Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

The Vagueness Of Verbal Language Versus Sight


  • Please log in to reply
21 replies to this topic

#1 pagetheoracle

pagetheoracle

    Questioning

  • Members
  • 213 posts

Posted 08 December 2014 - 09:09 AM

If somebody shouts "Hey you!" everybody in the vicinity turns to look at who is doing the shouting and who at.  Even when they are more specific, the same thing occurs to a lesser degree "Hey Tom!" If you're name is Tom, you'll turn to look, to see if it is specifically you they mean and not some other Tom, who might be close by.  It's also like grabbing someone's arm to catch their attention or waving an arm in the air. All this plus 'catching someone's eye,' to start a conversation, seeing 'eye to eye' and averting your 'eyes,'to avoid speaking to someone, indicates how accurate sight is in this context and verbal expression isn't.



#2 Buffy

Buffy

    Resident Slayer

  • Administrators
  • 8895 posts

Posted 08 December 2014 - 03:29 PM

I've found  "Hey you" actually mainly gets people who *know* they are a "guilty party" to turn around, since it's non-specific direction actually implies accusation in most contexts.

 

The interesting thing about "Hey Tom" is that it does narrow down the possible targets, but when you think about it, "Hey Tom Janofskivich" is something of an invasion of privacy, because that lets everyone in the room know that a very specific person is there. In an LA restaurant, the best way NOT to get an autograph is to yell "Hey Tom Cruise!"

 

As an aside, I've really been tempted to walk into a crowded Starbucks (which can be as quiet as a library because everyone is on their lap tops/pads) and yell "Hey Siri! DELETE ALL MY CONTACTS!" (iOS 8 is SO cool...) :evil:

 

 

Eye contact is the best accessory, :phones:

Buffy



#3 pgrmdave

pgrmdave

    Lurking

  • Members
  • 3057 posts

Posted 08 December 2014 - 03:38 PM

As my name is David, which is a rather common name, I never turn around when I hear "Hey Dave!" unless I'm expecting a friend.  Nine out of ten times there's another Dave that someone is trying to talk to.  I feel like sometimes we should all just have GUIDs...  "Hi, I'm 4ece829a-9437-4281-b70c-e808990bf795".



#4 Buffy

Buffy

    Resident Slayer

  • Administrators
  • 8895 posts

Posted 08 December 2014 - 04:00 PM

...I feel like sometimes we should all just have GUIDs...  "Hi, I'm 4ece829a-9437-4281-b70c-e808990bf795".

 

These days we do. They're called cell phone numbers....

 

 

Everything will be all right. You are in my hands. I am here to protect you. You have nowhere to go. You have nowhere to go, :phones:

Buffy



#5 Eclogite

Eclogite

    Creating

  • Moderators
  • 1477 posts

Posted 24 December 2014 - 02:13 AM

I lived in Egypt for a number of years and periodically senior managers would fly in for a few days business. As the country manager I would meet them at the airport.

 

Cairo airport had an exit zone which hundreds, literally, of Egyptians would pack, waiting to greet their friends/relatives returning from overseeas. Now, one of my staff had a pass that enabled him to get beyond the customs and immigration barriers and guide my incoming bosses through that process.

 

On one occassion I was patiently waiting for senior manager, or my Mr. Fixit, or both to appear, surrounded by a sea of Egyptians.I spotted Mr. Fixit in the distance and - unthinkly - roared out. "Hey, Mohamed!" Had I previously been unaware of how many Egyptians are called Mohamed, I would have become informed at that point.



#6 pagetheoracle

pagetheoracle

    Questioning

  • Members
  • 213 posts

Posted 24 December 2014 - 04:35 AM

I lived in Egypt for a number of years and periodically senior managers would fly in for a few days business. As the country manager I would meet them at the airport.

 

Cairo airport had an exit zone which hundreds, literally, of Egyptians would pack, waiting to greet their friends/relatives returning from overseeas. Now, one of my staff had a pass that enabled him to get beyond the customs and immigration barriers and guide my incoming bosses through that process.

 

On one occassion I was patiently waiting for senior manager, or my Mr. Fixit, or both to appear, surrounded by a sea of Egyptians.I spotted Mr. Fixit in the distance and - unthinkly - roared out. "Hey, Mohamed!" Had I previously been unaware of how many Egyptians are called Mohamed, I would have become informed at that point.

Are you stalking me or just bored? 

 

Did you get his attention or that of ten thousand Muslims at the airport?



#7 Eclogite

Eclogite

    Creating

  • Moderators
  • 1477 posts

Posted 24 December 2014 - 07:24 AM

I'm trying to fulfill my duties as a moderator, neglected over the past several weeks, of increasing activity on the board.

 

Every Mohamed in the place turned round, except my Mohamed.



#8 pagetheoracle

pagetheoracle

    Questioning

  • Members
  • 213 posts

Posted 24 December 2014 - 08:18 AM

Sorry to hear about both of these.  I'm trying to finish one of my language books, which I then have to modify for part B of the pair.  After that I have another A volume to complete, then a B volume to collate; a part 4 to finish and a volume 5 to write.  Then there's the joke book, if my life wasn't enough of a joke, so I understand your plight (Go to Christmas Page in The Lounge, if you've got time that is, for half a dozen Christmas card cartoons by me, which 'might' cheer you up:  I'm 63, so I hope I live long enough to complete some of these tasks (Also putting tasters on Pinterest Boards, to encourage interest).

 

Last night I got my first decent night's sleep in several days, so don't want to kill everybody who interrupts me - at least today!



#9 BrettNortje

BrettNortje

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 71 posts

Posted 16 January 2015 - 02:11 AM

Haven't you thought of how we learn as kids things then the descriptions of them? this is object based recognition, like a computer would do, or, photo shop, yes? if you were to observe the people turning to the person shouting, they are responding to the object that 'defies the system' by injecting it with it's own 'brute force,' yes? this rebellion makes us naturally 'scared' and we define the object that brute forced our world, of course.

 

A child learns by identifying objects or people and then it ascribes or identifies the thing of greatest interest by inserting it into it's mouth. this is because the taste of food is wonderful, so, we could also say that we open our mouths sometimes when we are distracted, yes?



#10 CraigD

CraigD

    Creating

  • Administrators
  • 8034 posts

Posted 17 January 2015 - 08:15 PM

Welcome to hypography, BrettNortje! :)
 

A child learns by identifying objects or people and then it ascribes or identifies the thing of greatest interest by inserting it into it's mouth. this is because the taste of food is wonderful ...

I don’t think any credible present-day psychologist would claim to know with much certainty why young children put things in their mouths. For the first half of the 20th century, many embraced psychodynamic theories of personality such as Sigmund Freud’s psychosexual development theory, which explained the behavior as necessary for the development of the libido, a kind of central source of psychic energy. By the late 1970s, however, hardly any accepted these theories anymore, largely because they were unsupported by rigorous scientific experiments.

In my non-specialist’s view, the most credible explanations are evolutionary biological ones. Putting things in your mouth when you’re an infant is selected for, because, until recent medical advances allowed them to kept alive, infants without an adequate drive to nurse, usually died. According to the hygiene hypothesis, post-nursing children who put dirty things in their mouths develop stronger immune systems. In all these cases, evolutionary biology suggests that children that put things in their mouths are more likely to grow up and have children, so whatever underlying genes predispose them for the behavior are increasing present in the human population.

The hygiene hypothesis contradicts your suggesting, Brett, that good taste has much to do with children putting things in their mouths, because according to it, children get more benefit from dirty, germy things than ones that taste like food.
 

... so, we could also say that we open our mouths sometimes when we are distracted, yes?

I’ve not read a credible scientific claim relating the sense of taste or learning to mouth opening, though anecdotally, I’ve seen people’s mouths hang open when they were inattentive, such as when waiting for a bus or train. I suspect this is mostly a mechanical effect due to relaxing of the jaw muscles, though it could be something atavistic, such as opening the mouth to allow for an improved sense of smell, via the vomeronasal organ (which humans may or may not have, but if not, likely had in out genetic history).

Do you have any links or references to research suggesting that children put things in their mouths because the taste of food is wonderful, or some relationship between taste or learning and mouth opening behavior, Brett :QuestionM

#11 ErlyRisa

ErlyRisa

    Questioning

  • Members
  • 439 posts

Posted 18 January 2015 - 05:04 AM

Haven't you thought of how we learn as kids things then the descriptions of them? this is object based recognition, like a computer would do, or, photo shop, yes? if you were to observe the people turning to the person shouting, they are responding to the object that 'defies the system' by injecting it with it's own 'brute force,' yes? this rebellion makes us naturally 'scared' and we define the object that brute forced our world, of course.

 

A child learns by identifying objects or people and then it ascribes or identifies the thing of greatest interest by inserting it into it's mouth. this is because the taste of food is wonderful, so, we could also say that we open our mouths sometimes when we are distracted, yes?

 

I agree...

and too add, now imagine the child didn't have arms. The mind would develop in a completely different way.

 

Brute force, also reminds me of the first sip of mothers milk...and its the smell of mother that defines the first association of being in a safe place (ie that's where I was last anyway)

 

I don't think you need to be a scientist to figure this stuff out....but you do need to be a sick bastard to prove it.



#12 pagetheoracle

pagetheoracle

    Questioning

  • Members
  • 213 posts

Posted 19 January 2015 - 04:53 AM

Welcome to hypography, BrettNortje! :)
 
I don’t think any credible present-day psychologist would claim to know with much certainty why young children put things in their mouths. For the first half of the 20th century, many embraced psychodynamic theories of personality such as Sigmund Freud’s psychosexual development theory, which explained the behavior as necessary for the development of the libido, a kind of central source of psychic energy. By the late 1970s, however, hardly any accepted these theories anymore, largely because they were unsupported by rigorous scientific experiments.

In my non-specialist’s view, the most credible explanations are evolutionary biological ones. Putting things in your mouth when you’re an infant is selected for, because, until recent medical advances allowed them to kept alive, infants without an adequate drive to nurse, usually died. According to the hygiene hypothesis, post-nursing children who put dirty things in their mouths develop stronger immune systems. In all these cases, evolutionary biology suggests that children that put things in their mouths are more likely to grow up and have children, so whatever underlying genes predispose them for the behavior are increasing present in the human population.

The hygiene hypothesis contradicts your suggesting, Brett, that good taste has much to do with children putting things in their mouths, because according to it, children get more benefit from dirty, germy things than ones that taste like food.
 
I’ve not read a credible scientific claim relating the sense of taste or learning to mouth opening, though anecdotally, I’ve seen people’s mouths hang open when they were inattentive, such as when waiting for a bus or train. I suspect this is mostly a mechanical effect due to relaxing of the jaw muscles, though it could be something atavistic, such as opening the mouth to allow for an improved sense of smell, via the vomeronasal organ (which humans may or may not have, but if not, likely had in out genetic history).

Do you have any links or references to research suggesting that children put things in their mouths because the taste of food is wonderful, or some relationship between taste or learning and mouth opening behavior, Brett :QuestionM

Could it just be they do it to explore the world through all their senses, in order to understand it better and therefore learn to control it more effectively?  Clean or dirty doesn't matter but difference in taste does as maybe this helps move us away from synaesthesia, where all the senses are jumbled as with human beings initially:  I have a friend who still has this capability well into adulthood, which I find amazing and he's not the only one.

 

Freud I think mixed with strange patients and I remember somebody mentioning on this site about his daughter having strange ideas about child development too.  Perhaps he was anally fixated himself or because of patients unusual natures, failed to see another more normal explanation might suffice?

 

Yes, perhaps people are like cats - only not sniffing to trace rats but the next bus coming.

 

Good points as usual Craig, delivered with aplomb not with a plum in your mouth!

 

By the way, according to research by Dr Thomas Bak of Edinburgh University, learning a foreign language helps stave off dementia because of the verbal dexterity needed.


Edited by pagetheoracle, 19 January 2015 - 04:55 AM.


#13 Eclogite

Eclogite

    Creating

  • Moderators
  • 1477 posts

Posted 19 January 2015 - 06:10 AM

Could it just be they do it to explore the world through all their senses, in order to understand it better and therefore learn to control it more effectively? 

 

Indeed. Placing an object in the mouth allows us to simultaneously assess its texture, taste, smell and shape. The mouth is provided with a rich array of sensors. It would be foolish not to make use of these. The only surprising thing is that we make very little use of it as adults. Although, ask any older geologist and they will tell you licking rocks can provide a lot of useful information. (I suspect overly protective safety practices discourage it in the younger generation.)

 

If both my hands are full I routinely carry things between my teeth. Loss of a prehensile tail is an evolutionary step I regret.



#14 BrettNortje

BrettNortje

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 71 posts

Posted 19 January 2015 - 10:53 AM

Welcome to hypography, BrettNortje! :)
 
I don’t think any credible present-day psychologist would claim to know with much certainty why young children put things in their mouths. For the first half of the 20th century, many embraced psychodynamic theories of personality such as Sigmund Freud’s psychosexual development theory, which explained the behavior as necessary for the development of the libido, a kind of central source of psychic energy. By the late 1970s, however, hardly any accepted these theories anymore, largely because they were unsupported by rigorous scientific experiments.

In my non-specialist’s view, the most credible explanations are evolutionary biological ones. Putting things in your mouth when you’re an infant is selected for, because, until recent medical advances allowed them to kept alive, infants without an adequate drive to nurse, usually died. According to the hygiene hypothesis, post-nursing children who put dirty things in their mouths develop stronger immune systems. In all these cases, evolutionary biology suggests that children that put things in their mouths are more likely to grow up and have children, so whatever underlying genes predispose them for the behavior are increasing present in the human population.

The hygiene hypothesis contradicts your suggesting, Brett, that good taste has much to do with children putting things in their mouths, because according to it, children get more benefit from dirty, germy things than ones that taste like food.
 
I’ve not read a credible scientific claim relating the sense of taste or learning to mouth opening, though anecdotally, I’ve seen people’s mouths hang open when they were inattentive, such as when waiting for a bus or train. I suspect this is mostly a mechanical effect due to relaxing of the jaw muscles, though it could be something atavistic, such as opening the mouth to allow for an improved sense of smell, via the vomeronasal organ (which humans may or may not have, but if not, likely had in out genetic history).

Do you have any links or references to research suggesting that children put things in their mouths because the taste of food is wonderful, or some relationship between taste or learning and mouth opening behavior, Brett :QuestionM

 

No i do not, but, isn't it obvious?



#15 Eclogite

Eclogite

    Creating

  • Moderators
  • 1477 posts

Posted 19 January 2015 - 11:38 AM

No i do not, but, isn't it obvious?

Science doesn't really rely to much on what appears obvious Brett. Much of what we have learned is anything but obvious. My own remarks on this thread are merely an opinion. True, it is an opinion formed by general reading around the topic, but it would take quite a lot of digging theought the literature to demonstrate the truth of it - and I might well discover I am wholly mistaken.

 

Craig's request is a reasonable one. If you did know of some specific research that confirmed your suspicions we would all learn something. However, speculating in the absence of evidence is interesting, but certainly not conclusive.



#16 pgrmdave

pgrmdave

    Lurking

  • Members
  • 3057 posts

Posted 20 January 2015 - 02:32 PM

No i do not, but, isn't it obvious?


No.

#17 pagetheoracle

pagetheoracle

    Questioning

  • Members
  • 213 posts

Posted 21 January 2015 - 06:50 AM

Scientists in Glasgow University, including Professor Gregor Thut, believe we see the world as a series of rapid snapshots.  This backs up what I was saying about motion and stillness or 'still shots' being needed by the mind for clarity as motion leads to blurring (see ADHD piece below).  Talk is social exchange but such vision is needed for individual assessment by the person, to aid understanding much in the same way as scout planes or drones nowadays, seek out patterns in the environment for military 'intelligence.' Could this connect to research by Dr Robert Nash of Surrey University, who found that memory improved from roughly 50% to 70%, when the eyes of participants were closed?  Maybe that would also explain "Dynamic Imagery"improving success in athletes (French research):  See also my other post today under Forgive Them Lord, covering optimism and the future, in paragraph 3.

 

Dr Helen Lees, from Stirling University's Laboratory for Educational Theory, has also found that silence boosts learning in class as talk is disruptive to attention.  This she said goes with a calm (still) state of mind, necessary for learning.  She advocates meditation, silent reading and indeed silence as a form of preparation before academic endeavours.  Teachers feedback has indicated that this improves behaviour, grades and the overall atmosphere in the classrooms and the school as a whole. 

 

Swedish researchers have suggested that the use of ritalin could cut criminal re-offending by up to about a third as forty percent of inmates are thought to have ADHD.  Again this connects to motion and inability to learn as again a large percentage of prison inmates have literacy problems (lack of calm and stability in their lives or motion / emotion problems).


Edited by pagetheoracle, 21 January 2015 - 10:02 AM.