Language and Intelligence

[Nearly Sane]

Are they that connected?

https://aeon.co/ideas/the-link-between-language-and-cognition-is-a-red-herring

[jeremyp]

Are they that connected?

https://aeon.co/ideas/the-link-between-language-and-cognition-is-a-red-herring

I think the article is a straw man. He claims that people try to teach language to other primates so we can find out what they are thinking. I don't think that is the case. I don't think that is why people try to teach languages to other animals.

While lack of language does not indicate lack of intelligence, the acquisition of language does indicate intelligence, it indicates the ability of abstract thought.

[Nearly Sane]

I think the article is a straw man. He claims that people try to teach language to other primates so we can find out what they are thinking. I don't think that is the case. I don't think that is why people try to teach languages to other animals.

While lack of language does not indicate lack of intelligence, the acquisition of language does indicate intelligence, it indicates the ability of abstract thought.

struggling with your language here. Are you saying that lack of language demonstrates lack of abstract thought? And what do you see the meaning of abstract thought?

[Jack Knave]

Language is primarily social not intellectual. Many a quiet person has been highly intelligent and wise.

[Nearly Sane]

Language is primarily social not intellectual. Many a quiet person has been highly intelligent and wise.

Not sure that that is the point that the article is making. Not about quiet vs loud rather the more common argument occasionally seen on here that language makes humans different and is about intelligence.

[jeremyp]

struggling with your language here. Are you saying that lack of language demonstrates lack of abstract thought? And what do you see the meaning of abstract thought?

No. I said "[language] indicates the ability of abstract thought".

It's basic logic, if P implies Q it does NOT mean that not P implies not Q.

For instance if P is "Bob is human" and Q is "Bob is a mammal", clearly P implies Q, however not P (Bob is not human) does not imply not Q (Bob is not a mammal). Bob might be my dog.

Sorry to labour the point but it's an error that comes up on this forum a lot.

[torridon]

The article seems right to me; we tend to measure everything in human terms and this sees us defining concepts such as intelligence and thought in particularly anthropocentric ways.  Research shows that other primates and even tiny brained corvids can outperform humans in some abstract cognitive abilities but they probably aren't thinking about the tasks set in the same way that we do. The extent in which we think in silent internal words is our preparation for social interaction and communication; humans have large brains not just because we are smart, but because we are social and having highly linguistic minds augurs for emergent intelligence at the species level; Sapiens prospered whereas Neanderthals did not because we reaped the benefits of collective learning through a greater readiness to trade with and thus learn from others whereas Neanderthals tended to live in isolated family groups.

[Nearly Sane]

No. I said "[language] indicates the ability of abstract thought".

It's basic logic, if P implies Q it does NOT mean that not P implies not Q.

For instance if P is "Bob is human" and Q is "Bob is a mammal", clearly P implies Q, however not P (Bob is not human) does not imply not Q (Bob is not a mammal). Bob might be my dog.

Sorry to labour the point but it's an error that comes up on this forum a lot.

. Did you miss the question mark? I asked because 'indicates' a word can be read either way in your basic logic statements.

[jeremyp]

. Did you miss the question mark? I asked because 'indicates' a word can be read either way in your basic logic statements.

Well just to clarify for you then, if you have language then you have the power of abstract thought. If you do not have language, we would need other means to discover if you have the power of abstract thought.

Also, by "abstract thought" I mean the ability to understand concepts out of the context of immediate experience. The ability to map a symbol e.g. a hand signal or a vocalisation to a concept isa way of abstracting that concept.

[Jack Knave]

Not sure that that is the point that the article is making. Not about quiet vs loud rather the more common argument occasionally seen on here that language makes humans different and is about intelligence.

Then the question of what is intelligence arises. Kind of like the chicken and the egg. Did intelligence come first before language of did language precede intelligence.

[Nearly Sane]

Then the question of what is intelligence arises. Kind of like the chicken and the egg. Did intelligence come first before language of did language precede intelligence.

well the position of the article would obviously be that since language is not a prerequisite for intelligence, then intelligence predates language. This is the second post from you on this that is so left field in relation to the article that it appears you haven't read it.   

[Jack Knave]

well the position of the article would obviously be that since language is not a prerequisite for intelligence, then intelligence predates language. This is the second post from you on this that is so left field in relation to the article that it appears you haven't read it.

Actually I related it to the chicken and the egg conundrum whose answer is neither, in that before these states there came proto-chicken and proto-egg. The answer is so convoluted that to even pose it shows a level of low intelligence and short sightedness. So my post wasn't left field but flew well over the mundane proposition of the article.

[Dicky Underpants]

Language is primarily social not intellectual. Many a quiet person has been highly intelligent and wise.

Ian Duncan Smith, before he "turned up the volume"?

[Jack Knave]

Ian Duncan Smith, before he "turned up the volume"?

If you count hissing static as intelligence...?

[Harrowby Hall]

Language - in the human context - implies the ability to construct an utterance which has never been uttered before in the certain knowledge that it will be understood by all other users of that language. The important characteristic of human language is that it is infinitely generative.

My understanding, from my largely forgotten university psycholinguistics (four decades ago) is that people taught American Sign Language to chimps like Washoe mainly to see if it could be done. This was the time of Chomsky and the theory of deep structure and generative grammar. I think that researchers were interested in seeing whether these concepts were solely human. The idea that language is an abstract phenomenon separate - but related to - speech is an idea that has been around for about a hundred years. One of the problems of discussing non-primate behaviour in terms of warning signals and differential behaviour for differing threats can be explained without invoking language.

As for cognition being separate from language, I was watching my 20 month old granddaughter the other day. Her speech is - well - vestigial. She has about three words and uses them interchangeably. However, she picked up my iPad, activated it and was watching Peppa Pig within about 30 seconds. When her speech has improved she will be able to tell me how she did it.