At the end of the last post, I stated that linguistic interference was often used as an argument against the interaction of language and thought, but that Lupyan turns this around and uses it as support for this very theory. Let us take a look at how this works.
Detecting when people are being deceptive is a skill that few people excel at, with an average 53% success rate when trying to detect dishonest statements. This apparent inability to make accurate judgements has quite a significant impact when it comes to taking part in games such as poker, where deception is considered a standard part of the game.
When you think about a cup of coffee, what exactly are you thinking about? What sort of representations are you accessing in your memory? Tactile? Olfactory? The phrase “cup of coffee”? What makes the concept of a cup of coffee different from other concepts? These are all very difficult questions, and they get at one of the core issues of psycholinguistics: the relationship between language and thought.
I came across an article written by Bret Stetka, MD, and Kit Yarrow, PhD, about the neuropsychology of consumption, offered, poignantly, around Black Friday. The authors admit that the motivation for shopping is complex; just as much of human motivation is.