Does the languages we speak affect the way we think?

That’s usually referred to as the Sapir-Whorf or Whorf-Sapir hypothesis. See “Linguistic relativity” on Wikipedia: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_relativity . Try the search bar located (non-obviously) at the bottom of HN pages to see what people here think about it.

Edit: Actually, there aren’t many submissions about the subject and I forgot that you can only view search results for comments in Date order and not Popularity order. (For the obvious reason that you can’t see the score of comments.) Googling gives results that may be satisfying:

  site:news.ycombinator.com Sapir whorf hypothesis

I actually had this exact theory but I didn't know it was already a thing. see how Chinese is good for maths, french are melancholic, English is materialistic and world dominant etc. for instance take Romanian, which is vulgar (common, as spoken by peasants) Latin. Romanian is much more expressive and precise than English on matters pertaining to housekeeping and farming (peasant activities in general), whereas English is by a mile more suited and expressive in upper-class discourse (negotiations and reasoning of a more abstract or theoretical form; subtle social dynamics). I think to some extent because say Romanian biases heavily towards agriculture in its lexicon, it is an inherent impediment to try to achieve great scientific discoveries in such a language, whereas English or Chinese are evidently better suited. perhaps this raises the question then of wether a globalised language like English would offer greater fairness and freedom of expression, or wether composite languages are for emerge to eg take advantage of German technicality with English managerial interdynamics and French artistry (English already borrows heavily from French and Latin, and is a Germanic language to begin with so is that why it's now the global default language? is it because it's already a semi-composite language?)

I would postulate a counterthesis that its not the language we speak that affects the way we think, but rather how much of that language we use and how much the (single) language is capable to express AND how much of different topics we read/hear (in that language). Just think of kids not so profound in their language - they think, they reason, but they can't argue about "to be or not to be...". But when they grow up, they more and more use and read other topics that utilize higher parts of the language, difficult sentences, etc.. -> so they LEARN and start to think differently on topics.

so, my postulation is:

the knowledge we gain shapes our thinking. Language itself is the transportation medium for the knowledge. Is the medium is small, so the knowledge described with the medium is also "small" or "not destinctive enough". We can use a "second" language then to make the knowledge more exact and mor destinct/tdefined.

But the knowledge can also be gained with other means - learning by doing, as exmaple. So, a language is not necessary to gain knowledge (numb and deaf and blind people also think, but are somehow limited in their expression ...)

so based on that, I postulate, it's a coincidence when a language shapes our thinking, but the cause and the "affecting part" is the real "knowledge-transfer" by the language. No matter if its sign language, pointing towards .. speaking piraha or russian or finnish-english.

Latin had no word equivalent to the English "yes". Latin had sic which is very close to the English this, which means to speak in the affirmative requires a relation that qualifies an affirmation.

As a result thinking in Latin is absolutely different than thinking in English which has yes/no questions that could not exist in Latin. When asked a yes/no question without receiving a yes or no answer English speakers immediately assume deception and that assumption is almost always correct. The exception is when the answering party fully fails to grasp the question, or the question's intent if the question is vague or itself deceptive. In Latin language answers without a yes or no were the default and even though there is not an option to apply a direct yes or no answer many times deception was none the less assumed regardless due to differing cultural norms, especially in elevated classes.

https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/1592/how-do-you-sa...

https://dcc.dickinson.edu/grammar/latin/questions

I have a theory that language does shape individuals and societies. As someone who speaks 3 different languages (and learning one more), I’ve noticed interesting things.

For example, in one of the languages I speak, husban and wife literally means owner and woman. So a woman would say that he is her owner, while the man would say that she is his woman.

Some languages have different “you” meanings. There is a “you” for someone you know, a formal “you”, a “you” when addressing someone older than yourself.

While these things sound minor, I do believe they shape the thinking of individuals and societies.

I have a blog post draft about it, and now you reminded me that I should probably proofread it and publish.

No. This is the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis and has, even in its weak form, been conisdered a dead end.

That said the culture (relegion and other stories) we live in completely drive our cognition.

Culture & Ideology Are Not Your Friends (Terence McKenna) [FULL]

Presented at the Whole Life Expo, Denver, April 1999

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i0gsHFatPp0

Yes. Telling from personal experience of living in different cultures. Language you speak and think in not only contributes a lot to the way you think, but also to your personality itself, to character. People who spent few years+ living in different language often even sound differently, having different voice.

Languages are a construct of the environment they are on. Thus they create a bias, but do not put constraints on your logic Sure, thoughts might be just concepts. What does this statement lead to? I don't see much value

For sure, though not likely how you infer (from the way you stated your reasoning.)

Consciousness (existential inflection) and conscious (aware) are two separate things. Consciousness envelops one’s conscious experience, however there is much more (an entire mind technology.)

The mechanics of language and their influence on thought is yet another fascinating layer.

The apparatus of our minds which shape our thoughts are a technology. You shaping your thoughts is just as distinctive as your voice shaping your words. Many have a wide range of variability. There are many influences.

The technology of thought in our minds changes a great deal about who we are and how we interface with the world (more than just words and people.)

What is useful is not which language, for every modern language is mature through countless generations “polishing” it. What is useful is how much experience one has, and how they might articulate how this was processed.

The technology of the mind may at times seem like an arms race, though it is also like an ouroboros, devouring itself and reinventing through time.

Definitely I think yes. Because language is also a culture, it does affect the way we think a lot.

I am tempted to say yes, but how do we separate culture from language?

Honestly, not really, no. Speaking as someone who has had a handful of languages at a handful of proficiencies under his belt over his life, I don't really think learning any of them have "expanded my consciousness" or anything like that by any considerable degree. Sorry to burst your bubble. I learned English, Spanish, and Latin as a teenager, and currently am about 4 years deep into learning Finnish, so I speak with some lived experience on this.

If you want to think interesting thoughts, you need to think hard about things for a long time. That's the sine qua non of it. It can be in any language you want, or even in a nonlinguistic substrate like mental visualization. I would heavily caution people away from trying to shortcut this process by first spending 5 years studying e.g. ancient Assyrian and only then attempting to commune with pre-biblical demons (or whatever it is people think they want to do with this - if there's no particular goal in mind, I would say that's yet another red flag).

In general, I'm sorry to say, I think language learning is a tremendous waste of time and effort for almost everybody. Exceptions are mainly for hobbyists (even then, there are probably much more worthwhile hobbies you could take up), passing regulatory hurdles (all of mine so far), and integrating into a new culture (Finnish alone so far). If you want a pastime which will really push your brain to think hard and in new ways, philosophy and mathematics are both much better bang for your buck.