Language is not essential for the cognitive processes that underlie thought

As always, barely anyone reads the actual claims in the article and we're left with people opining on the title.

The claims here are exceptionally limited. You don't need spoken language to do well on cognitive tests, but that has never been a subject of debate. Obviously the deaf get on fine without spoken language. People suffering from aphasia, but still capable of communication via other mechanisms, still do well on cognitive tests. Brain scans show you can do sudoku without increasing bloodflow to language regions.

This kind of stuff has never really been in debate. You can teach plenty of animals to do fine on all sorts of cognitive tasks. There's never been a claim that language holds dominion over all forms of cognition in totality.

But if you want to discuss the themes present in Proust, you're going to be hard pressed to do so without something resembling language. This is self-evident. You cannot ask questions or give answers for subjects you lack the facilities to describe.

tl;dr: Language's purpose is thought, not all thoughts require language

> As always, barely anyone reads the actual claims in the article and we're left with people opining on the title

One must ask why this is such a common occurrence on this (and almost all other) social media, and conclude that it is because the structure of social media itself is rotten and imposes selective pressures that only allow certain kinds of content to thrive.

The actual paper itself is not readily accessible, and properly understanding its claims and conclusions would take substantial time and effort - by which point the article has already slid off the front page, and all the low-effort single-sentence karma grabbers who profit off of simplistic takes that appeal to majority groupthink have already occupied all the comment space "above the fold."