Communication – Page 2 – Serenity Through Sweat

Trade-Off

Thanks for joining me for another edition of the SerenityThroughSweat blog. This week I want to revisit communication, specifically the trade-offs we make in expressing ourselves.

I’ve been doing a lot of reading and research about language and communication lately. The more I read the more fascinated I am. The more I read, the more I realize I don’t know. Not only do I not know, but really none of us do.

Our primary means of expression, the mechanics of language that come innately to us as children, are largely a mystery. This, despite the fact that it is fundamental to our existence as humans. The ability to reason, plan, and communicate via language.

I stumbled across the following article in Neuroscience, which described an experiment in language production.

The experiment tested a group of healthy participants, and a group suffering from primary progressive aphasia (PPA). You may recognize that condition, as it was in headlines recently that it is affecting actor Bruce Willis’s career.

The experiment first devised a frequency based method for characterizing syntactic complexity of naturally produced utterances. It then used that method to test the hypothesis that “patients who have difficulty producing complex syntax might choose semantically richer words to make their meaning clear, whereas patients with lexicosemantic deficits may choose more complex syntax”

The participants were asked to describe a picture of a family at a picnic. This is a common assessment used in diagnosing PPA. “Healthy individuals can shift between the use of complex syntactic or complex lexical items, perhaps depending on what is more accessible in the moment or what might facilitate comprehension.”

“The results showed that if a sentence is syntactically complex, it likely incorporates simple words. On the other hand, if a sentence contains more complex words—such as words that are not commonly used—its syntax is more likely to be simple.”

This hypothesis was tested against both the test group (those with PPA) as well as a healthy control group. The results showed a significant correlation (n=79 and n=99) respectively) “suggesting that it may be a general property of the process by which humans turn thoughts into speech.”

There are some “semantically rich” words in there that are really more for neuroscientists and language nerds, so let’s unpack a little bit.

There are two elements of this experiment that struck me as profound. First, any general property by which humans turn thoughts into speech is a significant property. One worth some time to digest. The second, reminded me of teaching, coaching, and parenting.

Teaching and parenting have a great deal of overlap. One of the greatest points of overlap is effective communication. Specifically communication that must be effective over a broad range of topics, ages, and levels of understanding.

Even if you are only teaching one subject, to one grade level, the variety in language comprehension among students can be staggering. As a parent, your effective communication must now span a lifetime, and an endless myriad of topics.

The best teachers, coaches, and parents, are able to effectively communicate their message in a way that is understandable by their ever changing audience. This means seemlesly transitioning between complex syntax and complex lexicon depending on what is more suitable for comprehension.

While this may seem intuitive, and some are certainly more gifted in this areas than others, it is a talent that we admire in the orators and authors we idolize.

Transition between complex syntax and complex lexicon, is a skill that can be developed. It is even fun to do, and has been effectively monetized. Whether they realized their contribution or not, the game developers exploding kittens, capitalized on this very concept with their game poetry for neanderthals.

I bought the game for my wife and I and we played recently during one of our date days. Similar to charades, one person or team will draw a card with a complex lexical term (caveman definition: big word) and then must get their team to guess the word describing it using only one syllable words. If the person uses a word with more than one syllable in their description, they are bopped on the head with the inflatable “NO” caveman club. Must talk like cave man, or else get hit in head.

The rounds are timed and the object is to describe and guess as many big words as possible while speaking like a caveman (simplistic, monosyllabic, but syntactically complex).

As we saw from the experiment, there is an inverse relationship between the complexity of the words used and the syntax. These differing language construction pathways have differing neural pathways. The game forces you to use both interchangeably in rapid succession. Plus you get to hit people with an inflatable club when they screw up.

Being flexible in the way you communicate, being able to engage different neural networks and neural pathways, and finding the best path (semantically or syntactically) to get your point across, is a fascinating phenomenon to study, and one that likely leads to serenity.

Thanks for joining me, stay safe and stay sweaty my friends.

One fish two fish?

Thanks for joining me for another edition of the SerenityThroughSweat blog. We have spent quite a few of the recent posts talking about the importance of words. How they change and shape our lives. Sometimes these stories take amusing and unexpected turns.

I’m a sucker for a good dad joke. My favorite dad jokes have some form of double entendre. While the typical association of double entendre is something bawdy or an innuendo, it can also just be a double meaning with one being literal and one being ironic.

When is a door not a door? When it’s ajar.

Who doesn’t love a good dad joke? I found this article the other day that reminded me of this dad joke but turned out to be a whole lot more than I bargained for. When is a bee not a bee? When it’s a fish.

If you have the time, click on the article because it will make more sense. The headline I saw read “California court rules bees are now fish”. While a Floridian calling California crazy is a pot and kettle situation, this was still a little out there. However when I clicked on the headline it took me to the article linked above which provides the requisite details.

In order to use existing environmental protection laws to protect bees, a group of California judges ruled that bees are included under the California Endangered Species Act. The act does not protect the bees but rather protects “native species or subspecies of a bird, mammal, fish, amphibian, reptile, or plant.”

The law further defines “fish” as “a wild fish, mollusk, crustacean, invertebrate, amphibian, or part, spawn, or ovum of any of those animals.” The judges noted that many of the protected classes under “fish” are not in fact fish, and that the terrestrial invertebrate bees would qualify under the protections extended to invertebrates.

It should be noted that a previous judge decided that “invertebrates” being under the subset of “fish” applied only to marine invertebrates and therefore bees were not protected.

There is a lot to unpack here. Bees being protected seems like a good thing to do. Maybe writing the correct language into the law is a better strategy than interpreting “fish” all willy nilly. California is still a little crazy (I know pot and kettle)

Just like our discussion on “sanitation” words are important. Definitions are important. The way that we intend our words to be taken can have a significant real world impact on our lives. (Or the lives of terrestrial invertebrates, as it were)

What is also important is a willingness to interpret those words and intentions based on a desired goal. Saving bees is certainly a noble and worthwhile pursuit. The classical question arises, do the ends justify the means?

If bees can be fish (albeit a little bit of an oversimplification) what other language and protections can be reinterpreted? If a new end is deemed to be a noble and worthwhile enough pursuit, the reinterpretation of something more close to home could easily be justified. Something that has more impact on our everyday lives than classification of terrestrial invertebrates.

Words mean what we intend them to mean, not what we decide later on that they mean in order to justify a new position. This is literally the foundation that our civilization is based on.

Without communication, without meaning, and without intention, there can be no civilization. And, there can certainly be no serenity.

A lot of miles and elevation while learning a new airplane

Thanks for joining me, stay safe and stay sweaty my friends.

Chronic

Thanks for joining me for another edition of the SerenityThroughSweat blog. As I’m finishing up training on my new aircraft and trying to squeeze in some research work I came across the concept of synchronic vs. diachronic language. It is an important distinction, and one that I wanted to share.

Last week we talked about philology. The study of language and words as they change through time. Philology has a focus on determination of intent. What did the chosen words mean at the particular time of use, and what did the author or orator intend to communicate?

Philologist are concerned more with validation and interpretation of documents and texts. Etymologists focus on the origin and development of words, which brings us to today’s focus.

Diachronic: of or concerned with phenomena, such as linguistic features, as they change through time.

Synchronic: of or concerned with phenomena, such as linguistic features, or of events of a particular time, without reference to their historical context.

Linguists have figured out (at least in an academic sense since I don’t actually know any linguists) that a word’s meaning and communication intent change over time. The same word does not have the same meaning as time flows and cultures shift.

Studying how words change through time (diachronic) is interesting. It reveals a lot about the people using those words. How their communication needs shift with new technology, cultural norms, and ideas. How those words need to evolve or be created to meet those needs.

The study of words under a synchronic frame is a much harder task if you take the definition at face value. Like taking a Polaroid picture but ignoring how everything got into place. It is studying in a time bubble.

We would never examine a person this way. If someone makes a decision or initiates some sort of action. That action is not examined in a bubble, but rather in the context of the person’s history. How were they raised? What kind of transformative experiences have they had? What kind of learning, friends, hobbies, are they engaged in? What type of people do they associate with?

The action can only be viewed effectively through these many lenses. There are so many events and factors that lead up to every decision. To ignore them and view decisions in a vacuum seems at best a disservice, and at worst an intentional misrepresentation.

But with words we have a unique ability to take a snapshot in time. Specifically with regard to communication intent. When words can have multiple meanings across multiple contexts, the communication intention is what matters in a synchronic sense.

Synchronic and diachronic language both have their place in understanding, and they are united by empathy.

“I’m not sure if that move is legal, but I also can’t count that high, so let’s call it a draw” (Speedy, probably*)

You might not agree with someone’s word choice. You may even find a particular word choice incorrect or offensive. However, without knowing the author/speaker’s diachronic and synchronic understanding of the word in question, their communication intention, you have an incomplete set of data to assess.

Empathy and exploration of their intention, finding out how they have chosen words in the past, and what they intended they’re words to convey in the vacuum of a particular communication exchange, while challenging and time consuming. Will ultimately lead to more understanding and serenity.

Thanks for joining me, stay safe and stay sweaty my friends.

Philology

Thanks for joining me for another edition of the SerenityThroughSweat blog. As part of my language and communication project I have been doing a lot of reading. Most of it overly academic, and written solely for the academic community. Every once in a while though, a gem will shine through that affects all of us in a profound way.

I didn’t know what philology was until I was introduced to the word while reading John Marco Allegro’s The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross. Marco was a scholar who helped translate the Dead Sea Scrolls, and compare them to original source languages, (think Sumerian, Aramaic and Hebrew).

This was very interesting stuff in my mind, but I understand it is a niche audience. But shooting down the federal mask mandate, that might have some mass appeal. Coincidentally, also a task based in language and philology.

Kathryn Kimball Mizelle is the Florida district court judge whose summary judgment declared that the Federal Mask Mandate exceeded the CDC’s statutory authority. To understand why this is pertinent to our discussion of language, a little background information on both the history and timeline of these regulations as well as the legal system are important. (my mother and my wife have often told me I should have been a lawyer, turns out I’m more interested in arguing linguistics, which is more annoying and less lucrative)

The CDC relied heavily on the Public Health Services Act (PHSA) of 1944 as the statutory basis for their authorization to issue mandates to help manage the Covid pandemic. In Mizelle’s decision, she relies in part on the plain language and context of the PHSA to determine if the CDC’s action where in line with the intention of the original act.

While you and I as everyday non legal types might not be familiar with this process, you have probably heard some political pundit or politician say something like “this is what the founding father’s intended”. Same idea here. What did the authors of the PHSA intend with the act? What powers were granted or restrictions placed? And, more importantly for our purposes, what language was used, in what context, and what was it’s meaning at the time of writing?

When examining the plain language and context of the PHSA, the court found that the relevant portions authorized regulations to prevent the spread of diseases for specific limited circumstances: (1) individuals traveling from foreign countries into the States; and (2) for the purposes of “inspection, fumigation, disinfection, sanitation, pest extermination, destruction. . . and other measures”.

The court referenced the Corpus Linguistics database to verify the meaning of ‘sanitation’ in 1944, and determined it’s primary use was ‘to make things clean’ rather than ‘maintain a level of cleanliness’. The court concluded that “wearing a mask neither sanitizes the people wearing the mask or the conveyance”. There are other procedural and legal issues that are at play, but again they are beyond the scope of this language focused discussion.

Philology is the study of literary texts and of written records, the establishment of their authenticity and their original form, and the determination of their meaning. So when Allegro is studying the Dead Sea Scrolls and validating the original Sumerian and its intention before it was translated into Hebrew or Aramaic, he is engaged in a philological task. Judge Mizelle, when referencing the Corpus Linguistic database for the context and meaning of sanitation in 1944, is engaged in a philological task. One that has a tremendous impact on my day to day life in airports.

As I have said often on this platform, and will continue to repeat, words are important. The intention with which they were spoken or written is important. The study and exploration to determine that meaning is a noble and worthwhile pursuit. A pursuit which has an effect on our everyday life via our legal system disproportionately more significant than I think most of us understand.

When analyzing laws and regulations like the PHSA, a single word can change the context, meaning, and intention of a whole section, having major implications. The same is often true for anyone who works in business contracts, or (as this work is sometimes focused) in aviation.

Aviation is heavily regulated and standardized, and most of our processes and procedures need to be approved by the governing body the Federal Aviation Administration or FAA. The FAA, being a federal government agency, is governed by, you guessed it, laws. The Code of Federal Regulations or CFR, is the codifcation of the general and permanent rules published in the Federal Register by the departments and agencies of the Federal Government. Because the FAA is tasked with governing the aviation industry, the rules it makes become federal law. This is why you hear that it is a federal crime to tamper with lavatory smoke detectors every time you get on an airplane. It also means that a company manual, specifying a company procedure, that has to be approved by a federal regulating (read law making) body, is going to require a specificity of language akin to a federal law or a business contract.

Full blown summer mode in the sunshine state

Words like “may”, “must”, and “shall”, can be easily slipped into the middle of a lengthy and convoluted sentence, in the middle of lengthy and convoluted manual, but they represent, not just a company procedure, but a Federal mandate for how to operate an airplane. So when the captain tells me to select the required flap setting for our takeoff and I reply “flap handle one” instead of “flap lever one”, I am not operating my airplane in accordance with our company, and thus federal, requirements.

While that may seem a bit anal and pedantic, (it definitely is) “flap lever___” is in quotations, and thus is a required call out. There are areas where (as Austin has said) “a certain laxness in procedure is permitted, otherwise no university business would ever get done!”, and where a strict adherence to procedure, no matter how anal or obnoxious, is required.

I am reminded of this important distinction as the instructor smacks my shoulder for the fourth time today for referring to the flap lever as a flap handle, or the thrust levers as the throttles. Learning a new airplane is fun, and I have spent an inordinate amount of time proclaiming the importance of words and meaning. Still even a linguistics nerd like me is more than a little frustrated by the minutiae that we can get hung up on. I can appreciate the origin and necessity, and despise the outcome and how it impacts my life for the next month in training all at the same time.

Language literally creates, shapes, and defines our world. Searching for the original intent and meaning of language then, seems like a natural step toward serenity. One I’m excited to be taking and happy to share with you.

Thanks for joining me, stay safe and stay sweaty my friends.

New relationship

Thanks for joining me for another edition of the SerenityThroughSweat blog. I mentioned last week that I was training on a new aircraft. This week I want to reflect on that process.

Training on a new aircraft is always an exciting and nerve wracking experience. It is very similar to starting to date someone new. There is an excitement attached to the newness. There is anxiety of the unknown. There is a hope of good things to come in the future together.

My happy little corner in the hotel room for the month

Just like a real relationship you show up with your past baggage. After all, you are getting out of a long term serious relationship with your last airplane. You learned what she liked and what she didn’t like. You learned her strengths and her weaknesses. The areas where you had to help her along, and the areas where she had your back, even when you had screwed something up.

You have to learn all of those things all over again. You have to get to know each other. You have to learn how she reacts to your inputs. What can you do to make her happy, and what you can avoid doing that will make her cranky?

In some cases it is like learning to speak a different language. Talking to your new airplane the way you talked to your old airplane is like calling her the wrong name. Nobody ends up happy, and the reaction is going to be undesirable at best.

On this Mother’s Day Sunday, I count myself very blessed to have strong women in my life. Women who set an example for my boys and I to follow on how to interact with the fairer sex.

Despite my interest in communication, and my academic endeavors into language and theory, this is still an area where I need all the help I can get.

The mother’s in my life have always been there with a firm but kind reminder. My mother was always reminding me, “It’s not just what you say but how you say it.” My wife is a miracle worker with my boys and I, making sure we are communicating with each other in a clear and respectful manner.

At the end of the day, isn’t that what the cornerstone of a new relationship is? Learning how to communicate with each other effectively. Falling into the patterns of familiarity where you know the right questions to ask, and the right answers to give. Where you know what is expected of you and your partner (or airplane as it were) knows what is expected/asked of them.

Regardless of the airplane you are flying, monitoring the flight path and ensuring the safety of flight is largely an exercise in those two questions. What have I asked the airplane to do, and what is it doing?

Have I actually asked it to do what I think I asked it to do? Is it doing what I think it should be doing? If it isn’t doing what I want, why not? Did I not ask the right questions or provide the right inputs?

These are questions I am asking myself on a daily basis here in training, with regards to the new airplane. How much of a better communicator could I be if I took the same approach with my wife and kids? Double checking my inputs before executing. Wouldn’t life be easier if you could try out your words in a temporary flight plan page to see how they look first?

Zwift sweat sessions maintaining my sanity and serenity while training

Training on a new aircraft necessarily takes up a lot of mental bandwidth. Maybe after this new relationship is established, it will help bring some lessons learned and serenity to my existing ones.

Thanks for joining me for another edition of the SerenityThroughSweat blog, stay safe and stay sweaty my friends.

Paradox

Thanks for joining me for another edition of the SerenityThroughSweat blog. This week saw less progress on my communication project than I would have otherwise liked, but life has a habit of getting in the way.

Still I managed to read another chapter out of the Oxford Handbook on the History of Linguistics and found this interesting gem.

“The history of sound symbolism is the history of the attempt to resolve this fundamental paradox: on the one hand, if sound determines meaning, we should know what a word means just by hearing it; on the other hand, the distribution of phonemes across semantic domains is not arbitrary.”

Said another way, if sounds are the only determinate of meaning, we would have one universal language. This is clearly not the case, but as some of the examples below show, there are some commonalities among phonetic sound and semantic meaning that appear more than coincidental.

“In this way objects that evoke similar impressions are assigned words with predominately the same sounds such as waft, wind, wisp, wobble and wish, wherein all the wavering, uneasy motion, presenting an obscure flurry to the senses, is expressed by the w, hardened from the already inherently dull and hollow u.”

“We need not limit ourselves to pairs, but may look for larger patterns. One tempting example is the cross-patterning of /gl/ ‘phenomena of light’ and /fl/ ‘phenomena of movement’ with (1) /itr/ ‘intermittent’, (2) /ow/ ‘steady’ and (3) /ur/ ‘intense’: glitter↔flitter, glow↔flow, glare↔flare […] as for the terminal ‘morphemes’ in the above words, we find (1) evidenced also in titter, jitter, litter, iterate; (2) in slow, grow and tow and (3) in blare, stare and tear.”

The commonality of the phonetic sounds to their meaning across multiple words is a compelling argument for sound having a significant affect on meaning. A strong case for more than words as pure abstraction to identify an agreed upon referent.

Interestingly, a lot of the study of sound symbolism examines artists and poets. Those among us gifted with a sense of the perfect word for the perfect situation. Instances where an author’s word choice invokes the desired emotion. Paints the intended picture.

The more information I consume on the topic, or off topic for that matter, the more awed I am for the complexity of language that goes for the most part unexamined and underappreciated.

It also leaves me humbled for the distinct gifts of poetry and prose that clearly delineate the artists from the aspiring.

While working my way through the handbook, I had read three previous chapters on phonetics and struggled to place their value within the context of both my own project and language at large. Sure I see my boys struggle with certain sounds, but they are 2 and 4. Barring any sort of abnormality, they will develop a suitable phonetic acumen and likely think little of it.

But reading just a few paragraphs on sound symbolism completely changed my perspective on phonetics. It has inspired me to pay more attention to their impact especially on my own word choice.

The sound symbolism paradox is quite interesting and worth exploring. It is also a testament to how quickly you can change your mind and appreciate something that you brushed by before. All that is required is a little curiosity, a closer look, and some serenity.

Montreal running across St Helens island and ile Notre Dame

Thanks for joining me, stay safe and stay sweaty my friends.

Standstill

Thanks for joining me for another edition of the SerenityThroughSweat blog. While working on my linguistics project I have come across a lot of universal wisdom disguised as bland academia. Thoughts and quotes that produce a lasting effect well beyond the initial reading. I wanted to share one of them with you this week.

One of the best ways to truly understand a thing, is to study it’s history and development. Things rarely take a linear path to their current status. Those twists and turns are often filled with difficult decisions, decisions which alter trajectory.

The study of language and communication is no different. If anything I have found it to be even more interesting, because there’s is so much we don’t know. Hypotheses rise and fall on new data and discoveries in a never ending change of tides. The Oxford Handbook of the History of Linguistics, tells this story across the millennia and across the various areas of linguistic study.

Our current understanding of language, is in large part due to understanding the process of change. What data we have an ancient languages, and mapping the changes through the years to where we are now.

One of the beautiful things about language is that it is dynamic and mobile. A word’s meaning, connotation, even it’s spelling is all subject to change.

“There can never be in language, just as there can never be in the continually blazing thoughts of men, a moment of true standstill.” (von Humboldt 1836b: 184)

Linguists draw a comparison (which could also be expanded to fit humans) that languages only become static when they stop being used. These are then considering “dead” languages. People are very much the same.

Even the most obstinate toddler (not that I have any experience with those) is constantly being exposed to new information and experiences. They are a bundle of new patterns and changes.

When we stop our continually blazing thoughts, when we stop learning and growing, we reach a mental standstill. We become our own dead language. Something other people have little use for, except maybe a passing curiosity.

Spring emerging from the gloom along the trail in Augusta

The standstill is akin to death in this mental metaphor, which translates well to the physical realm. In grappling sports constant motion is required to set up an technique. Being at a standstill is a surefire way to get beat, or worse, injured.

In endurance sports a standstill is the classic sign of defeat. Haunched over, heaving, hands on knees, halted. The picture of an athlete who cannot progress any further that day.

A beautiful day for a tour d’ stade in Gainesville

Von Humboldt’s words are beautiful, and I think they are accurate. It seems with any judgement of people (and language for that matter too) it becomes necessary to add a caveat. An asterisk.

Never is a powerful word. An absolute. One that begs no argument. Humans, and language, can only find themselves at a true standstill of their own accord. When they fail to forge forward along the path, is when they die literally or metaphorically.

No standing still on the zwift pedals, freewheeling doesn’t work.

Thanks for joining me, stay safe and stay sweaty my friends.

Expression

Thanks for joining me for another edition of the SerenityThroughSweat blog. This past weekend my wife and I celebrated our collective birthdays attending a concert. The opening act reminded me of the beauty of expression.

Not to be confused with the post by the same name from last Christmas, which discussed the variety in expression of beers following the German purity law or Reinheitsgebot. This is all about the beauty of self expression. (To be fair if you express yourself by creating beer that is beautiful and I salute you)

Alan Chapell sat alone on the stage, with nothing but a small electronic keyboard in front of him. He felt accessible. Maybe too accessible. It was a great thing for the audience to feel that close to the artist. But I’ve seen it go wrong with redesigned kiosks, gate agents, and flustered passengers, too many times that I had a sense of unease on his behalf.

El Duderino playing with his pecker (his name for the toy parrot, get your mind out of the gutter)

Before each song Chapell gave a quick four or five sentence introduction. What his inspiration was. Who the song was for. Some small story or anecdote from his life at the time of the song’s creation.

Chapell’s fingers danced across the keys as he sang his stories. Each offering was a small piece of his life. A moment in time. The thoughts and feelings, the interactions with a lover or a friend. Each song a work of art, not necessarily because it was a great music (it was), but because he did such a masterful job of distilling the moment. Taking the complexities of life events and presenting them in clear three minute chunks, with melodies to boot.

Building a dog house for his valentine’s day present

To be honest I’m not sure how much I was enamored with the music, so much as I was captivated by him as a storyteller. I was definitely tapping me feet, clapping, and swaying along. In the end his ability to express his innermost self was far more impactful than his musical stylings.

I recently heard Jordan Peterson on the Joe Rogan podcast say “the pathway to success for virtually everyone, is facilitation of their capacity to communicate” I had to go back and play the quote three or four times to make sure I got it right. Those fourteen words pack a punch.

Jordan Peterson also discussed how music matches the rhythm of our humanity. How moving along with music is instinctual. It is in our DNA.

I couldn’t help but think about the music I listen to. Why I like it, and what it says or means to me. What the artists were trying to express through their chosen medium. How this blog is largely a vehicle for my own personal expression. A facilitation of my own capacity to communicate.

One of the most gut wrenching things I do as a father is watch my boys struggle to express themself. At 4 and 2 respectively, El Duderino and Speedy fight an uphill battle based purely on limited vocabulary and phonetic acumen.

Some mobility work and a 5k in the new kicks while home

But beyond that, all words are inherently abstract. The way we describe our inner feelings are approximations at best. Now we are taking about shared approximations described with abstract symbols to try to convey some sense of meaning. Throw in a societal predisposition (especially based on gender) to close off certain feelings, and it’s a wonder any young man can express himself at all.

I’m appreciative of the opportunity this platform has provided. I hope that someday my boys can look back on it. I hope that they can see the growth of their father. See my mistakes and shortcomings. My desire towards self improvement. When viewed on a long enough timeline, hopefully, an increased capacity to communicate.

Post concert spin bike and some layover miles in CAE.

Thank for joining me, stay safe and stay sweaty my friends.

Tools

Thanks for joining me for another edition of the SerenityThroughSweat blog. This week I came across an interesting article on language and tool use that fits in well with my research, as well as the topics that we cover here.

The article appeared in the journal Science and the study by Thibault et al. examines the neural patterns that are activated by syntax and tool use.

The scientists used functional magnetic resonance imaging to measure neural activity during a series of experiments. One set of experiments tested participants during tool use, using manual actions as a control. The other experiment tested participants on a linguistic task with complex syntactic structures.

The tool experiment had participants using mechanical pliers to insert small pegs into different holes. The syntax experiment had participants read complex sentences and then answer questions. An example provided was “The scientist whom the poet admires writes an article”. They then had to judge statements such as “The poet admires the scientist” as being true or false.

The experiment showed that the same area of the brain, the basal ganglia, was activated, and activated in similar ways, by both the tool use as well as the language task.

The researchers then performed a similar experiment on a new group of participants where they participated in a linguistic task, then a motor task, and then a linguistic task again. The control group either watched an unrelated video or performed manual task with their hands in between linguistic tasks.

Adventures on the bourbon trail with my favorite adventure partner

The experimental group showed a significant improvement on the second linguistic task, performed after tool use, as compared to the control group.

The theory is that enhanced neural priming and neural plasticity increased linguistic ability in the second test since (as mentioned from the first part of the study) the same area of the brain is used in both tool use and language use.

This strikes me as not only interesting in the many different ways it can be (more on that here), but also as a wonderful segue into one of my favorite sayings and a lesson I learned from my father. Having the right tool for the job makes all the difference.

Sure dad you can go away if you bring back more mojeskas.

Anyone who has ever worked construction, engaged in any sort of DIY or home improvement project, or even just arts and crafts with the kids knows having the right tool can make all the difference. And, while it is possible to get the job done without the most suitable tool, it is often more cumbersome, clunky, and challenging than it needs to be.

In the case of our experiment, tools and language are interchangeable, (at least if you are measuring brain function by fMRI) so we end up with having the right word for the job makes all the difference. The job of course being an effective exchange of ideas and intention.

Early birthday celebration for El Duderino with Grandma

Another favorite saying on this blog (that I picked up from an AP Chemistry teacher) is that taxonomy is important. Words are important. Having the right word, and being able to use the right word is a critical part of being able to effectively express your ideas.

This blog has been a way for me to increase the size of my linguistic toolbox (along with many other benefits I get out of writing). Reading and research (especially research since academics are often harder to understand than lawyers) also help expand my toolbox.

One of my first blog posts was about receiving a toolbox as a gift from my father and not appreciating it until years later. I hope that I can gift both of my boys with both physical as well as linguistic toolboxes, so that they always have the right tool for the job be it communication or manual.

Thanks for joining me, stay safe and stay sweaty my friends.

Interesting

Thanks for joining me for another edition of the SerenityThroughSweat blog. As I continue my research on language and communication, I continue to find little tidbits that transcend communicology, and have relevance to the areas we tend to discuss here.

Obviously, the things we discuss here, (flying, fitness, fatherhood, etc…) are all things that I, and I presume at least to some extent you, are interested in.

With that in mind, the following passage from Noam Chomsky’s On Language struck me as especially appropriate.

“I think this whole discussion comes down to a confusion between two senses of the word interesting. Certain things are interesting in themselves- for example: human action. But there is another meaning of the word interesting, in physics, for example. A phenomenon in itself does not have interest for a physicist. What happens under the conditions of a scientific experiment is of no importance itself. It’s interest lies in it’s relation to whatever theoretical principles are at stake.

There are a great many things that I have read recently in the course of my research that I find interesting in the second sense of the word. Frequently, after reading some academic passage three or four times to make sure I understand it, and cursing the author for forcing me to look up definitions every other sentence, I will find a nugget (like the one above) that is interesting as it relates to my life, or experiences, or the project I’m working on.

When I excitedly share these findings with my wife, I am very quickly reminded of the difference from the first sense of the word interesting. Many of these theories, findings, hypotheses, are so steeped in academia and so far removed from real life that they are difficult to digest, much less get excited about.

But, because the have a relation to a project, or a passion, they become interesting in the second sense.

The two different types of interesting can also be thought of in terms of the way they affect people. Anything can be interesting in itself to someone without being of interest to someone else. But when it can be related in some other way it’s interest broadens.

Getting stronger with IM FL 70.3 approaching quickly

Linguistics and communicology is not interesting in itself to most people, (as I’m reminded when I discuss it with my wife). But when it can be related to a specific event/topic/situation, (see my previous post about a tough road to hoe) it becomes interesting because now there is context and real life application.

This interplay of interesting is fascinating, especially with my boys. There are some easy guesses on what they will find interesting, but other times I am surprised and fulfilled by their interests.

I recently had lunch with my wife and El Duderino on a layover. We sat down at an old timey diner burger joint. I had a little bit of nostalgia listening to the blues guitar oldies play over the speaker as our burger, fries, and shakes were brought out to the table.

El Duderino’s meal even came served up in an Old school Cadillac dinner tray, wing tips and all. What four year old American boy doesn’t love cheeseburgers, fries, and milkshakes? But when asked what his favorite part of lunch was, (I was sure it would be the milkshake) he told me it was playing air keyboard along with the diner music.

Layovers don’t get much better than this

You never really know what someone else will find interesting, or how what you find interesting will relate to someone else’s lived experience. But sharing our interests, and finding those sometimes hidden relations is a sure path to social connection and serenity. Thank you for sharing in some of what I find interesting.

Thanks for joining me, stay safe and stay sweaty my friends.