On Language and Its Rules: Why context matters

After having recognized the fact that a language is susceptible to the influence of environment, one can also safely claim that language is exercised within a certain context. It is inevitable that a person will use words, which would have different meanings, or rather a different shade of the same meaning, depending upon the context. For example, two people may use the word pain with a different connotation. One may mean pain caused due to a paper cut while other may be talking about the agony caused due to bullet. Here, the actual meaning of the word is understood by placing it in a certain framework.  In his much revered book, Through the Looking Glass, Lewis Carroll (1871) quintessentially encapsulates my argument. He writes, “‘When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less,’” (Carroll, 1871).

Moreover, by standardizing language or by allowing one word to mean only one thing, one bars individuality from entering the realm of language. People would speak like monotonic robots and the flair or lilt that makes languages unique would be lost forever.          

Recent research has shown that language influences thought. A psychologist at the Stanford University, Lera Boroditsky, has conducted several experiments to determine whether language influences our thinking pattern.  In one such experiment Boroditsky and Gaby (2010) investigated how language determines the way people think about time. Her team gave two different language groups—an English-speaking group and a Kuuk Thaayorre-speaking group (belonging to Pormpuraaw, an aboriginal community in Australia)—a set of cards showing some kind of temporal progression (e.g., pictures of a crocodile growing, a banana being eaten). The participants were asked to arrange the shuffled cards in correct temporal order.  Each person was tested in two separate settings, each time facing a different cardinal direction. The English speakers arranged the cards from left to right, but the Kuuk Thaayyore-speaking people arranged the cards from east to west. When they faced north, their cards went from right to left but when they faced south, their cards went from left to right. The Kuuk Thaayore-speaking people used spatial representation to construct their representation of time. Boroditsky, Fuhrman, and McCormick (2011) also found that Mandarin speakers talk about time in a vertical context (e.g., the next month is the down month, while last month was the “up month”) and the English speakers talk about time in a horizontal spatial context (e.g., the best is ahead of us while the worst is behind us). Furthermore, when English speakers are taught to talk about time in a Mandarin manner, their cognitive performance on several tasks resembles that of Mandarin speakers (Borodistsky, 2009). We can glean that language is used differently across contexts and affects thoughts.  In his essay “Is Google Making Us Stupid”, Nicholas Carr (2008) mentions how Friedrich Nietzsche’s writing changed because he moved from pen and paper to typewriter due to his failing vision. “His terse prose had become even tighter, more telegraphic” (Carr, 2008, para. 11). Someone reading Nietzsche’s latter works has to take his failing vision and typewriter into account. This further proves that language is very sensitive to context.

Since language is the basic tool of communication, it becomes an intrinsic part of a person. When my father was trying to teach me Greek, he told me that in order to comprehend the value or significance of a language, one has to learn to live with that language, for, a person is born in a language, loves in that language, marries in that language and, ultimately, dies with that language. This makes language a very intimate aspect of the person and commands respect or at least acknowledgement of language.

Prachi Bhuptani

Keeping you in the dark: The psychology of self-deception

Have you ever told yourself you are better than others just to feel more confident? Or convinced yourself that you’d work harder even though you know you won’t? Most of us have lied to ourselves at some point in our lives. Most forms of psychotherapy seek to decrease self-deception so that clients are well adjusted, have valid information of themselves, and are in touch with reality. Influential psychologists such as Sigmund Freud, Carl Rogers, Abraham Maslow, Aaron Beck and others have emphasized the importance of realistic views about the self. So why do we keep ourselves in the dark? Research has focused on the various ill effects of self-deception. For example, the planning fallacy, which refers to our tendency to underestimate the time taken to complete a task (Buehler, Griffin, & Ross, 1994) could lead to procrastination, thereby, resulting in stress and poor quality work (Tice & Baumeister, 1997). 

Even though we know self-deception is harmful, we continue to do it. This concurs with a contrasting view that self-deception is an important defence mechanism that protects us from threatening information or circumstances (Trivers, 2010). Researchers have found that people who have positive illusions about themselves are less likely to be depressed and have positive self-esteem (Taylor & Brown, 1988). Evolutionary psychologists propose that humans are good at deceiving themselves and that self-deception is adaptive. 

Self-deception has been regarded as an unconscious process because, it would be almost impossible for the self to be a deceiver if it consciously knows that it is being deceived (von Hippel & Trivers, 2011). Trivers (2010, p. 373) has defined self-deception as “hiding true information from the conscious mind in the unconscious.” If self-deception involves hiding facts, then how do researchers study this phenomenon? Further, how is self-deception detected? Some indicators include nervousness, and control, rather over-control, of the face, and body muscles (DePaulo et al. 2003). Self-deception can also be checked using questionnaires, like the Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding (BIDR) developed by Paulhus (1988). Here, items represent exaggerated positive characteristics about the self. For instance, one such item is “I never lie.” The higher individuals rate the item as personally relevant, the more likely they are to be representing a favourable image of themselves to others. After all, although everyone lies, lying itself is negative.

Even though normal individuals engage in self-deception, it has also been associated with psychopathology and neuropsychological disorders. One such neurological disorder, known as Anosognosia (Babinski, 1914) is a self-deceptive disorder where patients have physical injuries but deny them (Bayne & Fernandez, 2010). Ramachandran (2009) described an anosognistic patient who denied that her left arm was paralyzed and believed that her lifeless arm belonged to her father who was “hiding under the table.”

I remember telling myself that I would stop eating junk food. I wrote it in my diary and told my closest friends so that I would be committed to my resolution. Unfortunately, I cannot say that my diet has been very healthy. I remember how I always had some self-validated reason for eating junk, or would trivialize how much I actually ate. Deceiving myself let me do what I wanted without feeling guilty about it. Self-deception is an important coping mechanism to the extent that it does not always result in extreme distortions of reality. Given that about 40% and above individuals engage in self-deception (Svenson, 1981; Baumeister, 2010), we are faced with the glaring truth of how we lie to ourselves about lying to ourselves!

    Sharlene Fernandes

The Wind Howls; The Mountain Remains Still

“There once was a boy so quiet and shy, he used to run home from school when the bell rang, to avoid socializing with his classmates. Like many shy people, this boy sided instinctively with the oppressed. As he grew older, he learned to speak out on their behalf—but remained a shy and quiet man, believing that these traits were his source of spiritual strength. The boy’s name was Mohandas Gandhi, and he later uttered, for me, the most important sentence in history: In a gentle way, you can shake the world.”

This excerpt from Susan Cain’s recent TED Talk, The Quiet Revolution (2014), recapitulates that the tendency to be reserved and reflective is associated with many people who bring extraordinary talents and abilities to the world.

Our lives are shaped as much by our personalities as by culture, religion, or gender. How we interact with people, our choices in relationships or careers; how we bounce back and learn from our mistakes depends a great deal on where we fall on the introversion-extroversion continuum. In her book Quiet: The Power of Introverts in a World That Can’t Stop Talking, Cain (2012) speaks about how Introversion is different from being shy. While shyness is the fear of social judgment, introversion is a preference for an environment with less stimulation.  

According to Jung (1971), introverts are drawn to the inner world of thought and feeling, while extroverts toward the external life of people and activities. Extroverts crave large amounts of stimulation but introverts feel their best when they are in quieter environments where they can concentrate, most of the time.

Nowadays, when being social and outgoing is prized above all else, being an introvert can be difficult. According to Cain (2012), “Introverts living under the ‘Extrovert Ideal’ are like women living in man’s world discounted because of a trait that goes to the core of who they are.” In India, a culture with strong family values and large social gatherings, people are often expected to socialize and open up to extended family members which can be very daunting. Many times, an introvert’s quietude is perceived as impolite or lacking respect. Others may mistake silence for ignorance or even insolence. Yoon (2014) says “Introverts listen more than they talk, think before they speak, and focus on relationships. Introverts focus on the meaning of events around us, while extroverts focus on the events themselves.”

Research shows that extroverted leaders are better at leading passive employees because they are able to motivate and inspire them. Introverted leaders however are better at leading proactive employees as they tend to listen more carefully, making them more effective leaders of vocal teams. They are more open to suggestions which makes their employees feel valued, encouraging them to work harder (Grant, Gino & Hoffman, 2010).

Introverts have much to offer at the workplace, yet they are often uneasy in this gregarious and structured environment with a lack of privacy hampering their productivity. The dominant, assertive, and rarely speechless get ahead, while the pensive and inaudibly knowledgeable tend to not get a word in edgewise. In order to cope, many mask their introversion to blend in and circumvent the ‘shy’ or ‘antisocial’ labels (Ronson, 2012).

Introverts however are very valuable to organizations as they often provide a different perspective along with innovative and creative solutions. Unlike extroverts, they spend more time prudently thinking about and analyzing problems before deciphering them. Along with their attention to detail, they are also more persistent and give up less easily. Cain exemplified this in her book through Einstein’s words: “It’s not that I’m so smart. It’s that I stay with problems longer,” (Cain, 2012).

Introverts need to recognize their uniqueness and where they can shine. After all “the secret to life is to put yourself in the right lighting. For some, it’s a Broadway spotlight; for others, a lamp lit desk,” (Cain, 2012).

 Nikita D'Souza