Wait here, I'll bring the etchings down

Our individual knowledge is one of the few things we can be sure of.  Relating back to Descartes philosophy, one can only be sure of what goes on in their own mind, for the means of communication between human beings are fairly unreliable. However, as we do live in a joint society, we rely on means of communication, the most prevalent being language. This can come in the form of body language, written language, and spoken language, all of which are interconnected. However, it is these connections that vary from person to person, and culture to culture. Humans rely on language to accurately deliver our private subjective knowledge to others, but when using a means of communication with so many leeways, several knowledge issues are encountered.

The means in which individual knowledge and mutual knowledge are integrated bring upon the difficulties of communication. When dealing with communication, there are several ways to do so. As we experienced during the drawing exercise and charades, both body language and spoken language hold their limitations. For example, during the drawing exercise, I was the narrator. I had the individual knowledge of what the picture looked like, however I could not fully transfer this knowledge to the drawers. Although I tried my best to communicate what the picture looked like through spoken language, it was not enough to send across the message. Likewise, when playing charades, mere body language was not enough to convey the detailed prompts of the game. From this we can see how body, spoken, and written language are necessary for humans to overcome the vast uncertainty of communication.

Language in itself can be perceived differently from person to person. Hence come the ideas of Pinker and ‘Outliers’. In Pinker’s video, the concepts of individual and mutual knowledge are further described. Individual knowledge consists of one’s own knowledge, A knows X and B knows X. mutual knowledge considered the correlation of this knowledge, does A know that B knows X? Does B know that A knows X? From this, comes awkwardness. Although some knowledge might be mutual, in order to avoid the awkwardness, people tend to find means of complicating our language even further, to make sure that the mutual knowledge cannot be fully gained. Perhaps it is a frightening concept, for one to know exactly what your intentions are when we speak, so instead we ‘veil’ our intentions with language. Such ‘veils’ vary from person to person, and from culture to culture. In some cultures, it would be considered rude to straight out ask for sex, even though calling someone up to see their ‘etchings’ is partially as obvious.  

This awkwardness not only comes across when there is a difference of interests, but also when there is a difference of power. As presented in the Pinker video, difference in power can lead to that awkwardness, especially if one is unsure of a relationship they have with a person. This concept of language and power relates to the Power-Distance Index described in the ‘Outliers’ chapter. PDI’s are a measure of the acceptance of unequally distributed power, which is a major factor when dealing with societal interactions. When in a foreign culture, the rules of body language and spoken language may be different, hence leading to awkwardness. From this chapter we can see the drastic measures humans take in order to avoid this awkwardness or confrontation, which have presumably led to plane crashes. In different cultures, certain ways of communication are deemed more appropriate. Since I am Indian, I come from a culture with a relatively high PDI. Whether it is culture, religion, or tradition, we are taught to respect our elders and treat them in a certain manner. Our way of speaking to parents or teachers are significantly different from the way we speak to our peers, and therefore, our ways of communicating are influenced.

All in all, language as a means of communication has its issues. The consequences of these issues can vary from awkwardness to plane crashes. Although as a way of knowing, it may seem unreliable, I feel that it is this unreliability that brings beauty to language. Without this constant need to interpret what people say, humans would be extremely bored. People can spend hours deciphering a person’s words, just to catch a glimpse at their individual knowledge – what really goes on in their head.  Without this ambiguity of language, there would be no poetry, no culture, no humor, no awkwardness that we love to analyze, and most importantly, there would be no individualism. The ambiguity of language is what gives each individual the ability to perceive others the way they chose, which is the basis of all human- to- human relationships. 

Language is influential. Language is manipulative.

Language is the main form of communication for the human population. It is the most prevalent way to convey messages, and communicate. However, for a means of communication with so much power, it has a lot of leeways. The beauty of the English language is that there are so many different meanings to a set of words, especially in poetry. Hence comes the idea of denotation and connotation. Although a word is just a word, it comes with baggage that impacts it’s meaning. There are so many different ways of talk that deal with various connotations, depending on the type of message the speaker would like to send.

Whenever there are such leeways, they can always be abused. Two of the seven sins of memory are bias and suggestibility, which deal with language. Especially in history, one has to judge the validity of a document, for its language may have extremely bias connotations. A persons viewpoint can always be expressed in their language, relating to the connotations of the words they use. Since history is completely based on the documents of other people’s writing, our knowledge of the truth is severely obstructed. The proof of this obstruction is the various documents for a single event. Although each person viewed the same event, their documentation could use language with extremely different connotations according to their person beliefs.

The other sin of memory that I mentioned is suggestibility, which are influenced memories. This relates to the power language has over us. If there is only one document of a certain event, we as humans accept this to be the truth. Therefore, our idea of the truth is affected by another person’s language, containing their bias connotations. The connotations of our language can turn a hero to a villain, a miracle to a tragedy, and a freedom fighter into a terrorist.  Even as depicted in Orwell’s 1984, language has a great influence over our community (hence they tried to control language in order to control the community). Connotations hold a great power that can severely affect our understanding of the truth. 

The consumption of popcorn leads to the degeneration of brain cells.

“Are We Hard-Wired to Doubt Science?” by Felicity Barringer

http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/01/are-we-hard-wired-to-doubt-science/?scp=4&sq=perception&st=cse

This article dotes upon the issue of science and its validity. Barringer discusses how humans are more likely to believe in scientific evidence that is parallel to their own belief systems, so essentially, they chose what they want to believe on an emotional basis. The article discusses the issues we encounter when dealing with perception, for even scientific evidence is perceived subjectively.  There is neurological evidence for this claim, for information is processed by the amygdala rather than the cortex. The amygdala is the origination of emotions such as fear, and the cortex is the area of reason. This shows how humans are more reliant on emotion and instinct rather than reason. The article continues to discuss how these emotion based perceptive skills may be influenced by one’s social classification of society, another factor that can impact cognitive skills.

Some knowledge issues that were brought up by this article were:

To what extent do we rely on emotion rather than logic?

How strong of an influence do you feel social classifications and prejudices have an impact on our beliefs?

How often do we rely on our ‘gut feeling’ rather than the logical explanation or reasoning?

Judging by this article, it is evident that our human emotions control our actions and beliefs. As the article mentions, humans tend to believe in the notion that there is something out there to get them, and will believe these theories regardless of any scientific evidence of the contrary. Humans will believe theories as crazy as 'The consumption of popcorn leads to the degeneration of brain cells', without any substantial scientific evidence. This exemplifies the neurological explanation, being that the amygdala is the one that processes information first. Although humans claim to be fairly logical creatures, it seems as though our primitive ancestors relied more on logic and reasoning than we do now. If one is to think about all the descisions they have made based on emotion versus the amount of descisions based on logic, the results would be quite shocking. Most of the time, humans are unable to make purely logical descisions or make purely objective judgments.  Animals on the other hand, seem to respond more to logical reasoning and scientific progression. The mating processes of animals are much more simplistic than that of humans, for there is no complicated emotional baggage involved. Animals mate simply to reproduce and carry on their species. Humans however, are caught up with ‘falling in love’ and ‘finding one’s soul mate’. Such desires lead to the human reliance on emotions for decision-making. 

The Art of Perception

“Thus every act of perception, even something as simple as viewing a drawing of a cube, involves an act of judgment by the brain.”

This statement supports the fact that most of the knowledge we gain is from perception, meaning that most of our knowledge is perceptive and not objective. I have discussed this notion earlier in my previous blog, and this statement only provides further support for my argument. Although there are subjects such as science and math, which contain relatively objective truths, the way an individual judges this information is different, making even objective truths somewhat perceptive. For example, the Necker cube is the perfect example. This cube has to do with math (geometry), although we are given objective truths about the angles etc, when looking at the cube we all see something different. Hence, each brain is judging every piece of information in different manners, meaning that the stored information humans keep in their brains is extensively varied amongst different people.

This statement also implies the immense processes a brain goes through. Humans know very little about the brain, but we do know that it is a very complex organ. If in the simple act of looking at a cube, our brain is working to make a perceptive judgment, imagine what our brain goes through when watching a movie, or reading a novel. The very concept of art and creativity is born through the ideals of perceptive judgment. If all humans perceived the world in the same manner, there would be no imagination, and there would be no creativity. For example, if you gave a group of people a description of a person, and asked them all to draw what they perceived from the description, they would all end up with extremely varied drawing. From this, comes art and literature, which are demonstrations of the different perspectives on our world. Such forms of art would not be possible without these varied acts of judgments by individual brains throughout the world.