[HN Gopher] Speakers of different languages remember visual scen...
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Speakers of different languages remember visual scenes differently
        
       Author : wmlive
       Score  : 155 points
       Date   : 2023-08-19 15:09 UTC (7 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (www.science.org)
 (TXT) w3m dump (www.science.org)
        
       | zodzedzi wrote:
       | > Bilinguals and monolinguals remembered English competitor words
       | that overlapped phonologically with a spoken English target
       | better than control objects without name overlap. High Spanish
       | proficiency also enhanced memory for Spanish competitors that
       | overlapped across languages. We conclude that linguistic
       | diversity partly accounts for differences in higher cognitive
       | functions...
       | 
       | This conclusion sounds like quite the leap.
       | 
       | Even if the two observations they generated turned out to be 100%
       | ironclad true, generalizing to "speakers of different languages"
       | as a title and "linguistic diversity" from observing just two
       | languages seems like a big jump.
        
       | canvascritic wrote:
       | Man this reminds me of this trip I took to the Maldives as a kid.
       | While spending time with locals, I learned the word "feyli," a
       | term unique to their Dhivehi language. "Feyli" describes the
       | feeling of sand between your toes as waves recede on a beach, a
       | sensation familiar to many but so specific that English doesn't
       | have a singular word for it.
       | 
       | Before being introduced to feyli I simply enjoyed beach walks as
       | a sum of various experiences - the warmth, the sound, the view.
       | having a label for that specific feeling of sand sifting between
       | my toes made it stand out in isolation. Each time I walked along
       | the shore, my attention would hone in on that particular
       | sensation, heightening my awareness and deepening the experience.
       | It felt as though that one word added a new layer to my sensory
       | palette
       | 
       | Love how nuances in language can carve out niches in our
       | perception, spotlighting elements of our environment that might
       | otherwise blend into the background
        
         | flangola7 wrote:
         | Attention is all you need!
        
         | dfawcus wrote:
         | Your simply mentioning the sensation was enough to distinctly
         | bring it to mind. Having grown up by a beach, I've experienced
         | it a lot, from childhood through to as an adult at different
         | beaches around the world.
         | 
         | While a specific word for it may be useful, I don't see how it
         | is necessary as an aid to recall of the sensation.
        
           | jerjerjer wrote:
           | Same thing as a meme - it compresses the information and
           | allows an easier (and so more vivid) recall.
        
           | serial_dev wrote:
           | Well, now that we all know there is a word for it, we can
           | evaluate whether our senses were calibrated and amplified for
           | that specific thing.
           | 
           | We won't know it while this thread is active, but if you go
           | to the beach in a week, and exclaim "wow, this feyli thing
           | _is_ pretty nice ", then you'll know that your senses for
           | feeling the "sand between your toes as waves recede on a
           | beach" is heightened.
        
           | ethanbond wrote:
           | I don't think they said it's necessary. They said it helps to
           | isolate it in consciousness from the countless other
           | phenomena you're experiencing every second of every day.
        
             | psychphysic wrote:
             | Reminds me of mindfulness practices, having a word for it,
             | and linking that word to a trip to the Maldives is likely
             | what makes it so intensely memorable.
        
         | politelemon wrote:
         | I did s a search for 'feyli' and it shows that the term is used
         | for the ethnic wear in Maldives.
         | 
         | > Feyli (the ethnic attire of the Maldivian) was worn both by
         | men and women in Maldives during the monarchy.
         | 
         | Is it the same word used for both things, or maybe a slightly
         | different word?
        
           | tired-turtle wrote:
           | For reference, here's a Dhivehi-English dictionary.
           | https://twothousandisles.com/wp-
           | content/uploads/2017/09/dhiv...
           | 
           | (It lists only ethnic wear as a translation for "feyli.")
        
             | psychphysic wrote:
             | Hah now I'm picturing like that urban legend about Yucatan
             | meaning "I don't know".
             | 
             | Op is being asked by natives of he'd like some local
             | clothes while he repeatedly jams his foot into the wet sand
             | and points at it.
        
               | arrowsmith wrote:
               | It's not really an "urban legend" that Yucatan means "I
               | don't know"; it 's a credible theory that linguists take
               | seriously.
               | 
               | You might be thinking of "kangaroo", which is also said
               | to originate from a local word for "I don't know", but in
               | that case it's not a serious hypothesis.
        
               | almostnormal wrote:
               | "Vasistas" in french originated from "was ist das?"
               | (what's that?) in german.
               | 
               | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transom_(architecture)
        
           | rvba wrote:
           | > "The forest of Skund was indeed enchanted, which was
           | nothing unusual on the Disc, and was also the only forest in
           | the whole universe to be called -- in the local language --
           | Your Finger You Fool, which was the literal meaning of the
           | word Skund.
           | 
           | > The reason for this is regrettably all too common. When the
           | first explorers from the warm lands around the Circle Sea
           | travelled into the chilly hinterland they filled in the blank
           | spaces on their maps by grabbing the nearest native, pointing
           | at some distant landmark, speaking very clearly in a loud
           | voice, and writing down whatever the bemused man told them.
           | Thus were immortalised in generations of atlases such
           | geographical oddities as Just A Mountain, I Don't Know, What?
           | and, of course, Your Finger You Fool."
           | 
           | --Terry Prachett
        
         | PunchTornado wrote:
         | as my old fried Witty used to say, the limits of my language
         | are the limits of my world.
        
           | wilg wrote:
           | Do languages have limits? I mean, the poster explained the
           | situation in English. How much does terseness matter I
           | wonder?
        
             | grey-area wrote:
             | Clearly they do have limits.
        
       | [deleted]
        
       | thomastjeffery wrote:
       | There is a subtle, but important, difference between memory and
       | recall.
       | 
       | One is data, the other is a function. I'm not sure how we could
       | possibly measure memory directly. The only thing we can measure
       | is some form of interaction with it, which means we are measuring
       | the interaction itself.
       | 
       | Our best understanding of memory (AFAIK) is that _it is
       | constructed just-in-time_ by the process of recall. So does the
       | distinction matter? How much of memory is tied to comprehension?
       | Having a word for something is one method of comprehension, but
       | there are others. What happens when the word is provided later?
       | 
       | We know that human behavior tends to be driven by narrative. I
       | would be interested to see a similar study where unique
       | expressions are isolated. Do people with a particular/specific
       | way of talking about something _do_ it differently?
        
         | canvascritic wrote:
         | Nice. To liken it to computers, memory is a bit like storage,
         | while recall is the act of retrieving what's stored. The
         | concept of memory being JITed is intriguing. it's reminiscent
         | of the dynamic nature of human cognition.
         | 
         | I always like to think about how comprehension influences
         | memory. Like. Can we truly remember something if we don't
         | understand it? Or more precisely can the data be committed to
         | memory losslessly. And to your point about the provision of
         | words later, it brings to mind studies on the Sapir Worf
         | hypothesis, ie how language might shape thought.
        
       | gumballindie wrote:
       | This is like that "research" where speakers of different
       | languages percieve time in different ways.
       | 
       | I am not sure who funds this type of garbage but it shows that
       | "science" is rifle with ridiculous findings.
       | 
       | Suppose their "findings" are true - do I as a dual language
       | speaker remember visual scenes in both ways? Laughable at best.
       | Expressing visual scenes in different ways is obvious, since
       | different languages have different constructs, but that shouldn't
       | be comflated with experience.
        
         | Tainnor wrote:
         | > I am not sure who funds this type of garbage but it shows
         | that "science" is rifle with ridiculous findings.
         | 
         | This is just such a bad-faith, effortless, shallow dismissal.
         | If you wish to criticise the study, please do it on the basis
         | of the methodology and not just because you think that somehow
         | it can't be true.
         | 
         | > This is like that "research" where speakers of different
         | languages percieve time in different ways.
         | 
         | This was a claim put forward by Benjamin Lee Whorf in the 1940s
         | which has been discredited since at least the 80s:
         | https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hopi_time_controversy
         | 
         | Also, it was always conjectural and never grounded in solid
         | empiric evidence in the way that is at least attempted in the
         | article you're criticising here (whether successfully or not).
         | And for good reason: at that time, linguistics simply wasn't
         | yet as developed a field as it is now and doing experiments
         | like we can do them today would probably have been hard to
         | conceive. For all his faults, Benjamin Lee Whorf is one of the
         | fathers of modern linguistics, and it's not right to criticise
         | him based on today's standards.
        
         | azernik wrote:
         | Generally research of this type finds that dual language
         | speakers' remembered details depend on which language they've
         | been primed with (ie made to use or listen to just before the
         | activity).
         | 
         | It's also much more subtle than the splashy headlines indicate
         | - it's about which details you're more likely to remember, not
         | some fundamentally different experience of the world.
        
           | gumballindie wrote:
           | Details are subjective, and that can be influenced by culture
           | and language. For instance if in my culture it's more
           | important to know the colour of your pants then i will
           | remember that. If in your culture the colour of your hat is
           | more important you will remember that. But a person's culture
           | changes, and that person can still speak a particular
           | language but memories be influenced by a different pattern.
           | Correlation and casualisation etc.
        
       | LordGrey wrote:
       | I wonder how a group of aphantasics would affect the results.
       | Everyones' mechanisms for remembering things is undoubtedly
       | different, but aphantasia means you don't have mental imagery to
       | consult. Does this mean that aphantasics rely more on linguistic
       | cues and connections?
        
         | prismatix wrote:
         | As an aphantasic, I anecdotally do rely heavily on linguistic
         | cues in my memories.
        
         | passion__desire wrote:
         | I think using a language is like constructing a scene graph
         | (computer graphics). Using language i.e. a scene graph
         | representaiton to manipulate ideas and thoughts is far more
         | efficient and faster. Just a guess. Different languages based
         | on primitives might construct different scene graphs.
        
       | nomind wrote:
       | https://medium.com/@uchtchi_buchtchi/breaking-binary-barrier...
        
       | INTPenis wrote:
       | Knowing more languages helps your memory, wow, who woulda thunk
       | it. :D
       | 
       | I speak 4 languages that I got for free, without studying them.
       | Just by being an immigrant, and connected to different european
       | countries. This type of multilingualism is quite common in
       | central europe. I remember meeting kids in Brussels who could
       | speak 10 or 12 languages even, insane!
       | 
       | And yes I can confirm that it sure feels like my memory is very
       | good. I often describe it as a gift and a curse. Ignorance is
       | bliss takes on a powerful meaning when you can't forget things.
        
         | [deleted]
        
       | wmlive wrote:
       | >>Language can have a powerful effect on how people experience
       | events. Here, we examine how the languages people speak guide
       | attention and influence what they remember from a visual scene.
       | When hearing a word, listeners activate other similar-sounding
       | words before settling on the correct target. We tested whether
       | this linguistic coactivation during a visual search task changes
       | memory for objects. Bilinguals and monolinguals remembered
       | English competitor words that overlapped phonologically with a
       | spoken English target better than control objects without name
       | overlap. High Spanish proficiency also enhanced memory for
       | Spanish competitors that overlapped across languages. We conclude
       | that linguistic diversity partly accounts for differences in
       | higher cognitive functions such as memory, with multilinguals
       | providing a fertile ground for studying the interaction between
       | language and cognition.<<
        
         | hackernewds wrote:
         | They say often that French are bad at quick math and Chinese
         | are better due to the nature of their numeric system
        
           | plaguuuuuu wrote:
           | Linguistic differences. About understanding fractions: In
           | English it's "2 out of 5". In Chinese, Korean and possibly
           | some other languages, it's "from 5, 2". Apparently just a
           | quirk of language but results in a difference in ability to
           | compute fractions, so there you go.
           | 
           | Also in Chinese, reciting the times tables are shorter and
           | (unproven) probably easier to memorise, "3 1 3, 3 2 6, 3 3
           | 9". Although I'm not sure why that can't be done in English
           | either.
        
           | mahatofu wrote:
           | There's definitely valid research on higher perfect pitch
           | apprehension in Chinese speakers ( relative to linguistic
           | tonalities ).
        
         | tgv wrote:
         | Unsurprisingly, that's not what the headline suggests.
         | 
         | And, as it turns out, they measured something else indeed. They
         | measured recall of a visual scene after guiding subjects in
         | different ways. English speakers were guided with e.g. clock
         | and clown or clock and mirror. The first pair have some
         | overlap, so (as theory suggests) subjects start looking at
         | both. The second pair has no overlap, so the word clock doesn't
         | make the subject scan for the mirror. Then they tested recall
         | on these pictures. There are differences between people with
         | different language proficiency, but they are small.
         | 
         | So it doesn't show that speakers of different languages
         | remember visual scenes differently, but rather that people only
         | recognize objects from partially heard words quickly in the
         | language(s) they're proficient in.
         | 
         | I wish they'd stop clickbaiting for this kind of technical
         | studies.
        
       | fouc wrote:
       | Hey, looks like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sapir-
       | Whorf_hypothesis has finally been proven. Joking :-)
        
         | Tainnor wrote:
         | The Sapir-Whorf hypotheses remains contested. IMHO everyone who
         | isn't completely clueless has to agree that the strong version
         | of SW is without merit (language doesn't seem to impose hard
         | limits on our thinking), but those who have seen the evidence
         | (e.g. in the field of spatial recognition) would also be hard
         | pressed to deny that linguistic features do mirror cultural
         | practices and points of view.
         | 
         | Of course then the argument is whether the culture determines
         | the language or the language determines the culture, but I find
         | that a silly debate: clearly the two influence other in turn,
         | shifts in culture will eventually be manifested in language but
         | language is a very efficient medium to transmit habitual
         | thinking patterns too.
        
       | peterfirefly wrote:
       | I wonder if that will replicate...
        
       | fourier456 wrote:
       | I can't wait for like 2-3 years from now when we can explore this
       | with vision-GPTs trained with different languages.
        
       | pstuart wrote:
       | Radiolab has a great episode on how language literally defines
       | our reality.
       | 
       | https://www.radiolab.org/podcast/91725-words
        
       | alganet wrote:
       | That's not a surprise.
       | 
       | I mean, it's pretty difficult to have a thought without using
       | language. When we watch a scene, we kinda describe it
       | automatically using words, and that description is bound to be
       | affected by the language used.
       | 
       | I wonder what was the everyday experience of a human before
       | language. It must have been pretty different from the world we
       | experience as literate monkeys.
        
         | abdullahkhalids wrote:
         | The goal of scientific work, is often not to confirm whether
         | some effect exists - its often obvious it is, but to quantify
         | the strength of the effect.
         | 
         | They have done exactly this in this in the study, in fact,
         | along a number of dimensions. Though I won't comment on the
         | validity of their statistics.
        
         | Swizec wrote:
         | > it's pretty difficult to have a thought without using
         | language
         | 
         | You get to be today's 10,000! (xkcd reference)
         | 
         |  _Not everyone has an internal monologue_! 50% to 60% people
         | experience their thoughts completely nonverbally. There isn't a
         | voice constantly narrating their lives. Some people don't even
         | process words as words but add pictures instead.
         | 
         | Best part: the two groups don't realize the other group even
         | exists. We all think everyone thinks in the same way as us.
         | 
         | Sauce: https://www.iflscience.com/people-with-no-internal-
         | monologue...
        
           | alganet wrote:
           | I heard this many times, but I'm guarded about the
           | conclusions. This whole thing depends on people stating how
           | they think.
           | 
           | When I say "I have an internal voice", some people might
           | misunderstand this phenomenon as something more than it is.
           | For example, one might hear it and think I _actually_
           | experience an audible narrator.
           | 
           | I have an internal monologue, but I don't experience an
           | audible voice. It's not a sensory thing, but there is a clear
           | "lookup word, form phrase" thing going on internally, in
           | which language plays an essential role. If I wasn't curious
           | about how that works, or interested in the subject, perhaps I
           | wouldn't have noticed that it is there.
           | 
           | Similarly, I know I have some picture based thoughts as well.
           | I can't avoid but have it. Maybe if I was more interested on
           | that, I would have noticed it more proeminently than my
           | language-based stuff.
           | 
           | In other words, I do believe we have varying degrees of
           | mental models, but I just can't grasp how can an experiment
           | could validate someone thinks "completely nonverbally". The
           | brain doesn't even have a single "language area", it's spread
           | all over the place and can be highly plastic depending on the
           | individual. How can we even measure how a person thinks?
        
           | [deleted]
        
           | tekla wrote:
           | Being unable to debate with yourself in your head must really
           | suck.
        
           | retrac wrote:
           | This claim has always been very odd to me. My own thinking
           | is, rather obviously, _both_. I have an inner monologue but
           | it 's not entirely word-based. There are mental visual
           | images, and I often gesture with my hands reorganizing
           | imaginary collections of objects while arguing with myself.
           | There's also words going on too.
           | 
           | There is also thinking through proprioception. The sense of
           | awareness of the relative placement of the body in space.
           | That, like the other ways of thinking, also overlaps quite a
           | lot with both visual thinking (moving around imaginary
           | objects) and lingual thinking (writing words in the air idly
           | or sub-vocalization). It is probably not appreciated enough
           | as a mode of thought.
           | 
           | Anyway, I suspect it's something of a false dichotomy, and
           | it's not a binary/multi-way clean split, but that most people
           | think like I do -- in a mix of modes, to varying degrees,
           | using all their senses, all their models of the world,
           | simultaneously. But the assumption that I'm relatively normal
           | is the usual conceit here, isn't it? :)
        
             | Swizec wrote:
             | Visual Thinking is a great book that goes more into this.
             | 
             | Yes it's a spectrum and different modes of thinking are
             | better for different tasks. The author of Visual Thinking
             | describes 3 types: linear language thinking, abstract
             | visualizer thinking (common to engineers, mathematicians
             | etc), and object visualizer thinking (common to artists,
             | machinists, etc). Most people can do all 3 with different
             | levels of proficiency/comfort, but only 1 is usually the
             | primary.
             | 
             | The dichotomy I mentioned is about having or not having
             | that inner monologue/narrator.
        
               | alganet wrote:
               | To me, this section of the article deserves more
               | attention:
               | 
               | > They confessed they had thought it was a fictional
               | concept made up as a narrative device in the TV show
               | Dexter
               | 
               | I imagine a person saying "I have an internal narrator",
               | and other person thinking "shit, I don't hear stuff like
               | TV shows, that person is different". A misunderstanding.
               | 
               | I can bet that if the expression "internal narrator" was
               | changed to "an internal voice that you can feel but
               | cannot hear", more people would say they have it, and
               | those poll numbers would change.
        
               | teaearlgraycold wrote:
               | It's pretty close to hearing. Maybe 75% of the way there?
               | Obviously it's a bit different than hearing with your
               | ears but it's got almost all of the same information -
               | except positional.
        
               | schrodinger wrote:
               | But I _do_ hear it, accent, inflection, pauses, and all.
               | Not through my ears of course but a very close
               | simulation. I don't relate to the inner monologue as
               | pictures reference at all!
        
               | alganet wrote:
               | Ok then, let's rephrase to "an internal voice that you
               | can feel, but it's not heard by your ears". It's not
               | sensory.
               | 
               | The phrase doesn't matter. What I want to highlight, is
               | that I can never describe my internal thoughts exactly.
               | There's always a chance for misunderstanding (me not
               | being able to put in words my thought process, or you not
               | being able to translate my description to a meaningful
               | experience to you).
               | 
               | If a better method for determining this appears (eg.
               | scanning some brain areas), then I could be convinced.
               | Otherwise, it's all anedoctal.
               | 
               | At this point of the discussion, it's time for p-zombies:
               | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_zombie
               | 
               | This thought experiment expresses well the problem of
               | asserting someone else's consciousness experience. It
               | can't be done yet.
        
               | [deleted]
        
         | ajuc wrote:
         | When you try to catch a ball playing some sport are you
         | thinking "I need to catch this ball", or are you imagining its
         | path and yourself moving to catch it? I'm usually talking to
         | myself in my mind, but I can't imagine doing it when speed is
         | important, thinking with words takes like 10 times longer.
         | 
         | Or when you look at a photo and think which person is taller -
         | are you thinking in words? Cause I'm imagining cutting and
         | pasting one person next to the other and comparing them
         | visually.
         | 
         | When you try to remember a song melody you probably don't use
         | words to describe the sounds (it was c, g, e, d, ..) you
         | probably imagine the melody in your head, right?
         | 
         | I think most (all?) people use both language and other modes of
         | thinking, just the proportions are person-specific.
        
           | posterboy wrote:
           | "Got it!" is indeed a very common expression in this
           | situation. It does not exclude locomotion in parallel. We
           | also here a lot of "ugh"s and "ah"s in Tennis or Martial
           | Arts.
           | 
           | This is a slippery slope where some will say this is no real
           | word and that's not syntax unless you define language in
           | fivethousand words on normed paper all while catching the
           | damn ball. That's just them crying _look at me_.
        
           | alganet wrote:
           | I agree. There's a lot of things we do which doesn't require
           | language.
           | 
           | It's often there for me though, like a default. I don't think
           | "left leg, right leg" when I'm walking, and I don't think
           | "geez, I'm walking now", but when I'm walking my go-to
           | thinking defaults to some internal monologue: "gonna buy some
           | food", "can I cross the road?", etc.
           | 
           | When I go to bed this is more evident. It's silent, dark, and
           | all senses are numb. This is when the internal voice gets
           | more noticeable. I just can't get rid of it, until the very
           | moment I go to sleep.
        
             | ajuc wrote:
             | I default to monologue too and it has some serious
             | disadvantages. I always had problems remembering to do
             | stuff I "told myself" to do with some delay.
             | 
             | Later in life I learnt a trick from my wife who uses
             | visualization for this. For example I need to buy something
             | tomorrow after work - so I'll imagine myself stepping out
             | of the bus, turning to shop instead of going directly home,
             | and then I'll imagine myself passing by the shelf in the
             | mall where the thing is and taking it to the basket. And
             | like magic - I get an "internal notification" with this
             | fake future memory when I step out of the bus, and then
             | another when I pass by that shelf in the shop.
             | 
             | It's like magic :) Makes remembering stuff so much easier.
        
       | Ekaros wrote:
       | The title feels weird compared to article.
       | 
       | Not that I don't believe there isn't large cultural differences
       | between remembering visual scenes.
        
       | the_gipsy wrote:
       | Reminds of Julian Jayne's essay, where he says that remembering
       | is essentially re-narrating memories to yourself.
        
         | beebeepka wrote:
         | I think it goes beyond simple rearranging. We actively change
         | them. Maybe not many people are immune to this
        
           | taylorius wrote:
           | "But every person has their own encyclopedia written, which
           | grows out from each soul, composed from birth onward,
           | hundreds of thousands of pages pressing into each other and
           | yet there's air between them! Like trembling leaves in a
           | forest. A book of contradictions. What's in there is revised
           | by the moment; the images touch themselves up, the words
           | flicker. A wave washes through the entire text, followed by
           | the next wave, and the next . . ." - Tomas Transtromer.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2023-08-19 23:00 UTC)