Hey folks,
I'm in a course at the University of Denver on the subject of Individuality and Society. The professor teaching the course is going into Methodological Individualism a little bit as one of the viewpoints that could be adopted. As far as I know, I'm the only Austrian-focused economics student at the University, so my professor is kindly deferring to me on a number of things regarding Mises, Austrian Theory, and Methodological Individualism.
Today, though, he posed a question to me that I was not certain how to answer and so I turn to everyone here to see if someone can give a more precise answer.
The question is: what are Mises's thoughts on the relationship between Thought and Speech. Particularly, is Speech necessary for Thought. My thinking based on the few passages in Human Action where he insinuates it, is that Mises would NOT think that Speech is necessary for Thought, though Speech greatly expands the diversity, complexity, and accuracy of Thought and Reason.
Does anyone else have any thoughts on this?
people who are mute can think..........
(that's not what you are asking )
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
Yeah, not exactly what I was looking for...
Perhaps if we amend all mentions of Speech to be Language instead. That would certainly be more clear.
Praxeologically speaking speech is not necessary at all for thought. Speech is a cognitive method. Thought however is an inherent method to being human. In the absence of speech you still think, you still know when you are hungry. Coming back to praxeology, you still have felt uneasiness.
Human Action occurs with or without a learned oral method.
filc: Praxeologically speaking speech is not necessary at all for thought. Speech is a cognitive method. Thought however is an inherent method to being human. In the absence of speech you still think, you still know when you are hungry. Coming back to praxeology, you still have felt uneasiness. Human Action occurs with or without a learned oral method.
Indeed, it seems plausible that the "logical structure" would remain identical, that only the "content" would alter.
If I wrote it more than a few weeks ago, I probably hate it by now.
The answer is simple: thought gives way to language, not the other way around. This is due to the fact that language is a means to show others what you mean by taking references in the world and in others (in general). Whether we're talking about cave persons trying to tell each other where the nearest pool of water is, or whether it's two scientists discussing the finer points of particle physics; the mind is the origin of logical order as it is the mind that must act in terms of its survival alone (at bare minimum). Which the mind externalizes the conclusions into language, meaning it produces that channel between itself and another mind.
"The power of liberty going forward is in decentralization. Not in leaders, but in decentralized activism. In a market process." -- liberty student
Here's a fun paper that covers the relationship between language and thought. Short and readable. What this paper doesn't cover though is how people who are denied the benefit of language think. Feral kids are a good example. If they don't learn language by a certain point in their development, they may never really pick it up at all beyond some basics, and they are in many ways socially disfunctional. As to whether or not this can be over come or not, or whether or not their thought is impaired, I guess it's up for grabs. There's opinions on both sides of the issue.
Maybe the critical idea isn't moving from speech to language, but to communication. Even if with one's self, communication seems to be the key that facilitates thought and memory, and language or some form of ever more precise and differentiated symbolism is what is likely key to developing thoughtbeyond basic rough thought like unarticulated desires to something more refined; the difference between feeling hungry and looking for food, and saying to your friend or even just to yourself, "Man, I could use a good taco right about now.". My own thought is that thought is inate no matter what, but without language would have difficulty in developing. Language, spoken and written, is a social phenomena, like the price system perhaps, where continuous input from tons and tons of individual participants leads to an ever developing shared framework in the form of spoken languages, the most convenient of which we naturally adopt as we develop, that helps us think and communicate more precisely with ourselves and others. It wouldn't exist without each individual's tendency to thought, but it's also more than the sum of those individual tendencies and wouldn't exist with just one person, or perhaps even two, just like market prices wouldn't exist with just one or two people.
And written language, always secondary it seems as some cultures never progressed to it, seems to be different. It's not as dynamic for one, and it seems like an attempt to formalize and set in stone what really isn't fixed and static by nature. It's more of a historical record or something that would always have to be understood in context of the original act of writing. Maybe not so much now as communication in written language has, with the internet and instantaneous text communication, started to rise to the level of dynamism you get with spoken language. Check out leetspeak, itz teh whinz.
All in all I like the price system analogy for understanding language and its relation to thought. Markets would exist without money and money prices, just as thought would exist without language. People would try to better their situations, resources would shift to their highest valued ends over time, etc. But prices and language just seem to naturally occur and snowball, and when they catch on they make the existing processes much more efficient and effective. They are true examples of social phenomena that could not exist without all the individual inputs, but also seem to be more than the sum of the individual inputs. They are the ultimate form of capital maybe. Near costless to maintain, available for free to all in limitless and ever expanding supplies, and they enhance efficiency and productivity beyond anything you can calculate.
I'm writing an entire thesis on this subject right now. Language is for communication, although it does serve some useful function in thought as a memory aid. Einstein thought in pictures and physical sensations. I think in pictures and sounds mostly.
The whole idea that words are necessary for thought has never seemed rational at all to me. Even a feral child raised by wolves can logically navigate in the wilderness, and can make logical deductions such as, "Three tigers are chasing me and I've speared two of them. That means there is still one left." If he couldn't, he obviously wouldn't survive long.
"We can get very confused, because we think that words must have some secret meaning that we have to figure out. They don't. They are just noises or marks, and they mean whatever experience you have learned to mean by them. People tend to use similar words in similar situations, but unless you have specifically agreed on what the words will mean, in terms of underlying experiences, there's no way to know what another person understands when you use them. The experience you attach to a word when you say it isn't automatically the same as the experience another person attaches to the same word when hearing it."-William T. Powers
If only I wasn't on my way to work right now I'd write tons on this. Suffice it to say that you won't have a problem defending the idea that words are not necessary for thought, if you look around. I don't think Mises would think so, but who knows. People get confused because the words often follow so soon after the thoughts as for the difference to be unnoticeable.
If you want an example, think of how to get to the nearest convenience store to your house. Then think what you would do if the road you would normally take were blocked for construction. You could think of an alternate route without words, and I'm guessing you could also think of tricky things like how you might be able to get past the road construction by going on foot - all without words.
Why anarchy fails
jrmy_jackson:Particularly, is Speech necessary for Thought.
Speech is not the same as language. But neither is required for thought. Language is a very complicated mechanism of communication that only humans posses. But it has nothing to do with the content that feeds this mechanism. Children must be able to think before they can acquire the local dialect. Otherwise they couldn't possibly make the connection between the words they hear and the concepts that are already in their heads.
jrmy_jackson:hough Speech greatly expands the diversity, complexity, and accuracy of Thought and Reason.
That is simply false. It expands your diversity to interact with others, no doubt. But it has nothing to do with thought and reason.
For example, people with aphasia can reason and think. Mises is correct.
......or perhaps
jrmy_jackson: though Speech greatly expands the ability to communicate the diversity, complexity, and accuracy of Thought and Reason.
"Oh, I wish I could pray the way this dog looks at the meat" - Martin Luther
G8R HED: ......or perhaps jrmy_jackson: though Speech greatly expands the ability to communicate the diversity, complexity, and accuracy of Thought and Reason.
Ability to communicate - obviously. But diversity, complexity, and accuracy of thought and reason? Absolutely not, on all counts.
Diversity? A single word pidgeonholes ideas, ironing them flat into a lowest common denominator that the general population can understand. Take a word like "intuition." The single word makes it seem like there is only one concept there, when really there is a whole complex of ideas or faculties that could be labeled "intuition." As long as people remember that that one simple words hides a wealth of concepts, there is no harm - but who remembers? The tendency is indeed to forget the details and remember the simple word.
Complexity? Anyone who's ever had a complex thought and tried to put it into words knows this isn't easy. If the concept was fully formed and nuanced, words dumb down the concept and shore it of detail and subtlety.
The confusion here is that "talking things out" can help people develop more complex thoughts, but again that's just words helping you look at something from a new perspective - by warping things in fact. That is certainly useful, but by far the general trend of words is to remove detail rather than add it. In fact, as far as communication is concerned this is a feature not a bug; but for thinking it is the exact opposite.
Accuracy? Take just about any sentence ever uttered and I'll show you inaccuracies. "As soon as you speak about a thing, you miss the mark." -Chinese proverb.
Once again, the purpose of words is communication, and for this purpose - to be understood by enough people who aren't you - words necessarily must simplify. Simplification means inaccuracy, even if only by omission. And cases where omission is the only inaccuracy are virtually nonexistent. The structure of language from the very start forces us to be inaccurate. It's only because we are all human and have some set of shared experiences that we can fill in the blanks and read between the lines. When we leave the realm of common experience words get us almost nowhere, like when trying to recount a particularly bizarre dream to someone else.
I think the notion that words are somehow the same as thoughts is the biggest problem civilization now faces. I've long been convinced that this, more than anything else, is what makes people unable to reason properly. It's a giant complex of fallacies, starting from the fallacy of magical thinking, which is the fallacy that naming something makes it real.
AJ:Ability to communicate - obviously. But diversity, complexity, and accuracy of thought and reason? Absolutely not, on all counts.
I would disagree. I think you're right that words attempt to fix a single common meaning to something for which there are really various concepts, but language isn't fixed. It can develop and become much, much more nuanced. I see it more as a feedback of sorts to keep the common denominator for adequate communication, but it certainly breaks to become more nuanced when necessary. Otherwise language would never change or adapt. As an example, the word "entrepreneur." Adam Smith initially used the word "undertaker" which doesn't really work for obvious reasons. So as a society we ended up merely importing a French word that had the more nuanced and separate meaning we needed.
I think it'd be more accurate to say language as a social phenomena tries to balance the supply of words deemed necessary by people with the demand of those same people to express new or more nuanced concepts. And thus the generation of jargon and specialized language for use by subsets of the population which would be meaningless and useless to the rest. The magical thinking and logical trap you describe happens I think when people try to see language as fixed and static as opposed to dynamic and changing.
xahrx:I would disagree. I think you're right that words attempt to fix a single common meaning to something for which there are really various concepts, but language isn't fixed. It can develop and become much, much more nuanced. I see it more as a feedback of sorts to keep the common denominator for adequate communication, but it certainly breaks to become more nuanced when necessary. Otherwise language would never change or adapt. As an example, the word "entrepreneur." Adam Smith initially used the word "undertaker" which doesn't really work for obvious reasons. So as a society we ended up merely importing a French word that had the more nuanced and separate meaning we needed.
You're right that language isn't fixed, but it evolves at a glacial pace compared to the act of thinking. It takes but seconds to identify a new concept from among one's thoughts, and maybe minutes or hours/days of contemplation for a gifted thinker to think of a new idea that is worthwhile (for his own personal purposes at least) and not in the current lexicon.
xahrx:I think it'd be more accurate to say language as a social phenomena tries to balance the supply of words deemed necessary by people with the demand of those same people to express new or more nuanced concepts. And thus the generation of jargon and specialized language for use by subsets of the population which would be meaningless and useless to the rest. The magical thinking and logical trap you describe happens I think when people try to see language as fixed and static as opposed to dynamic and changing.
All this is true, but I think the trap is not so easily avoided, at least judging from every Internet argument I've ever witnessed. Academics are scarcely immune either. People have spent millennia wrestling with the question, "What is truth?" without realizing that if there is any such worthwhile question it would have to be, "What is the concept(s) we are trying to get at when we use the word truth? - if there is indeed any such coherent concept." To this day, the debate is still almost universally framed and talked about as if this were not the case.
As to specialization, I fully agree. People working in small specialized fields who have shared knowledge form much more accurate ways of talking about things. Expert chess players can play without a board just by calling out letters and numbers. Mechanical engineers can differentiate between a wide variety of gaskets, flanges, cutting techniques, etc. using only words. But I think these are all cases in point, or the exceptions that prove the rule. It is precisely because words are inaccurate that people who have a serious need to communicate effectively end up developing more precise language whenever the situation allows it.
Still, these specialized words remain mere aids to communication. I don't need to know the correct term for a flange to identify it in my own mind. And the fact that every new social theory has to coin its own neologisms and special definitions is notorious for leading to misunderstandings. It's not so bad for engineers, but it's very bad for social theorists. And even engineers can surely imagine or identify far more types of parts and processes than they know the names for. Naming them might crystallize them and give them undo importance or undo limitation. It's not that these limitations can't be overcome by remaining aware of these fact, but the memory tricks words play frequently make all the little mismatches between words and concepts difficult to keep track of in practice. Given that words are a memory aid in the first place, it's not surprising that that memory aid can take on a life of its own, especially since it is chosen to look as much like the concept it represents as possible. The map gets mistaken for the territory, as it were.
However, I do think words can help in thought if they are used judiciously and sparingly. They are sort of like pegs to swing on, like monkey bars. They're also useful when switching modalities. Suppose you were an engineer designing something in your mind, thinking of it all in pictures and animations, and your visual thought process led to the conclusion that these parts in this configuration would do the job:
Now let's say you are also highly musical and you think in sounds and rhythms for some cognitive purposes. But maybe your short-term memory buffer for sounds is too small to hold all the information you want in there, or maybe for some reason you have a hard time representing the idea of "extruding the O-ring" auditorily. So within your pattern of sounds representing some kind of analysis on the above assembly of parts, you include the words "extrude the O-ring" as words themselves instead of your own system of imagined noises. It's easier in that case to just remember those three words than try to represent the same concept in sounds, say. The words then would have served as a bridge between the visual representation and the auditory one.
Now I don't know if this exact situation really happens in anyone's thought, because I think people tend to mix all modalities pretty dynamically, but who knows. I hope this gives a taste of how words can and do frequently lead to error for the very same reasons that they are helpful. For example, the words "extrude the O-ring" might be insidiously ambiguous to the mechanical engineer, causing him to mess up his analysis slightly if he forgets that the words hid a more nuanced concept. The trouble is that people often forget, because the simple word tends to "overwrite" the nuanced thought, eventually if not right away.
Hope that made sense.
AJ: Ability to communicate - obviously. But diversity, complexity, and accuracy of thought and reason? Absolutely not, on all counts. Diversity? A single word pidgeonholes ideas, ironing them flat into a lowest common denominator that the general population can understand. Take a word like "intuition." The single word makes it seem like there is only one concept there, when really there is a whole complex of ideas or faculties that could be labeled "intuition." As long as people remember that that one simple words hides a wealth of concepts, there is no harm - but who remembers? The tendency is indeed to forget the details and remember the simple word. Complexity? Anyone who's ever had a complex thought and tried to put it into words knows this isn't easy. If the concept was fully formed and nuanced, words dumb down the concept and shore it of detail and subtlety. The confusion here is that "talking things out" can help people develop more complex thoughts, but again that's just words helping you look at something from a new perspective - by warping things in fact. That is certainly useful, but by far the general trend of words is to remove detail rather than add it. In fact, as far as communication is concerned this is a feature not a bug; but for thinking it is the exact opposite. Accuracy? Take just about any sentence ever uttered and I'll show you inaccuracies. "As soon as you speak about a thing, you miss the mark." -Chinese proverb. Once again, the purpose of words is communication, and for this purpose - to be understood by enough people who aren't you - words necessarily must simplify. Simplification means inaccuracy, even if only by omission. And cases where omission is the only inaccuracy are virtually nonexistent. The structure of language from the very start forces us to be inaccurate. It's only because we are all human and have some set of shared experiences that we can fill in the blanks and read between the lines. When we leave the realm of common experience words get us almost nowhere, like when trying to recount a particularly bizarre dream to someone else. I think the notion that words are somehow the same as thoughts is the biggest problem civilization now faces. I've long been convinced that this, more than anything else, is what makes people unable to reason properly. It's a giant complex of fallacies, starting from the fallacy of magical thinking, which is the fallacy that naming something makes it real.
It is clear that language does indeed facilitate clearer and more complex thought, provided that the person uses it "correctly". To explain my position, I think that I need only to provide two quotations, the first from the book "Human Knowledge" of Bertrand Russell, the second from the book "A Treatise of Human Nature" of David Hume.
David Hume, "A Treatise of Human Nature", Section VII, "Of Abstract Ideas": [...] I observe, that when we mention any great number, such as a thousand, the mind has generally no adequate idea of it, but only the power of producing such an idea, by its adequate idea of the decimals, under which it is comprehended. This imperfection, however in our ideas, is never felt in our reasonings[...]
[...] I observe, that when we mention any great number, such as a thousand, the mind has generally no adequate idea of it, but only the power of producing such an idea, by its adequate idea of the decimals, under which it is comprehended. This imperfection, however in our ideas, is never felt in our reasonings[...]
Bertrand Russell, "Human Knowledge", Chapter II, Section I, "The Use of Language": Language serves not only to express thoughts, but [also] to make possible thoughts which could not exist without it. It is sometimes maintained that there can[not] be [...] thought without language, but to this view I cannot assent: I hold that there can be thought, and even true and false belief, without language. But however that may be, it cannot be denied that all fairly elaborate thoughts require words. I can know, in a sense, that I have five fingers, without knowing the word "five", but I cannot know that the population of London is about eight millions unless I have acquired the language of arithmetic, nor can I have any thought at all closely corresponding to what is asserted in the sentence: "The ratio of the circumference of a circle to the diameter is approximately 3.14159." Language, once evolved, acquires a kind of autonomy: we can know, especially in mathematics, that a sentence asserts something true, although what it asserts is too complex to be apprehended even by the best minds. Let us consider for a moment what happens psychologically in such cases. In mathematics, we start from rather simple sentences which we believe ourselves capable of understanding, and proceed, by rules of inference [which describe the relations between the "rather simple sentences"] which we also believe ourselves to understand, to build up more complicated symbolic statements, which, if our initial assumptions are true, must be true whatever they may mean. As a rule it is unnecessary to know what they "mean", if their "meaning" is taken to be a thought which might occur in the mind of a superhuman mathematical genius. But there is another kind of "meaning", which gives occasion for pragmatism and instrumentalism. According to those who adapt this view of "meaning", what a complicated mathematical sentence does is to give a rule for practical procedure in certain kinds of cases. Take, for instance, the above statement about the ratio of the circumference of a circle to the diameter. Suppose you are a brewer, and you desire hoops of a given diameter for your beer barrels, then the sentence gives you a rule by which you can finish out how much material you will need. This rule may consist of a fresh sentence for each decimal point, and there is therefore no need ever to grasp it significance as a whole. The autonomy of language enables you to forego this tedious process of interpretation except at crucial moments.
Language serves not only to express thoughts, but [also] to make possible thoughts which could not exist without it. It is sometimes maintained that there can[not] be [...] thought without language, but to this view I cannot assent: I hold that there can be thought, and even true and false belief, without language. But however that may be, it cannot be denied that all fairly elaborate thoughts require words. I can know, in a sense, that I have five fingers, without knowing the word "five", but I cannot know that the population of London is about eight millions unless I have acquired the language of arithmetic, nor can I have any thought at all closely corresponding to what is asserted in the sentence: "The ratio of the circumference of a circle to the diameter is approximately 3.14159." Language, once evolved, acquires a kind of autonomy: we can know, especially in mathematics, that a sentence asserts something true, although what it asserts is too complex to be apprehended even by the best minds. Let us consider for a moment what happens psychologically in such cases.
In mathematics, we start from rather simple sentences which we believe ourselves capable of understanding, and proceed, by rules of inference [which describe the relations between the "rather simple sentences"] which we also believe ourselves to understand, to build up more complicated symbolic statements, which, if our initial assumptions are true, must be true whatever they may mean. As a rule it is unnecessary to know what they "mean", if their "meaning" is taken to be a thought which might occur in the mind of a superhuman mathematical genius. But there is another kind of "meaning", which gives occasion for pragmatism and instrumentalism. According to those who adapt this view of "meaning", what a complicated mathematical sentence does is to give a rule for practical procedure in certain kinds of cases. Take, for instance, the above statement about the ratio of the circumference of a circle to the diameter. Suppose you are a brewer, and you desire hoops of a given diameter for your beer barrels, then the sentence gives you a rule by which you can finish out how much material you will need. This rule may consist of a fresh sentence for each decimal point, and there is therefore no need ever to grasp it significance as a whole. The autonomy of language enables you to forego this tedious process of interpretation except at crucial moments.
I. Ryan:It is clear that language does indeed facilitate clearer and more complex thought, provided that the person uses it "correctly". To explain my position, I think that I need only to provide two quotations, the first from the book "Human Knowledge" of Bertrand Russell, the second from the book "A Treatise of Human Nature" of David Hume.
I do not contend that language cannot aid in thought. I've given a number of cases where it can help, and I agree with the mathematics examples. The original quote I was arguing against was, "Speech greatly expands the ability to communicate the diversity, complexity, and accuracy of Thought and Reason." There are probably thoughts that would be very hard to have without words, but in the vast majority of cases the situation is reversed. That is what I mean to address. I mean that it is absolutely not the case that speech - on balance - greatly expands the diversity, complexity, and accuracy of thought and reason (and I now note I misread the original quote - as it stands it's saying something entirely obvious).
Bertrand Russell, "Human Knowledge", Chapter II, Section I, "The Use of Language": Language serves not only to express thoughts, but [also] to make possible thoughts which could not exist without it. It is sometimes maintained that there can[not] be [...] thought without language, but to this view I cannot assent: I hold that there can be thought, and even true and false belief, without language. But however that may be, it cannot be denied that all fairly elaborate thoughts require words. I can know, in a sense, that I have five fingers, without knowing the word "five", but I cannot know that the population of London is about eight millions unless I have acquired the language of arithmetic, nor can I have any thought at all closely corresponding to what is asserted in the sentence: "The ratio of the circumference of a circle to the diameter is approximately 3.14159." Language, once evolved, acquires a kind of autonomy: we can know, especially in mathematics, that a sentence asserts something true, although what it asserts is too complex to be apprehended even by the best minds. Let us consider for a moment what happens psychologically in such cases.
Numbers are useful and precise symbols indeed. My critique goes to words in general, the vast majority of which do not share those characteristics.
Russell:Take, for instance, the above statement about the ratio of the circumference of a circle to the diameter. Suppose you are a brewer, and you desire hoops of a given diameter for your beer barrels, then the sentence gives you a rule by which you can finish out how much material you will need. This rule may consist of a fresh sentence for each decimal point, and there is therefore no need ever to grasp it significance as a whole. The autonomy of language enables you to forego this tedious process of interpretation except at crucial moments.
He sticks with numbers and formal systems to the very end. Indeed, these are exceptions that prove the rule: it is only when we create a perfect formalism that we can state things with 100% accuracy (and still not even then, but that's another debate). Mathematics just is precisely that area of human knowledge that is entirely formal (math to broadly include formal logic, etc.). If Russell really believes his contention that "all fairly elaborate thoughts require words," why not present a different example? I don't actually think his example means what he thinks it does, but I'll only go down the time-consuming road of laying out that argument in full if someone thinks it necessary (please say so if you sincerely think so).
If he only means for formal systems, then fine. But he seems to want the implications to go deeper. I do not deny even that one could find a certain special class of concepts that are easier with words. What I contend is that such concepts are a rare breed, and that the far more pressing concern is how words have the exact opposite effects: to reduce the diversity, complexity, and especially the accuracy of thought.
AJ: I do not contend that language cannot aid in thought. I've given a number of cases where it can help, and I agree with the mathematics examples. The original quote I was arguing against was, "Speech greatly expands the ability to communicate the diversity, complexity, and accuracy of Thought and Reason." There are probably thoughts that would be very hard to have without words, but in the vast majority of cases the situation is reversed. That is what I mean to address. I mean that is "absolutely not" the case that speech - on balance - greatly expands these things (and I now note I misread the original quote).
I do not contend that language cannot aid in thought. I've given a number of cases where it can help, and I agree with the mathematics examples. The original quote I was arguing against was, "Speech greatly expands the ability to communicate the diversity, complexity, and accuracy of Thought and Reason." There are probably thoughts that would be very hard to have without words, but in the vast majority of cases the situation is reversed. That is what I mean to address. I mean that is "absolutely not" the case that speech - on balance - greatly expands these things (and I now note I misread the original quote).
No, you did not misread it. What you are now referring to, the quotation which include the phrase "the ability to communicate", was a tweaked restatement of the original post.
AJ: Numbers are useful and precise symbols indeed. Again, my critique goes to words in general, the vast majority of which do not share those characteristics. He sticks with numbers and formal systems to the very end. Indeed, these are exceptions that prove the rule: it is only when we create a perfect formalism that we can state things with 100% accuracy. Mathematics just is precisely that area of human knowledge that is entirely formal (math to include formal logic, etc.). If Russell really believes his contention that "all fairly elaborate thoughts require words," why not present a different example? If he only means for formal systems, then fine. But he seems to want the implications to go deeper. I do not deny even that one could find a certain special class of concepts that are easier with words. What I contend is that such concepts are a rare breed, and that the far more pressing concern is how words have the exact opposite effects: to reduce the diversity, complexity, and especially the accuracy of thought.
Numbers are useful and precise symbols indeed. Again, my critique goes to words in general, the vast majority of which do not share those characteristics.
He sticks with numbers and formal systems to the very end. Indeed, these are exceptions that prove the rule: it is only when we create a perfect formalism that we can state things with 100% accuracy. Mathematics just is precisely that area of human knowledge that is entirely formal (math to include formal logic, etc.). If Russell really believes his contention that "all fairly elaborate thoughts require words," why not present a different example?
David Hume provided an other, much more general example.
David Hume, "A Treatise of Human Nature", Section VII, "Of Abstract Ideas": Thirdly, I believe every one, who examines the situation of his mind in reasoning will agree with me, that we do not annex distinct and compleat ideas to every term we make use of, and that in talking of government, church, negotiation, conquest, we seldom spread out in our minds all the simple ideas, of which these complex ones are composed. It is however observable, that notwithstanding this imperfection we may avoid talking nonsense on these subjects, and may perceive any repugnance among the ideas, as well as if we had a full comprehension of them. Thus if instead of saying, that in war the weaker have always recourse to negotiation, we should say, that they have always recourse to conquest, the custom, which we have acquired of attributing certain relations to ideas, still follows the words, and makes us immediately perceive the absurdity of that proposition; in the same manner as one particular idea may serve us in reasoning concerning other ideas, however different from it in several circumstances.
Thirdly, I believe every one, who examines the situation of his mind in reasoning will agree with me, that we do not annex distinct and compleat ideas to every term we make use of, and that in talking of government, church, negotiation, conquest, we seldom spread out in our minds all the simple ideas, of which these complex ones are composed. It is however observable, that notwithstanding this imperfection we may avoid talking nonsense on these subjects, and may perceive any repugnance among the ideas, as well as if we had a full comprehension of them. Thus if instead of saying, that in war the weaker have always recourse to negotiation, we should say, that they have always recourse to conquest, the custom, which we have acquired of attributing certain relations to ideas, still follows the words, and makes us immediately perceive the absurdity of that proposition; in the same manner as one particular idea may serve us in reasoning concerning other ideas, however different from it in several circumstances.
David Hume, "A Treatise of Human Nature", Section VII, "Of Abstract Ideas", emphasis added: Thirdly, I believe every one, who examines the situation of his mind in reasoning will agree with me, that we do not annex distinct and compleat ideas to every term we make use of, and that in talking of government, church, negotiation, conquest, we seldom spread out in our minds all the simple ideas, of which these complex ones are composed. It is however observable, that notwithstanding this imperfection we may avoid talking nonsense on these subjects, and may perceive any repugnance among the ideas, as well as if we had a full comprehension of them. Thus if instead of saying, that in war the weaker have always recourse to negotiation, we should say, that they have always recourse to conquest, the custom, which we have acquired of attributing certain relations to ideas, still follows the words, and makes us immediately perceive the absurdity of that proposition; in the same manner as one particular idea may serve us in reasoning concerning other ideas, however different from it in several circumstances.
Re: the bolded part, we don't really avoid talking nonsense, nor do we perceive any (i.e., "all") repugnance among such abstract ideas - the fact that people can make statements such as "the government defends rights" and not understand the errors inherent in collectivist thinking seems proof enough of this.
Now, there is subtle peripheral issue here that may be affecting the discussion. It's possible to conceptualize government, church, negotiation, etc. without words, such as in picture symbols (perhaps collages, etc.) in one's mind. Such abstractions are more detailed and possibly more precise, but they still share some of the harmful features of abstract words (I don't complain about this; it's an inevitable result of dealing in abstractions, whether in language or thought). This may result in some talking past each other now or later.
The main point I wish to get across is that words' ability to distort is the main thing to watch out for in every single instance of thinking. As useful as it is, language is the primary corrupter of the accuracy and clarity of thought.
AJ: Re: the bolded part, we don't really avoid talking nonsense, nor do we perceive any (i.e., "all") repugnance among such abstract ideas - the fact that people can make statements such as "the government defends rights" and not understand the errors inherent in collectivist thinking seems proof enough of this. Now, there is another subtle issue here. It's possible to conceptualize government, church, negotiation, etc. without words, such as in picture symbols in one's mind. Such abstractions are more precise, but still share some of the harmful features of abstract words. This may result in some talking past each other now or later. The main point I wish to get across is that words' ability to distort is the main thing to watch out for in every single instance of thinking. As useful as it is, language is the primary corrupter of the accuracy and clarity of thought.
Now, there is another subtle issue here. It's possible to conceptualize government, church, negotiation, etc. without words, such as in picture symbols in one's mind. Such abstractions are more precise, but still share some of the harmful features of abstract words. This may result in some talking past each other now or later.
Well, I think that your characterization of the situation is somewhat unfair. If you were to adopt that mentality in a situation in which a machine, the only machine applicable to this task, increases by 10 units your ability to reason but misfires regularly and fails to provide 5 of those units, you would probably say that the machine "takes away" some of your reason, whereas you really should say that it just fails to provide it.
I guess the situation may differ from person to person, but in my case I have spent long stretches of time thinking without using words at all, or using them very infrequently. When I am thinking about the State, a series of pictures flashes through my mind that I shunt around and animate, with sound cues and physical sensations. I can't really explain it, but in the subtlest thinking words do not enter into the picture so to speak. I do have word-like pictorial representations, however, so this may be a kind of a moot issue - just arguing over verbal symbols vs. pictorial ones.
But words aren't providing me any "thought power" other than memory assistance, and often not even that. In the most careful thinking where I need to be as lucid as possible, I try to forgo words completely. The disadvantage of this approach is that I sometimes lose the insights before I can put them into words for recording purposes. The advantage is there is none of that semantic bias. What I am saying, though, is that advantage is huge.
All I can say is: Wow.
Thank you all so much for sharing your insights and thoughts on this, it's been very fascinating reading, however, I'm not certain that my core question has been answered: What would Mises's opinion on this have been?
language is an obvious bonus. why would anyone, let alone Mises, disagree with that?
It's pretty fascinating how acting individuals have spontaneously ordered (xi - xii) language in different locales. In the eastern Amazon speakers must know how they know something before speaking. “He went fishing" (I know because I saw him)” is differently said than “he went fishing (I assume)”.
The Kuuk Thaayorre aborigines don't have words for "left" and "right". They instead use absolute directions. Depending on where one is standing he would say, for example, "I stubbed the big toe on my south-west foot." They subconsciously always know which direction they are facing. So even a small child can point to any direction at any time, even while indoors, whereas a Latin-based-language-speaking genius would likely be utterly clueless and disoriented when asked to.
jrmy_jackson:The question is: what are Mises's thoughts on the relationship between Thought and Speech. Particularly, is Speech necessary for Thought.
On pg. 41 of Human Action, Mises writes disapprovingly of collectivists who say, among other things, that "[t]here is no thinking which does not depend on the concepts and notions of language."
"This methodological individualism has been vehemently attacked by various metaphysical schools and disparaged as a nominalistic fallacy. The notion of an individual, say the critics, is an empty abstraction. Real man is necessarily always a member of a social whole. It is even impossible to imagine the existence of a man separated from the rest of mankind and not connected with society. Man as man is the product of a social evolution. His most eminent feature, reason, could only emerge within the framework of social mutuality. [Opponents of methodological individualism argue that] There is no thinking which does not depend on the concepts and notions of language. But speech is manifestly a social phenomenon. Man is always the member of a collective. As the whole is both logically and temporally prior to its parts or members, the study of the individual is posterior to the study of society. The only adequate method for the scientific treatment of human problems is the method of universalism or collectivism."
So he's basically disagreeing with the bold, saying in effect that there is "thinking which does not depend on the concepts and notions of language." Strictly speaking, then, the answer to your question is apparently "No, Mises doesn't think speech is necessary for thought." But the basis is rather weak in that passage, because he's only indirectly saying that at least some thinking does exist that doesn't require words. He may phrase it more strongly elsewhere.
Le Master: It's pretty fascinating how acting individuals have spontaneously ordered (xi - xii) language in different locales. In the eastern Amazon speakers must know how they know something before speaking. “He went fishing" (I know because I saw him)” is differently said than “he went fishing (I assume)”. The Kuuk Thaayorre aborigines don't have words for "left" and "right". They instead use absolute directions. Depending on where one is standing he would say, for example, "I stubbed the big toe on my south-west foot." They subconsciously always know which direction they are facing. So even a small child can point to any direction at any time, even while indoors, whereas a Latin-based-language-speaking genius would likely be utterly clueless and disoriented when asked to.
That's really interesting. Japanese, as you may know, is a highly context-based language. Instead of saying, "It's cold out here," they'll usually just say, "Cold."
The Amazon one where they have to know how they know before they speak is awesome, because certain logical paradoxes (Moore's paradox, etc.) probably wouldn't be phraseable in that language.
AJ:You're right that language isn't fixed, but it evolves at a glacial pace compared to the act of thinking. It takes but seconds to identify a new concept from among one's thoughts, and maybe minutes or hours/days of contemplation for a gifted thinker to think of a new idea that is worthwhile (for his own personal purposes at least) and not in the current lexicon.
True, but I think one of the reasons for this to date has been the much slower evolution of written language. And with the internet and instant communications, I think that's going to change. It probably won't be long before the simple spelling movement gets going and gets some steam behind it, and in the end why not dump the 'b' at the end of 'dumb'?
As for the rest, made perfect sense. Especially the part about internet arguments. I can't count how many I've had where it's become clear the other person means something completely and totally different when they speak of 'rights' and other such things.
I. Ryan:It is clear that language does indeed facilitate clearer and more complex thought, provided that the person uses it "correctly".
Not so clear to me. Language does indeed facilitate clearer and more complex communication as opposed to all of us trying to individually articulate thoughts through various means without any common ground being established. However, who determines what is the 'correct' use of a word? Language is a perfect example of a natural order, there is no authority governing it, and no final say as to what is and is not proper, with apologies to Strunk and White.
Thought and language's role in it is a far more complex subject with few clear answers. One of the aspects of thought is self communication; we all talk to ourselves. Some of us have full blown debates with ourselves in our own heads. The real question is to what extent is this necessary and required for thought? There's no answer. There may never be. Thought definitely preceeds language, but we are such social animals it's really impossible, ethically at least, to determine to what extend we depend on existing thought and communication, the capital base so to speak, in forming our own thoughts and knowledge later on in life. The experience with feral kids seems to show that we would eventually hit a wall, a limit to expression. What's more, there seems to be evidence that if our brains lack the early social stimulation of communication with others, it misses an opportunity to develop that seems to be permanently closed off after a certain point. So it's quite possible even thought as we know it has a social aspect to it. I guess it boils down to whether or not someone like Einstein would have been as brilliant without social interaction. And if he was, how would anyone have known if he couldn't articulate his brilliant ideas to them? Is any thought truly complete until it is articulated? And when it is articulated, has language limited it by destroying its purity for the sake of common ground? And unless it is articulated, what use is it, both to the thinker and to those others who may benefit from it?
xahrx: Not so clear to me.
Not so clear to me.
I provided an argument, but your post appeared to ignore it entirely.
xahrx:The real question is to what extent is this necessary and required for thought? There's no answer. There may never be.
Of course there is. Do you make the claim that people suffering from aphasia lose some (or all) ability to think? Do you make the claim that people with severe language disorders necessarily must have thinking disorders?
Your response is very dogmatic. As if these questions that you raise have never been raised before and haven't been previously studied and researched.
xahrx:Thought and language's role in it is a far more complex subject with few clear answers. One of the aspects of thought is self communication; we all talk to ourselves. Some of us have full blown debates with ourselves in our own heads. The real question is to what extent is this necessary and required for thought? There's no answer. There may never be.
I know the answer, because I have seen my own thoughts on occasion. I've been given the grand tour, and I've seen logical deduction complete with forking paths of conditionals all happen in my mind with only moving pictures, sounds, and bodily sensations. Only after a brief yet perceptible delay do the words come, if they come at all.
Now it's a different issue whether complex thinking ability would develop without exposure to other people (since it is known that anyone exposed to other people will develop language). Merely by the lack of intellectual stimulation, any modern IQ testing will surely not be suited to assessing whatever form of intelligence a feral child may develop, assuming that the lack of "sophisticated" intellectual stimulation from outside doesn't hobble him completely in that regard.
xahrx:Thought definitely preceeds language, but we are such social animals it's really impossible, ethically at least, to determine to what extend we depend on existing thought and communication, the capital base so to speak, in forming our own thoughts and knowledge later on in life.
Since social interaction effectively implies language, the question is whether social interaction boosts thinking ability, not to mention the impact of the huge knowledge base, ideas, and learning materials we have access to once we acquire language. Without a doubt all those things tend to boost thinking ability immensely, especially thinking of the type most respected and valued in our culture. So I think the issue you're raising is about development, not about whether words are necessary or beneficial for thought here and now, for the average adult or youth.
xahrx:The experience with feral kids seems to show that we would eventually hit a wall, a limit to expression.
A feral kid's priorities and sharpened faculties would be wildly different from our own, and most people - even scientists - seem oblivious to how many hidden conventions and norms there are in language. So that even if we could get the feral child to "understand" a question, the whole nature of the exercise may escape him, making the results useless.
xahrx:What's more, there seems to be evidence that if our brains lack the early social stimulation of communication with others, it misses an opportunity to develop that seems to be permanently closed off after a certain point. So it's quite possible even thought as we know it has a social aspect to it. I guess it boils down to whether or not someone like Einstein would have been as brilliant without social interaction.
Access to the vast base of human knowledge, ideas, and learning materials requires language, which requires social interaction. So I would once again say this is a separate issue from the one of whether language is needed for your and my thoughts from this moment forward.
xahrx:Is any thought truly complete until it is articulated?
Can you think of an alternative path to the supermarket without using words? I can do it visually, and the thought seems truly complete, indeed far more complete than its verbal approximation. And if only I could output what I am seeing in my mind's eye on computer screen, it would be much more easily and efficiently communicated. Instead of written or spoken instructions, it would be a video.
Now, I'm sure anyone reading this may be thinking, "OK fine, that's visual thinking about something that is inherently visual, but what about abstract concepts like the question of whether the State is necessary or not?"
I see that visually as well. Naturally if the question is phrased in words I'm first going to have to translate the words into thoughts (commonly known as "interpreting the question"). Since at this moment I'm thinking of the State in terms of centralized power, I basically see a collection of field lines (signifying "power") over a generic territory-shape (since I am American it happens to be shaped like the US), with a concentration in one part of the map.
On the basic level, since I have already decided that the state is not necessary, accompanying that image I get a very slight physical sensation around in my sternum that I know means essentially "negative/no/reject!/etc." In other words I already have a solid belief about the matter based on prior analysis, so I don't analyze the question again.
However, if I were to ask myself to verify this belief again, or to give the reasons, I could do that visually, too. In fact, the very act of asking myself to verify the belief makes the image go half-translucent, fold back and tilt to the left like a door swinging open, and I briefly hear a "dwinggg" sound sort of like this, which in my mind means "consider: ..." (I watched a lot of cartoons as a kid.) Something like that anyway. Seeing one's own thought process is quite tricky because it happens so fast and we default to ignoring the details so we can focus on other things.
xahrx:And when it is articulated, has language limited it by destroying its purity for the sake of common ground?
Absolutely yes, at least much of the time language does destroy the purity or accuracy in some way or other. This is the primary problem. "As soon as you speak about a thing you miss the mark." It is only because we are all human and have much shared experience and norms that we can communicate at all. But if you consider how little we can really express about what's in our own mind, it can be kind of disheartening.
I suppose all children with active imaginations are faced from an early age with the question, "Why bother imagining an amazing fantasy world or having very complex and subtle ideas if you can never convey them to anyone else, if all you can ever express are (relatively) cheap imitations?"
I suspect most people eventually surrendered to this issue as they grew up, to smooth communications with others and fit in better. I've been a lot more stubborn about it, and it cost me socially at least until my early teens, because the things I thought to communicate were always too detailed and hence ill-suited to verbal expression. Even now you can see my habit of writing long sentences with many details, qualifications, and parenthetical statements, even though I know I lose a lot of would-be readers because of it.
xahrx:And unless it is articulated, what use is it, both to the thinker and to those others who may benefit from it?
To the thinker, I say the words are not needed. One can "articulate" a thought far better in the five senses, especially visually. However, words can serve as an additional checking mechanism. I tend to go back and forth between words and thoughts, using the slight distortion that comes when putting things into words to see things from a slightly different angle, and then going back into pure thought-mode to correct any semantic biases inherent in the words. Eventually, hopefully, I arrive at some set of words or ways of phrasing that passably reflect a distillation of the concept suitable for whatever my communication purposes are. I suppose these last few sentences are just another way of explaining the writing process.
DD5:Of course there is. Do you make the claim that people suffering from aphasia lose some (or all) ability to think? Do you make the claim that people with severe language disorders necessarily must have thinking disorders?
Aphasia as I understand it affects one's ability to speak or write inlanguage, not one's ability to understand it and use it internally. So I don't see the relevance of aphasia which seems to be more of a mechanical failure of the mental equipment needed to get language out of the head and into oral or written form. If I'm wrong on the nature of the condition, please let me know. But so far as I can see it's not relevant because the use of language internally for thought is not affected.
DD5:Your response is very dogmatic. As if these questions that you raise have never been raised before and haven't been previously studied and researched.
And yours is irrelevant. To the extent that aphasia goes beyond mere processing issues for written and oral language to actual comprehension problems, then yes the lack of language limits a person's ability to think. If you can't communicate to them the concept of a Quasar or a Magnetar for example, it's not likely they'll figure it out for themselves. Anything that is not self evident or discoverable on their own will remain outside their knowledge unless or until a way is found to communicate that concept to them and put it in context. As I've said, in a very real way language is capital; the concepts and the words that refer to them are not necessarily self evident or discoverable to all, they had to be developed over time through accumulated individual interactions. Socially we've been adding to our knowledgebase for millenia and what we currently 'think' on a day to day basis currently is at least in part the product of what came before and what we've learned from others. And if it is impossible for whatever reason to communicate what came before to someone so they can learn it, then unless they figure it out on their own they will simply not have the knowledge.
There's a reason why feral kids have problems communcating, but seem to imitate the animals they interacted with quite well: that's what they learned growing up and what was necessary for them to survive. No one told them about relativity or Keynesianism, and no one filled them in the basics of a language which they could then use as a base to access the various histories both written and oral we all take for granted, which would have included all that stuff. And evidence seems to show that after a certain point in their development, kids simply don't pick it up anymore. There's a reason why adults have such a hard time learning new languages on the whole while kids pick them up much easier. And language, while not necessary for thought itself, is what is used to communicate. So perhaps you could explain how a person with a severe inability to communicate with others is somehow capable of thoughts just as rich and varied as a 'normal' person.
xahrx:Aphasia as I understand it affects one's ability to speak or write inlanguage, not one's ability to understand it and use it internally.
And you wrongly understand it. Aphasia can affect all aspects of language; expression and comprehension. There are many other types of language disorders that render the person unable to use verbal human language to communicate.
xahrx:And evidence seems to show that after a certain point in their development, kids simply don't pick it up anymore.
This is certainly true but how does this in any way support your assertions? There is a window for the natural acquisition of language. This window is most likely controlled by our genes.
xahrx:So perhaps you could explain how a person with a severe inability to communicate with others is somehow capable of thoughts just as rich and varied as a 'normal' person.
So an American thinks in English, while a Frenchman thinks in French? That's quite absurd. The thought process is comprised of concepts which must be independent of the language faculty. A child could never learn how to talk if he did not first posses the concept behind the word. This applies also to syntax and grammar. The rules of language allow the person to express his thoughts and read the thoughts of others. The rules (grammer) would be meaningless if there wasn't already a thought process prior to any acquisition of language.
There is ample scientific evidence especially from the fields of cognitive science and psycho-linguistics, but there is also evidence from other fields such as neuroscience, genetics, and other.
I am forced for the 2nd time this week to recommend the book "The language Instinct" by Steven Pinker.
AJ:Access to the vast base of human knowledge, ideas, and learning materials requires language, which requires social interaction. So I would once again say this is a separate issue from the one of whether language is needed for your and my thoughts from this moment forward.
But what's the relevance of from this moment forward though? It's an ongoing process on the individual and social level. New ideas are discovered and incorporated, meanings drift and outright change, new expressions and idioms come into play. It's like saying the pricing system isn't needed for your and my buying decisions from this moment forward. It's a process by nature, something ongoing which literally can't be stopped or frozen. And sure we can think from this moment on given our current knowledge, but what about new stuff? If no one communicates it to us? What if we forget certain things? I would say that if you froze our language at this point in time, the quality of our thought would degenerate over time. Others would advance past us, and we would drop below our previous levels.
AJ:Can you think of an alternative path to the supermarket without using words? I can do it visually, and the thought seems truly complete, indeed far more complete than its verbal approximation. And if only I could output what I am seeing in my mind's eye on computer screen, it would be much more easily and efficiently communicated. Instead of written or spoken instructions, it would be a video.
Granted. But what you're taking for granted is: the fact that you know where you are; know where the supermarket is; know what the supermarket is; know why you need to get there; and the know the routes. So the question isn't can you visualize without words alternate routes to the supermarket, but could you have gotten to the point of doing that without all the previous years of experience you have? Or would you simply have some sense of hunger; a sense that something to eat is in yonder direction, and that there might be more than one way to get there? And would you even have that? In the past some cultures didn't get the idea of photography and paintings. It had to be explained to them what a photograph was, and until it was explained all it was to them was a mass of random colors.
The problem I see with your reasoning is how do you honestly separate your current ability to do such visual thinking from your past development and all the experience you've gained thus far. Can you honestly say that, without the benefit of language and the learning and access to ideas it gave you, that you'd be able to do the same visualizations? I'm not saying it's impossible, but I don't think it can be taken for granted. The Forbidden Experiment would be to take a kid, deprive him of almost all interaction and stimuli, and see what happens. Do you think that kid, or a feral child, can make the same visual reasoning happen in their head that you can? I don't doubt they can think, but how do they categorize concepts? Can they distinguish action from happenstance? Can they distinguish between now, before, and after? I can't find the reference right now, but I do recall studies done on certain indigenous people whose concepts of time were wildly different than ours, and as a consequence they didn't get what you and I considered basic cause and effect. A basic conditional statement requires you understand something preceeds something else and causes it.
Or think of one of the famous Feynman examples of cargo cult science, mistaking correlation for causation; the tribes build runways to attract more planes and cargo. This isn't a fanciful example, people get cause and effect mixed up all the time because they mistake correlation with causation or because they misinterpret the motives and/or sequence of events in question. That so many people in this day and age and with the resources and knowledge available to us still make this kind of mistake, and that they do so regularly, has to make you wonder what our brains are really capable on on their own and without the social construct of language and all the advantages it gives to guide them.
I think what it comes down to is when discussing thought is we take a lot for granted that we probably shouldn't. I don't think it's a foregone conclusion that without your history that you'd be able to do the same visual reasoning.
You cannot talk without first thinking. Speech is a cognitive ability. Being able to speak in and of itself proves that one was able to think before they talked.
xahrx: AJ:Access to the vast base of human knowledge, ideas, and learning materials requires language, which requires social interaction. So I would once again say this is a separate issue from the one of whether language is needed for your and my thoughts from this moment forward. But what's the relevance of from this moment forward though?
But what's the relevance of from this moment forward though?
You're saying - and I fully agree - that language, by allowing us to communicate and hence access a wealth of new ideas, gives us all sorts of indirect assistance toward learning and higher thinking.
However, I am saying that language is not necessary in my thought process right now. I emphasize "right now" or "from this moment forward" because I think it is crucial to the advancement of civilization that people fully understand the implications of the fact that conscious thinking is done fundamentally in sensations and not words in order to avoid a whole host of pitfalls in reasoning. Basically my purpose here is to elucidate the cognition process with the aim of helping people prevent a broad range of logical errors.
xahrx:The problem I see with your reasoning is how do you honestly separate your current ability to do such visual thinking from your past development and all the experience you've gained thus far. Can you honestly say that, without the benefit of language and the learning and access to ideas it gave you, that you'd be able to do the same visualizations?
I do not think the visualizations I do are special tricks reserved for only myself and Einstein. I think everyone who thinks does so with imagined representations in their five senses, and I casually suppose that most people use the visual modality primarily. What I and a few others have done is merely noticed this phenomenon, which is hard to do only because it is usually set to "auto-ignore" in our minds.
Now let me reiterate that I agree with much of what you are saying about development of thought.
xahrx:Do you think that kid, or a feral child, can make the same visual reasoning happen in their head that you can? I don't doubt they can think, but how do they categorize concepts? Can they distinguish action from happenstance? Can they distinguish between now, before, and after?
I don't think a feral child would survive long without such abilities.
xahrx:I can't find the reference right now, but I do recall studies done on certain indigenous people whose concepts of time were wildly different than ours, and as a consequence they didn't get what you and I considered basic cause and effect.
It's also hard to imagine how anyone could survive without a basic understanding of cause and effect, like, "Touch fire, get burned."