[mindways]

I've had friends, linguists, and linguist friends all tell me that Sapir-Whorf has been disproved (at least in strong form), but I find it really hard to believe them, because it contradicts my own experience of the world. I'm by no means perfect at introspection, but I can notice the effect learning new words has on my own thought processes, and it seems about as obvious as the effect of, say, my mood.

When I learn words for colors - what "fuchsia" or "teal" or the like actually mean - I mentally distinguish them from similar shades in day-to-day life whereas before I didn't. (And it's not just "hey, new word, let's use that!"; I learned both of those colors about halfway through my life.) When I learn a specialized term in a field that chunks a bunch of complex concepts together in a particular way, I can think about that topic more fluently (letting me go further with those thoughts), but only if I accept the particular chunking of that term.

Sure, I have some thoughts which are more visual or spatial or musical and don't involve words as semantic pointers-to-structures-of-meaning. But not _all_ of them.

(It's also possible I'm simply fundamentally misunderstanding Sapir-Whorf.)

[Edited to fix italics.]

[acjohnson55]

Languages most certainly helps us hone the way we perceive the world. But on the other hand, it's common for me to have concepts in my mind that seem crystal clear, and yet very difficult to capture in words. Sometimes to the point where it feels like once I manage to start describing it, the concept becomes permanently watered down. Some easy examples are the perceptual effect of looking at my infant daughter, or the experience of hearing certain pieces of music. But often, it's much more mundane. See also, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ineffability.

In that sense, language gives us a way to approximate concepts that we already have, to varying extents. But it's extremely useful, because we can then manipulate those approximations to generate novel concepts. I don't believe anybody would suggest that that's not the case. But strong Sapir-Whorf would suggest that this is how all thought originates.

On another anecdotal note, I used to consider my internal monologue to be me, full-stop, and I have always thought of it as being a stream of words. But I've come to realize that it's not actually real words. Furthermore, at best, its the version of me when I'm under zero stress. However, if I'm upset or threatened, it's clear that "linguistic me" only has illusory control of my behavior, or even my thoughts. In fact, I have realized I often behave first, and then come up with the narrative to understand my own behavior.

I posit that this is universal. I think we shape our thoughts to conform to much more primeval motivations, which are surprisingly complex in nature. The entire media industry exists to try to give us linguistic narratives to explain and shape these urges. And I say "shape" because it's not a one way process. I think we train our own behaviors with our thoughts, and when unstressed, we can even exercise linguistic self-control.

[PeterisP]

"I have realized I often behave first, and then come up with the narrative to understand my own behavior." -> I recall a book https://www.amazon.com/Why-Everyone-Else-Hypocrite-Evolution... that explores the same concept; and one of the thesis there is that, using the analogy of a government for a brain, we like to think that our conscious internal monologue is the president in charge, but actually it's more like a press secretary observing and describing events and decisions after they've been made; our rational brain is literally rationalizing our actions, eagerly inventing reasons why we did when it doesn't want to disclose the real reason (like our politicians do) or when it can't know the real reason (for e.g. split brain patients). Our conscious self is usually not in charge - it can influence and nudge our actions, it can make plans, but it's ultimately up to the other parts of our brains whether the plan will be followed or we'll do something else.

[mindways]

<nod> I've read "The Happiness Hypothesis", which explores the same concept - the analogy it uses is that our subconscious mind is like an elephant, our conscious mind its rider. If the elephant doesn't have much of an opinion about where it should be going, the rider can guide it. But if the elephant wants to go one way, the rider can't do much about it.

(Though the rider can, slowly over time, train the elephant in certain things. But that's not in-the-moment control.)

IIRC - it's been a while since I read it - part of the book's point is that the whole system of elephant + rider is "us", even though the conscious POV is just the rider.

https://www.amazon.com/Happiness-Hypothesis-Finding-Modern-A...