From: Steele, Kirk A (SteeleKA@nafm.misawa.af.mil)
Date: Mon Jan 14 2002 - 01:00:17 MST
precisely Brian!
Merely asserting that different CULTURES score tests differently is ONLY
making an observation.
Speaking to the nature of this anomoly is something different entirely. What
developmental domain is a priori predicate to higher social functioning in
that society?
IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH PHONEMES! (easy joedees, easy boy....have a scooby
snack) Lemme digress.
This is a recursive process, yes. but once ANY language evolves past a
certain critical minima, any cognition becomes just as easy as the next to
forward verbally or textually. And once forwarded and recorded, the
cognition enters that universal feedback loop of itteration and refinement.
This all depends on the aggregate performance of individuals. If the median
performance of the person in the cognitive domain enable such functioning
AND PROVIDED the person involved is motivated. Motivated, the person sees
sufficient reward either intrinsically or extrinsically to maintain a
immediately non rewarding behavior. Will the person have the perspective
necessary to effectively evaluate the benefits of long term study of any one
formal system or another? Will that person ennact or take on a scoffold that
serves the social domain in the cognitive domain?
Does that society provide social scaffolds that can be transferred by the
individual to other domains?
Is language such a predicate scaffold? On it's face, no. But ANY language
can be used to evolve a meta language. Whether or not a society has
developed such a scaffold is very easy to evaluate. It ONLY comes from a
systematic usage of the embedded morphology. Nacent constructions, however
couched in sophomoric allsusions to historical pretext that have no
predicate foundation in truth, seems to be the fashion. Such are the pride
of those who's overriding adulation at the novelty of finding themselves
with a higher level of cognitive performance than they were concretely aware
most recently. "I've got a new tool and I'm gonna make sure everyone sees
that I can use it better than they can" This last thought has become a
scoffold of that portion of human development centering around the period of
"sturmme and strange' ". The language is not the scaffold, the individuals
usage as couched form within the perspective of their developmental tier,
is.
The _______ is not the scaffold, the individuals usage as co uched from
within the perspective of their developmental tier, is. You fill in the
blank. Language, math, IQ; whatever.
The predicate language is no more a determinism to the capacity of an
individual to comprehend abstract thoughts than a piece of paper and pencil.
The persons ability to make associations of abstract nature depends on the
command of their native language, once that language has evolved past the
previously mentioned critical minima. I have observed first hand for nearly
a decade this phenomenon among the Philipine society. They have no native
words for abstract thoughts of math or psychological formalisms. They posess
crude efferent morpisms of "more" or "less" and "crazy" and "happy". But
they don't have "multiply" or "depression". The tagalog lexicon is
remarkable austere. Listening to them, natives that speak no foriegn
language, you will hear a great dispersion of Portugese, Dutch, and English
words. But for these people these words have no contexts outside of their
language, their scaffold.
The scaffold can be used to construct any abstraction once it is
sufficiently evolved.
For the Grecian Empire this was approximately 2000 BCE.
Sufficiently ambiguous so as to affrord maximum maleability. In a word,
esoteric.
(courtesy of Miriam-Webster online)
Main Entry: es·o·ter·ic
Pronunciation: "e-s&-'ter-ik
Function: adjective
Etymology: Late Latin esotericus, from Greek esOterikos, from esOterO,
comparative of eisO, esO within, from eis into; akin to Greek en in -- more
at IN
Date: circa 1660
1 a : designed for or understood by the specially initiated alone.
Designed for and by the specially initiated alone so as to afford themselves
a egoistic base of perceived power over those whom the choos not to
recognize as being initiated.
Can anyone tell me, for a yankee dime, if they recall any recent assertive
stances of perspectives that were predicated on self proclaimed "esoteric"
scaffolds?
Foolishness begets foolish language begets foolish scaffolds.
Multidisciplinary crosscultural studies reveal these sorts of trends. Is
this racist? To observe such behavior and bring it to the attention of
others, hardly. To call such observation and codification rascist is not
only purile, but juvenile. Indicative of an arrest in adolescent
development. And this arresting of development is also born of a social
predicate. Whether or not the person chooses to rise above this is a
personal trend in egotism.
Very interrelated. Very broad. Very Interesting. Very NON Esoteric.
Ya'll have a nice day now, ya hear.
Kirkasarus Wrecks
-----Original Message-----
From: Brian Phillips [mailto:deepbluehalo@earthlink.net]
Sent: Sunday, January 13, 2002 9:07 AM
To: virus@lucifer.com
Subject: virus: Re: Maths terms from the east!
From: Orlando Moltisanti
<Hey Yash, here's a reason why your maths tongue thing might be a good idea,
this quote refers to the introduction of east asian maths terms into an IAL
- - maybe if a language was more amths orientated then we really would learn
better and quicker. I know it has nothing to do with "embedding" maths
concepts, but I thought I say about it anyway:
"Moreover, mathematical words might be introduced from East Asian languages.
Irene Miura and Yukari Okamoto have established that number values in
Chinese, Japanese and Korean are better understood, because the counting
system relates directly to the meaning of numbers: hence, eleven in Japanese
is "ten-one", twenty is "two-ten", thirty-one is "three-ten-one". The
language is also better at explaining fractions: e.g. in Japanese one third
is "san bun no iti" meaning "of three parts one". It is well known that East
Asian students consistently surpass their British and American counterparts
at maths. The difference is so great that it cannot solely be the result of
superior discipline, motivation or teaching; it must also reflect the nature
of their languages. The vocabulary of the international language will no
doubt be influenced by such findings.">>>
Um.. excuse me.
I will certainly grant the possibility that Oriental languages might
be more convienent for dealing in mathmatical concepts...
HOWEVER... you just wandered into *my* professional
territory...
"It is well known that East
Asian students consistently surpass their British and American counterparts
at maths."
This statement is essentially true but would need to be more precise
to be defended successfully.
< The difference is so great that it cannot solely be the result of
superior discipline, motivation or teaching;>
This is also essentially correct
< it must also reflect the nature
of their languages.>
This is a vast leap and a MAJOR assertion.
It is also HIGHLY counter-intuitive in light
the general consensus among psychometry experts
that East Asians score better than British or Americans
on precisely the same "g factor" loaded tests that
show a strong (like 0.6-0.8 heritability factor!).
Note well that the passage you described is
looking for explanations purely on the environmental
side of the nature/nurture divide.
<The vocabulary of the international language will no
doubt be influenced by such findings>
Sapir-Whorf is a nice thought, but the strong version
is something no one takes seriously (witness the basic
colors research) and even the weak Sapir-Whorf
hypothesis is *at best* a suggestion.
Remember... Laadan has how many speakers?
regards,
brian
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 25 2002 - 13:28:39 MDT