpretation (2013)* Color naming across languages reflects color use (2017)* How Efficiency Shapes Human Language (2019) Get full access to The Gradient at thegradientpub.substack.com/subscribe
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
November 13, 1949 - Last week's mistakes. Jack visits Ronald Coleman on a movie set. The movie was "Champagne for Caesar", directed by Richard Whorf. References include the song "Mule Train", the Notre Dame college football team, comedian Red Skelton, and orchestra conductor Arturo Toscanini.
Quincy has known since she was a little girl that her purpose in life would be to help people.People have always sought out her Counsel on almost any issue. If you had a problem, she knew how to help you. Today is no different. Due to her training, education, and work she has done on herself and with countless others, her experience on solving problems, healing trauma, teaching boundaries, and learning how to communicate with anyone is extensive and deep.WEBSITETIKTOKINSTAGRAMReceive 40% OFF at ThriveMarket.comFollow UsFacebookInstagram
La hipótesis de Whorf sostiene que el lenguaje tiene un papel fundamental en la organización del pensamiento. Algunos estudios han probado que la lengua impacta en la forma de entender el mundo.
Welcome to another Fatal Conceits Podcast. In today's episode, we're joined by our good friend and regular favorite on the show, Christopher Mayer. Long time listeners will know Chris as the portfolio manager and co-founder of the Woodlock House Family Capital Fund, which he began with Bill Bonner back in 2018. Chris is also a published author who just released his latest book, Dear Fellow Time-Binder: Letters on General Semantics, which you can find here. His blog, in which he ruminates about life, markets and “this thing we call investing” is considered essential reading around the Bonner Private Research office. Check that out, here.In today's conversation, we take an unhurried stroll through Chris's library and get his take on Jean-Jacques Rousseau's Reveries of a Solitary Walker, Robert Bruner's Deals From Hell, the latest Buckminster Fuller biography and plenty more besides. Please enjoy and feel free to share our work with fellow readers, thinkers and solitary ramblers…Cheers,Joel BowmanThank you for reading Bonner Private Research. This post is public so feel free to share it.TRANSCRIPT:Joel Bowman: All right. Welcome back to another episode of the Fatal Conceits podcast, dear listener, a show about money, markets, mobs, and manias, not necessarily in that order. If you haven't already done so, please check out our sub stack. You can find us at bonnerprivateresearch.substack.com. And on the site there you'll find hundreds of articles on everything from high finance to lowly politics and everything in between including, of course, many more conversations just like this one under the Fatal Conceits podcast tab at the top of the page. Today, we're delighted to welcome back to the show long time friend of Bonner Private Research and the portfolio manager of Woodlock House Family Capital Fund, which he co-founded with Bill Bonner back in 2018. A good friend of mine, Mr. Christopher Mayer. Welcome to the show, mate. How do you do?Christopher Mayer: I am well. Thank you for having me on, always good to talk to you.Joel Bowman: Yeah, absolutely. You're in a new place up in Maryland?Christopher Mayer: Yeah. I live in Mount Airy now. It's a nice little town, very green, lots of golf courses around. It's open, it's nice. I like it here.Joel Bowman: Good stuff, mate. We were speaking just before we hit the record button here and I told you that I would be remiss if I didn't at least throw out one financial question at the very top of the segment here. I guess what everybody wants to know is, after our June lows, we've had a 20 odd percent bounce in the S&P, what many would consider to be the classical definition of a bear market rally. Is this something that, first of all, you agree with? And secondly, does it concern you, as somebody who's in it for the long term and more focused on individual stock selection?Christopher Mayer: Yeah. Well, everybody wants to know the unknowable, right? Is this the bottom or we have more to fall or are we off and running? I don't look at it that way. I'm focused more on the individual companies I own. And I have to say, this is probably one of the easiest bear markets I've been in yet because I have now second quarter reports in hand for all my companies except one, and they're all firing on all cylinders. I mean, if you just looked at the financial statements, you wouldn't see any cause for concern. You'd be surprised that the stocks were down at all. So I think times like this are an opportunity. What's remarkable, I suppose, is the swiftness of this decline. So we're through August, this is the fifth worst start for the S&P 500, going back to 1928. So that's historically interesting and that ...Joel Bowman: Anything interesting happened around 1928-29 or there abouts?Christopher Mayer: Yeah. People like to make different comparisons, and it doesn't have to be catastrophe. I saw somebody on Twitter had put out charts where they said one for the bulls, one for the bears. And they had set up the decline that we see now and matched it up perfectly with '07, '08. But then someone else, they had matched up perfectly with another market where it went straight up. So, when do that kind of data mining you can find the pattern to make whatever argument you want to make, but they're all different in different ways.And this one feels different in that way, in that the underlying performance of companies so far is strong and there are pockets of the market that are weak. Of course, if some of the retailers have disappointed and banks earlier, didn't do so well, but by and large things seem to be holding up pretty good. So I'm not concerned. I think this is an opportunity for sure. And if you have any kind of time horizon, five years at least, I think you're going to do pretty good while picking up some things today.Joel Bowman: When we spoke for your segment on Bill's round table, which we recorded, I guess, maybe a month or so ago, you mentioned of course that with the benefit of hindsight, which we would all love to luxuriate in 24/7, you look back at those other market drops that you saw in 2008 and before and now they look like little blips. So who knows what the future will hold, but if you had the steel to hold and even pick up some bargains during that time with some stock selection, you could do very well.Christopher Mayer: Yeah. And the stock that I mentioned, I think on that call has put in a new 52 week load today, so... It's even better now, right? Yes, yes, yes, yes.Joel Bowman: There you go. All right. Well, looking at your bookshelf behind you there, one of the things that I love about our conversations, and for listeners and viewers now who are just joining us, I know we've got a lot of new readers on the Bonner Private Research sub stack, so welcome if that's you. Chris and I have had a few conversations here now, maybe three or four where we thumb through Chris's bookshelf and just do a little bit of a deep dive into what makes Chris tick as both an investor and a thinker and a writer. So I'll link to a couple of our previous conversations there so readers can get a little flavor of what we're about here. As we were emailing a little back and forth in preparation for this call, Chris, you nominated a typically, characteristically eclectic clutch of books, as you tend to do. Do you want to take us from the top, maybe beginning with the classics? Where do you want to start?Christopher Mayer: Yeah, we can begin with the classics. So a lot of these books behind me are old philosophy books. This is my main study here, but then across the hall, I have another library where my investment books and other books are. And then downstairs, there's another little section where some fiction is. And since we moved this library is about half the size it was, but it's the way it goes. But the classics I had recently read and thought I would share is Rousseau, the Reveries of the Solitary Walker.He wrote this as his last book and it's a series of 10 walks. So he goes off and he writes what he was thinking about on these different walks. If I were to describe it, I would say it's a rumination on happiness. What makes people happy? What makes them unhappy? And so this is old Rousseau looking back, and he's an interesting guy. He's a really good writer, but I have to say he's also a hard guy to like sometimes. I don't know. You mentioned in the email that you had read his Confessions, which I have not read yet, but I've heard about them. Yeah.Joel Bowman: Yeah, I read that recently, actually just in the past, I want to say six months or so, and maybe a spoiler for some listeners who haven't gone through much of their Rousseau yet, but yeah, he had a long running feud with Voltaire after a friendship earlier in their life. Voltaire was pretty savage in his attacks on Rousseau later in his life, especially for perceived hypocrisy around raising kids and education and that kind of stuff. It's pretty hard to like him after you discover some of those warts, those and skeletons in the closet.Christopher Mayer: Yeah. Yeah, it was unbelievable, but there are a lot of things like that. But then I think also he's very thin skinned. He seems to take offense pretty easily. But having said all that, he's also a good writer and deep thinker. And in this book, he talks about things that make him almost sound a bit like an Eastern philosopher. He starts talking about, what makes people happy comes from the inside and not being too bound up with externals and being able to be more unaffected by the vicissitudes of life. And he really comes to appreciate nature. There's one letter where he talks about how he gets in a boat and goes into the middle of a lake and just lays at the bottom of the boat, looking up at the sky and loses himself for hours in a peaceful meditation. So I don't know, it's a fun read. And it's not heavy reading either, it's pretty easy to read.Joel Bowman: Yeah. I think some of these other works, Emile in particular, is notoriously difficult.Christopher Mayer: And he's known for his political stuff, so I know that that can be difficult too.Joel Bowman: Yeah, The Social Contract and whatnot. Do you make anything of the rambling philosopher at all? There were others, differing vastly in their world views, such as Nietzsche who wrote in a very aphoristic style. He would go on these long walks and just meditate on what he thought was important. Obviously more recently, Taleb wrote his book of aphorisms and it seems to be one type of medium through which to distill your thoughts and get some clarity for anything like that.Christopher Mayer: Yes. I think of Henry David Thoreau also. He'd do these walks and he'd write in his journal.Joel Bowman: Yeah.Christopher Mayer: Emerson was a great keeper of a daily journal. Kierkegaard was also someone who wrote avidly in a journal. I have his journals right there. But yeah, I think there's something to that. And then even in some of the great Eastern philosophers too, they wrote in little snippets, like Lao Tzu or Laozi's Tao Te Ching and those guys. And that compares to these heavy, weighty treaties that Hegel and Kant would write, they're impenetrable. So I think there's something to say for that.Joel Bowman: The critique on the top of my finger, yeah.Christopher Mayer: That's critique of pure reason?Joel Bowman: Right there, yeah.Christopher Mayer: I have that there. That's over right here. Yeah.Joel Bowman: These big, weighty tomes. Those system builders, the Hegels and the Wittgensteins and whatnot, they can get so dense. It's almost sometimes a little impenetrable, but going back to ... you and I have spoken about Thoreau before, and of course Walden. He was social distancing a long time before it became cool on the outskirts up there in New England. I often wonder that, just by occupational hazard, we have our noses so close to the screens, we might be watching ticker symbols or analyzing charts or looking at company reports and that kind of things, if we wouldn't benefit a little from just stepping back, getting some perspective, going to play a game of golf, going for a walk in the woods and decluttering from time to time.Christopher Mayer: Yeah, definitely. I think that's a good point. And there's the science about that too, about what happens if you press yourself too much. Your brain needs some time to recharge. Concentration is almost like a resource, and if you constantly are at it, you got to give yourself a chance to regenerate. It's also interesting, some of these philosophers, like Nietzsche, some people think that it's because he had such intense migraines and a lot of other ailments that he preferred to write short because he couldn't sit there for that long and write long pieces. I don't know if that's true or not, interesting theory. But it does also seem like some of the philosophers who write shorter do have some love of nature too. They do tend to get outside and they're walking and then they write down these observations. So yeah, I think there's some value in detaching. Even Bill has told me that before. He says we should have some other outlet other than markets. For him, he likes his masonry and he's always working with his hands, but it's good to have something else.Joel Bowman: Yeah. Over the summer, my wife Anya and I and our daughter were touring around a little bit of Europe. We went to visit the Bonners in their country estate out in very rural Ireland ...Christopher Mayer: Yeah. I was in early June as well.Joel Bowman: Oh, yeah. That's right.Christopher Mayer: We were close in there. We just missed timing.Joel Bowman: That's right. Yeah. But it is funny to see. Bill will do his daily work and then he'll throw on the dungarees and march down the country lane and spend a few hours doing some masonry work and come back all dusted up for lunch or whatnot. But yeah, I think it's almost akin to when you teach your children, for example, when they've forgotten a word, they get stuck on something. They want to say something and for the life of them, it won't come to them while they're thinking about it. And you have to distract them and get them thinking about something else, talk about what they did that day or whatever and then, all of a sudden, there it is.Christopher Mayer: I think in the investing world, I mean, there are freaks like Warren Buffet who seems to have no interests other than investing.Joel Bowman: Big banks. Yeah.Christopher Mayer: Yeah. I mean, I don't know if you've ever read The Snowball, which is the biography on him.Joel Bowman: No.Christopher Mayer: He's really a strange guy. He has a diet of a six year old, lives in the same house all that time, not particularly well-read at all. I don't know if he'd even know who Rousseau was. I mean, he just doesn't have that kind of background and no real hobbies or interests. I mean, he does play Bridge, so maybe that counts, maybe that's something.Joel Bowman: Yeah.Christopher Mayer: But it's very strange.Joel Bowman: He's almost like an idiot savant. You have all these arrested developments in other aspects of one's life. But then when it comes to analyzing markets, his the brain just goes into overdrive.Christopher Mayer: A lot of the better investors I know do like to read and they are curious. So I think that's a good trait to have, because when you think about businesses, you're learning about people and people have different philosophies and styles. You often think you can tell this history of the world through any different lens. You could tell it through investing. You could tell it through music. You could tell it through food.Joel Bowman: Yeah.Christopher Mayer: If you go deep enough, they all come together and these same philosophical topics eventually crop up.Joel Bowman: It's interesting, isn't it? That was one of Anthony Bourdain's observations that he would use. You mentioned food and we've talked obviously about travel and music and things like that before. He was a great believer that the same conversations are essential to human nature no matter where you go around the world. And you can use something like food, something as common and as communal as that ceremony, as a way of getting into all of the things that were happening in wherever he was, Phnom Penh or Nairobi or what have you. He would talk to people and then get into the rest of it. You could learn about supply lines. You learn about living standards. You learn about history. You learn about the politics of the place, the economics. All of the kinds of things that you see reflected in a stock market, for example, you might see if you really pay attention reflected in just breaking bread with someone in some far flung place around the world.Christopher Mayer: Yes. I agree with that, and I'm definitely a big Bourdain fan, so maybe that seed was planted. He's a guy I miss. I'd like to have him around, see what he thinks of some of this crazy stuff going on. Of course there's a number of people we could say that about, but he was a good one.Joel Bowman: We were mentioning as well recently reading the biography of Bucky, or Buckminster Fuller.Christopher Mayer: Yeah, Buckminster Fuller. Yeah, it was a big, fat book. It came out just recently. It's called Inventor of the Future by Alec Nevala-Lee. And when I first saw it I was very excited because I thought, "Wow, Bucky, as he would like to be called, getting the Royal presidential treatment, this big, fat biography. It's hard to describe what he did. I mean, he was an inventor and he was a poet and he did all kinds of things in his life. He was a philosopher as well. He wrote books and he was a coveted speaker. So he did a lot of different things.I read this biography and I think it is the definitive biography of his life, the when and the how he did this then and here and there. It sorts through different events and separates some of the myth from what probably happened. So in that sense, it was interesting to read it. But in the other sense, it focused a lot on his personal failings. He had a number of affairs and he had some other problems, so took away some of the magic. If you didn't know who Buckminster Fuller was and you picked up this biography and read it, you'd walk away thinking, what's all the fuss about?Joel Bowman: Right.Christopher Mayer: But he was something. I mean, Steve Jobs loved Buckminster Fuller. You know that famous Apple ad "think different" and it goes through 16 or 17 different icons? Buckminster Fuller is in that ad and that was at the request of Steve Jobs. He received 30 honorary degrees. He had something like 25 patents. This book, I didn't feel like it really brought home any of that. He was again, a very coveted speaker all over the world, he had fans all over the place. So anyway ...Joel Bowman: That's interesting, isn't it? When we talk about historical figures, even as recently as someone like Buckminster Fuller, one wonders if they would even be given a start today or whether they'd be canceled before they got going. I wonder if people would focus so much on their shortcomings? I mean, you're not reading a Buckminster Fuller book for marital advice, presumably. You're reading him for his philosophy on this or his inventions or his thoughts on this and that. I wonder in our haste to dig up the worst dirt on everybody, how much of the good we miss out on.Christopher Mayer: Of course there's a lot of people like that in history, right? If you were going to go through all the shortcomings, you'd hardly read anybody. I mean, shoot, Heidegger's one of the best examples of that for the 20th century. He's a Nazi, he's out.Joel Bowman: Ciao.Christopher Mayer: I mean, look at some of the stuff Hemingway wrote, homophobic stuff and misogynistic stuff. Forget it. So yeah, I don't know. It's a good point.Joel Bowman: All right, mate, let's move on to your second book here. Is it Deals from Hell, I think we've got up next. That's a great title by the way.Christopher Mayer: Yeah. It's called Deals from Hell, M&A lessons that rise above the ashes by Robert Bruner. This book was sent to me by a fellow money manager. And well, most of the book is case studies of M&A deals. But if you were to get this book, I would recommend at least just reading the first three or four chapters, because what it really does is that it kills this myth that M&A is a bad thing, mergers and acquisitions. There's a prevalent negative view among people, even professional investors, they don't like acquisitions. And their view is, when you do an acquisition, most of the time it destroys value for shareholders. And in this book, he goes through a lot of research and studies that have been done in M&A and he comes to the opposite conclusion, that M&A does pay.Joel Bowman: Oh wow.Christopher Mayer: And it's interesting why that is the case. So he says, an objective reading of more than 130 studies supports the conclusion that M&A pays. And one of the reasons why the conventional wisdom fails, as he says here, people generalized too readily from the findings of a single study. So there are some very high profile disasters, right, in mergers. And that's what gets all the attention versus all the little deals that get done along the way that worked out perfectly well. So the tendency is to exaggerate the failures and the key line here that I double starred, he says: "All M&A is local," which I really like. You really have to look at it on a case by case, deal by deal basis. And it took me a while to get over that hurdle, but now I've found some companies that are really great acquirers of other businesses, just systematically are able to add and plug in businesses to their growing little empire and do very, very, very well.Joel Bowman: So is this something that's affected the way that you think about the universe of potential investments that you come across on a daily, weekly, monthly basis?Christopher Mayer: I would say I had discovered this earlier. I wouldn't say this book turned my opinion on what I think, because I'd discovered that on my own, that M&A is really nuanced. And I've discovered a number of these companies. People now call them "serial acquirers" and they have done very, very well. There's a number of them in Sweden. There's a couple in the UK. In the U.S., there are several as well that just continued to acquire companies as their main avenue of growth. And they've been wonderful investments. So what makes those successful versus the failures? This book helps highlight that too. You've got greater propensity of failing if it's a very large deal, if it's very complicated, versus smaller deals, or if you're doing something that's in a business unrelated to yours. There are a number of things he goes through. But I think the value in this book is really busting that general myth and forcing you to think more nuanced about the topic of mergers and acquisitions.Joel Bowman: That's interesting. I like those myth busting books, those that turned things that you might have thought previously on their head. I'm wondering if the general consensus is such that mergers and acquisitions are bad might not offer a little pocket of hidden opportunity, an overlooked opportunity for people who could get past that stigma.Christopher Mayer: Yeah, I think it did for a while. And then I think a lot of these serial acquirers are now priced pretty well. So I don't know that that's necessarily true anymore, but it might be. Part of the reason I think is that it can be difficult to model these things because you don't necessarily know when the deals are going to strike or what they're going to look like. And if they deploy a lot more capital than you model, then there's going to be some big surprises. So it's a tough thing to predict and project.And so if you're willing to go with the uncertainty and you trust the capital allocation, trust the team and the process that they have, and they have a track record of successful deals. And you can do that. You can look back and see whether deals were successful or not. You can see whether there are impairments. You can see what happens to the overall companies' returns on capital, whether they go down over time as they do acquisitions, watering it down, or whether they're able to preserve it or even grow it.And it depends on the amount of disclosures companies give you. Sometimes you can really dig down and you can see how certain subsidiaries they acquired, how they've done sales and profit wise. And you can back in and say, wow, that was a really good deal. So I think that's the key. It's like most things in investing, in life. You can't go through it too generally, everything has nuance. And our culture forces everything to be squished and reduced to a headline or reduced to a soundbite or reduced to a one single powerful message that you can deliver, but on most things, there's a lot of nuance and complexity.Joel Bowman: Yeah. And oftentimes I think that looking beyond that the black and white or the binary conception of the world can flesh out a lot of useful information. I was going to ask, because you touched on a few different investing jurisdictions there, Scandinavia, Europe. I know that you invest, around the world, that you have an international portfolio...Christopher Mayer: Yes.Joel Bowman: Are there things that you'd look at in particular when you go into foreign markets, say for example, the transparency of their reporting, the maturity of the market in general, or does that all depend on price?Christopher Mayer: Yeah, there's definitely interesting jurisdictional differences. So even on this topic of M&A for example, there's a solid pocket in Stockholm where there's a dozen of these serial acquirers and they're all good at it. For some reason, it's like a Silicon Valley of serial acquirers there. Culturally, there's something there. There's about it and you don't see anything like that in Germany or France. It's just different. And in the UK, there are a few. And then in the states, there are several. But it's interesting to me sometimes how you can have such big differences in regional markets, even if you compare Sweden to the other Nordics. I mean, there's a lot of differences there in how business will run. For example, a lot of the Swedish serial acquirers will report on return on capital employed. I mean, they'll be right there, a number that they're tracking and targeting. And as an investor, I'm like, that's fantastic! Here's what you want to think about. Right? And not this BS about sales growth or earnings. These guys are focusing on the real things that matter. They get capital allocation. So yeah, I mean, those kind of things are pretty neat when you find that.Joel Bowman: Yeah. You toss a line over the side of your boat and you find a lot of what you like, you start to bait up again. Good stuff. Just going from the title there, I haven't read the book, but I expected there to be some horror stories in there. Some actual "deals from hell"?Christopher Mayer: Yeah. I mean, well the classic is the AOL, Time Warner deal. Time Warner bought AOL at the top. And yeah, I mean, then you've got some horrific charts here where they announced the merger and then the company becomes worth less than the deal value was. I mean, it's just a remarkable amount of destruction of wealth on some of these things. So yeah, there are definitely horror stories in there.Joel Bowman: Right. They're the headline grabbers that you were mentioning before that shaped public opinion.Christopher Mayer: Well, that's it. That's exactly right. Those are the ones. When people think of disasters, most people can think of these ones.Joel Bowman: All right then. Let's move on, Chris, to your own latest release. How many is this for you now, mate? You've got to be working on half a dozen?Christopher Mayer: This is number five.Joel Bowman: Number five. Okay. All right. Congratulations. Let's get into it.Christopher Mayer: It's called Dear Fellow Time-binder: Letters on General Semantics.Joel Bowman: All right. You're going to have to back up a little bit here for our listeners. We're going to go back into some previous conversations. Maybe you could do as your man Korzybski might do and help "map the terrain" for us.Christopher Mayer: Right, well, if you read, [my book] How Do You Know?, this book is a second crack at those ideas, except that I drop the investing focus. So, How Do You Know is really applying these ideas to investing. And then this is just a more general exploration. I call it letters. I was actually, as I say in the preface, I was inspired by Seneca's letters. He wrote these letters where he explained stoicism, and there's some debate about whether they were really letters or not, whether he would really mail them, but they were written in the letter format as if he was teaching somebody. And I thought that's a good way to do it, so I did this. I thought, if I were teaching someone of these ideas, how would I do it? What are these ideas?You mentioned Korzybski. Yes, Alfred Korzybski was a guy in the 1930s who created this discipline called general semantics. As you can think of it more as an aid to critical thinking. It focuses on the assumptions that we make with different symbols and language and how they interplay with how we behave. And there's a lot to it actually. There's a lot of different things to it. So it can get deep and get into all kinds of things about causation and things we take for granted. So what makes this book different, too, is it's published by the Institute of General Semantics and they gave me access to the archives for Et Cetera, which is their journal they've been publishing since the 1940s. And another publication they have, The General Semantics Bulletin. So I had these two archives.I was able to go back and I mined them because there were some interesting characters that taught these ideas over time. You won't know them now, but they're in the book, people like Wendell Johnson, Irving Lee and S.I.I Caldwell, these different people. They're interesting characters on their own. And so I was able to pull out different things from those archives. So it was really interesting to read in the 1940s, what people were thinking about, worried about. War of course hangs over the whole thing and so it was very appropriate then because they were looking at things like propaganda and taking apart the meaning of all these different terms and phrases and the ideas behind them. So, that's one thing that was really fun about doing this book. And I just did it on the side. Some of the letters were already published in their journal, Et Cetera, over the last couple years. And then finally the book came out this year, so I wrote most of it actually in 2020.Joel Bowman: As you're speaking now, I'm thinking about the messaging, let's call it, what used to be called propaganda before it underwent a public relations campaign itself, and is now called public relations. I think it would've been in the early 1900s when Eddie Bernays was just getting his start in the United States. He was the fellow that brought the world the phrase, "Making the world safe for democracy." And that was the banner under which he convinced Woodrow Wilson to commit American troops to World War I. America was a largely war weary continent as it had only just emerged from its own civil war a generation or so previously. And all of a sudden, with the right "messaging," we have troops marching off to war. And it does make you think, if that was happening then, and if it was happening in the forties, if this was on people's minds, it would be perhaps naive to think that this wasn't happening at some level today.Christopher Mayer: Yes. I mean, it's interesting to think about why that stuff works. Why does that phrase have power, "making the world safe for democracy?" What does that even mean when you think about it? And so that's what general semantics looks at. I think the biggest thing I've taken from Korzybski really is just that, to be conscious of what he would call "abstracting." So there are all these words and phrases that we use that really don't mean anything when you think about it. They mean whatever people want them to mean. They have dozens and dozens of different meanings, "democracy "for example. "Recession" would be one. Capitalism would be one. You hear people talk, especially politicians, about our "capitalist" system. And then you talk about other people and they're like, What are you talking about? We don't have a capitalist system. We've got something else entirely.Joel Bowman: It's a corporatocracy.Christopher Mayer: Yeah, exactly. Right. So all the kinds of labels we throw around. Even political parties. Saying someone is Republican or Democrat doesn't really say much.Joel Bowman: Right.Christopher Mayer: It's freighted with assumptions. And then sometimes words as we know them have become so freighted with connotations that we have to invent new words or we have to drop them. We can't even say the old words anymore. You look like you may have some examples to throw in there.Joel Bowman: I know. I'm not going to a risk cancellation by listing off a shopping list of unmentionables. But yeah, it's certainly the way. And I think also with regards to the way semantics is treated in our modern public discourse. We have a narrowing of definitions that we're permitted to use or that we're almost shoehorned into.Christopher Mayer: Yes.Joel Bowman: I'm wondering if while you were mining these archives, doing research for your own work, if you came across any time when the range of concepts, the range of language that we had available to us was so narrowed that it impacted the way we're even able to conceptualize and think about things in the first instance.Christopher Mayer: Yes. There's a hypothesis I talk about in the book is called the Whorf-Sapir Hypothesis. And the idea is that the language we use actually actively shapes what we think, just like what you're saying. I can think of Whorf's examples because he used to work in insurance and he would say things like ... let's say there was a fire started in some factory and he would have to investigate the fire. And he would find out there were these drums that were labeled "empty gasoline drums." People would be very careless with them. They assume they're empty. But they're not empty. They'll have vapors in them that are very flammable and so on and so forth and that led to their mishandling which started the fire. Another one, I remember there was a time where he talked about how there was this pool of water where they would sometimes dump flammable liquids and things. And they would be a vapor there and someone was there smoking a cigarette and then they threw the match in the water, think it would put it out. Instead, it lit the whole thing on fire and ...Joel Bowman: The exact opposite, unintended consequences.Christopher Mayer: Yeah. So his point was you, if you label these things differently, we would actually think differently about them. If you didn't say they were empty gasoline drums, you called them something else, people would behave differently. That's a slightly different point than what you're making, but I mean, it's so endlessly fascinating, because you can go on about this forever. But part of this book too, is there's a lot of little helpers and things. I know just from studying general semantics, to give you one example, there's this whole thing about being mindful of absolutes. So when people say things like "always" and "never." Anytime I hear people use those, it's like a little light goes on in my mind. You have to be careful of that. So you get suspicious of certain words and it can help you ask questions, follow up questions. Like somebody will say, "Well, these immigrants are all thieves. And you'll be like, really? "All" of them?Joel Bowman: Mergers and acquisitions are "always" a bad idea.Christopher Mayer: Exactly. They're "all" terrible. "All" of them? Every single one? So there are little clues like that, words that will perk up. And as an investor, that's important because I spend a lot of time talking to people and asking questions and trying to parse their answers.Joel Bowman: We've never lost shareholders' investments. Never? Interesting. Yeah. All right, Chris, tell us where we can get your book here, it's Dear Fellow Time Bender. I'm assuming it's on Amazon. Anywhere else in particular?Christopher Mayer: Yes. It's not very expensive. It's 12 bucks. It's 150 pages. I think it'll be a fun read for people who like to think about these kinds of ideas. Yeah, Amazon and fine bookstores everywhere as people like to say, right?Joel Bowman: Fine bookstores.Christopher Mayer: And the Institute of General Semantics, they sell it as well, so you can Google that. You won't have any problem finding it. And I don't get any proceeds, by the way. I don't get any royalties or anything. It's done for the Institute, so all proceeds goes toward them.Joel Bowman: Okay. I'll include a link to Chris's book (SEE HERE) and the others that we've spoken about here, Deals from Hell and Rousseau's Reveries, the very last book of his life. We didn't even get into talking more about his other particular ideas about some very interesting things. I think mostly people tend to focus on, as you said, his political persuasions, the Social Contract and that kind of stuff, but his works reward a whole summer of study at the very least.Christopher Mayer: I think so. I think if I had to sum up the big idea from that book, I'd say it was his idea that people were naturally happy, but they become unhappy by comparing themselves to other people and focusing too much on external things.Joel Bowman: Hell is other people, as Sartre said, if you let yourself only exist in other people's opinions. Okay, Chris, I feel like we could go on for quite a bit longer, going through your bookshelves and mine, but let's leave it there and we'll pick it up again next time.Christopher Mayer: Yep. Thanks, JoelJoel Bowman: Thanks a lot, Chris. I really appreciate it. And for listeners, again, please head over to the Substack page. You can get plenty of research reports, columns from Bill Bonner, Dan Danning, Tom Dyson and myself, and many more conversations like this, including the ones I referred to, our past conversations with Chris Mayer, where we noodle through more of his extended archives. And with that, we'll be back next week. Thanks a lot. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit bonnerprivateresearch.substack.com/subscribe
Edward Sapir and Benjamin Lee Whorf once hypothesized that language influences thought rather than the reverse. The Sapir–Whorf hypothesis claims that people from different cultures think differently because of differences in their languages. But does that theory still hold weight? Dr Sharifah Ayeshah joins us to discuss how language shapes thought. Image source: Shutterstock See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Show Notes: ---------------------- Appreciation written, produced, and narrated by Remedy Robinson, MA/MFA Twitter: https://twitter.com/slowdragremedy Email: slowdragwithremedy@gmail.com Podcast music by https://www.fesliyanstudios.com Rate this Podcast: https://ratethispodcast.com/slowdrag ---------------------- References: Elvis Costello Wiki Resource, “Chewing Gum”: http://www.elviscostello.info/wiki/index.php/Chewing_Gum “Chewing Gum”: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hh-tbg_0ZIY “Rock n’ Roll: Here’s Where the Name Came From”: https://sparkfiles.net/rock-roll-origins-phrase/ “Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis”: http://zimmer.csufresno.edu/~johnca/spch100/4-9-sapir.htm “Language, thought, and color: Whorf was half right”: https://www1.icsi.berkeley.edu/~kay/tics2.pdf “Chewing Gum” Explanation from the Elvis Wiki page: http://www.elviscostello.info/faq/lyrics.php Purchase “The Most Terrible Time in My Life…Ends Thursday” https://www.amazon.com/Most-Terrible-Time-Life-Thursday-ebook/dp/B07XLXS5PL/ref=sr_1_1?crid=Y4SGCT62WPEK&dchild=1&keywords=the+most+terrible+time+in+my+life+ends+thursday&qid=1608873405&sprefix=The+Most+Terrible+Time+in+%2Caps%2C195&sr=8-1 "Chewing Gum" Lyrics: With their cardboard hands by their sides, here's a naked man and lady And they're yours to cut out and keep and you can dress them up maybe They don't know just who they are, or who they're supposed to be You can make them happy or sad or assume their identity So here they are in the departure lounge, it's the "Gateway to the East" She is just another mail-order bride, she doesn't know he's a kinky beast Now he gives her a picture of Maradona and child She wants to "roll and rock" As he spills his beer over her Bumps and grinds as he repeats "Bangkok" (Chorus:) There must be something that is better than this It starts with a slap and ends with a kiss Begins with you bawling and it ends up in tears Oh, my little one, take that chewing gum out of your ears She might as well be in the jungle, she might as well be on the moon He's away on a business trip in Dusseldorf, and she's becoming immune To the lack of glamour and danger in the West-German city today The nearest she comes to the "Dynasty" life he promised her Is a Chinese takeaway (Repeat Chorus) And though he only taught her three little words It doesn't matter if they're dirty or clean He can only control what they look like He can never possess what they mean So, he wants to whisper in her ear All the shrinking nothingness Something always comes between them I wonder if you can guess (Repeat Chorus)
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)
Maxine Michaels hosts jazz on WRCJ’s Maxology every Friday at 7pm. She speaks with Midday Music host Peter Whorf about the top musicians and broadcasters who have influenced her throughout her radio career, leading off with a Motown legend…
In this episode of Life Matters, Commissioner Johnston outlines the incredible power that language has over our thoughts and perceptions. Brian had studied Comparative Linguistics at Sonoma State University and explains a language phenomenon that many of us don’t often think about. Just as we are unable to comprehend a completely foreign language, there is the related inability to think about or understand ideas for which we have no words. This principle also extends to deeper implications - that the meaning of words themselves can be changed simply by their usage in society. Those who control the tools of communication - major media and academic circles, are given great control over the use of language. They often create new rules and usages. George Orwell eloquently illustrated the phenomenon in his book 1984. He had written an epilogue explaining how language is used to control the populace in collectivist-socialist cultures. Orwell’s epilogue is widely available and very recommended. It is entitled, “The Principles of Newspeak”. Newspeak is the method by which ‘Ingsoc’, ideas of the new English socialism, would be imparted and reinforced. It resulted in the inability to think of individual freedom or previous forms of government. The meanings attached to those concepts would simply be lost. Brian further comments on the details of this phenomenon as illustrated in Comparative Linguistics. The language principle is known as the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. Brian had studied the comparative dialects of the Pomo Indian Tribe of Sonoma, Lake, and Mendocino Counties. Many years earlier, Edvard Sapir had studied the languages of the Aleut and Inuit tribes (formally called Eskimos). Benjamin Lee Whorf studied the Hopi Indian dialects. Each made observations regarding vocabulary (Sapir) and verb tense (Whorf). They concurred that the different aspects of language directly impacted how the language-user viewed the world around them. Brian explains how the right to life, abortion and euthanasia debates are directly impacted and even determined, by the language that is used. Obviously, abortion advocates have intentionally changed the vocabulary (choice - a concept - is used to replace the specific action of dismemberment and disposal of the human child). And this is but one example. But in a larger sense, the use of the language and the presumptions that language carries, have also quietly induced pro-life individuals to engage in the debate of ideas, but only using the premises that our current culture has made popular. Many pro-lifers feel a deep need to debate the relative merits and arguments of the Roe v. Wade decision. But as Brian, pro-life judges, and even pro-abortion judges, have pointed out, Roe versus Wade is completely illogical in its premises, in its pattern of logic, and in its conclusions. Again, even Justice Ginsburg, the most-radical pro-abortion Supreme Court Justice has declared that Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, have not granted women a right to choose or the right to do what they wish with their bodies. Justice Blackmun was explicit that Roe does not create an unlimited right to an abortion. Yet abortion for ‘choice’ is still considered its result. Brian‘s point is that it is the companion decision, Doe versus Bolton, which explicitly sets aside the rambling confusion regarding pregnancy and culture and history (the actual content of Roe). It is Doe versus Bolton that explicitly allows doctors to kill, based solely on their own personal opinion, and without any further accountability. Doe is the enactment ‘provision’ of Roe v. Wade. And by making the physician (not the woman) the designated agent and ultimate decision maker, it has brought a direct attack against the very premise of the culture in which we live, Western Civilization. Western Civilization holds the premise that human beings are more than merely animals. One profession was dedicated to always caring for and protecting the unique and vulnerable human person - the medical profession. Throughout Western Civilization doctors have always sworn to never harm or kill. It is in Doe v. Bolton that the medical profession is explicitly empowered to kill and directed to do so at their own discretion. Western Civilization a victim in the Roe and Doe companion decisions - they have done even more than simply authorize the killing of innocent babies. An unrestrained killing profession has now become an accepted part of our society. But language has prevented many from seeing or even thinking about what that means.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------Sherlock Holmes Radio Station Live 24/7 Click Here to Listenhttps://live365.com/station/Sherlock-Holmes-Classic-Radio--a91441----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sherlock Holmes Radio Station Live 24/7 Click Here to Listen https://live365.com/station/Sherlock-Holmes-Classic-Radio--a91441 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Advertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brands Privacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy
Kimchi & Tofu appetizers; Chicken Sandwich Criticism; Comparative Analysis of Burger King & McDonald’s; Slavic linguistics; Editors as Friends; Geopolitical World History & its Impact on Family & Relatives in Post-WWII Europe; Mediterranean Restaurants Not Serving Decaffeinated Beverages; & the Whorf idea applied to Trinidad’s mom’s perception of the world via interpersonal communication; --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/phds/support
Benvenuti su Podcast Italiano. Questo è un episodio di livello avanzato. Vi ricordo che podcastitaliano.com troverete la trascrizione integrale dell’episodio con la traduzione delle parole e delle strutture più difficili. Buon ascolto! In questo episodio di livello avanzato voglio affrontare una questione che nel mondo delle lingue e della linguistica è sempre di moda, ovvero: è vero che la nostra madrelingua influenza la nostra visione del mondo? Ho deciso di scrivere questo episodio dopo aver letto il libro “The Language Hoax” di John McWhorther, il mio linguista in assoluto preferito, conduttore di un podcast eccezionale chiamato Lexicon Valley e autore di numerosi libri altrettanto interessanti. Come potete intuire dal titolo la posizione di McWhorther è molto netta: questa idea è una vera e propria bufala (hoax), che peraltro (besides, furthermore) circola da molto tempo e periodicamente si ripresenta (shows up again) sotto forma di articoli acchiappa-click (click-bait) su internet e sulle testate giornalistiche (news media, newspapers) online. Questa teoria è conosciuta come “ipotesi di Sapir-Whorf”, dal nome dei due studiosi, Edward Sapir e Benjamin Lee Whorf, che per primi ne hanno parlato negli anni venti, ma è anche nota come “ipotesi della relatività linguistica”. Secondo Whorf (e cito):” Noi tagliamo a pezzi la natura, la organizziamo in concetti, e nel farlo le attribuiamo significati, in gran parte perché siamo parti in causa in un accordo per organizzarla in questo modo; un accordo che resta in piedi all'interno della nostra comunità di linguaggio ed è codificato negli schemi della nostra lingua” Da questa citazione si evince (we can deduce, infer) l’idea centrale di Whorf, ovvero che la nostra percezione della realtà varia a seconda della lingua che parliamo.Whorf parlò, per esempio, degli Hopi, una popolazione nativa americana , la cui lingua, a sua detta (=secondo lui, according to him), non aveva modo di esprimere il tempo passato e futuro. La conclusione a cui giunse Whorf era che, a differenza delle lingue di matrice europea (of a european nature), gli Hopi avessero una percezione del tempo non lineare, ma ciclica. E questo era causato da questa peculiarità della loro lingua, che, appunto, influenzava la loro visione del mondo. Si dà il caso che Whorf non conoscesse bene la lingua Hopi, che, in realtà, è assolutamente in grado di esprimere il concetto di passato e di futuro. Ma anche se così non fosse (if that weren't the case): è corretta l’idea secondo la quale le caratteristiche della grammatica di una lingua fanno sì che i suoi parlanti percepiscano il mondo in un modo completamente diverso? La risposta di McWhorther è, come avrete capito, no. È sicuramente un’idea attraente, molto “hippie” in un certo senso, ma… si tratta, ahimè, di una bufala. Il fatto che, per esempio, la lingua russa abbia un sistema estremamente complicato per esprimere quello che in tante lingue europee sarebbe un verbo solo, ovvero “andare”, non significa che i russi percepiscano l’idea di movimento in una maniera più precisa. Semplicemente la loro lingua non lascia al contesto alcune informazioni ma, al contrario, obbliga i suoi parlanti ad esplicitarle (make them explicit). “Andare a piedi” e “andare con un mezzo di trasporto” sono due verbi diversi in russo, ma questo non significa che un parlante madrelingua italiano o francese che senta la frase “sono andato in Australia” ha dubbi sulla natura del movimento… ovviamente, chiunque abbia pronunciato questa frase in Australia non ci è andato a piedi, e il contesto ci aiuta a capirlo.Per fare un altro esempio: esiste una lingua parlata in Amazzonia chiamata Tuyuka che possiede una caratteristica grammaticale nota come “evidential marker”. Un evidential marker è un indicatore che ci aiuta a capire la natura di una data informazione. Nella lingua Tuyuka funziona così: alla fine di ogni affermazione è necessario aggiungere un suffisso che indica come siamo venuti a conoscen...
Det vi kan beskrive kan vi forstå og noen ganger forklare. Det som mangler ord blir ofte usynlig for oss. Språket er hjørnesteinene i vårt mentale liv, og det er det vi bruker for å tenke, men hva om alt vi tenker er feil?Bli medlem av SinnSyns Mentale HelsestudioDitt bidrag kan øke kvaliteten på WebPsykologen og SinnSyn.Ved å støtte prosjektet, får du mange fordeler! Som Patreon supporter blir du medlem av SinnSyns Mentale Helsestudio. Det vil si flere episoder hver måned, tips og øvelser for trening av "mentale muskler", eksklusive videopptak og andre overraskelser. Les mer og bli medlem i på denne linken. Her kan du kjøpe bøkene fra Psykolog Sondre Liverød (WebPsykologen) til best pris og gratis frakt.Denne gangen er jeg i Mandal. Vi er i biblioteket på kulturhuset og arrangementet er godt besøkt. Nærmere hundre mennesker kom for å høre fylkesleder i Humanetisk forbund Elisabeth Smith og meg selv snakke om at «alt du tenker er feil». Nok en gang et arrangement i regi av humanetisk forbund, og selvfølgelig var alle velkomne uavhengig av livssyn. Jeg var også ute med en ny bok på denne tiden, og turneen rundt i seks byer fra Aust til Vest Agder var også ment som en promotering av «Psykologens journal». Journalen er min personlige og intellektuelle reise i livets store spørsmål, og boken ble en måte for meg å utvide min horisont, noe jeg tror er en viktig mental øvelse for mange av oss. Er du interessert i denne boken, eller noe av de andre bøkene jeg har skrevet, så finnes de som alltid til best pris på min egen bokhandel her på webpsykologen. Bøkene reflekterer mye av tematikken her på SinnSyn, og dermed er det en sjanse for at du vil like bøkene dersom du liker denne SinnSyn.I dagens samtale var tema: «Alt du tenker er feil», noe som kan være en litt provoserende overskrift, men den kan få oss til å tenke litt annerledes på hvordan vi tenker om det å tenke på å tenke. Det ble ikke en veldig vanlig setning, og den inneholder sannsynligvis en del feil, men nå står den her. Tematikken er kjent fra SinnSyn i flere tidligere episoder, og det dreier seg om hvordan vårt psykiske maskinere fabrikkerer alle våre opplevelser av verden. Kanskje er det også slik at vi koder alt vi opplever via språket, og da er det avgjørende hvordan vi velger å formulere oss. En optimistisk formulering kan føre til en lettere sinnsstemning og kanskje et bedre utfall, mens en pessimistisk formulering kan skape mismot og maktesløshet som fører til apati og mangel på innsatsvilje i forhold til en forestående utfordring. Det er altså snakk om innsikten som ligger ved kjernen i kognitiv terapi: Det er måten vi tenker på og holdningene våre som i høy grad former livet vårt. Jeg så akkurat filmen som heter Arrival fra 2016. Den handler om lingvisten Louise Banks som leder et elite-team av etterforskere når gigantiske romfartøyer lander på 12 steder rundt om i verden. Det er uklart hva de utenomjordiske vesnene ønsker eller hvorfor de har kommet, og usikkerheten skaper splid mellom ulike nasjoner og jorden befinner seg etterhvert på randen av en global krig. Tiden er knapp når Louise må finne ut hvordan man kan kommunisere med gjestene fra verdensrommet. Her har vi en film hvor helten er en lingvist, altså en ekspert på språk, symbolikk og koder. Når man tenker seg om, er det nettopp evnen til å kommunisere som blir det avgjørende i møte med det ukjente. Kan vi forstå hverandre, kle verden i et sett av symboler som skaper en relasjon? Det er tematikken i Arrival, og i denne sammenheng nevnes en interessant, men også omdiskutert, hypotese som kalles den "Lingvistiske Relativitetshypotesen", også kjent som Sapir-Whorf-hypotesen. Den ble fremsatt av den amerikanske antologen og språkforskeren Sapir i artikkelen: "Lingvistikkens status som vitenskap", og videreutviklet av Whorf i artikkelen "Vitenskap og språkvitenskap". Denne hypotesen hevder at språket spiller en svært viktig rolle i folks liv, ikke bare fordi det er en måte å kommunisere på, men det har innflytelse på folks adferd og deres tenkemåte. Med andre ord, folk som snakker forskjellige språk og dialekter har en tendens til å se verden på forskjellige måter. Teorien går ut på at språket ikke bare påvirker hvordan folk kommuniserer med hverandre, men også hvordan personen med et bestemt språk visualiserer og samhandler med verden på et helt grunnleggende nivå. Dette uløselige forholdet mellom språk og verdenssyn er den underliggende bekymringen, ikke bare for språkbrukere, men også historikere, noe som kommer tydelig frem i filmen «Arrival». Sapirs syn på forholdet mellom språk og kultur er tydelig uttrykt i boken hans som heter «Kultur, språk og personlighet» fra 1958.Sapir hevder at mennesker ikke bare lever i en objektiv verden, og heller ikke bare lever i en bestemt kultur, men lever i en flik av verden farget av språket og uttrykksevnen til de man omgir seg med. Han foreslår at den virkelige verden i stor grad er ubevisst bygget opp på gruppens språkvaner. Med andre ord hører og opplever vi i stor grad det vi gjør fordi språkvanene i vårt samfunn predisponerer visse fortolkninger. I andre kulturer kan de ha et språk som vinkler verden på en helt anen måte, og i så fall lever de også i en helt annen virkelighet. I Arrival er spørsmålet om det er mulig å finne en felles plattform med vesner som har en helt anen uttrykksform, kommer fra en helt annen verden og bebor kropper som er helt annerledes enn våre. Jeg likte filmen godt, og synes språk-hypotesen er interessant. Man kan lure på om vi hadde utvidet vår egen horisont ganske mye ved å lære oss et helt nytt språk. I psykologien handler det mye om å få mer språk på vårt indre liv, nettopp fordi vi kan håndtere våre utfordringer på en helt annen måte når våre mentale utfordringer tematiseres i språket. Før vi klarer å sette ord på vanskelige følelser og ubevisste mønstrer, styrer det livet vårt uten at vi vet det. Når vi kler vårt indre liv i en rikere språkdrakt, har vi muligheten til å få helt nye forståelser og innsikter som i neste omgang kan endre livet dramatisk. Vi kan oppnå et bedre syn på vårt eget sinn, og det er jo derfor denne podcasten heter SinnSyn.Et annet spørsmål er om vi med dagens kommunikasjonsteknologi på 160 tegn på twitter og meldinger fulle av smilefjes og få ord, risikerer å gjøre språket fattigere, og sånn sett trekke ned noen rullegardiner i vår egen hjerne. Vi har mye informasjon, men når det sprer seg via snever koding ender vi kanskje opp som dummere på sikt. Det er jeg ikke sikker på, men det er uansett noe å tenke over når man følger tanken om at språket definerer vårt blikk mot verden på en mer gjennomgripende måte enn man kanskje er klar over.I dagens episode skal vi snakke mer om en variant av språklige dilemmaer. Vi skal altså til Mandal for å snakke om at det du tenker er feil. Altså måten du ser deg selv og verden på er kodet på en måte som ikke nødvendigvis reflekterer en objektiv sannhet, selv om vi ofte forholder oss til egne følelser, tanke og meninger som om de er sanne. Jeg mener at det ikke er så lurt, og nå skal du snart få høre hvorfor. Kognitiv psykologi og positiv psykologi gjør denne innsikten om til et viktig omdreiningspunkt i terapeutisk praksis. Dersom det er måten vi tenker på og holdningene våre som former tilværelsen, kan vi tilstrebe å tenke mer positivt for å få en litt mer lystbetont hverdag. Det er en simpel forklaring på positiv psykologi, men her kommer norske grønnsaker som forklarer det litt bedre.KildeSapir, Edward. Culture, Language and Personality. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1958. PrintTAKK FOR AT DU HØRER PÅ OG TAKK FOR DIN STØTTESondre Risholm Liverød har skrevet tre bøker om psykologi og selvutvikling for fagfolk og folk flest, og de kan anskaffes fra WebPsykologens bokhandel. Her får man bøkene til best pris med gratis frakt og rask levering. WebPsykologen ønsker å spre kunnskap om psykisk helse til så mange som mulig, og det skal være gratis og lett tilgjengelig. Det er imidlertid mye jobb å holde liv i nettsiden og podcasten, og dersom du setter pris på dette arbeidet, kan du først og fremst støtte prosjektet ved å kjøpe bøkene mine fra WebPsykologen.no. Du kan også støtte prosjektet ved å dele det i sosiale medier, anbefale SinnSyn til venner og bekjente, skrive om tematikk fra SinnSyn i din egen blogg eller nevne webpsykologen på din egen podcast. Det er også veldig verdifullt med tilbakemeldinger i iTunes. Stjerner i iTunes forteller at podcasten faller i smak, og da vil iTunes holde den synlig på sine topplister og anbefalinger. Jeg er veldig takknemlig for all den støtte vi allerede har fått, og vil takke på forhånd til dere som har til hensikt å anbefale oss til flere. TAKK! Bilder fra arrangementet i Mandal kulturhus See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.
Det vi kan beskrive kan vi forstå og noen ganger forklare. Det som mangler ord blir ofte usynlig for oss. Språket er hjørnesteinene i vårt mentale liv, og det er det vi bruker for å tenke, men hva om alt vi tenker er feil?Bli medlem av SinnSyns Mentale HelsestudioDitt bidrag kan øke kvaliteten på WebPsykologen og SinnSyn.Ved å støtte prosjektet, får du mange fordeler! Som Patreon supporter blir du medlem av SinnSyns Mentale Helsestudio. Det vil si flere episoder hver måned, tips og øvelser for trening av "mentale muskler", eksklusive videopptak og andre overraskelser. Les mer og bli medlem i på denne linken. Her kan du kjøpe bøkene fra Psykolog Sondre Liverød (WebPsykologen) til best pris og gratis frakt.Denne gangen er jeg i Mandal. Vi er i biblioteket på kulturhuset og arrangementet er godt besøkt. Nærmere hundre mennesker kom for å høre fylkesleder i Humanetisk forbund Elisabeth Smith og meg selv snakke om at «alt du tenker er feil». Nok en gang et arrangement i regi av humanetisk forbund, og selvfølgelig var alle velkomne uavhengig av livssyn. Jeg var også ute med en ny bok på denne tiden, og turneen rundt i seks byer fra Aust til Vest Agder var også ment som en promotering av «Psykologens journal». Journalen er min personlige og intellektuelle reise i livets store spørsmål, og boken ble en måte for meg å utvide min horisont, noe jeg tror er en viktig mental øvelse for mange av oss. Er du interessert i denne boken, eller noe av de andre bøkene jeg har skrevet, så finnes de som alltid til best pris på min egen bokhandel her på webpsykologen. Bøkene reflekterer mye av tematikken her på SinnSyn, og dermed er det en sjanse for at du vil like bøkene dersom du liker denne SinnSyn.I dagens samtale var tema: «Alt du tenker er feil», noe som kan være en litt provoserende overskrift, men den kan få oss til å tenke litt annerledes på hvordan vi tenker om det å tenke på å tenke. Det ble ikke en veldig vanlig setning, og den inneholder sannsynligvis en del feil, men nå står den her. Tematikken er kjent fra SinnSyn i flere tidligere episoder, og det dreier seg om hvordan vårt psykiske maskinere fabrikkerer alle våre opplevelser av verden. Kanskje er det også slik at vi koder alt vi opplever via språket, og da er det avgjørende hvordan vi velger å formulere oss. En optimistisk formulering kan føre til en lettere sinnsstemning og kanskje et bedre utfall, mens en pessimistisk formulering kan skape mismot og maktesløshet som fører til apati og mangel på innsatsvilje i forhold til en forestående utfordring. Det er altså snakk om innsikten som ligger ved kjernen i kognitiv terapi: Det er måten vi tenker på og holdningene våre som i høy grad former livet vårt. Jeg så akkurat filmen som heter Arrival fra 2016. Den handler om lingvisten Louise Banks som leder et elite-team av etterforskere når gigantiske romfartøyer lander på 12 steder rundt om i verden. Det er uklart hva de utenomjordiske vesnene ønsker eller hvorfor de har kommet, og usikkerheten skaper splid mellom ulike nasjoner og jorden befinner seg etterhvert på randen av en global krig. Tiden er knapp når Louise må finne ut hvordan man kan kommunisere med gjestene fra verdensrommet. Her har vi en film hvor helten er en lingvist, altså en ekspert på språk, symbolikk og koder. Når man tenker seg om, er det nettopp evnen til å kommunisere som blir det avgjørende i møte med det ukjente. Kan vi forstå hverandre, kle verden i et sett av symboler som skaper en relasjon? Det er tematikken i Arrival, og i denne sammenheng nevnes en interessant, men også omdiskutert, hypotese som kalles den "Lingvistiske Relativitetshypotesen", også kjent som Sapir-Whorf-hypotesen. Den ble fremsatt av den amerikanske antologen og språkforskeren Sapir i artikkelen: "Lingvistikkens status som vitenskap", og videreutviklet av Whorf i artikkelen "Vitenskap og språkvitenskap". Denne hypotesen hevder at språket spiller en svært viktig rolle i folks liv, ikke bare fordi det er en måte å kommunisere på, men det har innflytelse på folks adferd og deres tenkemåte. Med andre ord, folk som snakker forskjellige språk og dialekter har en tendens til å se verden på forskjellige måter. Teorien går ut på at språket ikke bare påvirker hvordan folk kommuniserer med hverandre, men også hvordan personen med et bestemt språk visualiserer og samhandler med verden på et helt grunnleggende nivå. Dette uløselige forholdet mellom språk og verdenssyn er den underliggende bekymringen, ikke bare for språkbrukere, men også historikere, noe som kommer tydelig frem i filmen «Arrival». Sapirs syn på forholdet mellom språk og kultur er tydelig uttrykt i boken hans som heter «Kultur, språk og personlighet» fra 1958.Sapir hevder at mennesker ikke bare lever i en objektiv verden, og heller ikke bare lever i en bestemt kultur, men lever i en flik av verden farget av språket og uttrykksevnen til de man omgir seg med. Han foreslår at den virkelige verden i stor grad er ubevisst bygget opp på gruppens språkvaner. Med andre ord hører og opplever vi i stor grad det vi gjør fordi språkvanene i vårt samfunn predisponerer visse fortolkninger. I andre kulturer kan de ha et språk som vinkler verden på en helt anen måte, og i så fall lever de også i en helt annen virkelighet. I Arrival er spørsmålet om det er mulig å finne en felles plattform med vesner som har en helt anen uttrykksform, kommer fra en helt annen verden og bebor kropper som er helt annerledes enn våre. Jeg likte filmen godt, og synes språk-hypotesen er interessant. Man kan lure på om vi hadde utvidet vår egen horisont ganske mye ved å lære oss et helt nytt språk. I psykologien handler det mye om å få mer språk på vårt indre liv, nettopp fordi vi kan håndtere våre utfordringer på en helt annen måte når våre mentale utfordringer tematiseres i språket. Før vi klarer å sette ord på vanskelige følelser og ubevisste mønstrer, styrer det livet vårt uten at vi vet det. Når vi kler vårt indre liv i en rikere språkdrakt, har vi muligheten til å få helt nye forståelser og innsikter som i neste omgang kan endre livet dramatisk. Vi kan oppnå et bedre syn på vårt eget sinn, og det er jo derfor denne podcasten heter SinnSyn.Et annet spørsmål er om vi med dagens kommunikasjonsteknologi på 160 tegn på twitter og meldinger fulle av smilefjes og få ord, risikerer å gjøre språket fattigere, og sånn sett trekke ned noen rullegardiner i vår egen hjerne. Vi har mye informasjon, men når det sprer seg via snever koding ender vi kanskje opp som dummere på sikt. Det er jeg ikke sikker på, men det er uansett noe å tenke over når man følger tanken om at språket definerer vårt blikk mot verden på en mer gjennomgripende måte enn man kanskje er klar over.I dagens episode skal vi snakke mer om en variant av språklige dilemmaer. Vi skal altså til Mandal for å snakke om at det du tenker er feil. Altså måten du ser deg selv og verden på er kodet på en måte som ikke nødvendigvis reflekterer en objektiv sannhet, selv om vi ofte forholder oss til egne følelser, tanke og meninger som om de er sanne. Jeg mener at det ikke er så lurt, og nå skal du snart få høre hvorfor. Kognitiv psykologi og positiv psykologi gjør denne innsikten om til et viktig omdreiningspunkt i terapeutisk praksis. Dersom det er måten vi tenker på og holdningene våre som former tilværelsen, kan vi tilstrebe å tenke mer positivt for å få en litt mer lystbetont hverdag. Det er en simpel forklaring på positiv psykologi, men her kommer norske grønnsaker som forklarer det litt bedre.KildeSapir, Edward. Culture, Language and Personality. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1958. PrintTAKK FOR AT DU HØRER PÅ OG TAKK FOR DIN STØTTESondre Risholm Liverød har skrevet tre bøker om psykologi og selvutvikling for fagfolk og folk flest, og de kan anskaffes fra WebPsykologens bokhandel. Her får man bøkene til best pris med gratis frakt og rask levering. WebPsykologen ønsker å spre kunnskap om psykisk helse til så mange som mulig, og det skal være gratis og lett tilgjengelig. Det er imidlertid mye jobb å holde liv i nettsiden og podcasten, og dersom du setter pris på dette arbeidet, kan du først og fremst støtte prosjektet ved å kjøpe bøkene mine fra WebPsykologen.no. Du kan også støtte prosjektet ved å dele det i sosiale medier, anbefale SinnSyn til venner og bekjente, skrive om tematikk fra SinnSyn i din egen blogg eller nevne webpsykologen på din egen podcast. Det er også veldig verdifullt med tilbakemeldinger i iTunes. Stjerner i iTunes forteller at podcasten faller i smak, og da vil iTunes holde den synlig på sine topplister og anbefalinger. Jeg er veldig takknemlig for all den støtte vi allerede har fått, og vil takke på forhånd til dere som har til hensikt å anbefale oss til flere. TAKK! Bilder fra arrangementet i Mandal kulturhus See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.
Talk the Talk - a podcast about linguistics, the science of language.
On this weeks But That's Just My Opinion, Daniel Morales joins Matt and David to discuss the linguistics aspects of Arrival (2016). Daniel dives deep into the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis and how that shapes the reality of the film and how the theory is actually viewed in the linguistics community. They also discuss how language varies from different cultures and what language can do for a culture. Song of the week: Have Mercy "Coexist" Follow the pod: @BTJMOPod facebook.com/BTJMOPod butthatsjustmyopinionpod@gmail.com
A colleague once told me that people in linguistics could be divided into two groups: sheep and snipers. I’m not sure whether this is a proper dichotomy – it’s certainly not quite canonical – but whether it is or not, Pieter Seuren is an example of a linguist who is most emphatically not a sheep. His book From Whorf to Montague: Explorations in the Theory of Language (Oxford UP, 2013) develops a number of themes concerning aspects of language that are problematic for existing theories, and yet have been accidentally (he stresses) overlooked in the recent intellectual history of the field. Adopting a broadly universalist standpoint, he is critical of approaches that reject the idea of even looking for generalisations and unity, but he is also critical of many aspects of the programmes that have attempted to find order in language. This is not a book that many people will agree with from cover to cover, but it is one that persuasively challenges much of the accumulated “wisdom” of any given school of linguistic thought. I hope this interview gives some idea of the breadth and depth of the undertaking. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
A colleague once told me that people in linguistics could be divided into two groups: sheep and snipers. I'm not sure whether this is a proper dichotomy – it's certainly not quite canonical – but whether it is or not, Pieter Seuren is an example of a linguist who is most emphatically not a sheep. His book From Whorf to Montague: Explorations in the Theory of Language (Oxford UP, 2013) develops a number of themes concerning aspects of language that are problematic for existing theories, and yet have been accidentally (he stresses) overlooked in the recent intellectual history of the field. Adopting a broadly universalist standpoint, he is critical of approaches that reject the idea of even looking for generalisations and unity, but he is also critical of many aspects of the programmes that have attempted to find order in language. This is not a book that many people will agree with from cover to cover, but it is one that persuasively challenges much of the accumulated “wisdom” of any given school of linguistic thought. I hope this interview gives some idea of the breadth and depth of the undertaking.
A colleague once told me that people in linguistics could be divided into two groups: sheep and snipers. I’m not sure whether this is a proper dichotomy – it’s certainly not quite canonical – but whether it is or not, Pieter Seuren is an example of a linguist who is most emphatically not a sheep. His book From Whorf to Montague: Explorations in the Theory of Language (Oxford UP, 2013) develops a number of themes concerning aspects of language that are problematic for existing theories, and yet have been accidentally (he stresses) overlooked in the recent intellectual history of the field. Adopting a broadly universalist standpoint, he is critical of approaches that reject the idea of even looking for generalisations and unity, but he is also critical of many aspects of the programmes that have attempted to find order in language. This is not a book that many people will agree with from cover to cover, but it is one that persuasively challenges much of the accumulated “wisdom” of any given school of linguistic thought. I hope this interview gives some idea of the breadth and depth of the undertaking. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Bob Garfield and Mike Vuolo talk to Columbia University professor John McWhorter about his new book, The Language Hoax. Show notes at www.slate.com/lexiconvalley. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
In this week's episode we analyze the intellectual insanity that is Pontypool and dig into the deep questions raised by the film. Does language infect the way we perceive reality? Was the Ludovician born in Canada? Are musicals really all that bad? Then, we expound the wonders of the outdoors, and Tony reveals how he escaped a life of being a rocket-wielding, fire-starting, almost-got-charged-with-a-felony supervillain and joined sacred and ancient order of the Cyber Monks. (Or maybe he did some community service IT work for some churches. Eh, close enough.) Finally we slam a magazine into our verbal machine guns and mow down Hollywood's misrepresentation of firearms. One more reminder: Our flash fiction contest for a short story involving a Men in Black style witness protection program is still going. Keep it under 500 words. If you win, we toss you five bucks and read it on the air. Send all entries to hepodcast@gmail.com. Want in on the action? Put a round in the chamber and download directly here. Need more? Switch over to full auto and subscribe to our RSS feed. Links for the Nerdy: Pontypool on Netflix (in the US). Watch it. The Sapir-Worf Hypothesis. (No not that Whorf.) Stephen Hall's Raw Shark Texts. It is a book. With pages and also ideas. You can follow us on Twitter @tsouthcotte and @Albert_Berg, or you can subscribe to the podcast's twitter feed at @HEPodcast. Our blogs are also available to the right of this message on the sidebar.
© 2020-2025 Ivy Podcast Discovery LLC
