Think of This !

[dr.strangelove]

There's a lot more to a mastery of language than spelling and grammar. Communication is really the key thing. You can communicate articulately and intelligently without having immaculate spelling and grammar. The words you choose, the order you put them in, and your understanding of how to use them in order to convey some thought or expression are what is important. That's why great written works are looked over by an editor prior to publishing. The content and nature of the thought expressed is a lot more important than the mechanics of the language. Or to put it in terms to which Robbo might better relate, Einstein's theory of relativity would be an incredible work of scientific literature even if he spelled "relativity" "r-e-l-i-t-e-v-a-t-y". The meaning of the content isn't really changed by the superficial error in mechanics. In that sense, I think you will find that most "intelligent" people, as we commonly consider the term, have a good mastery of language - in that they are able to effectively convey a thought, concept, or idea. And I do believe there is some natural correlation between the two. The ability to grasp many such thoughts, ideas and concepts is dependent upon the ability to conceptualize things mentally (using the "natural language" of thought) and to understand the mental conceptualizations of others, which requires a medium, such as language, to facilitate. The ability to express a thought, idea, or concept in your own mind almost naturally implies the ability to express it to others as well. For example, can the ability to mentally grasp an abstract concept like "gravity" exist without the ability to logically articulate that concept? And can the ability to logically articulate the concept possibly exist without the ability to express it (in language)?

The reverse, however, is not necessarily true. Unintelligent, or rather less intelligent, people may be able to use language effectively, but as a corollary to the above, the actual thoughts and ideas that the language conveys may be less than impressive. Politicians spring immediately to mind.

 

[Mossy]

So do you think that the use of language as a tool of communication is a hindrance in comparison to perhaps the universal tool of body language and facial expression?

 

[dr.strangelove]

I don't think body language and other forms of expression are capable of conveying the same abstract concepts as oral/written language, which I suppose is what my whole point boils down to. The reason why "intelligent" people, the people we think of as "intelligent" being those who have the ability to grasp and conceive abstract concepts, are probably more adept in the use of language is because it draws upon the same mental faculties as the ideas and thoughts and abilities that we associate with intelligence - abstraction, logic and reasoning. If you have the ability to conceptualize a very sophisticated abstract idea, be it scientific, mathematical, philosophical, etc, then you almost certainly possess the ability to express it in a meaningful way to other people with the same ability.

On the other hand, you may have incredible power of persuasion, or a great ability to express yourself in verbal or written communication, but the content of your communication may be completely vacuous. For instance, a rousing speech or a brilliant sales pitch that makes very effective use of language to motivate people to a desired action is not often based on any great feat of logic or reasoning or the expression of a complex abstract concept.

So I suppose my conclusion, more formally stated, would be that effective use of language is not a definite indicator of intelligence, but that intelligent people generally have a good mastery of language by the very nature of their being intelligent.

 

[Robbo]

There's a lot more to a mastery of language than spelling and grammar. Communication is really the key thing. You can communicate articulately and intelligently without having immaculate spelling and grammar. The words you choose, the order you put them in, and your understanding of how to use them in order to convey some thought or expression are what is important. That's why great written works are looked over by an editor prior to publishing. The content and nature of the thought expressed is a lot more important than the mechanics of the language. Or to put it in terms to which Robbo might better relate, Einstein's theory of relativity would be an incredible work of scientific literature even if he spelled "relativity" "r-e-l-i-t-e-v-a-t-y". The meaning of the content isn't really changed by the superficial error in mechanics. In that sense, I think you will find that most "intelligent" people, as we commonly consider the term, have a good mastery of language - in that they are able to effectively convey a thought, concept, or idea. And I do believe there is some natural correlation between the two. The ability to grasp many such thoughts, ideas and concepts is dependent upon the ability to conceptualize things mentally (using the "natural language" of thought) and to understand the mental conceptualizations of others, which requires a medium, such as language, to facilitate. The ability to express a thought, idea, or concept in your own mind almost naturally implies the ability to express it to others as well. For example, can the ability to mentally grasp an abstract concept like "gravity" exist without the ability to logically articulate that concept? And can the ability to logically articulate the concept possibly exist without the ability to express it (in language)?

The reverse, however, is not necessarily true. Unintelligent, or rather less intelligent, people may be able to use language effectively, but as a corollary to the above, the actual thoughts and ideas that the language conveys may be less than impressive. Politicians spring immediately to mind.

Hmmm...... I think your post highlights a few important points in that a distinction needs to be drawn between the mechanics [grammar and spelling] of writing as against its construction.

They are judged using two entirely differing criteria; the first by strict[ish] rules laid down in a dictionary and also grammatical conventions with the latter consideration of construction being judged using whatever area of content the author is aiming at.

You also touch upon an intriguing and tantalising area of human experience whereby an individual comes up with a unique idea and for arguments sake we can think of Newton's explanation of the universal nature of gravity.

This was probably [in my opinion] the single most example of pure genius the modern world has ever seen.
Basically he realised the force of gravity was responsible for making objects fall on earth and also keeping planets in their orbit around our sun.
He also realsied and outlined the universality of gravity in explaining how everything in the known universe is attracting, and being attracted by, everything else.

It's an astounding idea and one that I doubt will ever be emulated for its sheer universality.
But .. to shoe-horn this post back on track; when this idea crept into Newton's consciousness, did it emerge in the form of language or pure thought ...and what the hell is pure thought, can we think independent of language?

This is an intriguing problem and one that philosophers have been struggling with for years.

Might be interesting to pursue this line of thinking and speculation ...

 

[dr.strangelove]

Indeed, that is an area of heated argument and disagreement among scientists and philosophers - the nature of thought and it's correlation (or lack thereof) to language. Does one arise from the other? Can they be separated? I'm inclined to think that language is the byproduct of thought - the representation of it. For example, as adults we "think" in our native language. But what about animals? Primates in particular? Or infant children with no language skills or comprehension? Does your child not think before it learns to articulate itself in your native language? Do higher-functioning animals like primates not think because they do not articulate thought in an abstract language? We know that higher primates have the capability of learning to express themselves in abstract language, as primates have been showed to learn and comprehend human sign language. And it should be obvious to anyone who has ever had a child that it is capable of thought long before it is capable of the expression. So I tend to think that thought is possible without language, but that when thought becomes sufficiently developed, abstract language is its natural expression. For example, an ape probably has no need to express abstract thoughts like his place in the universe, or the functioning of nature, or the beginning of time, or even concepts like love or property because he simply isn't capable of understanding concepts of that level. Probably the same story with the newly-birthed human brain. As those higher-order functions develop, they naturally find expression in the equally-higher-order function of language - which is an arbitrarily constructed system of communicative expression, be it visual or oral. However, based on the little reading I've done on the subject, that does not seem to be the mainstream point of view.

The alternative that language and thought sprung forth simultaneously one day in human evolutionary history, or that language and thought are perhaps the same thing, doesn't seem consistent in my view with what we know of early human history and the development of the written word and spoken language. But I'm hardly an expert on the subject.

 

[Mossy]

...But .. to shoe-horn this post back on track; when this idea crept into Newton's consciousness, did it emerge in the form of language or pure thought ...and what the hell is pure thought, can we think independent of language?

...

Wouldn't you interpret pure thought using language though?

Say, for example, that pure thought is just that; perhaps a universal biologically based language of humans, then wouldn't Newton be communciating pure thought using his [default] chosen language to interpret it?

 

[Robbo]

Wouldn't you interpret pure thought using language though?

Of course we would, but this doesn't give us any intrinsic insight into any notion that suggests language may be independent of thought. We use language as a convenient medium to interpret, analyse and finally conclude.
In this sense, language is a tool much like a can opener and it would also be folly to suggest there is any profound connection between the can opener and the can other than the former just being used to open it.

Say, for example, that pure thought is just that; perhaps a universal biologically based language of humans, then wouldn't Newton be communicating pure thought using his [default] chosen language to interpret it?

Once again, yes he would Helen but I'm not sure you can conclude that the two are connected in any other way than functional i.e. Language is subservient to thought and merely the chosen tool for interpretation.

 

[chrizwheatley]

So if a 'it' using text speak had an IQ higher then 'yours' he would not be tapped out in submission? Maybe he would, however the lack of typing skills or use of written language would make 'it' ridiculed?

being he or she = 'it'
being whomever = 'yours'



Edit:- I do not agree with IQ tests, passage for illustration purpose only ... I scored a 132 sober, 116, 113 'drunk' and i wouldnt have a clue who Billy S is

Edit 2:- Simple mathematics question, I had something similar in a crappy GCSE or Ethnic equivalent test several funny moons ago.

 

[Mossy]

...but this doesn't give us any intrinsic insight into any notion that suggests language may be independent of thought. We use language as a convenient medium to interpret, analyse and finally conclude.

...I'm not sure you can conclude that the two are connected in any other way than functional i.e. Language is subservient to thought and merely the chosen tool for interpretation.

Sure, language is a tool, so is a can opener and both have their functions. I get that.

One might say that language is a medium that has been developed in a variety of forms, suitable to the circumstance at the time, to interpret that thought.

Personally, and after much deliberation I agree with your initial statement.

However, it all seems to be a bit like saying, "Numbers are used to evaluate maths"... what alternative would there be? This would be fine if we were trying to quantitively justify this point; but how could you elabroate this any further qualitatively?

 

[Robbo]

Sure, language is a tool, so is a can opener and both have their functions. I get that.

One might say that language is a medium that has been developed in a variety of forms, suitable to the circumstance at the time, to interpret that thought.

Personally, and after much deliberation I agree with your initial statement.

However, it all seems to be a bit like saying, "Numbers are used to evaluate maths"... what alternative would there be? This would be fine if we were trying to quantitively justify this point; but how could you elabroate this any further qualitatively?

There is a however a fundamental difference with your number analogy - language as you mentioned, has been developed in a variety of forms and it's this multiplicity of representation that holds the clue to the difference I mentioned.
When we use numbers in mathematics, numbers represent specific and absolute qualities in the natural world.
7 means 7 in whatever language you care to wrap it up in.

At this point, we must differentiate between the numbers and their linguistic counterpart i.e. 7 means 7 and not ‘seven’, ‘sept’, ‘sieben’ or whatever.

In this sense, the numeric alphabet possesses a dual quality in having both a linguistic and numeric identity; this in itself should give us a clue as to the fundamental difference.

Language, whilst being able to represent a specific quality or object, does not possess that absolute connection with its subject, in this case, thought.

The connection between numbers and what they represent is however, absolute and unyielding in its relevance to what they describe.
Even when we integrate numbers with functions, which essentially, is like providing grammar to words, we do not lose any specificity in terms of what it’s describing [if it’s written correctly].