←back to thread

Language is not essential for the cognitive processes that underlie thought

(www.scientificamerican.com)
549 points orcul | 2 comments | 17 Oct 24 12:10 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
fjfaase ◴[19 Oct 24 21:56 UTC] No.41891068[source]▶
As some who has a dis-harmonic intelligence profile, this has been obvious for a very long time. In the family of my mother there are several individuals struggling with language while excelling in the field of exact sciences. I very strongly suspect that my non-verbal (performal) IQ is much higher (around 130) than my verbal IQ (around 100). I have struggled my whole life to express my ideas with language. I consider myself an abstract visual thinker. I do not think in pictures, but in abstract structures. During my life, I have met several people, especially among software engineers, who seem to be similar to me. I also feel that people who are strong verbal thinkers have the greatest resistance against idea that language is not essential for higher cognitive processes.
replies(8): >>41891193 #>>41891928 #>>41892035 #>>41892129 #>>41893304 #>>41894530 #>>41896097 #>>41907543 #
kerblang ◴[20 Oct 24 00:29 UTC] No.41891928[source]▶
> During my life, I have met several people, especially among software engineers, who seem to be similar to me

This begs a question though: Since programming is mostly done with language - admittedly primitive/pidgin ones - why isn't that a struggle? Not sure if you're a programmer yourself, but if so do you prefer certain programming languages for some sense of "less-verbalness" or does it even matter?

Just wondering, not attacking your claim per se.

replies(4): >>41892060 #>>41892066 #>>41892075 #>>41908284 #
alserio ◴[20 Oct 24 01:00 UTC] No.41892060[source]▶
The idea that programming languages and natural languages are processed with the same wetware should be testable with something like the tests described in this submission. I don't expect it to be true, but only expecting something is not science
replies(2): >>41892495 #>>41897653 #
1. branko_d ◴[20 Oct 24 18:58 UTC] No.41897653[source]▶
Other than the word “language”, programming languages and natural languages really have very little in common.

Anecdotally, when I write code, I don’t “talk in my head”. The structures that I have in my brain are in fact difficult to put into words, and I can only vaguely describe them as interconnected 3D shapes evolving over time, or even just “feelings” and “instincts” in some cases.

The code that comes out of that process does not, in fact, describe the process fully, even though it describes exactly what the computer should do. That’s why reading someone else’s code can be so difficult - you are accessing just the end product of their thinking process, without seeing the process itself.

replies(1): >>41898118 #
2. alserio ◴[20 Oct 24 20:06 UTC] No.41898118[source]▶
I do subjectively agree with this. I, too, don't "code by words". However, it's the first time someone has described their personal experience to me as interconnected 3d shapes. Really fascinating and really distant from my own experience. For the second part of your message, code comments are a possible place where you can store the process, via the medium of words, this time.