Does Germany Prove Peat Wrong?

[LeeLemonoil]

I

Spoken German sort of sounds like bombs dropping. Do you know anything about the Sturm and Drang Movement? I find it interesting that German Romanticism preceded Nazism, with an emphasis on emotions and a rejection of rationality.

Hitter had a romanticistic personality trait, and he was influenced by Nietzsche who himself can’t be separated by mysticism/romanticistic influences.

But to construct the era of Romantic as leading to Nazism cannot be substantiated in earnest.

 

[Kartoffel]

Spoken German sort of sounds like bombs dropping. Do you know anything about the Sturm and Drang Movement? I find it interesting that German Romanticism preceded Nazism, with an emphasis on emotions and a rejection of rationality.

Not that much, but I think of the Sturm und Drang period as sort of an antithesis to Nazism, with a rejection of rules and authority and a strong emphasis on the power of the individual genius.

 

[LUH 3417]

I


Hitter had a romanticistic personality trait, and he was influenced by Nietzsche who himself can’t be separated by mysticism/romanticistic influences.

But to construct the era of Romantic as leading to Nazism cannot be substantiated in earnest.

By preceded I meant chronologically rather than ideologically

 

[LeeLemonoil]

@Kartoffel

It wasn’t my idea that’s German soldiers were always top-notch and you debunked it correctly.
You’re right, Prussians saw themselves as Prussians, and they managed to reconcile Germans and Polish people and other ethnicities in Prussia. All my male grandfathers and one grandmother were born in then still existing Prussia, before Hitlers criminal Preussenschlag and one line is ancient „Prussian“ from Westpreußen.

Yup, German nationalism evolved in parts due to the french „Aggression“ in the decades and even centuries before, Louis XIV invaded the Pfalz regularly.

I don’t know about our language influence to an alleged authoritarian trait. That seems far fetched to me, but I have no knowledge about that hypothesis

 

[LeeLemonoil]

I m

By preceded I meant chronologically rather than ideologically

Sorry, misinterpreted it to the contrary. But some do connect Nazism to Nietzsche and by his roots in irrationalism

 

[Homo Consumericus]

There are acrylamides in all cooked carbohydrates. The more you cook them the more acrylamide there will be. Cooking fats and protein produce other carcinogens, heterocyclic amines and lipid peroxides.

The commenter asked for additional problems with potato chips other than PUFA. My goal with acrylamide as with PUFA is not to eliminate but to minimize. Since baking, frying, and roasting seems to maximize formation of acrylamides, avoiding potato chips, buying fresh potatoes, (peeling them,) and boiling them can minimize acrylamides (and other toxins like glycoalkaloids). "Boiling and steaming do not typically form acrylamide (FDA info.. fingers crossed: Acrylamide Questions and Answers)."

 

[Kartoffel]

I don’t know about our language influence to an alleged authoritarian trait. That seems far fetched to me, but I have no knowledge about that hypothesis

You might wanna check out Lera Boroditsky. She has some cool stuff on how language shapes thought. Peat is a staunch linguistic relativist.

 

[Homo Consumericus]

You might wanna check out Lera Boroditsky. She has some cool stuff on how language shapes thought. Peat is a staunch linguistic relativist.

When you describe Peat as a "staunch linguistic relativist," are you proposing that Peat is a proponent of the strong variant of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis-- that language [completely] determines thought?

 

[Kartoffel]

When you describe Peat as a "staunch linguistic relativist," are you proposing that Peat is a proponent of the strong variant of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis-- that language [completely] determines thought?

The "staunch" was just a humorous addition, but he is definitely a relativist. He has mentioned Sapir and Whorf favorably to me. I read Whorf, and I think saying that he wrote that language completely determines thought is a bit of a misrepresentation. Here are two of Ray's emails:

"I was reading Jespersen around the same time that I read Whorf, and while I was thinking about Blake’s and Whitehead’s views of consciousness. I grew up without a sense of being “in” a culture, because I recognized that every experience I had changed me; I came to see that “the culture” was largely an attitude that all the important issues had been settled. Many people (less formally than Plato and Jerrold Katz) believed that “language" was a matter of essences, that “the English language” was something definite in structure; I saw that everyone had their slightly unique English, along with their unique history. Everything about a language and the culture and experience of the speaker is individualized, and to the extent that we understand what someone is saying we are conforming ourselves to the experience of the speaker.
Relationships of various kinds, such as sequence in time, causality, space, dependency, status, plurality, can be expressed by grammatical inflection, word order, or vocabulary, in different proportions in different languages and in different individual styles; language and culture are closely tied together with our perceptions and actions, but they aren’t inseparable. The reaction against Whorf 50 years ago was guided by the hypostatizing MIT linguistic essentialists. Lera Boroditsky is currently doing intelligent work on the interactions of language and understanding."​

"I think the least inflected languages, English and Chinese, are best for flexible thinking."​

 

[Homo Consumericus]

The "staunch" was just a humorous addition, but he is definitely a relativist. He has mentioned Sapir and Whorf favorably to me. I read Whorf, and I think saying that he wrote that language completely determines thought is a bit of a misrepresentation.

Whorf did not write that, neither did I state that he did. Neither Sapir nor Whorf explicitly stated the hypothesis as such. Linguistic relativism is attributed to them, hence the hypothesis name, but the beginnings of the idea originated earlier and the idea itself is an amalgamation of the work of more that two linguists.

Penn, in order to determine why some studies proved and others refuted the hypothesis at the time divided linguist into strong and weak hypothesis proponent camps, writing that the strong camp defined the hypothesis as I wrote above-- language determines thought, implying thought operates solely within the limitations of language-- and the weak camp supported this definition-- language influences thought.

 

[Kartoffel]

Whorf did not write that, neither did I state that he did. Neither Sapir nor Whorf explicitly stated the hypothesis as such. Linguistic relativism is attributed to them, hence the hypothesis name, but the beginnings of the idea originated earlier and the idea itself is an amalgamation of the work of more that two linguists.

Penn, in order to determine why some studies proved and others refuted the hypothesis at the time divided linguist into strong and weak hypothesis proponent camps, writing that the strong camp defined the hypothesis as I wrote above-- language determines thought, implying thought operates solely within the limitations of language-- and the weak camp supported this definition-- language influences thought.

Thanks, I am aware of that.

 

[Homo Consumericus]

Here are two of Ray's emails:

"I was reading Jespersen around the same time that I read Whorf, and while I was thinking about Blake’s and Whitehead’s views of consciousness. I grew up without a sense of being “in” a culture, because I recognized that every experience I had changed me; I came to see that “the culture” was largely an attitude that all the important issues had been settled. Many people (less formally than Plato and Jerrold Katz) believed that “language" was a matter of essences, that “the English language” was something definite in structure; I saw that everyone had their slightly unique English, along with their unique history. Everything about a language and the culture and experience of the speaker is individualized, and to the extent that we understand what someone is saying we are conforming ourselves to the experience of the speaker.
Relationships of various kinds, such as sequence in time, causality, space, dependency, status, plurality, can be expressed by grammatical inflection, word order, or vocabulary, in different proportions in different languages and in different individual styles; language and culture are closely tied together with our perceptions and actions, but they aren’t inseparable. The reaction against Whorf 50 years ago was guided by the hypostatizing MIT linguistic essentialists. Lera Boroditsky is currently doing intelligent work on the interactions of language and understanding."​

"I think the least inflected languages, English and Chinese, are best for flexible thinking."​

Thanks for sharing Peat's quotes. Nice to see that he was interested in Whitehead as well.

The last sentence is particularly insightful. It seems Peat believes language influences thought rather than determines it; however, this influence is deemed by him to be large enough in scope to warrant the use of two languages over others for optimizing flexible thinking.

 

[boris]

Interesting topic. I wonder what exactly makes the english language better for flexible thinking over german. Do you have any specific examples?

 

[Kartoffel]

Interesting topic. I wonder what exactly makes the english language better for flexible thinking over german. Do you have any specific examples?

If you spoke German, you would know. It's a much more inflected language than English, and the simplicity of the English language (especially inflection of verbs - there are only four inflections) makes it very easy to learn and think with. German has lots of inflections for verbs and adjectives, and, overall, it's a language made for bureaucrats.

English:
I speak
you speak
he/she/it speaks
We speak
You speak
They speak

German:
Ich spreche
Du sprichst
Er/Sie/Es spricht
Wir sprechen
Ihr sprecht
Sie sprechen

Thanks for sharing Peat's quotes. Nice to see that he was interested in Whitehead as well.

You're welcome :)

 

[boris]

If you spoke German, you would know.

I speak german for over 30 years, thanks. I thought there are other qualities to these less inflected languages that makes them favourable for flexible thinking beyond the fact that they are less inflected.

 

[Kartoffel]

I speak german for over 30 years, thanks. I thought there are other qualities to less inflected languages that makes them favourable for flexible thinking beyond the fact that they are less inflected.

There are probably many other structural things, and also vocab and semantics. Even things like the distinction between a formal and friendly "you" ("Du"/"Sie") can have a strong influence on how you think about personal relationships and social interactions.

 

[postman]

The commenter asked for additional problems with potato chips other than PUFA. My goal with acrylamide as with PUFA is not to eliminate but to minimize. Since baking, frying, and roasting seems to maximize formation of acrylamides, avoiding potato chips, buying fresh potatoes, (peeling them,) and boiling them can minimize acrylamides (and other toxins like glycoalkaloids). "Boiling and steaming do not typically form acrylamide (FDA info.. fingers crossed: Acrylamide Questions and Answers)."

Actually boiling them is completely useless for minimizing the toxic alkaloids, conversely deep frying them in very high temperatures is an effective way to reduce solanine, I made a thread about this earlier.

 

[Kunstruct]

There are many countries that did not exist prior to 1800s.
Late 1700s brought the industrial revolution and around 1820-1840 it was undeniable. That is one of the reasons why in 1833 Brits decided to stop slavery and offer money to those dealing with slaves, 20 million pounds, which is over 100 billions pound in today's money. They din't even had the money so they had to borrow them from the famous Rotschild.
It is not a coincidence that many nations form in the 1800 which weren't there on paper before.

 

[Homo Consumericus]

Actually boiling them is completely useless for minimizing the toxic alkaloids, conversely deep frying them in very high temperatures is an effective way to reduce solanine, I made a thread about this earlier.

The peel is where glycoalkaloids are concentrated (Toxic Glycoalkaloids in Potatoes). In order to not distract too much from the main message at the time (we were discussing potato chips as a source of acrylamide), I placed the instruction to peel the potatoes and mentioned the primary toxin peeling reduces both in parentheses.

In case you are still confused, I'm happy to state my point yet again: I recommend peeling to minimize glycoalkaloid and boiling to minimize acrylamide.

Since deep frying would further reduce glycoalkaloid but greatly increase acrylamide, I do not recommend what you just did here and in your dedicated thread. Instead, I would paraphrase BigYellowLemon's advice to neutralize the remaining glycoalkaloid threat by eating the boiled potatoes with a cholesterol-rich animal product.

 

[schultz]

Most cant.
Physical work,and work of the Mind,being productive,are dependent on Health of the Body.

Ray once remarked that cretins make good workers because they follow orders.

You wouldnt make French fries with olive.

Definitely coconut oil