|
On October 17 2013 02:20 Vegetarian Wolf wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2013 02:13 xes wrote:On October 17 2013 02:05 Slayer91 wrote:On October 17 2013 02:02 Vegetarian Wolf wrote:On October 17 2013 01:56 Slayer91 wrote:On October 17 2013 01:53 remedium wrote:
You guys realize that these personality tests sound an awful lot like horoscopes, right?
Right? except its not completely random its based on personal input so yes the Forer effect is going to be widespread if people read about "their type" but it doesnt mean its completely useless, just that you might get bias anyway, as I said, this information isn't too useful for yourself (but it might be, some things might explain why they act a certain way, but forer effect is dangerous here), its useful statisically. If you group people by IQ it mightn't mean they all have good genetics or are all going to be really smart but you'll probably get better results teaching em physics over the people who scored 40 because their parents never taught them to read or count and their teachers sucked at it On October 17 2013 01:56 Scip wrote:
Patriarchy doesn't exist, your grandma was happy when your grandad was providing for the entire household, sexy videogame characters are great rolemodels for young girls because most girls really need a can of sex the fk up and women are inferior
any questions you would like my brother On October 17 2013 01:52 Vegetarian Wolf wrote:guys pls i want to talk about feminist cultural theory im sure at least -one- of you read something by greer, cixous, irigaray, gilbert/gubar, or beauvoir, right?? On October 17 2013 01:40 Ketara wrote:
You really want to bring that in here wei?
My point was valid, csheep is being an asshole, and so are you. can you stop victimizing yourself and realize that you're wrong so i read a summary of that book you mentioned and tl dr of the tl dr it sucks to be a woman if you're trying to keep up with men because you have to deal with childbirth and maternal instincts and shit which kept our race alive instead of getting really good at running fast or guessing where things in the sky are going to be in 4 years i mainly brought up the second sex cause of its most famous line "one is not born, but rather becomes, a woman" which was pretty relevant to the discussion a couple pages back one is not born but rather becomes a woman one is not born but rather becomes a man seems like something that is supposed to seem deep but all it says is that you're different from how you were when you were born because of your upbringing. (and woman get it hard because they are given dolls and boys get to play with swords) The thesis of Second Sex is that you can be born a man (in the social sense) but you cannot be born a woman. Anyways this discussion of gender is pretty dumb because it is entirely in the context of Western languages. Gender predominantly is a language issue (because language predicates the construct of social life) and there exist languages with more than just male/female genderization. I.e. in non-English romance languages verbs and adjectives take conjugation based on the gender of the noun. In certain languages this class of conjugation extends to many things because you have be male/female/rock/sky gendered (i.e. things of a given linguistic category take a similar form in lexical construction) So the gender/sex dichotomy is a false one (but at the same time insisting that gender/sex are unified is also false) because language is a posterior construct. There is no a priori truth you may all commit suicide in the face of a meaningless existence now. i disagree with gender being predominantly language issueissue because in societies with languages without gendered nouns you still see similar social dynamics, or at least a distinct difference between "man" and "woman."
Gender-neutral languages are not necessarily genderless though
But primarily teut initiated this discussion of gender as binary and there is already evidence of gender extending to plenty of other objects as long as you aren't mired in eurocentric culture
|
On October 17 2013 02:23 Vegetarian Wolf wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2013 02:22 Scip wrote:
You will feel really dumb when it turns out that Ketara is right Csheep
he very well might, lowering Fizz's allin power at lvl6+ can be very significant especially against lanes that shit on him early (
Orianna). I'd probably bet on Ketara being right that it is significant (though not enough to kill him completely probably) did you read the garbage he just spewed in this thread? he doesn't even have his math right because he STILL doesn't know how his W works even after explained it lol, go look at his numbers
Oh I don't?
Tell us how it works then.
|
On October 17 2013 02:23 xes wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2013 02:20 Vegetarian Wolf wrote:On October 17 2013 02:13 xes wrote:On October 17 2013 02:05 Slayer91 wrote:On October 17 2013 02:02 Vegetarian Wolf wrote:On October 17 2013 01:56 Slayer91 wrote:On October 17 2013 01:53 remedium wrote:
You guys realize that these personality tests sound an awful lot like horoscopes, right?
Right? except its not completely random its based on personal input so yes the Forer effect is going to be widespread if people read about "their type" but it doesnt mean its completely useless, just that you might get bias anyway, as I said, this information isn't too useful for yourself (but it might be, some things might explain why they act a certain way, but forer effect is dangerous here), its useful statisically. If you group people by IQ it mightn't mean they all have good genetics or are all going to be really smart but you'll probably get better results teaching em physics over the people who scored 40 because their parents never taught them to read or count and their teachers sucked at it On October 17 2013 01:56 Scip wrote:
Patriarchy doesn't exist, your grandma was happy when your grandad was providing for the entire household, sexy videogame characters are great rolemodels for young girls because most girls really need a can of sex the fk up and women are inferior
any questions you would like my brother On October 17 2013 01:52 Vegetarian Wolf wrote:guys pls i want to talk about feminist cultural theory im sure at least -one- of you read something by greer, cixous, irigaray, gilbert/gubar, or beauvoir, right?? On October 17 2013 01:40 Ketara wrote:
You really want to bring that in here wei?
My point was valid, csheep is being an asshole, and so are you. can you stop victimizing yourself and realize that you're wrong so i read a summary of that book you mentioned and tl dr of the tl dr it sucks to be a woman if you're trying to keep up with men because you have to deal with childbirth and maternal instincts and shit which kept our race alive instead of getting really good at running fast or guessing where things in the sky are going to be in 4 years i mainly brought up the second sex cause of its most famous line "one is not born, but rather becomes, a woman" which was pretty relevant to the discussion a couple pages back one is not born but rather becomes a woman one is not born but rather becomes a man seems like something that is supposed to seem deep but all it says is that you're different from how you were when you were born because of your upbringing. (and woman get it hard because they are given dolls and boys get to play with swords) The thesis of Second Sex is that you can be born a man (in the social sense) but you cannot be born a woman. Anyways this discussion of gender is pretty dumb because it is entirely in the context of Western languages. Gender predominantly is a language issue (because language predicates the construct of social life) and there exist languages with more than just male/female genderization. I.e. in non-English romance languages verbs and adjectives take conjugation based on the gender of the noun. In certain languages this class of conjugation extends to many things because you have be male/female/rock/sky gendered (i.e. things of a given linguistic category take a similar form in lexical construction) So the gender/sex dichotomy is a false one (but at the same time insisting that gender/sex are unified is also false) because language is a posterior construct. There is no a priori truth you may all commit suicide in the face of a meaningless existence now. i disagree with gender being predominantly language issueissue because in societies with languages without gendered nouns you still see similar social dynamics, or at least a distinct difference between "man" and "woman." Gender-neutral languages are not necessarily genderless though But primarily teut initiated this discussion of gender as binary and there is already evidence of gender extending to plenty of other objects as long as you aren't mired in eurocentric culture
but euro culture is best culture...why bother going to inferior cultures...
i definitely agree that language impacts the concept of gender significantly, but i think it's a bit of an exaggeration to say it is the predominant influence. it's the kind of exaggeration that you get in academic publications that try to play up the importance of their paper/book/whatever 
|
plz keep your filthy lol discussion drama out of this brave thread of pokemon and philosophy
|
On October 17 2013 02:26 xes wrote:
plz keep your filthy lol discussion drama out of this brave thread of pokemon and philosophy
+1 get that league discussion outta here
|
On October 17 2013 02:23 xes wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2013 02:20 Vegetarian Wolf wrote:On October 17 2013 02:13 xes wrote:On October 17 2013 02:05 Slayer91 wrote:On October 17 2013 02:02 Vegetarian Wolf wrote:On October 17 2013 01:56 Slayer91 wrote:On October 17 2013 01:53 remedium wrote:
You guys realize that these personality tests sound an awful lot like horoscopes, right?
Right? except its not completely random its based on personal input so yes the Forer effect is going to be widespread if people read about "their type" but it doesnt mean its completely useless, just that you might get bias anyway, as I said, this information isn't too useful for yourself (but it might be, some things might explain why they act a certain way, but forer effect is dangerous here), its useful statisically. If you group people by IQ it mightn't mean they all have good genetics or are all going to be really smart but you'll probably get better results teaching em physics over the people who scored 40 because their parents never taught them to read or count and their teachers sucked at it On October 17 2013 01:56 Scip wrote:
Patriarchy doesn't exist, your grandma was happy when your grandad was providing for the entire household, sexy videogame characters are great rolemodels for young girls because most girls really need a can of sex the fk up and women are inferior
any questions you would like my brother On October 17 2013 01:52 Vegetarian Wolf wrote:guys pls i want to talk about feminist cultural theory im sure at least -one- of you read something by greer, cixous, irigaray, gilbert/gubar, or beauvoir, right?? On October 17 2013 01:40 Ketara wrote:
You really want to bring that in here wei?
My point was valid, csheep is being an asshole, and so are you. can you stop victimizing yourself and realize that you're wrong so i read a summary of that book you mentioned and tl dr of the tl dr it sucks to be a woman if you're trying to keep up with men because you have to deal with childbirth and maternal instincts and shit which kept our race alive instead of getting really good at running fast or guessing where things in the sky are going to be in 4 years i mainly brought up the second sex cause of its most famous line "one is not born, but rather becomes, a woman" which was pretty relevant to the discussion a couple pages back one is not born but rather becomes a woman one is not born but rather becomes a man seems like something that is supposed to seem deep but all it says is that you're different from how you were when you were born because of your upbringing. (and woman get it hard because they are given dolls and boys get to play with swords) The thesis of Second Sex is that you can be born a man (in the social sense) but you cannot be born a woman. Anyways this discussion of gender is pretty dumb because it is entirely in the context of Western languages. Gender predominantly is a language issue (because language predicates the construct of social life) and there exist languages with more than just male/female genderization. I.e. in non-English romance languages verbs and adjectives take conjugation based on the gender of the noun. In certain languages this class of conjugation extends to many things because you have be male/female/rock/sky gendered (i.e. things of a given linguistic category take a similar form in lexical construction) So the gender/sex dichotomy is a false one (but at the same time insisting that gender/sex are unified is also false) because language is a posterior construct. There is no a priori truth you may all commit suicide in the face of a meaningless existence now. i disagree with gender being predominantly language issueissue because in societies with languages without gendered nouns you still see similar social dynamics, or at least a distinct difference between "man" and "woman." Gender-neutral languages are not necessarily genderless though But primarily teut initiated this discussion of gender as binary and there is already evidence of gender extending to plenty of other objects as long as you aren't mired in eurocentric culture
i wat
i didnt start it
i just mentioned as an example where it can be not only be possible but useful statisically to categorize people (for example the purpose of advertising)
i never mentioned whether i meant sex or gender (since it doesnt matter at all)
that was completely instigated by the united states crew
|
On October 17 2013 02:28 Slayer91 wrote:
i never mentioned whether i meant sex or gender
that was completely instigated by the united states crew
stupid euros can't even appreciate their own language and the implications it carries
anyways it got an overwhelming response because despite the "normal person" equating gender and sex there is a growing number of people who are very caught up in this new wave of feminist cultural theory (which inevitably, and justificably, includes rehashing old arguments/ideas) that jump at the opportunity to expound their views
im just doing it cause im bored at work \o/
i never mentioned whether i meant sex or gender (since it doesnt matter at all)
eh a lot of people would disagree
|
On October 17 2013 02:28 Slayer91 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2013 02:23 xes wrote:On October 17 2013 02:20 Vegetarian Wolf wrote:On October 17 2013 02:13 xes wrote:On October 17 2013 02:05 Slayer91 wrote:On October 17 2013 02:02 Vegetarian Wolf wrote:On October 17 2013 01:56 Slayer91 wrote:On October 17 2013 01:53 remedium wrote:
You guys realize that these personality tests sound an awful lot like horoscopes, right?
Right? except its not completely random its based on personal input so yes the Forer effect is going to be widespread if people read about "their type" but it doesnt mean its completely useless, just that you might get bias anyway, as I said, this information isn't too useful for yourself (but it might be, some things might explain why they act a certain way, but forer effect is dangerous here), its useful statisically. If you group people by IQ it mightn't mean they all have good genetics or are all going to be really smart but you'll probably get better results teaching em physics over the people who scored 40 because their parents never taught them to read or count and their teachers sucked at it On October 17 2013 01:56 Scip wrote:
Patriarchy doesn't exist, your grandma was happy when your grandad was providing for the entire household, sexy videogame characters are great rolemodels for young girls because most girls really need a can of sex the fk up and women are inferior
any questions you would like my brother On October 17 2013 01:52 Vegetarian Wolf wrote:guys pls i want to talk about feminist cultural theory im sure at least -one- of you read something by greer, cixous, irigaray, gilbert/gubar, or beauvoir, right?? On October 17 2013 01:40 Ketara wrote:
You really want to bring that in here wei?
My point was valid, csheep is being an asshole, and so are you. can you stop victimizing yourself and realize that you're wrong so i read a summary of that book you mentioned and tl dr of the tl dr it sucks to be a woman if you're trying to keep up with men because you have to deal with childbirth and maternal instincts and shit which kept our race alive instead of getting really good at running fast or guessing where things in the sky are going to be in 4 years i mainly brought up the second sex cause of its most famous line "one is not born, but rather becomes, a woman" which was pretty relevant to the discussion a couple pages back one is not born but rather becomes a woman one is not born but rather becomes a man seems like something that is supposed to seem deep but all it says is that you're different from how you were when you were born because of your upbringing. (and woman get it hard because they are given dolls and boys get to play with swords) The thesis of Second Sex is that you can be born a man (in the social sense) but you cannot be born a woman. Anyways this discussion of gender is pretty dumb because it is entirely in the context of Western languages. Gender predominantly is a language issue (because language predicates the construct of social life) and there exist languages with more than just male/female genderization. I.e. in non-English romance languages verbs and adjectives take conjugation based on the gender of the noun. In certain languages this class of conjugation extends to many things because you have be male/female/rock/sky gendered (i.e. things of a given linguistic category take a similar form in lexical construction) So the gender/sex dichotomy is a false one (but at the same time insisting that gender/sex are unified is also false) because language is a posterior construct. There is no a priori truth you may all commit suicide in the face of a meaningless existence now. i disagree with gender being predominantly language issueissue because in societies with languages without gendered nouns you still see similar social dynamics, or at least a distinct difference between "man" and "woman." Gender-neutral languages are not necessarily genderless though But primarily teut initiated this discussion of gender as binary and there is already evidence of gender extending to plenty of other objects as long as you aren't mired in eurocentric culture i wat i didnt start it i just mentioned as an example where it can be not only be possible but useful statisically to categorize people (for example the purpose of advertising) i never mentioned whether i meant sex or gender that was completely instigated by the united states crew
I'm canadian and you obviously forgot how this convorsation started:
+ Show Spoiler +On October 17 2013 00:47 Slayer91 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2013 00:42 ComaDose wrote:
It's a worse gimmick than horoscopes because they ask you questions till they know what you expect to hear.
General statements based off of what you already told them about yourself. You can't just lump people into binary categories. yes you can whether its useful or not it up for debate but surely having more information isn't a bad thing? binary categories woman 0 man 1 amagerd you binary categories you can still judge a lot about a person and their interests statisically based on just those things. Look at % of male posters on teamliquid, compared to say, % of women on pintrest or something. you guys need to learn to statistics instead feeling like your individuality is threatened.
learning what words mean will help you avoid this in the future im sure.
|
On October 17 2013 02:31 Vegetarian Wolf wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2013 02:28 Slayer91 wrote:
i never mentioned whether i meant sex or gender
that was completely instigated by the united states crew
stupid euros can't even appreciate their own language and the implications it carries anyways it got an overwhelming response because despite the "normal person" equating gender and sex there is a growing number of people who are very caught up in this new wave of feminist cultural theory that jump at the opportunity to expound their views im just doing it cause im bored at work \o/ Show nested quote +i never mentioned whether i meant sex or gender (since it doesnt matter at all) eh a lot of people would disagree
doesnt matter at all when it comes to statistics (for the purpose of advertising etc)
how many times to i need to say it
if there problems with the way we raise men and women you can argue that but at the current time things are like they are and men and women like and respond to very different things in some circumstances.
On October 17 2013 02:31 ComaDose wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2013 02:28 Slayer91 wrote:On October 17 2013 02:23 xes wrote:On October 17 2013 02:20 Vegetarian Wolf wrote:On October 17 2013 02:13 xes wrote:On October 17 2013 02:05 Slayer91 wrote:On October 17 2013 02:02 Vegetarian Wolf wrote:On October 17 2013 01:56 Slayer91 wrote:On October 17 2013 01:53 remedium wrote:
You guys realize that these personality tests sound an awful lot like horoscopes, right?
Right? except its not completely random its based on personal input so yes the Forer effect is going to be widespread if people read about "their type" but it doesnt mean its completely useless, just that you might get bias anyway, as I said, this information isn't too useful for yourself (but it might be, some things might explain why they act a certain way, but forer effect is dangerous here), its useful statisically. If you group people by IQ it mightn't mean they all have good genetics or are all going to be really smart but you'll probably get better results teaching em physics over the people who scored 40 because their parents never taught them to read or count and their teachers sucked at it On October 17 2013 01:56 Scip wrote:
Patriarchy doesn't exist, your grandma was happy when your grandad was providing for the entire household, sexy videogame characters are great rolemodels for young girls because most girls really need a can of sex the fk up and women are inferior
any questions you would like my brother On October 17 2013 01:52 Vegetarian Wolf wrote:guys pls i want to talk about feminist cultural theory im sure at least -one- of you read something by greer, cixous, irigaray, gilbert/gubar, or beauvoir, right?? On October 17 2013 01:40 Ketara wrote:
You really want to bring that in here wei?
My point was valid, csheep is being an asshole, and so are you. can you stop victimizing yourself and realize that you're wrong so i read a summary of that book you mentioned and tl dr of the tl dr it sucks to be a woman if you're trying to keep up with men because you have to deal with childbirth and maternal instincts and shit which kept our race alive instead of getting really good at running fast or guessing where things in the sky are going to be in 4 years i mainly brought up the second sex cause of its most famous line "one is not born, but rather becomes, a woman" which was pretty relevant to the discussion a couple pages back one is not born but rather becomes a woman one is not born but rather becomes a man seems like something that is supposed to seem deep but all it says is that you're different from how you were when you were born because of your upbringing. (and woman get it hard because they are given dolls and boys get to play with swords) The thesis of Second Sex is that you can be born a man (in the social sense) but you cannot be born a woman. Anyways this discussion of gender is pretty dumb because it is entirely in the context of Western languages. Gender predominantly is a language issue (because language predicates the construct of social life) and there exist languages with more than just male/female genderization. I.e. in non-English romance languages verbs and adjectives take conjugation based on the gender of the noun. In certain languages this class of conjugation extends to many things because you have be male/female/rock/sky gendered (i.e. things of a given linguistic category take a similar form in lexical construction) So the gender/sex dichotomy is a false one (but at the same time insisting that gender/sex are unified is also false) because language is a posterior construct. There is no a priori truth you may all commit suicide in the face of a meaningless existence now. i disagree with gender being predominantly language issueissue because in societies with languages without gendered nouns you still see similar social dynamics, or at least a distinct difference between "man" and "woman." Gender-neutral languages are not necessarily genderless though But primarily teut initiated this discussion of gender as binary and there is already evidence of gender extending to plenty of other objects as long as you aren't mired in eurocentric culture i wat i didnt start it i just mentioned as an example where it can be not only be possible but useful statisically to categorize people (for example the purpose of advertising) i never mentioned whether i meant sex or gender that was completely instigated by the united states crew I'm canadian and you obviously forgot how this convorsation started: + Show Spoiler +On October 17 2013 00:47 Slayer91 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2013 00:42 ComaDose wrote:
It's a worse gimmick than horoscopes because they ask you questions till they know what you expect to hear.
General statements based off of what you already told them about yourself. You can't just lump people into binary categories. yes you can whether its useful or not it up for debate but surely having more information isn't a bad thing? binary categories woman 0 man 1 amagerd you binary categories you can still judge a lot about a person and their interests statisically based on just those things. Look at % of male posters on teamliquid, compared to say, % of women on pintrest or something. you guys need to learn to statistics instead feeling like your individuality is threatened. learning what words mean will help you avoid this in the future im sure.
I know what words mean
if you think I am going to use male and female now whenever i want to say man and woman you are mistaken.
just because someone who doesnt understand statistics wants to drag me into a pc debate every now and again doesn't mean im going to change the way i speak
|
i stil ldont know what you mean when you say "statistics" because if you are simply categorizing people based on physical characteristics, you are categorizing them on sex, whereas you can't categorize people into merely male and female or even man and woman on the basis of gender
|
Well... you're incorrect and you started it.
And i never said anything incorrect about statistics
|
i still dont now what statistics has to do with anything here 
|
On October 17 2013 02:36 ComaDose wrote:
Well... you're incorrect and you started it.
And i never said anything incorrect about statistics
"you cant categorize people in binary"
yes you can
you can for 99.9999% of people and you throw out the outliers
this is statistics but you said about 4 times that you can't do this because its "inaccurate" and im "incorrect"
On October 17 2013 02:37 Vegetarian Wolf wrote:i still dont now what statistics has to do with anything here
scip argued that personality test are useless because you know more about yourself than the test can tell
someone else agreed that you cant lump people into binary categories
my response was that advertising companies and anyone who uses statistics has been doing this for years to help their profits
then i got dragged into gender vs sex debate wat?
when i meant categorizing people for statistics i mean if you are advertising the new gillette max 26 you make it look really sleek and simple. when you are advertising anti constipation pills it shows a sex and the city like scene with woman talking about stuff and pulling stuff out of their handbags
there are not ads for mens razors that involve men talking about their razors and pulling them out of their handbags
NONE
|
Czech Republic11293 Posts
what about real and fictional
that is 100% no outliers, only one or the other is possible.
Originally wanted to say alive and dead but I forgot about zombies
|
On October 17 2013 02:40 Scip wrote:
what about real and fictional
that is 100% no outliers, only one or the other is possible.
Originally wanted to say alive and dead but I forgot about zombies
Historical Fiction? Real individuals in fictional times/scenarios.
|
Language actually has no impact on this imo.
Language influencing "the way we think" (tldr: culture) is a cool-kid concept in psychology (and pseudo-psychologies), but what's actually the case is that language mirrors culture, so we talk the way we do because of how we think, not the other way around.
There is only a slight disconnect because language actually changes far slower and that seems to confuse people.
On October 17 2013 02:40 Scip wrote:
what about real and fictional
that is 100% no outliers, only one or the other is possible.
Originally wanted to say alive and dead but I forgot about zombies
Real and fictional is actually really tricky because to differentiate you have to "prove" that something is real and then you have to "prove" that your proof is real, et cetera et cetera.
Which means many philosophical problems.
|
Your usage of the words man and woman was incorrect. as you corrected yourself later.
I was just commenting on your stuborness to remain incorrect.
And you would have been correct if you said you can lump 99% of people into binary genders but you didn't. you said your a 1 or a 0. and thats both wrong and offensive.
So far the summation of your statistical expertise is that you can throw out outliers. thats litterally the only statistical point you made.
You were the one that brought up sex/gender.
|
history is partially fiction, you don't know what bits are real and what bits were made up
On October 17 2013 02:43 ComaDose wrote:
Your usage of the words man and woman was incorrect. as you corrected yourself later.
I was just commenting on your stuborness to remain incorrect.
And you would have been correct if you said you can lump 99% of people into binary genders but you didn't. you said your a 1 or a 0. and thats both wrong and offensive.
So far the summation of your statistical expertise is that you can throw out outliers. thats litterally the only statistical point you made.
You were the one that brought up sex/gender.
no. I said man/woman. you then quoted my post and brought up gender.
when i was talking about categorizing, you said you CANT lump people into categories. I gave an example. You said no thats incorrect because of 0.0001% of people. So then i said okay, put the 0.0001 put and then leave the rest and its vaid. I did this almost at the very start but everyone completley ignored everything i said and took the chance to try to chastise me for my ancient views of genders which were never there in the first place since my posts were merely a statement on how id use statistical (SUCH AS WHETHER THERE WERE BORN WITH A PENIS OR NOT) to help businesses sell their products to make a profit.
|
Czech Republic11293 Posts
OK I FOUND IT
I = 1
everyone else = 0
no outliers
|
On October 17 2013 02:43 Dandel Ion wrote:
Language actually has no impact on this imo.
Language influencing "the way we think" (tldr: culture) is a cool-kid concept in psychology (and pseudo-psychologies), but what's actually the case is that language mirrors culture, so we talk the way we do because of how we think, not the other way around.
There is only a slight disconnect because language actually changes far slower and that seems to confuse people.
It goes both ways. It is pretty ludicrous to suggest that language preceded society, but at the same time lexical constructs that predate current abstractions still influence how we perceive and talk about them.
When you imagine a timeline (modern abstraction) oriented in 3-space, the axial orientation is heavily correlated with the language used to describe chronology.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
