Autonomy versus Interdependence

[bickelz]

How come then on the end of the video they were unable to tell the difference between colors? How come they couldn't even see the blue square among the green squares?

Color Wavelength -> Eyes -> Brain -> Brain Connects the value of that wavelength to the color.

They still see a different wavelength between what we see as blue and green. But since they have one word for values of wavelengths in weird parts of the color spectrum, they don't differentiate between the two simply because they have only one word for multiple wavelengths.

For these two colors, if you were to walk up to me on the street and ask me what they were, I'd say they were both green. They're different shades of green and I can still see that, even though I am colorblind. I can perceive them to be different and still name them the same thing.

 

[magister343]

That video reminded me that I've read that the Ancient Greeks conceived color very different from how we do. They apparently described the color of the sky as bronze, and and called blue and green eyes grey. It seems that most of their color terms related to brightness or intensity rather than hue.

 

[Peace]

For these two colors, if you were to walk up to me on the street and ask me what they were, I'd say they were both green. They're different shades of green and I can still see that, even though I am colorblind. I can perceive them to be different and still name them the same thing.

My sense from the video was that the categorization of the world that occurs as a result of language has a profound affect on how we percieve the world. Yes, they still percieve the same wavelength, but because they categorize the colors differently it is difficult for them to tell blue apart from green. On the other hand, two different types of green that they have different categorizations are easy for them to tell apart but more difficult for us to tell apart.

This was simply meant to be one tiny example of how our perception of the world is greatly influenced by the categorization that occurs as a result of language.



That is a set of blocks, but I bet you can see words in it. Your mind automatically perceives them. Our perception is largely influenced by language.

This isn't just limited to language. Our mind is hardwired to recognize faces as well.



Is that an inkblot or it is Jesus?

 

[bickelz]

This isn't just limited to language. Our mind is hardwired to recognize faces as well.

View attachment 9636

Is that an inkblot or it is Jesus?

Jesus. Other animals recognize faces too so I don't get how this is important for language. There was a BBC documentary called Faces and it was narrated by John Cleese and one of the segments described how goats and other animals recognize their friends based on their face.

I think that cultural experience as well as individual experiences growing up are far more important in developing how we perceive the world.

The example of the text blocks is interesting and to someone who only knows Chinese characters, they wouldn't be able to make out what the letters say. But they might be able to figure out a pattern,; bridge the gaps. It's like how our brain can raed smetnihg evne if hte ltters aer out of roder. Or how it gives us the illusion of movement when a bunch of pictures are showed to us in quick succession. It's a human thing. We all do it, just in a different format.

Sure, some languages express things differently and better than others but that doesn't change your view of the world. We all perceive the world differently, that's why we disagree. You perceive language to be a big part of that, I don't. There's not much that will change that.

The reason that I initially said what I said is because of a class that I am taking right now, a Chicano lit class. The title of the course was writing about literature (GUR) but the professor gets to choose the theme. My professor, being a person of Mexican background, chose to do it on Mexican-American literature.

A recurring theme throughout this faction of American lit has to do with language and how English is very uninteresting while Spanish is, at it's core, a large part of Chicano identity.

What I'm trying to say is that there is so much more to a person, to what they believe and what they perceive than the language they speak. History, family upbringing, your third grade teacher, first love, status and the surrounding community contribute so much more to shape who you are than what you speak. I literally think that I would be the same person I am today had I grown up speaking any other language while growing up in the same context.

 

[Matt3737]

"In argument similes are like songs in love; they describe much, but prove nothing."
- Franz Kafka

This.

 

[Peace]

I literally think that I would be the same person I am today had I grown up speaking any other language while growing up in the same context.

While I agree that language is not absolute in its influence on perception, I think you are significantly underrating it. It doesn't make sense to me to argue that the system by which you categorize the world is irrelevant to your identity.

I think even the way you and I are using the word "perception" is probably different and that is influencing our perception as we speak of what the other individual is trying to communicate.

However, we may just have to agree to disagree on this topic. My personal experience shows me many instances where people of different worldviews have talked past each other even though they speak the same language because they use it in completely different ways. People are very much influenced by their language, and I think you would be a completely different person if you grew up speaking Arabic rather than English.

 

[bickelz]

I think you would be a completely different person if you grew up speaking Arabic rather than English.

If growing up speaking Arabic meant living in the middle east or being discriminated against then yes. But if it was in the same context, I'd be the same. But agree to disagree.

 

[alice144]

I tend to argue for interdepedence, because, as someone who uses a lot of Fe, Ni, whatever, I see us as being very interrelated. A person can't do anything without affecting another person; this is simply the way it is. One has to take this into account, and direct one's affective activities to what is hopefully some greater good.

Grammar, bleh. Hopefully you know what I mean.

So I don't really think that, under that definition, autonomy is even possible.

That said, without studying a problem, you cannot with any authority make a good recommendation towards its solution. This is the strongest argument towards individual liberty imo. It doesn't make any sense to try to control people through some centralized authority because said centralized authority would have to be at least as complex as the person whom you are directing. People tend to know themselves better than others do; from this we can conclude that it is best to allow them to make most of their own decisions for themselves.

That said, I do think that existing in a society, even with the attending restrictions on one's liberty, benefits us all in the end. The trick is to figure out how to balance preserving individual liberties while making sure that all individuals are focussed on the collective's needs as well. Examples in our government: pork spending, representatives wasting time and money over pet projects when they really should be looking at the big picture.

I've always thought that those who were most in favor of "liberty" and downsized governments were more selfish, and had more to gain from policies which left them less endebted to the rest of society.

In the end, it's foolish to believe that anyone ever does anything by themselves. Anyone who proclaims such is only lying to themselves and others to further their own selfish agenda.

-Given that diversity often leads to greater conflict, should society try to bring individuals into greater conformity so as to minimize conflict within society?

This is interesting. I don't want anyone to derive any unnecessary conclusions from this... but I do believe that organizations work better when people are similar enough that they can relate to each other at a greater than superficial level.

Imo, diversity works when people learn how to live within it. This require the practice of: open-mindedness, tolerance, and keeping a dialogue going. Listening properly to the other side. It takes an effort, and some people chose to be lazy thinkers, which is a shame.