Dumb and Stupid Quotes Thread: Idiotic Source and Context are Key.

Well, it is somewhat ridiculous. :)
Besides, what good would going to the office do? Is the WC there?

Not that i think cfc ot is quite ready to start discussing quotes by kids. I mean things are bleak, but...
 
Well, it is somewhat ridiculous. :)
Besides, what good would going to the office do? Is the WC there?

Not that i think cfc ot is quite ready to start discussing quotes by kids. I mean things are bleak, but...

Are there that many quotes from kids or teens ?
or better: how many quotes from kids or teens make it to a more public environment like the internet ?

kids should shut up when adults speak.. or ?

So one quote from me as teen (13-14 or so)
"he who criticizes his teacher will get lower marks, especially when he is right"
 
^There are plenty of quotes by the son of Will Smith, eg:

6ERf6xm.jpg
 
I can only give myself as anecdotal evidence, and you don't need to trust in that.
But I'm different when I'm speaking German in contrast to English, but that also goes together with different experiences, so, hmmm.

It probably has less to do with the language itself and more with the context in which you learned it, are speaking it, and as you said with different experiences. I've noticed that I am friendlier (sometimes angrier) and overall more emotional when I speak Serbocroatian than German. Not because Serbocroatian is a friendly, angry or emotional language, but because it's one I normally only speak with my family and some old friends and that association carries over when I'm speaking it with a total stranger.
My German self is much more reserved and passive aggressive (i.e. stereotypically German) because I use it all the time and often with strangers or people I don't like.
 
Last edited:
Interesting, for psychology. If I were to describe the color of light used to excite a fluorophore, I would use a numerical wavelength. Any natural science examples?
 
But it's not just psychology. It's reality as far as the investigator's very starting point goes. No one in a culture that doesn't say-see a distinction between blue and green would run an experiment to see whether dogs can distinguish blue from green, for example. It wouldn't occur to them as something to test for b/c it's not part of their reality. These kinds of things govern one's thinking at the level of prior assumptions, then, and those are very powerful.
 
While most cultures (going by the wiki article) do identify differences between green-blue, the effect is more obvious when it comes to theoretical notions. Which is why most terms about categories and/or over-groups of examination are greek - though i suspect in the far east they have mostly chinese terms, due to China also being its own civ.
 
Consider, as an example, how our words for color impact which colors we actually report seeing.

https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/til-today-i-learned.496661/page-215#post-15086893

There is something to the statement:
"you see once you know what to see"

Our physical retina properties limits what we can see, our brain determines what we see.
our brain has to learn to see, to distinguish, to make up

This is also nicely the case for people with a retina with 4 kinds of color cones instead of the usual 3,
(12% of female do appear to have them)
https://theneurosphere.com/2015/12/...-do-so-few-of-them-actually-see-more-colours/
http://nymag.com/scienceofus/2015/02/what-like-see-a-hundred-million-colors.html

But most female having it are not (really) aware, not experienced in recognising it
I guess from lack of social feedback, there are no words for the effects, no developing of that "sense", no amplifying, etc

~~> Seeing colors is a learned, a social-cultural phenomenon

Makes me wondering in how far ESP goes the same way down the drain if you have it and grow up in a social environment of "blind" people.
 
But it's not just psychology. It's reality as far as the investigator's very starting point goes. No one in a culture that doesn't say-see a distinction between blue and green would run an experiment to see whether dogs can distinguish blue from green, for example.
As I said, they wouldn't. They would check the range of wavelengths. And I am sure there are papers for that. I will need a better example (READ: DOCUMENTED INSTANCE, NOT HYPOTHETICAL) of language actually affecting the results of natural science, e.g. a physical constant somehow being interpreted differently by researchers of different backgrounds.
 
But the question was what impact could it have on science, and if a set of investigators never set out to investigate a particular thing, because their language never lets them think to, that's a (considerable) impact on science.
 
And I remember asking for a concrete example, not mushy speculation.
 
And I remember asking for a concrete example, not mushy speculation.

The claim that you questioned was this:

But the language you think in does have an impact on how you think

The blue-green study is the concrete example of that claim. I just extended that to how it could impact science, which is the larger context in which that idea of language influencing thought came up in the first place. I can't give you concrete examples of scientific studies that didn't get done because the investigators didn't think to do them.
 
The blue-green study is the concrete example of that claim. I just extended that to how it could impact science, which is the larger context in which that idea of language influencing thought came up in the first place. I can't give you concrete examples of scientific studies that didn't get done because the investigators didn't think to do them.
And yet the issue of negative data not being published is known, despite the data not being published. Despite the data often only being known to the researchers who did it.

And you would think if other languages provided unique scientific insights the most productive laboratories would be in multilingual Europe rather than the US.
 
Back
Top Bottom