Hmm or Ha

The "hmm" that follows an interesting statement is similar to the "ha" that follows a joke. Both are products of adjustments to our expectations. What type of adjustment we make determines the sound that comes from our lips. A "hmm" shows that we are patching our expectations up, while a "ha" is evidence that we are letting them go.

Abstraction in language

Imagine multiple stone pathways across a stream. On the first path, the stones are an inch apart. On the second path, they are a foot apart. On the third path, they are 4 feet apart. On the first path, each step is easy because the stones are almost touching each other. On the second path, you have to take fewer steps to get to the other side, but it may be faster because of your natural stride. On the third path, you have to make a fairly good leap from stone to stone - you get across quickly, but it is difficult. This image, to me, represents the process of abstraction in language. We use more or less words to get from one point to the next, and all that changes is the amount of time and effort involved in the crossing.

The first name gets the category

The child calls all dogs he sees Fido and all men Dad, and we adults call all tissues Kleenex and all copiers Xerox machines. It's not surprising that branding and word learning work on the same system: we are naturally disposed to remember proper names.

Meaningless thought

Our eyes twitch, our legs spasm and we sneeze at exactly the wrong moment. And yet, we believe that a disturbing thought is more than just a mental tic.

Questions force thinking

Questions are tiring, they ask a person to do something. That is why questions are disastrous to writing. They completely interrupt the flow. Don’t you agree? When reading, we don't want to think too much. We just want to get to the next sentence. That is what makes declarative sentences so great. They ask nothing of the reader but to read them.

Liking Analogies

The problem with analogies is that they are like idols. You can pray to them, you can call them up at will, but in reality all they are is one instance of a relationship. However, because of their familiarity, we build the relationship with the idol and forget about the god.

Why

In order to prompt a "why?" question, an idea has to meet two minimum criteria. First, we have to find in it an observation that we cannot currently explain. Second, we have to feel the desire to explain it.

Language calculation

Doing a math problem on paper is easier than doing it in our heads. When we are able to write down the numbers and the signs, we can solve complex problems pretty quickly. The same applies to language. When we write down an idea it makes it easier to think through a complicated subject. We all know this is true intuitively. Our journal helps us to clarify our worries, an email with a friend captures a complex conversation in a few sentences.

Conventional thought

Great ideas are pushed into a tiny box. "E=mc2." "I think therefore I am." Just like a powerful brand, say Coca Cola, is recognizable without ever tasting one, a boxed-up idea invokes associations without the thinking-it-through baggage. The truly great ideas can be appreciated on their own, without ever being unpacked.

Olfactory language

A language of smell could work similarly to musical notation. If we codify different scents in a range from sweet-smelling, say, to putrescent, then we could create a notation to represent different types of scents. Perfume manufacturers could create smell harmonies in theory prior to testing them in practice. And there is an everyday use: we could read off the smell notation to determine what cologne we want to wear with our deodorant.

Pattern creation

We tend to think that we "spot" patterns, as if the pattern was always there, just waiting to be discovered. This is not so. Every pattern is created by some person in order to stitch together his or her observations.

Levels of Understanding

We use the word “understanding” as if it represents just one thing. Our friend explains something to us and closes with: "Do you understand what I mean?" We respond that we do, and perhaps we do, but we do not stop and think how well we understand it. That is the problem with thinking of understanding as one thing. It isn’t. There are many different levels.

The first level of understanding is being able to repeat the idea. This is more like parroting, by echoing we show that we "get it". The second level is being able to understand the idea in one context. Let’s say that we learn, and now understand, something about carbon dioxide, but only relative to plants. /Plants/ is our one context. On a third level, we can apply the idea to different contexts. We realize that carbon dioxide also appears important throughout the Animal Kingdom. On a fourth level we can abstract from the idea. Suddenly, carbon dioxide is part of a whole system of gases that behave in a particular way. On a fifth level we can apply this to novel situations. Someone gives us an example of a certain gas, and we suspect that this behavior is due to the special properties of carbon dioxide. And on a sixth level, the idea becomes so entrenched we intake new information through its filter. We see how carbon dioxide relates to an intricate network of living things, and we feel it responsible, in many ways, for our existence on this planet.

At no point could we say that we understood the idea. We only understood different aspects of it on deeper and deeper levels.

Effortless theorizing

Let’s say that while waiting for a friend to pick us up, we spot a man across the street walking quickly. We might start to wonder: "Maybe he is late for a meeting…" "Maybe he forgot something at home." This wondering builds to the second stage of the theory as he approaches us. We notice that he looks upset. We think: "I bet he got in a fight before he left for work." When we look at our watch and notice that it is 7:30AM, and then we spot some crayon marks on his briefcase, we wrap up the theory: "he probably had a struggle with his kid about going to school." Problem solved, attention goes elsewhere. We do not realize how effortlessly and quickly we create our theories, and on what a house of cards they are built. Since we cannot confirm or deny them, we believe them, and they become our facts about people.

Listening patience

Much of the time, while we are trying to listen to someone else, an idea pops into our mind. Then, we try to put it in a sentence. But rather than blurt it out, we try to hold onto it, rehearse it, forehear it. We end up listening to ourselves rather than the person talking. There is an intuitive way to determine who another person is listening to (himself or us). Notice the pause after you speak. No pause, no listening.

Up or down

The metaphor of depth in thinking arises from the assumption that there are levels of understanding. The idea works like this: the deeper the thought, the more surface subjects it cuts across. Depth, in this sense, implies a broad range of thinking. We also use metaphors of height to confer the same idea, e.g. high-level thinking, bird's eye view, ten-thousand foot level of detail, forest for the trees. To me this indicates that some people picture hierarchies as narrowing toward the top, and some people picture hierarchies as narrowing toward the bottom.

An Introduction to Gastrography

A taste language could lighten the load on our food imagination. Imagine graphing our tastes on a coordinate system from bitter, sweet, salty and sour. Four different axes and we could “quantify” every food. Then we could create a taste language. Each taste would have a value, of say 1-100. We could create a clever notation to describe different ranges. And then recipes and menus could tell us, in the proper notation, what mixes a certain dish was. Rather than choosing based on the type of food, we could choose based on the tastes - and we could dream up new food combinations that have never been tasted before.

Words are language notes

In music a C note has a certain sound that is defined by convention. To participate in music, you have to learn the C sound: that is, you have to harmonize with all the other C’s. So you begin to think in this way. Over time, you forget that the sound the C represents might have initially been different to you. The same process is in place for word-learning. We make the words with our own meanings, and then standardize them with everyone else’s.

Act or think?

The desire to solve a problem limits our understanding of it.

Communication is proof of consciousness

Doubting the existence of other minds was an exercise for previous generations. At this point in our collective development, we accept the obvious: other minds are the only things that make sentences like this comprehensible.

Patience makes sense

Nonsense is all the statements that we have given up trying to interpret.

Questions are language demands

We create a demand for meaning by using a scarcity of words. And like scarcity in the material world, scarcity in the langauge world creates action.

Objectives and plans go hand-in-hand

Objectives are of the form – what do I want? Plans are of the form - how do I obtain that? We plan in everyday life. I realize that I want a new pair of shoes. I think - how do I get them - and I can come up with a plan to reach my objective. Often, I learn later that my objective was not clear enough. Like a piece of ice I have to chip away at it – what kind of shoes? What brand? Why that kind? Before I set foot in a store, I refine my objective and my plan together, and each becomes more focused.