Can Your Language Influence Your Spending, Eating, and Smoking Habits?

slimvictor

Bluelight Crew
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
6,477
Location
"Darkness cannot be dissipated with more darkness.
An absurd-sounding claim leads to a surprising finding

Yes, I know. That headline. It looks like the most egregious form of causal inference. Americans don't save money because of ... our grammar? How utterly absurd. But bear with me.

In the 1930s, linguists proposed that the way we read, write, and talk helped to determine the way we see the world. Speakers of languages that had the same word for orange and yellow had a harder time actually distinguishing the colors. Speakers of the Kook Thaayorre language, which has no words for left and right, must orient themselves by north, south, east, and west at all time, which enhances their awareness of geographical and astronomical markers.

Last year, economist Keith Chen released a working paper (now published) suggesting speakers of languages without strong future tenses tended to be more responsible about planning for the future. Quick example. In English, we say "I will go to the play tomorrow." That's strong future tense. In Mandarin or Finnish, which have weaker future tenses, it might be more appropriate to say, "I go to the play tomorrow."

Chen wondered whether languages with weak future tenses would be more thoughtful about the future because they consider it, grammatically, equivalent to the present. He mapped stronger and weak future-tense languages across Europe and correlated the data with future-oriented behaviors like saving, smoking, and using condoms.

Remarkably, he discovered that speakers with weak future tenses (e.g. German, Finnish and Estonian) were 30 percent more likely to save money, 24 percent more likely to avoid smoking, 29 percent more likely to exercise regularly, and 13 percent less likely to be obese, than speakers of languages with strong future tenses, like English.

If your B.S. antennae are standing straight up (as mine were), you might be more interested in this next part. Chen next compared speakers born and raised within the same countries, as well, controlling for factors like age and number of children. He found the same results: Speakers with weak future tenses demonstrated dramatically, and statistically significantly, more responsible future-oriented behaviors -- even within countries like Switzerland, which are a motley blend of strong-future languages (like French) and weak-future languages (like German).

The whole paper -- from its credulous claims to its surprising conclusions -- is summed up rather elegantly in this video:




cont at
http://www.theatlantic.com/business...spending-eating-and-smoking-habits/279484/Can Your Language Influence Your Spending, Eating, and Smoking Habits?
 
This is a really interesting topic; I know language can influence our attitudes, but I'd never made the connection between our language and our behaviours before. Our language evolves with time, of course; it wasn't long ago that the word "propaganda" described a perfectly legitimate and informative medium- now, it has sinister, orwellian connotations. Also, as a left-handed person, I've noticed a very strong bias in our language towards left-handed people; the latin word for "left", is of course directly translated to "sinister"...not to mention phrases like "cack-handed", "two left feet" etc. In some countries the bias is so strong, that left-handed people are forced to learn to write with their right hands. I'm positive that this cultural bias is directly related to our language; after all, what exactly is so abhorrent about using your left hand to write with?
 
^ I would guess that the anti-left bias came first from culture, and later moved into language.
In the ancient Middle East, and continuing to today, people wipe their asses with their left hand and eat with their right hand.
That is why the punishment for theft - severing of the right hand - was extra painful.

But as for the ultimate origin of the bias - it is probably biological, not cultural.
Left-handers associate the left side with positive things, and right-handers do so for the right side.
However, language is anti-left, as you noted. So it is argued that the physicality of preferring your strong side is what ultimately determines how we think.
Source: Casasanto's paper on good and bad in R- and L- handers
Abstract:
Do people with different kinds of bodies think differently? According to the body-specificity hypothesis, people who interact with their physical environments in systematically different ways should form corre- spondingly different mental representations. In a test of this hypothesis, 5 experiments investigated links between handedness and the mental representation of abstract concepts with positive or negative valence (e.g., honesty, sadness, intelligence). Mappings from spatial location to emotional valence differed between right- and left-handed participants. Right-handers tended to associate rightward space with positive ideas and leftward space with negative ideas, but left-handers showed the opposite pattern, associating rightward space with negative ideas and leftward with positive ideas. These contrasting mental metaphors for valence cannot be attributed to linguistic experience, because idioms in English associate good with right but not with left. Rather, right- and left-handers implicitly associated positive valence more strongly with the side of space on which they could act more fluently with their dominant hands. These results support the body-specificity hypothesis and provide evidence for the perceptuomotor basis of even the most abstract ideas.
 
Language is part of culture...

America is a shitty culture.

So... we have very shitty habits naturally...

That's what I derived from this.... Pretty much already knew this.
 
Ah,I guess there really is a scientific basis for it; an interesting read btw. It's quite funny, this spatial-emotional mapping thing can be reinforced and compounded by our bias, making it a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy; for example, I'm only allowed to drive on the right side of the road (because right is "good", of course), and if I were to swerve to avoid an accident, my brain would instruct me to swerve to the left, guaranteeing I would crash into incoming traffic and die a very painful death, making me associate the right with positivity (ie life....)

Seriously though, is there a correlation between our dominant hand and the side of the brain we use to think? It's probably just a myth, but I've always been curious.....
 
You use both sides of your brain to think. Which side is used more depends on the task you are facing, and ultimately, regions in both sides are involved in the majority of things you can think of.
 
Top