I think that a mostly agree with Elizabeth Spelke about how having access to a larger, more complex language helps people understand and connect more complex thoughts. However, I think that given time, complex thoughts will develop when necessary even without access to more complex language.
When Ann Senghas does the experiment where she showed the cartoon of the brothers to the group of deaf children and deaf adults in Nicaragua for the first time, she explained that the children showed a more complex understanding than the adults, and i totally agree. The children where able to more fully communicate what they understood to be the answer better than the adults, but my only reservation is that what if the issue isn't that the adults didn't understand, but instead misunderstood the question. what if the issue wasn't the answer, but it was the question? We understand that in the cartoon the question was "where WILL the older brother look for the toy?" But what if the issue is not that the adults don't have complex enough thoughts, but rather its due to the limited language they created changed the meaning of question to "where SHOULD the older brother look for the toy?" with this question in mind, it would only make sense for them to say that the toy is in the toy box. taking this approach really explains why after the children and adults hangout for awhile, the adults are able to answer the question properly. Its not that they didn't have complex thoughts, its that their vocabulary wasn't complex enough to convey the true meaning behind the question being asked.
Now the story about Eldefonso really shows how my interpretation of that thought experiment makes sense. If you listen to the story, at the very end of the podcast, they talk about visiting a few of Eldefonso's friends who are still "left in the dark" about language. Eldefonso is showing how, without knowledge of language, these people are able to communicate complex, and rather intelligent conversations. they do this by repeating some action, and adding to these stories, and (probably) taking away from them, giving these men without language a way to be able to communicate.
Overall, I think that language is fundamentally complex, but equally so is the humans brain to be able to take what it is given, and make connections. Language is a very important tool in the brains arsenal, but I don't think that its the only one that can lead to complex thought.
You state you agree with Spelke about how having more access helps to acquire complexity in the mind, but then you say that given time we can make for that language ourselves.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion the answer is yes: We need language to gain a better understanding of what it is we choose to process. I’d honestly have to disagree with you because the question is whether or not without language we are allowed to think complex thoughts. Not whether we choose to or not.
In Words, Senghas even made it clear that the adult generation did no better than the children’s generation in the tests they took to see if the train was put it in the toy box or under the bed where he’d left it where 7 of 8 adults would typically get the wrong answer. This being, the adults could not themselves think of whether or not the older brother himself would know where the toy isn’t supposed to go. All they can think is that the toy itself belongs in the box. To them the little brother would be out of the question. “Toy goes in box” is how they would see it because it’s all they know. Their language is so little and their minds aren’t complex enough to think to be able to be put into the older brother’s shoes. Without the language and resources the younger ones had grown up with, the older ones had to learn to endure with their simplified language of their childhood in a world with complexity and a deeper meaning of understanding language in order to be able process such different concepts.
I do agree that there was probably a language barrier between the experimenters and the deaf adults that was not there (or, not as large) when they worked with the children. But I do not think the adults are incapable of complex thought, but I do believe that they did not think as complexly as the children. When you read a book, do math homework, study you practice and learn certain skills. As your schooling goes on you read harder books with more complex plots and themes, you do harder math, study for longer, your brain becomes smarter because you practice learning constantly. The children, who had developed more words for cognitive actions (believe, forgot, think etc.) were able to practice complex thinking because they could conceptualize how they were thinking. The adults did not have words for thinking actions and therefore not as able to conceptualize what they were thinking, so their thinking does not get as complex because they are stuck in one place. However, also were not able to communicate what other people were thinking, because the adults they socialized with were limited when talking about thoughts. Maybe the adults were able to think complexly, but not able to grasp the complex thoughts of other people. Like the differing knowledge between the older and little brother. They themselves are able to see the little brother hid the toy, but they could not understand why they older brother would not know where the toy is.
ReplyDeleteIn short, I don’t say the adults don’t have complex thought. I say that they do not have as complex thought as the children because they are unable to practice complex thought as well.