Tuesday, July 27, 2010

Why Throw Tic-Tac boxes inside when you can recycle them! (in a good way...;)

New cognitive research suggests that language profoundly influences the way people see the world; a different sense of blame in Japanese and Spanish

By LERA BORODITSKY

The Gallery Collection/Corbis

The Tower of Babel' by Pieter Brueghel the Elder, 1563.

Do the languages we speak shape the way we think? Do they merely express thoughts, or do the structures in languages (without our knowledge or consent) shape the very thoughts we wish to express?
Take "Humpty Dumpty sat on a..." Even this snippet of a nursery rhyme reveals how much languages can differ from one another. In English, we have to mark the verb for tense; in this case, we say "sat" rather than "sit." In Indonesian you need not (in fact, you can't) change the verb to mark tense.
In Russian, you would have to mark tense and also gender, changing the verb if Mrs. Dumpty did the sitting. You would also have to decide if the sitting event was completed or not. If our ovoid hero sat on the wall for the entire time he was meant to, it would be a different form of the verb than if, say, he had a great fall.
In Turkish, you would have to include in the verb how you acquired this information. For example, if you saw the chubby fellow on the wall with your own eyes, you'd use one form of the verb, but if you had simply read or heard about it, you'd use a different form.
Do English, Indonesian, Russian and Turkish speakers end up attending to, understanding, and remembering their experiences differently simply because they speak different languages?
These questions touch on all the major controversies in the study of mind, with important implications for politics, law and religion. Yet very little empirical work had been done on these questions until recently. The idea that language might shape thought was for a long time considered untestable at best and more often simply crazy and wrong. Now, a flurry of new cognitive science research is showing that in fact, language does profoundly influence how we see the world.
The question of whether languages shape the way we think goes back centuries; Charlemagne proclaimed that "to have a second language is to have a second soul." But the idea went out of favor with scientists when Noam Chomsky's theories of language gained popularity in the 1960s and '70s. Dr. Chomsky proposed that there is a universal grammar for all human languages—essentially, that languages don't really differ from one another in significant ways. And because languages didn't differ from one another, the theory went, it made no sense to ask whether linguistic differences led to differences in thinking.

Use Your Words

Some findings on how language can affect thinking.

Russian speakers, who have more words for light and dark blues, are better able to visually discriminate shades of blue.
Some indigenous tribes say north, south, east and west, rather than left and right, and as a consequence have great spatial orientation.
The Piraha, whose language eschews number words in favor of terms like few and many, are not able to keep track of exact quantities.
In one study, Spanish and Japanese speakers couldn't remember the agents of accidental events as adeptly as English speakers could. Why? In Spanish and Japanese, the agent of causality is dropped: "The vase broke itself," rather than "John broke the vase."

The search for linguistic universals yielded interesting data on languages, but after decades of work, not a single proposed universal has withstood scrutiny. Instead, as linguists probed deeper into the world's languages (7,000 or so, only a fraction of them analyzed), innumerable unpredictable differences emerged.
Of course, just because people talk differently doesn't necessarily mean they think differently. In the past decade, cognitive scientists have begun to measure not just how people talk, but also how they think, asking whether our understanding of even such fundamental domains of experience as space, time and causality could be constructed by language.
For example, in Pormpuraaw, a remote Aboriginal community in Australia, the indigenous languages don't use terms like "left" and "right." Instead, everything is talked about in terms of absolute cardinal directions (north, south, east, west), which means you say things like, "There's an ant on your southwest leg." To say hello in Pormpuraaw, one asks, "Where are you going?", and an appropriate response might be, "A long way to the south-southwest. How about you?" If you don't know which way is which, you literally can't get past hello.
About a third of the world's languages (spoken in all kinds of physical environments) rely on absolute directions for space. As a result of this constant linguistic training, speakers of such languages are remarkably good at staying oriented and keeping track of where they are, even in unfamiliar landscapes. They perform navigational feats scientists once thought were beyond human capabilities. This is a big difference, a fundamentally different way of conceptualizing space, trained by language.
Differences in how people think about space don't end there. People rely on their spatial knowledge to build many other more complex or abstract representations including time, number, musical pitch, kinship relations, morality and emotions. So if Pormpuraawans think differently about space, do they also think differently about other things, like time?
To find out, my colleague Alice Gaby and I traveled to Australia and gave Pormpuraawans sets of pictures that showed temporal progressions (for example, pictures of a man at different ages, or a crocodile growing, or a banana being eaten). Their job was to arrange the shuffled photos on the ground to show the correct temporal order. We tested each person in two separate sittings, each time facing in a different cardinal direction. When asked to do this, English speakers arrange time from left to right. Hebrew speakers do it from right to left (because Hebrew is written from right to left).
Pormpuraawans, we found, arranged time from east to west. That is, seated facing south, time went left to right. When facing north, right to left. When facing east, toward the body, and so on. Of course, we never told any of our participants which direction they faced. The Pormpuraawans not only knew that already, but they also spontaneously used this spatial orientation to construct their representations of time. And many other ways to organize time exist in the world's languages. In Mandarin, the future can be below and the past above. In Aymara, spoken in South America, the future is behind and the past in front.
In addition to space and time, languages also shape how we understand causality. For example, English likes to describe events in terms of agents doing things. English speakers tend to say things like "John broke the vase" even for accidents. Speakers of Spanish or Japanese would be more likely to say "the vase broke itself." Such differences between languages have profound consequences for how their speakers understand events, construct notions of causality and agency, what they remember as eyewitnesses and how much they blame and punish others.
In studies conducted by Caitlin Fausey at Stanford, speakers of English, Spanish and Japanese watched videos of two people popping balloons, breaking eggs and spilling drinks either intentionally or accidentally. Later everyone got a surprise memory test: For each event, can you remember who did it? She discovered a striking cross-linguistic difference in eyewitness memory. Spanish and Japanese speakers did not remember the agents of accidental events as well as did English speakers. Mind you, they remembered the agents of intentional events (for which their language would mention the agent) just fine. But for accidental events, when one wouldn't normally mention the agent in Spanish or Japanese, they didn't encode or remember the agent as well.
In another study, English speakers watched the video of Janet Jackson's infamous "wardrobe malfunction" (a wonderful nonagentive coinage introduced into the English language by Justin Timberlake), accompanied by one of two written reports. The reports were identical except in the last sentence where one used the agentive phrase "ripped the costume" while the other said "the costume ripped." Even though everyone watched the same video and witnessed the ripping with their own eyes, language mattered. Not only did people who read "ripped the costume" blame Justin Timberlake more, they also levied a whopping 53% more in fines.
Beyond space, time and causality, patterns in language have been shown to shape many other domains of thought. Russian speakers, who make an extra distinction between light and dark blues in their language, are better able to visually discriminate shades of blue. The Piraha, a tribe in the Amazon in Brazil, whose language eschews number words in favor of terms like few and many, are not able to keep track of exact quantities. And Shakespeare, it turns out, was wrong about roses: Roses by many other names (as told to blindfolded subjects) do not smell as sweet.
Patterns in language offer a window on a culture's dispositions and priorities. For example, English sentence structures focus on agents, and in our criminal-justice system, justice has been done when we've found the transgressor and punished him or her accordingly (rather than finding the victims and restituting appropriately, an alternative approach to justice). So does the language shape cultural values, or does the influence go the other way, or both?
Languages, of course, are human creations, tools we invent and hone to suit our needs. Simply showing that speakers of different languages think differently doesn't tell us whether it's language that shapes thought or the other way around. To demonstrate the causal role of language, what's needed are studies that directly manipulate language and look for effects in cognition.

Journal Community

discuss

“ That language embodies different ways of knowing the world seems intuitive, given the number of times we reach for a word or phrase in another language that communicates that certain je ne sais quoi we can't find on our own. ”

—Steve Kallaugher

One of the key advances in recent years has been the demonstration of precisely this causal link. It turns out that if you change how people talk, that changes how they think. If people learn another language, they inadvertently also learn a new way of looking at the world. When bilingual people switch from one language to another, they start thinking differently, too. And if you take away people's ability to use language in what should be a simple nonlinguistic task, their performance can change dramatically, sometimes making them look no smarter than rats or infants. (For example, in recent studies, MIT students were shown dots on a screen and asked to say how many there were. If they were allowed to count normally, they did great. If they simultaneously did a nonlinguistic task—like banging out rhythms—they still did great. But if they did a verbal task when shown the dots—like repeating the words spoken in a news report—their counting fell apart. In other words, they needed their language skills to count.)
All this new research shows us that the languages we speak not only reflect or express our thoughts, but also shape the very thoughts we wish to express. The structures that exist in our languages profoundly shape how we construct reality, and help make us as smart and sophisticated as we are.
Language is a uniquely human gift. When we study language, we are uncovering in part what makes us human, getting a peek at the very nature of human nature. As we uncover how languages and their speakers differ from one another, we discover that human natures too can differ dramatically, depending on the languages we speak. The next steps are to understand the mechanisms through which languages help us construct the incredibly complex knowledge systems we have. Understanding how knowledge is built will allow us to create ideas that go beyond the currently thinkable. This research cuts right to the fundamental questions we all ask about ourselves. How do we come to be the way we are? Why do we think the way we do? An important part of the answer, it turns out, is in the languages we speak.
—Lera Boroditsky is a professor of psychology at Stanford University and editor in chief of Frontiers in Cultural Psychology.

Breathtaking Christie with a fine pair of melons

Breathtaking Christie with a fine pair of melons - Rated XXX

Monday, July 26, 2010

N.F.L. Asserts Greater Risks of Head Injury

July 26, 2010

N.F.L. Asserts Greater Risks of Head Injury

By ALAN SCHWARZ

The National Football League is producing a poster that bluntly alerts its players to the long-term effects of concussions, using words like “depression” and “early onset of dementia” that those close to the issue described as both staggering and overdue.
The poster, soon to be hung in locker rooms leaguewide, becomes by far the N.F.L.’s most definitive statement on the cognitive risks of football, which it had discredited for most of the past several years as academic studies and reports of deceased players’ brain damage mounted.
The new document also warns players that repeated concussions “can change your life and your family’s life forever,” a clear nod to retired players’ wives who have spoken out on the issue, occasionally before Congress. A draft of the poster also features photographs of unnamed youngsters in various sports with the reminder, “Other athletes are watching.”
The new poster, which will also become a brochure given to all players, presents a stark change in league approach. It replaces a pamphlet given since 2007 that said, “Current research with professional athletes has not shown that having more than one or two concussions leads to permanent problems if each injury is treated properly,” and also left open the question of “if there are any long-term effects of concussion in N.F.L. athletes.”
The sobering new warning could affect not just the behavior of current N.F.L. players and youth athletes, but also how retired players’ claims of cognitive decline are handled under the disability plan operated jointly by the league and the players union.
“That poster is shocking,” said Domonique Foxworth, a cornerback for the Baltimore Ravens. “It gives people facts before they take risks. But it’s not exactly a new revelation.”
Matt Birk, the Ravens’ center, said: “To put it out there in writing in locker rooms, at least it’s publicly acknowledging that, ‘Hey, this is real.’ There’s risks in everything you do, and this one is real. You can’t sweep it under the rug anymore.”
Greg Aiello, a league spokesman, said in an e-mail message that the poster, spearheaded by the league’s new head, neck and spine medical committee and written in collaboration with the players union and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “is intended to present the most current and objective medical information on concussions and will be distributed to the players and clubs in the near future.” He said Commissioner Roger Goodell provided his full support.
“We took a very firm stance,” said Dr. Thom Mayer, the union’s medical director and a member of the committee who worked on the text. “This is a clear step forward in educating players.”
The poster lists symptoms that players should look out for, including headaches, confusion, memory problems and feeling more emotional, and warns them not to ignore symptoms.
Beyond detailing the symptoms and severity of head injuries, the poster extends the league’s broad redirection in concussion policy since last fall. Then, the league adopted stricter rules regarding when players can return from head injuries, and then only with an independent neurologist’s permission.
Other changes to playing rules, practice procedures and equipment are being considered, with history suggesting that alterations could be adopted at the college and youth levels.
The new language is a glaring departure from words used by the league’s old concussion committee, whose comments and research that played down the evidence of concussion risks eventually led to its chairmen’s resignations. Their successors, who directed the poster project, Dr. H. Hunt Batjer and Dr. Richard Ellenbogen, did not return phone messages Monday.
The league’s reversal is not necessarily complete. On April 30, an outside lawyer for the league, Lawrence L. Lamade, wrote a memo to the lead lawyer for the league’s and union’s joint disability plan, Douglas Ell, discrediting connections between football head trauma and cognitive decline. The letter, obtained by The New York Times, explained, “We can point to the current state of uncertainty in scientific and medical understanding” on the subject to deny players’ claims that their neurological impairments are related to football.
Mr. Lamade did not return a message left Monday at his law firm, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld in Washington. Mr. Aeillo said the league would comment on the letter at a later time.
Brent Boyd, 53, a Minnesota Vikings lineman in the 1980s, is among scores of players whose symptoms of early-onset dementia have been ruled ineligible for the considerably higher disability payments given to players with on-field injuries. That denial took place soon after the last of three plan-chosen doctors ruled in 2001 that a particular concussion Boyd sustained “could not organically be responsible for all or even a major portion” of his condition.
Denied the higher benefits by the disability board, Mr. Boyd has been fighting to reverse the decision ever since. Two months ago, another of his appeals was denied because, the reply noted, “There are no changed circumstances,” and Mr. Boyd refused to see a fourth doctor.
Mr. Aiello and a union spokesman, George Atallah, declined to discuss any possible effect the new poster might have on disability claims. Most likely, the onus will remain on players to assert that their individual conditions did derive from professional football — similar to how players must handle worker’s compensation claims — although that assertion could gain credence with the league’s imprimatur.
Meanwhile, the most immediate effects of the new poster could be on the mind-set of current and future players. Mr. Birk said that some players would still try to play through head injuries “because the culture is so strong, but it’s a good start.”
Mr. Foxworth said: “Ninety-nine percent of the people who put helmets on don’t get the payback we do, but they’re taking the same risks. It’s probably more valuable to them than it is to a lot of us.”
Chris Nowinski, a co-director of the Sports Legacy Institute and an advocate for youth concussion awareness, said he was relieved to learn about the new language. “The old pamphlet that said ‘no evidence of any long-term effects,’ it slowed down progress — it helped create a latency environment when the evidence showed great urgency for change,” he said. “There’s a greater need for culture change on the lower levels. When coaches and people around the games don’t have all the information, simple documents and simple messages are the most important.”

Recording Industry Giant Tries to Undermine 'Safe Harbor' Rules for Online Video Sites

July 26th, 2010

Recording Industry Giant Tries to Undermine 'Safe Harbor' Rules for Online Video Sites

EFF Urges Appeals Court to Protect Free Expression and Innovation in UMG v. Veoh

San Francisco - The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and a coalition of nonprofit groups have asked a federal appeals court to protect the "safe harbor" rules for online video service providers that encourage free expression and innovation on the Internet.
In an amicus brief filed Friday in UMG v. Veoh, EFF told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit that Universal Music Group's (UMG's) effort to hold online video service Veoh responsible for infringing content uploaded by a minority of its users would thwart federal law and Congress's intent to stimulate electronic commerce and free speech.
"By creating a clear path for innovators like Veoh to limit their liability for the copyright violations of their users, the statutory safe harbors helped foster the innovation environment that has made YouTube, Flickr, eBay, Blogger, and myriad other hosting-based services possible," said EFF Senior Staff Attorney Corynne McSherry. "UMG is trying to turn back the clock and reinstate a climate of legal uncertainty that would harm new online businesses and the free expression they foster."
The safe harbors are part of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) and give sites immunity from monetary damages if they observe the DMCA's "notice and takedown" procedures for potentially infringing content and comply with other legal requirements. In a lawsuit first filed in 2007, UMG argued that the safe harbors don't apply to any service that "displays" or "distributes" copyrighted material, rather than simply "storing" it. Last year, a federal district court rejected that argument. UMG appealed.
"The safe harbors have proven to be a huge success in encouraging the growth of innovative platforms for free expression, hosting vibrant amateur creativity," said McSherry. "But under UMG's vision for the Internet, we'd get something a lot more like television, where nothing is seen until it's approved by an army of lawyers. That's why we're asking the appeals court to affirm the lower court's ruling."
Joining EFF in the amicus brief are the American Library Association, the Association of Research Libraries, the Association of College and Research Libraries, the Center for Democracy and Technology, the Computer and Communications Industry Association, the Internet Archive, NetCoalition, and Public Knowledge.
For the full amicus brief:
http://www.eff.org/files/filenode/umg_v_veoh/UMGvVeohAmicusBrief072310.p...
For more on this case:
http://www.eff.org/cases/umg-v-veoh
Contacts:
Corynne McSherry
Senior Staff Attorney
Electronic Frontier Foundation
corynne@eff.org

Related Issues: Digital Video, DMCA, Intellectual Property

Related Cases: UMG v. Veoh

San Diego City Council votes to sink 'floatopia' booze parties

L.A. NOW

Southern California -- this just in

« Previous Post | L.A. NOW Home

San Diego City Council votes to sink 'floatopia' booze parties

July 26, 2010 | 6:17 pm
Click on pic for extra large view

The San Diego City Council on Monday voted unanimously to ban drinking on Mission Bay in an effort to stop the "floatopia" booze parties that have exploited a loophole in the city's ban on drinking on beaches.
Police and lifeguard officials told the council that the "floatopia" parties, at which hundreds of college-age people drink while floating on rafts, inner-tubes and other devices, are a menace and could lead to drownings because of drunkenness and injuries from broken bottles.
But opponents of the ban said that further limitations on drinking could hurt tourism. The council was not swayed by that argument.
"This is not the San Diego City Council saying no-no-no to things," said Councilwoman Marti Emerald. "This is the San Diego City Council trying to keep people alive at our beaches."
After an alcohol-fueled riot on the beach at Pacific Beach during Labor Day weekend 2008, the council voted to impose a one-year ban on alcohol consumption on city beaches. In November of that year, city voters approved a measure to make the ban permanent.
But the ban did not cover drinking in the water. Monday's ban on drinking in the water is set to become effective immediately.
-- Tony Perry in San Diego