zlacker

>>Mayson+(OP)
> Subjects of opposing cultural outlooks who were assigned to the same experimental condition (and thus had the same belief about the nature of the protest) disagreed sharply on key “facts” — including whether the protestors obstructed and threatened pedestrians.

That's scary, but it's potentially really helpful in understanding the connections between language and belief.

I know there's some controversy about the validity of the so-called Sapir–Whorf hypothesis, but the idea that language and perception affect political culture was well understood by George Orwell, and I'm not surprised if the idea intersects well with the "ultimate attribution error" phenomenon from social psychology.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimate_attribution_error

>>dane-p+W1
I think the problem with the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis (aside from being poorly named) is that it seems to posit that the lack of a word for a thing, prevents you from perceiving that thing (as for example not having fifty words for snow means you cannot perceive different kinds of snow). This is pretty clearly incorrect, since it is the very lack of a word for a thing that you perceive (and want to talk about) that leads us to invent new words (or repurpose old ones). Thus, English-speaking skiers come up with a new use of the term "powder" to refer to a particular kind of snow, once they have a reason to care about it and want to discuss it with one another.

The more general idea that language and perception affect political culture is not as controversial, although the degree to which the tail wags the dog or vice versa is still debated.

>>rossda+S6
I thought the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis only predicted that the difficulty in understanding certain things would be language dependent, not that it would be impossible per se. To make an apt analogy, some languages force you to declare a whole bunch of factory methods and boilerplate bloat before you can express a program that prints "hello world", others simply let you write print("hello world").

>>IIAOPS+Bc
The strong version basically says that a person's worldview is just about completely determined by language.

This was pretty much tossed in the trash bin, partly due to an interesting study into how a language's lexical entries for colors influences perceptions on color closeness and categorization.

Instead of the strong version there's a reasonable consensus that language influenced things but does not wholely determine them.

An interesting example is that speakers of tonal languages are more likely to exhibit perfect pitch.

Source: my increasingly hazy recollections from a post-graduate comp ling program.