A NYTimes book review of „Through the Language Glass“ by Guy Deutscher touches on the interesting topic of how languages shape our thoughts (the book itself might or might not be worth reading, according to the review the anecdotes are more convincing then the theory the author wants to prove with them).

Here is an interesting example of how that could happen:

[…] the Amazonian language Matses, whose arsenal of verb forms obliges you not only to explicitly indicate the kind of evidence — personal experience, inference, conjecture or hearsay — on which every statement you make is based, but also to distinguish recent inferences from older ones and say whether the interval between inference and event was long or short. If you choose the wrong verb form, you are treated as a liar. But the distinctions that must be expressed by verbal inflections in Matses, Deutscher argues, can all be easily understood by English speakers and easily expressed in English by means of circumlocutions.

Now, the information is indeed very fascinating to me, and I also don’t quite follow his conclusion. First, to make the point that languages shape our thoughts, you don’t have to prove that certain things cannot be expressed in some languages — it is enough to show that speakers of different languages habitually use certain concepts more than others. And here you can say that the degree of evidence backing a statement seems to have much more everyday importance to Matses speakers than to us. Second, if you assume there is something that cannot be expressed in English — how do you think you could talk (and think) about that in an English book, review, or even mind? Almost by definition, this part of reality would get lost in translation…

Which brings us to another example: colors.

Although the strange sequence in which color terms appear in the world’s languages over time — first black and white, then red, then either green or yellow, with blue appearing only after the first five are in place — still has no full explanation, Deutscher’s suggestion that the development of dyes and other forms of artificial coloring may be involved is as convincing as any other, making color terms the likeliest candidate for a culture-induced linguistic phenomenon.

Other explanations are also possible, of course, and have been made, like here by the British statesman and Greek scholar William Gladstone, who

noting among other things the surprising absence of any term for “blue” in classical Greek texts, theorized that full-color vision had not yet developed in humans when those texts were composed?

Along with psychological experiments, this backs up one of the basic constructivist claims (as put forth, for instance, by Maturana and Varela), that there is hardly any connection between physical spectra of light and the colors we see.

I think if you don’t view languages as static objects, but as systems of thought and expression that keep evolving, and provide an enormous space for creativity and new thoughts, you won’t be too interested in what can and cannot be said (and consequently thought). And from my experience, there are many areas where different languages focus on different aspects of life, and make you more inclined to view reality in a different way. Like, for instance, I’m amazed by how the elaborate linguistic system that has evolved around „dating“ in English in my opinion makes you more likely to view the whole thing as some sort of game, with certain rules, and more importantly, with certain conflicting goals for the participants. And I would argue that while the relative lack of established expressions for this in German makes it harder to communicate with outsiders about what is going on, it leaves more freedom to the individuals involved.

The NYTimes reports on a new development in both scientific and everyday thinking about happiness. Partly accelerated by the recent depression, there seems to be a movement of people discovering that earning money did not actually make them happy, but that „downsizing“ their material life did, sometimes even though it was forced by loss of income.

Websites like RowdyKittens are popping up, sharing advice on simple living (I personally like The Only Guide to Happiness You’ll Ever Need that it links to a lot, I think my next important step is slowing down …). And Roko Belic made a Documentary called „Happy“ that I can’t wait to see, the trailer looks amazing. His bottom line seems to be:

The one single trait that’s common among every single person who is happy is strong relationships.

On the other hand, science has taken on the task of happiness again. The mission can be summed up by the introductory paragraph from a paper titled „If Money Doesn’t Make You Happy Then You Probably Aren’t Spending It Right“ (supposedly forthcoming in The Journal of Consumer Psychology):

Scientists have studied the relationship between money and happiness for decades and their conclusion is clear: Money buys happiness, but it buys less than most people think (Aknin, Norton, & Dunn, 2009; Diener & Biswas-Diener, 2002; Frey & Stutzer, 2000). The correlation between income and happiness is positive but modest, and this fact should puzzle us more than it does. After all, money allows people to do what they please, so shouldn’t they be pleased when they spend it? Why doesn’t a whole lot more money make us a whole lot more happy? One answer to this question is that the things that bring happiness simply aren’t for sale. This sentiment is lovely, popular, and almost certainly wrong. Money allows people to live longer and healthier lives, to buffer themselves against worry and harm, to have leisure time to spend with friends and family, and to control the nature of their daily activities—all of which are sources of happiness (Smith, Langa, Kabeto, & Ubel, 2005). Wealthy people don’t just have better toys; they have better nutrition and better medical care, more free time and more meaningful labor—more of just about every ingredient in the recipe for a happy life. And yet, they aren’t that much happier than those who have less. If money can buy happiness, then why doesn’t it?

Because people don’t spend it right.

And while they provide some reasonable and non-trivial advice („Principle 3: Buy Many Small Pleasures Instead of Few Big Ones“, e.g., or „Principle 5: Pay Now and Consume Later“ [!]), there’s something about that approach that worries me. I think two of the other recommendations illustrate that: „Principle 1: Buy Experiences Instead of Things“ and „Principle 2: Help Others Instead of Yourself“.

I follow the notion that experiencing something ultimately contributes more to our life than having something, and that a central part of our happiness is relatedness. I just doubt that money is the right frame to discuss these issues in. There are much simpler ways of both experiencing something and connecting with other people than spending money on either. And they both are prone to leading right into the next consumption wave, this time not about big TV sets, but amazing massage spas and, ahm, massage vouchers for our partners and friends?! Why not give that massage yourself?

On top of that, the „spend your money wisely“-approach keeps people working long hours, which for most people will tend to decrease happiness.

So the new talk about happiness seems to go right over the divide between a materialistic and spiritualistic view of life, and I’m quite excited to see how it will evolve.

In a special post for my English-speaking friends and followers — I think my first English post ever, wohooo! — I want to point to an interesting video by Barack Obama. He is talking about a recent Supreme Court decision to allow (as far as I understand) unlimited and basically anonymous (!) ads targeting the electorate.

I already read and wrote about this more than a year ago (for something like an English version try Google Translate). Well, here is what Obama says:

[…]