I think transforming “it’s possible to think without language” into “language is not a tool for thought” is an overreach. Definitely a lot of our internal voice is post-thought, but crystalizing those thoughts into words can provide footholds for further thought. Some would argue it’s not possible to think through a complex issue without writing:
And it’s not unreasonable to expect that well-spoken, articulate individuals are also clear thinkers.
Yeah no. Aren’t there some workshops for CEO’s and managers & co. who try to learn the creative thinking of neurodiverses? Because we usually think without words, we “translate” afterwards.
Thinking is actually more efficient without language. I don’t know of any neurotypicals who think about deep physics for fun.How do you know whether or not physicists are neurotypical?
The reverse. I know that most neurodiverse are in MINT.
The reverse of what? I asked how you know whether or not they are.
How do you know?
How does that work for aphantasia?
There have been studies suggesting prefrontal synthesis (the ability to consciously construct novel mental images) doesn’t develop in humans unless they learn a language before the age of five or so.
This is pretty interesting. I mean I’ve seen dogs dream vividly and am not quite sure how much I believe all them Babe the Pig-alike movies. :)
But I think the definition of a thought is a problem here. Everything we say (or contemplate of saying or trying to remember) is also a thought which precedes our verbal output. Those thoughts will inevitably be in a language of our preference. And actually in process of learning a new language that is often times the pivotal point - once your thoughts switch to a new language, you know you adapted it.
I would argue he shouldn’t argue it since language isn’t a tool for thought. Maybe try hooting I hear owls are smart.
