On May 23, 3:36 pm, Mike <
mikebk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Whoisbambam, the order was just people I remember from this forum in the
> order they came to me. for you I wanted to say *last but not least, I don't
> know why it ended up being *and of course, which maybe doesn't sound nice
> enough. I think you're not the least intelligent here, I would put you
> toward the top. and I appreciate your posts. I think you might be much more
> intelligent than you think. you do write differently than argumzio, yes. but
> the ideas you bring to the discussions are far from uninteresting. I think
> you're a great contributer here.
>
> my point of view on higher language level and ability is that it mostly
> serves discrimination and exclusion purposes, it doesn't improve
> communication. it's a sign that you are intelligent, but also and mostly
> that you spent enough childhood time in private schools (surrounded by high
> iq and english native teachers) when you're still a sponge for words (you
> can have a high iq but be surrounded by low iqs during childhood, also).
> maybe that's why private schools exist, they are a good investment, because
> they give good language markers to children for later in life--along with
> giving them good contacts, but maybe the language aspect is even more
> important. personally I started learning english only in my early 20s a few
> years ago-- and even though I absolutely love that language and I speak it
> everyday, I don't think I can attain the level of argumzio, ever, without
> nano implants.
>
> so it's a natural social phenomena that during the evolution of languages,
> the elite will evolve markers to differentiate themselves from intruders.
> it's very effective, and that's how the world works. it served its purpose.
> maybe it's important that the high iqs stay together in group. but on the
> other hand, Albert Einstein didn't look smart when he spoke English--he will
> if you pay attention to what he says--but that's not flashy enough for most
> people, they just won't appreciate his ideas as much as flashy intellectual
> language use. most people are against good ideas at first. good ideas are
> hard to evaluate on the spot for most people. brain train also pointed out a
> very interesting idea: that jargon is also a protection from intruders in
> certain fields like law, but also in many others. pidgin languages are at
> the other end of the spectrum: languages made for communication, without any
> superfluous vocabulary. of course it can be imprecise sometimes. but overall
> it's not: communication with them can be just as accurate, even more because
> everyone understands (no lower iq cut from the conversation). I can totally
> see jargon as evil, and counterproductive. people seem to defend it on the
> basis that it is more precise, but I'm pretty sure that using simpler and
> more descriptive expressions will produce better communication than high
> level language or jargons. high level language protects the lower iqs in the
> elite social classes, and definitely prevents social mobility. it's good for
> the elite, but it's not good for the economy, that's cutting yourself from
> the advantages of the brain drain, something the US certainly didn't do.
>
> also what's interesting is that old established ideas already have words and
> sayings, ready made phrases for them; on the other hand if you try t express
> a new idea, it will have more chance to sound awkward and you will need to
> make gestures and awkward metaphors in order to get your point across, *also
> simply because because people don't have the concept already in their minds
> so it's harder for them to understand it. no handy ready-made smooth
> sounding expression to say it, and also, (as a consequence!) the bar is put
> higher for people to understand it. it may seem trivial to you, but when
> you think about it languages are filled with ready-made concepts that
> everyone know and think along with. really cultures are still very different
> today.
>
> so an emphasis on high level language would prevent social mobility and
> attracting high iqs from abroad, and I would argue, would also tend to
> prevent the flow of new ideas from mixing with the old ones.
>
> one thing I love about american english but also british english to a
> certain extend, is that there is a kind of *no-bullshit *anti-intellectual
> culture embedded in it. yes even british english. to me this is not
> unrelated to its success in science and commerce--in a pattern mostly
> opposite to that of the countries of continental europe which them have a
> very different culture, more pedantic to sum it up in 1 word. there is a
> good quote I remember from George Orwell, where he basically said *don't use
> big words when you can use simple ones. but I can't find it quickly. this
