December 06, 2004

Knowledge of Intuition

Amritas responds to the post where I talk about my fondness for complex systems, such as evolution and economics, which are created by the application of simple, easy-to-understand rules. He talks about one of my other great intellectual loves, intuitive knowledge:

One does not need to spell properly or to get an 800 on the English portion of the SAT to get through life as an Anglophone in America. One does, however, have to decide to use a(n), the, or nothing before a noun on a regular basis. Such decisions are at the 'heart' of the language - the core known to all native users regardless of level of education. No native English speakers hesitate to choose between a(n), the, or nothing in the middle of a spoken sentence. Even a child can do it correctly. It seems self-evident - though it's also so hard to explain. If someone asked, "When do you use the?", could you give an instant (and short!) answer?

When I use the term intuitive knowledge, I'm referring to things that people know (which are true) but which people can't explain rationally. I find this kind of knowledge fascinating because people usually equate their thoughts with their self, e.g. "I think, therefore I am" - when the reality is that there is a great deal of thinking that we do which we are not even aware of.

Almost everything that we do, we do intuitively: walk, eat, see. To those who think that these things are innate, and therefore not thinking, I say: have a baby, you will see that these things are learned. But that doesn't tell the whole story: we are physiologically built to learn them. Children who don't learn these things at a young age will probably never be able to learn them, or will learn them poorly, and with great trouble. Language falls into this category. How many of us know the grammatical rules of our own language? Even professional linguists don't know all the rules of their own language. Learning language by learning grammar and vocabulary can only take you so far, the rest must be done intuitively, through usage. There are innumerable little rules in every language, that you must learn in order to be proficient in it. The amazing thing is that every everybody successfully masters those rules at least for one language. Even profoundly retarded people usually do a very good job of it, just as they learn to walk, eat, and see. (Anyone who has tried to write optical recognition software knows how hard it is, rationally, to distinguish objects from visual input. Yet people do effortlessly.)

I am very much a second-language speaker of Hebrew. If I concentrate, I am capable of producing Hebrew that Israelis will mistake for native, but this level of concentration is usually incompatible with thought. I have settled on an accent which Israelis have told me is "not bad" - which means that it is clearly foreign. And though I know the rules of Hebrew grammar, when I'm tired, or concentrating on a difficult thought, my production ability declines dramatically. Nevertheless, most of what you read about Hebrew on this blog are not things that I learned in school, rationally, but the results of thought-experiments performed on myself. Though I gained fluency in the language only as an adult, I was capable of absorbing through osmosis innumerable rules that rationally I don't know about.

There are those who claim that knowledge of God should be on the list of those things we know intuitively. I'm not so sure. What I am sure about is that worldview is on the list, and God may or may not be part of it. Our worldview enables us to interpret the events of our lives, in much the same way that sight enables us to interpret visual images, or language ability enables us to interpret speech. Hardly any of us even know that we have a worldview, or what it is if we do. Certainly it's not something we've learned rationally, in school (though the school environment is important in forming it: why I am so adamantly in favor of school choice). It's something we pick up through osmosis, like language, first from our parents, then from society at large. In my opinion it's the most important thing in our lives, and most of us pay no attention to it, neither in ourselves, nor our children.

Posted by David Boxenhorn at December 6, 2004 11:53 AM
Comments & Trackbacks

yes, i agree, god is an emergent property, not an atomic one. an analogy i would use:

language:monogenic trait
god:polygenic trait

that is, if the language gene is 'faulty' you are retarded, you can't speak, if it isn't, you can talk. it is an on-off feature. god is influenced by a host of background variables, so so tweaking one might not change your views too much, and different people can have very different views because of the combinitorics that emerge out of all the different variables (the gene analogy does not imply that all the variables are genetic obviously!)

Posted by: razib at December 6, 2004 10:13 PM Permalink

I don't think that language is a monogenic trait, but I do think it's a physiological unit. Like a car, it can have many components, any one of which can incapacitate the car if it breaks. While performance can be better or worse, there has to be a very high degree of quality for it to work at all. I think we have a physiological unit for worldview too, when it doesn't work we get schizophrenia (an incoherent worldview). Godliness is a characteristic of worldview, not of the worldview unit.

Posted by: David Boxenhorn at December 7, 2004 10:42 AM Permalink

I find language to be amazing, just incredible. One of the things that I have noticed is that when you count to yourself it is typically in the language you learned to count in.

It doesn't matter how many languages you speak, most of the time you will rever to the initial language.

I don't have scientific references for this, just my own empirical observations gained from many discussions with multilingual friends and family.

Posted by: Jack at December 7, 2004 07:45 PM Permalink

Jack: I have made the same observation. My data is unanimous, I so I think it's pretty good even if unscientific.

Posted by: David Boxenhorn at December 7, 2004 07:50 PM Permalink

david, no, "language" is not monogenic, but there is probably an outsized role given to on particular regulatory gene. that is, the expression of hundreds of genes downstream might be contingent upon the character of this gene.

Posted by: razib at December 8, 2004 04:08 AM Permalink

Razib: Thanks for the link, it's VERY interesting!

Summary for my readers: The FOXP2 gene is responsible for regulating (turning off and on) many genes which are important for producing language. (Presumably it also regulates genes which have nothing to do with language.)

Posted by: David Boxenhorn at December 8, 2004 09:56 AM Permalink