Sapir-Worf!?!

Hi, and welcome to Studious! I’m your host, Stuart Byers. Each week on Studious, we try and parse out life’s greatest riddles. We’ll tackle topics of particular interest to me, and hopefully to you the listener as well. If not, consider this one of those great podcasts to fall asleep to.

I’d like to also encourage you to quickly give us a like and a follow on whatever platform you’re finding this podcast on. It helps us keep this show rolling, and it also helps show what kind of content people are seeking.

This week on Studious, we are going to be covering linguistic relativity, or the stronger version of this concept: linguistic determinism. In our previous talk of free will, we explored the concept of hard determinism, and ignored the argument of nature versus nurture, favoring a combination of the two affecting human behavior and decision making. Last week, we talked about Aristotle’s ideals with virtue, and how he saw a practiced life of virtue would help best inform a person’s decisions by building their wisdom and character. These are all working at the same problem with different solutions, but what we’re really concerned with are what influences shape our behavior. How much does the language we speak inform our decision making or our interpretation of reality? This topic is wild and broad, so we’ll examine the arguments where language has been proven to shape perspective.

So where did all this linguistic relativity start? It’s interesting really, because when we discuss linguistic relativity in higher education, educators always begin with the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis named after linguists Edward Sapir and Benjamin Lee Whorf. The pair never worked together, nor towards any hypothesis. They just happened to be two dudes studying kinda the same thing. It’s like calling Evolution the Darwin-Lamarck hypothesis.

Benjamin Whorf had studied the Hopi and formulated many of his ideas of language and perception in reference to how non-European cultures could have different perceptions built into their own languages. For example, he noticed how the Hopi language completely ignored tense in their verbs. He found that the Hopi had a different perception of time from the Standard Average European or SAE linear perception of events. For example, instead of saying, “I stayed for eight months,” a Hopi would say, “I left on the eighth month.” Hopi grammatical categories view the world as an ongoing process, where time is not divided into fixed segments so that certain things recur, that is, minutes, evenings, or days. This also creates a different fluidity of language where elongating a word could elongate the word’s meaning. Another example, “tíri" in Hopi translates to "he gives a start" but "tirírita" becomes "he is trembling". So, this is just another reason Whorf would have considered language informing perception.

When we previously discussed Free Will, we may have talked about linguistic determination a bit. The Himba tribe in Namibia is often the go-to to express how language can inform perception. This culture is known worldwide as not being able to see blue, which is kind of a misnomer, they can perceive the color blue, but to them, like the ancient greeks, they see blue as a variant or shade of green. In fact, the Himba are so attuned to green in their environment that there are 19 words for the color green. Hue experiments have shown Nimba people far mor adept at recognizing different shades of green compared to others, which most SAE westerners fail at, conversely the Nimba are worse at discerning various shades of blue that are easily spotted by their western counterparts.

So, there’s this concept amongst linguists that the ability to articulate a concept helps define conceptually in the mind, which allows for identification later down the road. When we are kids, we are taught this shorthand of “stranger danger,” because training children how to identify potential threats comes with time and experience. As adults, our alarm bells may go off when we see someone behaving creepy. Not always will the person give off vibes for us to pick up on, and we will need to use our cognitive abilities to sus out possible threats.

For example, my wife and I were leaving the beach the other day, and we stopped to shower off our 2-year-old, because that lil’ dude is a sand magnet. Next to the singular shower spout is a bench, where we set our stuff, and there’s a guy sitting there by himself, gray hair, perhaps late 40’s early 50’s. My wife is cleaning up my son, and other families are also arriving. It's a high traffic area, as it is the only spicket for about a half mile. My wife then alerts me to this guy, which I’ve already been eyeballing.

Now here’s the thing, he doesn’t seem to be overtly looking at the shower area, so I’m giving him the benefit of the doubt. Maybe he’s there waiting for his family to get out of the restrooms nearby. But then I gauge his attire, which is a black, thin hoodie, shorts and running shoes. This is where cognition kicks in. I start thinking to myself, “this is not beach attire.” Furthermore, “why of all places to sit, is he choosing this one?” Mind you, though there is beach access, this is a park with concessions and ample seating and tables elsewhere.

So, while even children might be able to subconsciously gauge creepy subconsciously, much in the way animals do, how are they to gauge danger when no obvious behavior is readily available? Well, first off, one needs to understand pedophilia as a concept to recognize what social behaviors are acceptable. A grown man seated by himself a few feet away from an area where children are being bathed and often naked is a red flag. Now, this does bring up an important critique of Sapir-Whorf or linguistic relativity, how much of our perception is shaped by language, and how much is determined by culture?

Conceptually, I understand what pedophilia is, and I respond appropriately in social situations. For example, when my daughter was younger between the ages of 4-6, I’d often take her to the park. In those days, I had a glorious mane of hair past my shoulders, and often rocked a 70’s inspired fu-manchu mustache. So, I was already aware of what the connotation and association with mustaches was in the US. I also was well aware of the culture, and how men in parks had generally been stigmatized. Anyway, I was a playful dad, so my daughter and I would run around on all the equipment, often playing tag and the like. We’d be having so much fun, that the other sad, lonely kids would want to join in the merriment. At this point, I’d have to make a judgement call: either take a long time explaining to the kid why they can’t play along with us or go the quicker route of finding the child’s parent and asking permission for the child to engage in our activities.

This is cultural awareness. Conceptually, there’s far more going on here than mere understanding of definitions. This is nuanced behavior and thought primed by being a member of a particular society. I knew the appropriate behavior to not make my fellow citizens uncomfortable or on high alert. Mind you, this would require them to look up from their phones and pay attention to their children, but that’s a whole other conversation.

I got time, let’s have it real quick. Last week, we talked virtue ethics with Aristotle. What would Aristotle think about this behavior? One could argue the parent is fostering independent behavior. However, let’s be real. One could easily make a few assumptions just based on girth, the level of daily physical activity those parents were used to. Perhaps playing with the child and bonding at the park was a physical limitation. I once saw a TEDtalk where a young man simply defined “health” as “the ability to do.” By those metrics, these parents were unhealthy. Aristotle, if we recall, wanted humans to be ever striving for Eudaimonia and “living their best life,” achieving their full potential. Would slovenly lazing about, addicted to screentime be fulfilling that potential? At their funeral, are their children going to be wistfully recalling the days of their youth where their parents paid more attention to their Insta-feed than their health and well-being? As much as modern parents are maligned for their hovering and spoiling, playing with your kids is neither. Play is essential for developing social cues, creativity, and at parks, that kind of play is excellent for building coordination, agility, strength, and speed.

While I’m not here to lecture, or put my own opinions forward to much, I would like to make an argument for being a playful parent. It is one of the best ways to utilize your time as a parent. Also know, that even if it may seem hypocritical because all those other parents are occupying benches like sloths with their noses buried in their phones, they too will secretly be judging you, because people are often blind to their own faults and are also highly illogical.

So, back to pedophiles. How often does one utter that sentence? Anyway, just an understanding of terms will not inform me as an individual how to spot them or not to be perceived as one. This is the blind spot in linguistic relativity. And while we are talking about relativity, I want to also point out how cultural relativity can also be informed by historical relativity, that is, culture’s influence at a particular point in time.

First, let me apologize to Big Stu, because I don’t know how fond he will be of me sharing this next tale, but it really uniquely helps describe all of this relativity in this particular context.

Many moons ago, in perhaps late 70’s or early 80’s, Big Stu found himself by himself at the magnificent St. Louis Zoo. He was a young dad, having had me at 18, so this would have put him in his early to mid 20’s. Now you might wonder why he was at the zoo without me. I often wonder that myself. It’s like those weird parents that go to Disney without their kids. I’m gonna give Big Stu the benefit of the doubt and assume that he was visiting some friends down in St. Louis and perhaps had some time to kill while they were working during the day.

So, another thing to preface this story, Big Stu is notoriously frugal. He’s not cheap, because the man is extremely generous. He just understands the value of a dollar and is wise with how he chooses to part with his hard-earned finances.

Let me set the stage here: A young, frugal man is wandering around the zoo solo. He happens upon a guided tour and thinks to himself, “hey, if I just happen to be standing nearby at each enclosure, I too can get this guided tour, gratis.” Now, this is where we find ourselves historically within a cultural framework. This was before the nationwide attention that the disappearance of Adam Walsh received. For those of you not in the know, Adam’s father is probably the closest thing our society has to a real-life Batman. The loss of his son catapulted him into a mission or crusade of capturing villains. He went on to host the TV show America’s Most wanted for decades later.

So, here we have this single guy, just casually following a guided tour, and given its unique place in time, it’s not really that big of a deal. Oh, did I mention that it was a group of girl scouts? Now, Big Stu was himself a boy scout just a few years prior. Maybe he viewed them as colleagues. It’s still hard for me to envision through my modern lens why this wasn’t registering for him. Now, he’s not an unintelligent man. My dad is quite bright. I think the time period and his general youthful naivety were at play here.

But the story doesn’t end there. So Big Stu is in full Eudaimonia, learning about armadillos and aardvarks and emus, and they finally reach the brown bear exhibit in this further extension of native American animals. The guide begins her speech about the diet and hibernation habits of the American Brown Bear. At this point, one of the little girls asks, “what is that bear doing?” The guide looked over her shoulder, and rather flustered she replied, “oh, that bear? He’s just taking a nap.” As if on cue, the bear chose that exact moment to rear his head from his lap, licking his bear lips, his pink lipstick exposed for all to see.

In unison, the whole troop of girl scouts reflexively let out a giant, “eeeeeeeeeewwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww.”

It was at this very moment, that Big Stu understood the error in his ways. I’d like to think of it cinematically, like a speed montage flashing before his eyes. I then imagine him departing a la Snaggle Puss, “exit, stage left even,” with a Big Stu shaped, dust cloud left in his wake.

So, hopefully this describes relativity better for you. Linguistic relativity is how symbols and concepts can shape our perception, but in this case with my father, I think culture and historical relativity informed his perceptions greater. And this is what we should be aware of as we discuss linguistic relativity. The burden of proof for linguistic relativity needs to pass many logical criteria before it can comfortably assert its theoretical truth.

It's no doubt that this notion of linguistic relativity speaks to us as humans. In political science classes around the United States, they often like to note how linguistics can shape perception. This concept is commonly referred to as “spin.”

I’ll give you an example of the same news story being told by two different media outlets and how they use spin to push their own narratives.

One news outlet could say this, “two men attacked a middle-aged man in central park on Tuesday. The suspects were apprehended when eyewitnesses guided local police to their van parked nearby.”

Another outlet could frame it like this, “two thugs viciously attacked a geriatric old man in broad daylight, brazenly in full view of many witnesses. Heroically, those witnesses stepped forward and guided local authorities to apprehend the criminals nearby.”

Now, on the surface, the second statement definitely uses descriptives to paint a picture and to tell a story, but it also sways opinion in doing so, rather jarringly actually. It assumes guilt of the men, before they’ve been properly convicted. It would seem that the second is obviously more crafted with spin.

But is it?

Well, we don’t have to get into how erroneous eyewitness testimony can be, but let’s just all agree to Google this on our own time. Human memory is definitely fallible, and highly suspect. Just take my word on that for now. However, this isn’t people recalling what they were doing the moment the towers were hit on 9-11, this is eyewitnesses watching two men attack a fellow, then leave the scene to enter a nearby van.

The first story is comfortable within its newspeak and jargon to relate some “facts” in a clear and unbiased way. But is it truly unbiased? The second story used the term geriatric, where the first story opted for the descriptor, “middle-aged.” Well, what does that even mean? Middle-aged is not only a subjective term but can clearly be used to describe people within a 20-year spectrum. A truly objective statement would highlight the man’s age only, and not guide us into believing anything about the man either way.

The first story is also so dry, that it also just falls under the radar. Some people committing a crime? Oh, that’s normal in Central Park, just another Tuesday. Calling those men, “thugs” is obvious spin. Is there such a thing as unobvious spin?”

Well, the best propaganda goes unnoticed. This is what we should be aware of with the first sanitized version. It has an agenda just like the second story, but the strategy is subtle in execution. The agenda is to minimalize the public’s perception of threat and to normalize behaviors that the state has trouble dissuading or correcting.

The point of this illustration is to not favor one type of spin over another, just to be informed that spin happens and is everywhere. This is how linguistic relativity works. Not only can it shape our perceptions in a formalized approach, that is, how we conceptualize from children into adulthood, it also can play on perceptions in real time.

Our two examples of news stories illustrate how linguistic relativity works in the here and now. Spin has become so effectual and nuanced that it has now raised concerns. For most, these concerns are only raised when the spin operates against them, because they seemingly are unfazed by this behavior when it is operating in accordance with their own ideals. This is where utilitarian arguments arise about notions of “being in service of the greater good.” Aristotle would have seen this as an excuse for not exemplifying virtuous behavior.

Then again, another could look at this deception as fair game and in keeping with our glorified, trickster-god exemplaries. Depending on which side of the coin you fall, your perception will be biased. This is why we talk about perception biases and relativity.

So, are there any objective truths still out there? Strong arguments could be made for and against that statement, so let’s put a pin in it. For now, let’s narrow our topic back down to linguistic relativity.

Our subjectivity in processing data, especially when it is presented in different fashions is the precise reason there is all this talk on both sides about “fake news” and “misinformation.” As we saw with our example of the two news stories, linguistic relativity can determine how one interprets facts and data. So, what is our solution to all of the misinformation taking place out there?

Some would argue strongly that we should stamp it out and silence it. On our nation’s birthday this year, 2023, a federal judge in Louisiana barred the government from approaching tech companies for “the purpose of urging, encouraging, pressuring, or inducing in any manner the removal, deletion, suppression or reduction of content”. This of course came after the assertion previously by Elon Musk that the FBI was responsible for encouraging Twitter to block certain content.

Ok, so how can I approach this without putting forth a partisan agenda? Ok, here’s a start. The strength of a republic relies on individuals being able to openly and freely communicate its desires and fears for the republic. In America, we often tout our greatest freedom, that of speech, but don’t get to wrapped up in that sentiment. Freedom of Speech in America was designed to protect legal entities, like the press. While that is noble and just, it is not designed to protect individuals, which is why we currently are arguing cases for or against whistle-blowers. That we will also save for a later date as it is too broad to speak of now.

Let’s talk about this freedom as it pertains to clinicians. My uncle Doug is a doctor. Some would like there to be a distinction between physicians and people who just studied English for 8 years, but my uncle Doug is a country doctor in rural America, so I don’t think he’ll mind the linguistic relativity of being called a doctor for these purposes. He once had joked about why they call physician’s businesses practices, because that’s what doctors often do, they practice until they can get it right.

And this is the art of medicine, trial and error. And it is most critical for clinicians to keep an open dialogue with colleagues on how they troubleshoot any particular illness. In the modern era, doctors are now afforded a larger audience of colleagues and peers to share in the task of ascertaining and treating malignancies. They do this through open discussion forums, and many have moved the conversations to various social media platforms.

Now imagine we have one doctor on YouTube trying to prescribe natural remedies such as olive oil to stave off the flu. There could be no scientific data to support this claim. He could use anecdotal evidence of the many times he prescribed olive oil and show cases, albeit circumstantial and no strong positive correlation, and suggest to others they try his revolutionary techniques.

It could later be revealed that he has ties to Big Oil, Olive to be precise. Now what do we do with this information? It would seem he’s been paid to make these claims of which he has no arguable evidence. How do we silence him? Do we ban him from all social media platforms? How do we eliminate his ability to corrupt the general public?

Well, more than likely you can’t, and furthermore you risk him becoming a martyr if you overtly silence him. More important, any attempt to silence him now gives credo to his claims, and makes others question who is trying to silence him and why? What is the contrary agenda going on here?

And as we know, there is likely no contrary agenda, just a desire to save the public from misinformation. But I’d like to ask an important question here: who made us the thought police? Why are we taking such a strong stance to become the hall monitors of information? Do we not have better ways to spend our time? Aristotle would have us raise our republic with critical thinking skills and logic, so we could sus out these hucksters whenever they rear their ugly heads. Perhaps if we fear our republic is too naïve and under-educated to perceive deception, then perhaps our focus should primarily be directed in sharpening our ability to think critically.

I don’t care about crack-pots spewing their own rhetorics, as wildly misinformed as many of them are, because I personally am not coerced by their opinions. Furthermore, while I care about people falling for bullshit, I personally cannot change that. Conventional wisdom often dictates for us to remove stress by not caring about things we cannot influence or change. Sure, I can spend half this podcast alerting you to be more aware of propaganda, but at the end of the day, I can’t find it for you, or tell you what to think. My only interest is to guide you to think more critically with a skeptical eye.

Doctors need to be able to keep an open dialogue in the information age globally with one another. I don’t have the time to illustrate the many examples of diseases treated and some cured by the global sharing that has come thanks to the speed of the internet and not awaiting the bureaucracy of awaiting peer-reviewed clinical trials. Much of modern medicine is experimental, and like our tricksters and taboo breakers, doctors will need to approach the practice unconventionally and think outside the box.

Some would think I’m talking about Ivermectin or what some of you know as “horse paste” based on the types of media you ingest. I’m not. According to the National Library of Medicine, Ivermectin showed little adverse side effects in its repeated use in humans and animals in fighting parasites for over thirty years now. The only unconventional use of Ivermectin was that it was being used in a new way to battle a previously unknown virus, COVID-19. Had it presented more risk to adversity, then maybe I’d start seeing it as dangerous or unconventional.

And this is the tradeoff doctors often have to consider: is the reward greater than the risk? Is the damage done by the medicine worse than the illness itself?

And these are questions we need doctors to make. And we need them to make these questions publicly. I’m all for total transparency. I used to think about our need to suppress certain types of information because of humanity’s inability to maturely receive it. The most glaring example of this is the alien problem or what we nerds call “first contact.” The going notion is that the government would need to suppress this knowledge because it’s such a game changer for most. How we conduct ourselves would forever be changed based on this understanding that we are not alone. Some would have us raise the alarm to DEFCON 1. Others would completely lose faith in their religion, as our big 3 kinda reinforce monotheism and keep a very human-centric view of the cosmos. I mean, if this info leaked, shit could really hit the fan.

I say, “fuck it.” Let the public know. First off, you bet your ass I would want to know. I’m an adult and can put on my big boy pants. I’ll deal with it. I’ll help my family deal with it. And I also promise to not lose my goddamn mind over it. Will there be chaos in the streets, maybe, but you know, depending on how the information is presented, probably. Looting and rioting, we seem to be keen on that during moments of adversity in our nation’s history. Yeah, I probably wouldn’t leave the house until shit cooled off. I probably would have to live through another toilet paper shortage. If COVID taught me anything, is that I can survive these minor apocalypses, when people act reflexively and lose their goddamn minds.

But I’d still want the public to know.

Ok, so I’m just going to say this now: I hate how people equate any of their intellectual adversaries as “Nazis.” It’s such a lazy ad hominem. For those of you unaware of ad hominem arguments, they mean literally “to the man,” meaning, instead of arguing your point, you are arguing against the man, trying to tear him down as opposed to his claim. We will discuss logic and arguments in the very near future here on Studious.

So back to Nazis. It’s just lazy from a debate standpoint to equate your opponent with the Nazi Party. However, I do want to make one point abundantly clear: totalitarian governments are not keen on dissent, and they will do everything in their power to stamp out conflicting views. This goes for Communist China, Communist Russia, (the ones we have seen as our adversaries going on for almost 100 years now) North Korea, and Cuba (which are all communist if I forgot to signify here). These governments rely HEAVILY on censorship to control their populaces. You also may or may not have seen the large, book, bonfire footage held by the Nazis in those old black and white newsreels.

Censorship is perhaps one of the greatest adversaries of a healthy republic. I think we all need our worldviews challenged from time to time as well. This is why we need to get out of our intellectual comfort zones and seek news from various and conflicting sources. How can we ever hope to make an informed decision if we are only looking a portion of the information available?

A lot of talk has been made of recent about binary thinking, and you can get any more binary than a two-party system. This is the us vs them mentality that they’ve been warning us about, the “othering” of others who may think or look different from us.

I’ll tell you right now, you can’t just divide humans into two categories, even a simple one like biological sex, because there are still genetic outliers to those conditions. Humans are complicated to put it mildly. But humans are also intrinsically lazy, so if we can simplify a problem, we will. If that puts us into a shirts and skins competition where one group agrees with our thoughts more than half the time, then we’ll make them our ingroup and cast out the others.

This is the dangers type of thinking we should most concern ourselves with. First of all, it’s the divisiveness that threatens to erode our republic. We can get into Howard Zinn and the Color line at a future date, but the ruling elite in this country has been fanning the flames of division for a long time here, because if the populace is too busy fighting amongst themselves, they are more easily distracted and more easily controlled. The quickest way to achieve this is by the Three-card-Monty game we have with our media. It’s all a shell game of division. Like Professor Marvel would say, “Don’t pay attention to the man behind the curtain.”

And is that our primary concern with linguistic relativity? Because if we are gonna be rational, we know that determinism is far too grand of a concept to limit it to linguistics. The language we speak isn’t going to forever doom us to a certain perspective. It might influence our perspective, but it will never fully program us like automatons. But there is this growing concern about misinformation and the use of words to shape our perceptions. And why? Because the threat is very real in all actuality, but only for those lacking in awareness. If we keep faithful to our skepticism, keep our eyes open to the potential for propaganda, and question our sources constantly, ever faithful to sussing out their own agendas, then we have those critical thinking skills necessary to not only sniff out the bullshit, but to also form informed stances to help guide us through these harrowing times.

Because let’s face it, with the voluminous amounts of bullshit out there, it’s hard to even decide what is good information and what isn’t. Think about every diet fad out there. Should I eat carbs? Should I never eat carbs? Do I eat like a caveman? What oils are good for me and what oils are bad? And this goes back into medicine. Yes, it is an industry, let’s not forget that. Yes, there are unvirtuous people in the medical practice who work for pharmaceutical companies or are bought by someone selling a supplement or diet craze. It is not our job to silence these people. It’s our job to be able identify what type of advice is worth taking from these professionals. This comes with checking our sources. How trustworthy is this professional, and what do they gain by the advice they’re dispensing?

Now, I’m sure there’s a more comprehensive take out there about linguistic relativity, but that very statement is probably relative. For now, that’s all the time we have here on Studious. I’ll see you next week. Thanks again for listening to Studious.

If you get a chance after the episode, please comment, like, rate, review, make an unbreakable promise, or pledge your undying loyalty. Any act of fealty is greatly appreciated.