This is IMO largely false, and empirically things like Sapir-Worf and strong linguistic relativism, or that language == thought are widely considered disproven [1-3].

This is also sort of a wordcel take, in that it neglects that there are plenty of mental structures that are not solely linguistic. I.e. visuo-spatial models, auditory models, kinaesthetic, proprioceptive, emotional, gustatory, or even maybe intuitive models, and symbolic models (which have both linguistic and visuo-spatial aspects). Yes, your models constrain your perception of reality, but it is not clear how important language really is to many of those models (and there is strong evidence it may not matter at all to a lot of cognition [3]).

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_relativity

[2] https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2015/entries/relativi...

[3] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4874898/

▲

paganel 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Disproven by whom and under which context?

> evidence from neuroimaging and neurological patients

Has "neuroimaging" successfully modelled those "universal human rights" the OP was mentioning? If yes, how did it look?

More generally, positing that all languages are, in the end, interchangeable (because that's what the opponents of something similar to Sapir-Worf are saying) is very reactionary and limited in itself, and its telling them me calling those anti-Sapir-Worf people "reactionaries" will for sure tickle in them something that wouldn't have happened had I used a different "neuoroimaged" concept which, supposedly, should have meant the same thing for them (but it doesn't).

	▲	D-Machine 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> Disproven by whom and under which context? See any of my links, but especially the third. Animal cognition and human neuroscience studies strongly disprove the importance of language to cognition. Conflating language and thought is so obviously false in 2026 it is extraordinary that people still think like this. I was ignoring the comment about fascists because it is simplistic and low-quality, and will similarly not be responding to whatever you (incorrectly) think I was claiming about universal human rights. I only wanted to correct the extremely false (or at least hugely overstated) assumptions about language and perception of reality.