|
| ▲ | pverheggen an hour ago | parent | next [-] |
| You're probably thinking of the Himba tribe color experiment - which as it turns out, was mostly fabricated by a BBC documentary: https://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=17970 |
| |
| ▲ | bkolobara 42 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Yes, I think this was it! Thanks for sharing the link. I had no idea that part was fabricated. |
|
|
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > if you show them two colors and ask them if they are different, they will tell you no The experiments I've seen seem to interrogate what the culture means by colour (versus shade, et cetera) more than what the person is seeing. If you show me sky blue and Navy blue and ask me if they're the same colour, I'll say yes. If you ask someone in a different context if Russian violet and Midnight blue are the same colour, I could see them saying yes, too. That doesn't mean they literally can't see the difference. Just that their ontology maps the words blue and violet to sets of colours differently. |
| |
| ▲ | wongarsu 22 minutes ago | parent [-] | | If you asked me if a fire engine and a ripe strawberry are the same color I would say yes. Obviously, they are both red. If you held them next to each other I would still be able to tell you they are obviously different shades of red. But in my head they are both mapped to the red "embedding". I imagine that's the exact same thing that happens to blue and green in cultures that don't have a word for green. If on the other hand you work with colors a lot you develop a finer mapping. If your first instinct when asked for the name of that wall over there is to say it's sage instead of green, then you would never say that a strawberry and a fire engine have the same color. You might even question the validity of the question, since fire engines have all kinds of different colors (neon red being a trend lately) | | |
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross 13 minutes ago | parent [-] | | > in my head they are both mapped to the red "embedding" Sure. That's the point. These studies are a study of language per se. Not how language influences perception to a meanigful degree. Sapir-Whorf is a cool hypothesis. But it isn't true for humans. (Out of curiosity, what is "embedding" doing that "word" does not?) | | |
| ▲ | wongarsu 3 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Word would imply that this only happens when I translate my thoughts to a chosen human language (or articulate thoughts in a language). I chose embedding because I think this happens much earlier in the pipeline: the information of the exact shade is discarded before the scene is committed to memory and before most conscious reasoning. I see this as something happening at the interface of the vision system, not the speech center. Which is kind of Sapir-Whorf, just not the extreme version of "we literally can't see or reason about the difference". But I don't think Sapir-Whorf is completely off the mark either, the words we know do influence how we categorize and think about things |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | cthalupa an hour ago | parent | prev [-] |
| The ability for us to look at a gradient of color and differentiate between shades even without distinct names for them seems to disprove this on its face. Unless the question is literally the equivalent of someone showing you a swatch of crimson and a swatch of scarlet and being asked if both are red, in which case, well yeah sure. |
