Language & Freedom 5: Externalizing Thinking

Probably the most common way to conceptualize writing is to consider it as a way of fixing speech in time, transforming (originally spoken) words into a less ephemeral form [1]. This type of writing, however, is a relatively new application of a more ancient technique of using graphic space for symbolic representation [2]. In fact, the earliest forms discovered forms of writing are not representations of speech, but representations of quantitative data—e.g. counting bushels of barely.

Writing—which is believed to have independently arose in at least a few civilizations—began as pictograms for representing material things. Soon, numerals for counting those things and forms for identifying people ('signatures') followed. Eventually, some civilizations would abstract away from pictorial or ideographic representation to the representation of sounds. Many writing systems mixed these approaches. Mayan and Egyptian writing, for instance,  made use of both sound-based and picture-based techniques [3].

Coming from a background in linguistics, learning about these origins of writing was surprising to me because it is customary to regard "speech as primary" in that field. Writing, we are taught, is merely an imperfect representation of a more interesting object of study—speech [4].

Trying to understand human activity while dismissing writing in this way, I think, is misguided. Imagine trying to understand a shepherding society without studying sheep because "they are not humans and I am concerned with humans". Or, for a more timely example, imagine trying to understand the actions of Buddhist extremists without considering their ideology.

I think a more productive approach than beginning with speech and then going to writing to understand human communication is to approach both speaking and writing (in its various forms) together, just as we might study the activities of computer programmers both in terms of the programming activities they do and the other traits they share with other human beings.

What does it mean to be a writing human, a homo writings [5]?

Cognitive Artifacts

It has been pointed out again and again that a distinguishing feature of humans from other animals is our ability to create and use tools. Sure, we are not the only tool users on the planet, but we are certainly the best.

Not only are we able to extend 'natural' ideas we may have (e.g. creating a "harder fist" by using a rock to punch instead of our bare knuckles), we are able to learn new, unintuitive ways of approaching the world.

D.A. Norman defines cognitive artifacts as "artificial devices designed to maintain, display, or operate upon information in order to serve a representational function" [6]. 

Through the tools we use, we are able to transform the tasks before us to make the previously impossible become possible.

For example, I cannot recite very many digits of pi. Maybe like... 5 of them. 3.14159...?

However, I know how to check up on this knowledge. Here are three different ways I can do it.

1. Search 'PI digits' using some search engine (e.g. DuckDuckGo)
2. Open up the developer console on my browser, enter `Math.PI` (JavaScript)
3. Call up my girlfriend and ask her to whisper digits of pi into my ear

All of these ways of getting the digits of pi are very different from memorizing digits of pi, recited by an elder. Or, planting the digits of pi in a memory palace (or using a similar memorizing technique).

I have turned a "know that" (declarative knowledge) into a "know how" (procedural knowledge) [7].

Externalized Thinking

So far, I have hopefully established that:

1. Writing is not narrowly the graphic representation of speech, but belongs to a more general class of human action which involves symbolic manipulation.
2. Making use of cognitive artifacts such as writing means transforming tasks to make them doable.

On one hand, this is all wonderful because it allows individual humans to do more. By "offloading" much of our thinking space to tools and external representations, we free up our headspace to deal with other things.

A Double-Edged Sword

However, by transforming tasks, we also lose our ability to do many things using more... basic ingredients (e.g. sticks and stones). Our hunter-gatherer/agrarian/herder/etc. skills atrophy to make room for arcane symbol shuffling abilities of various sorts.

"Survival skills" are not know by the vast majority of people—particularly city-dwellers (like yours truly, who sits in a café sipping a latte as I write this).

Humans as a whole have not succeeded in becoming better at mastering 'our' environment. Rather, we have offloaded a lot of the doing to technology. For those that own and know how to use that technology, stuff is great. I like computers.

However, many people that make use of lots and lots of technology are keystrokes away of being automated into obsolescence. What's worse is that they only know how to deal with fast-fading cognitive artifacts (e.g. tools that will soon be discarded) rather than base reality.

The Expert Problem

The transformation of tasks using technology extends into how we receive news, entertainment, and other information/media.

As you, a reader on Minds are very likely already aware of, there is currently an ongoing high-intensity media misinformation shit-storm fueled by the Legacy Media. 

Heuristically, many people interested in perceiving the world as it is, rather than as certain people would like them to believe, have simply given up on sites like Facebook (the #1 'news' aggregator), Reddit, and the like.

It is better to be uninformed than misinformed

And the rest of us? For those of us that aren't investigative journalists ourselves but still want to understand what sorts of things are going on around us, we must invest our trust in experts.

I can't become a full-time biologist—I do other stuff. So, for biological facts what do I do? In any case, some general statistical know-how is good, but for the specifics of gene this-and-that? [8]

Bullshit Detection

Many specific, specialized skills, are rapidly rising/falling in demand—it is a high volatility market for skills. General abilities, such as learning quickly, however, remains useful.

One highly-underrated ability, I believe, is bullshit detection. Fundamentally, this means telling who/what to trust. More specifically, it means being able to discriminate who the real experts are and who the charlatans are. Likewise, it means being able to discern when real experts mess up and when charlatans say true things—one is not blessed with a title 'expert' unconditionally. It is each individual's responsible to maintain their credibility, and rebuild it if it is damaged.

This all sounds very tribal—in an ancient, more close-knit geographically sense—to me. How do I know which people to trust? Who is worth listening to? Who can I trust to watch my kids while I go somewhere else for the day?

Language, Freedom, and Tools

The technology we use transforms tasks. Language and communication are amenable to being transformed by technology, just as planting crops or cutting down trees is.

What's to be done? Do we abandon technology and retreat to a more 'pure' existence? One can easily caricature Facebook's influence and say that it "constrains our emotions/thinking to 5 or so react emojis".

For those of us that don't have time to speculate about the relationships between language/thought/etc. all day, I think that developing easy-to-follow "best practices" may be best. Concerned about wasting too much time on social media? Set specific restrictions about when/how you will use it—e.g. I will only use FB Messenger to keep in contact with people X, Y, and Z, checking messages everyday at 7 am and 7 pm. 

Similarly, we can make critical assessments of the people we associate and the news/media we consume. Has person XYZ lost my trust? Why do I still give them my attention? My friend ABC seems very knowledgable about the world, and has results to show. How does (s)he get information about the world?

The 21st century is a very exciting time to be alive. Kek bless my MacBook, I enjoy the digital age. However, it is not a time to fall asleep or make the original chicken's evolutionary bargain to reproduce in exchange for enslavement.

Winters are coming—technology changes how we prepare; preparation, however, will always be necessary. The demands of evolution on humans to choose our tribes, find our friends, and master relevant tools remain as important as ever. As our predators evolve, so too must we...

The language of freedom is a changing tool set to meet new tasks.

Notes and References

[1] The idea of writing representing speech has been termed the 'glottographic' principle—glotto meaning 'tongue' and graphic meaning 'space'. In 2D space, we can represent a temporal event (speech). If you are more interested in this topic, I recommend checking out the work of Roy Harris, e.g. in Rethinking Writing (2000).

[2] Graphic representation needn't be visual—consider for instance, the Braille writing system and its variants and Quipu 'talking knots' of South America. 

[3] "Mayan and Egyptian writing systems" includes many systems used over many centuries. I am making a claim with very coarse strokes here, but I think it can be well-supported by looking at the details.

[4] The most (in)famous articulation of this idea is attributed to linguist Leonard Bloomfield who wrote, "writing is not language, but merely a way of recording language by means of visible marks" (quoted in D.B. Lurie / Language & Communication 26 (2006) 250-269).

[5] Not even gonna pretend I can do Latin here, lol.

[6] "Cognitive Artifacts" (Donald A. Norman, 1991)

[7] "Declarative vs Procedural Knowledge" (1985)

[8] Educators talk about "such-and-such literacy" (the normal sense of reading/writing prose, numerical, statistical, cultural, etc.).