[Joe L. Ogan]

I did not realize that so many people thought only in concepts.  I think in concepts also but that is only the first step for me.  I then explain it to myself in language.  I may even discuss it with myself and explore the thought of being either right or wrong.  Thanks for comments.  Joe L. Ogan

[Monox D. I-Fly]

Did you know that there are 24 different kinds of math?

Wait, what? Explain!

[Bored chemist]

Did you know that there are 24 different kinds of math?

Wait, what? Explain!

That's the problem with necromancy; the author isn't here any more.

[alancalverd]

It has been suggested that the form of Chinese and Japanese counting numbers lend themselves better to speed mental arithmetic than their western variants. It is also the case that learned jargon can trigger a complex semiautomatic response, so it is arguable that some languages might produce a shorter time from input to output.

[Bored chemist]

It has been suggested that the form of Chinese and Japanese counting numbers lend themselves better to speed mental arithmetic than their western variants. It is also the case that learned jargon can trigger a complex semiautomatic response, so it is arguable that some languages might produce a shorter time from input to output.

I wonder if a comparable study has been made about French

French Numbers.png (102.36 kB . 991x903 - viewed 581 times)

[alancalverd]

Not to mention onze, douze, treize....vinget-et-un, vingt-deux.... when our oriental friends say tenone, tentwo....twotenone....

[Bill S]

If one thought in a faster or more concise language than say, English, would s/he be able to formulate ideas faster? Likewise, if the language was more expansive or logical than English, would that improve one's critical thinking skills? In general, how does language impact thought process?

I think the language we use makes little (if any) difference to our speed of thought.  Probably, our familiarity with the language we are using makes more difference to the ease with which we organise and express our ideas than does the nature of the language; discounting those “primitive” languages that might lack the necessary vocabulary. 

    I did not realize that so many people thought only in concepts.  I think in concepts also but that is only the first step for me.  I then explain it to myself in language.  I may even discuss it with myself and explore the thought of being either right or wrong.

That sounds like a description of my thought process.

If I’m writing notes about something I’m trying to understand, I tend to write as though explaining to some one else. 

[Monox D. I-Fly]

I wonder if a comparable study has been made about French

French Numbers.png (102.36 kB . 991x903 - viewed 581 times)

You think that's bad? Try deciphering Roman numeral.
XLIX = Ten subtracted from fifty plus one subtracted from ten = (–10 + 50) + (–1 + 10) = 40 + 9 = 49

[alancalverd]

And now multiply! II x II = IV you can do on your fingers, but how can you prove the hypotenuse of a III IV triangle to be V? What do ancient Greek numerals look like, for Pythagoras' sake? How on earth did builders estimate numbers of bricks, or make right-angles before Arabic numbers?

[Rodin1880]

To use a faster language you would have to think faster, but that doesn't mean that the faster thinking is a result of the faster language, more than likely the opposite would be the reality...
Quality of thought, something that is rare today, is the next question, speed doesn't usually result in better thought, in fact "sleeping on it" usually creates the best quality of thought...
A larger diversification of words was suggested but if you take the time to look at our English language you'll see that we DO have a large diversity that most people don't recognize as being different words, such as "Apparent", "Obvious", and "Evident"... They are apparently the same, some might say obviously the same, but few know they are evidently different...
I recently met a young Chinese Migrant, well versed in English. I mentioned "television" and he couldn't come to terms with my limitation of the subject... His confusion being apparent, I inquired, and he explained that there is more "television" than what the cable company supplies... The transfer of visuals also comes from DVD's BluRay, and many other forms, including his smart phone which he pointed at as he explained... While he knew what a "TV" is, he didn't realize that "TV" means television...

[alancalverd]

Not sure about your last point. Television is seeing at a distance, so a live image on a mobile phone certainly counts as television, as does a CCTV feed to a monitor. But why necessarily live, since almost no public broadcast TV is live and a fair bit of it consists of high quality film and digital recording - no different from a DVD? Is there a significant difference between a "home cinema" and a modern public cinema with digital projection? Where do you draw the line?