multilingual and hyperlingual

I don't know the word for them, but I think I will call them hyperlinguists. I think I am one of this group. These are people who have a poor ability to articulate something simplistically. Like that, for example...

I wonder if hyperlinguiticness could be classified as some sort of condition. I know in some autism type disorders there are ways of classifying language skills that have to do with an inability to express ones emotions in a "normal" way. I wonder if I could research hyperlinguisticality in perfectly healthy people? But then, I wonder, what would be the point of that research? I suppose to eventually publish a paper in some magazine, or journal, as hyperlinguistic people like to call them. And make a whimsically TED presentation on the matter, that will make all the hyperlinguists in the audience, chortel noisily, and some of the more normal people smirk quietly. And in both the presentation and the paper I shall say something to the point of "Isn't hyperlinguisticness a terrifically interesting topic and shouldn't we all spend a great deal more time thinking about it and posting blogs that no one reads on the topic"

Of course, no one doesn't read this blog. But you do. Although, if I am good at researching...or maybe if i am not good at it (I forget which way round it goes) I should find something more about this puzzling condition than I have already hypothosized about. This i will lay out next.

These days I spend a great deal of time speaking Japanese badly. I don't mind too much, except for the part of me that has a burning desire to express myself in plays on words and puns and all kinds of twists of spoken talk. This week I have had a string of nasty nightmares about going deaf. But in each of them I couldn't explain to anyone that the reason I had gone deaf was because I couldn't say what i wanted to say the way I wanted to say it.

this is hyperlinguistic behaviour. The part that puts a great deal of effort into how things are said. The part that reserves speeche acts until they are beautifully scuplted. and also that part that desires to talk and talk until well more talking cannot be had.

I think i just miss talking about things of consequence. As I said, i mostly speak japanese badly. I think I will study some interesting Japanese words like precipitation and neurological...so i can say something really smart, soon.

It's down to your base pairs...

Non-sense. There is this wonderful nonsense that surrounds and envelops us, that is put to us plainly everyday, so plainly that it is very tempting to accept. The nonsense goes something like this: something about your behaviour in life is CAUSED by the pairing of acids inside each of your cells. This unfortunate pairing pattern is why you behave in this abhorrent way. But don't worry because if we give you enough talk, lectures and education, we will override that unfortunate pairing...

Let us consider. point one...your behaviour is caused by some chemical bonding. Makes enough sense. Those pairs eventually spell out the production of certain hormones and enzymes in certain proportions...it is possible that this would somehow influence behaviour. Even though behaviour is usual a response to a momentary stimulus predicated by experience...somehow the levels of various chemical things must be involved, seeing as they are a necessary factor in any kind of movement, memory recall etc etc. So fair enough, in going through a kind of syllological reduction we could get A=B=C=D=E=F=G=H=I=J=K somehow and says behaviour=stimulus+experience, experience=time+stimulus+memory, memory= perception + chemicals...=genes... I'm sure we would get there somehow, if we really went through the reasoning and did the math. So let's allow it, behaviour=genes+other environmental factors.

But after making this big stink about the overpowering effect of genes, they go on to say that a kind of brainwashing talk will unravel the negative effects.

Let's look at a concrete example. Today in the news is a US study, or British...i forget now, about how genes, in families where the father is absent for whatever reason, play a key role in predicting early sexual activity. But that what we must do is target these fatherless children and educate them about sex and about why it is bad.

These days I am beginning to think sex education is a load of nonsense. Why not just give them other things to do. I really think there are two things that lead to our current hysteria about children engaging in sexual activities. 1. We recently created this category of being called "child" and thrust on it a Victorian sexual sensibility without recognizing that this was a new way of treating young adults. 2. Children have less interesting things to do. We can't ride horses in cities. We can't keep chickens, see swans, climb trees (without getting into trouble), build campfires...do dangerous things that are interesting, stimulating and exciting. Instead we do the only thing we can think of that stimulates that fun hormones that make us feel happy and exhilarated.

If we really want to keep this impractical view of "the child" then we need to nurture and create a world where "child" life can exists, where kids can be like Huck Finn and Mr Sawyer, where kids have ample space to explore, adventure, question and test with real risks, rewards and consequences. We don't need to educate them to "not have sex till you are ready"--we are ready for those exhilarating hormone rewards from a very young age, 1 and 2 year olds are already actively seeking them. What would be better is to be more fun ourselves and make opportunities for our kids to do other things.

but do you know what that means. That the solutions we are proposing exactly reject our causal theory. If genes are the cause, should genes not also be the solution? And if environmental stimulus (like education) are the solution....then is not environmental stimulus also the cause of the problem?

Young love

I was recently reading about a survey in the UK of people age 13-17 and their views about their intimate relationships. The survey found that many young people experience abuse and violence in these early relationships. One of the researchers claiming that it is surprising and appalling that abuse would start so young. But, I'm not sure that it is at all surprising. Aren't children far more abusive that adults? I mean I thought physical communication like hitting and biting to be vital in childhood to express frustration, displeasure, distaste and also preference in the time before we had the words to do so. I know I am a pretty unusual kid, but I see it all over the place, even here in Japan. When kids don't know how else to say "no" or "yes" they usually say so physically. They pull you towards a certain activity, they throw books on the floor, they grab you hand or turn away from what they don't want to do. So should we be surprised that younger people in intimate relationships are abusive with their partners? They aren't adults. They don't appreciate they aren't adults. Often we don't appreciate they aren't adults too. But those of a certain age understand with certain clarity that they aren't adults, and thus it would be difficult to expect them to act as adults would in such a new and uncharted territory as an intimate relationship (even if they have had several). I wonder if it is useful to use words like abuse in describing these sorts of interactions. This very broad category can leave young people feeling helpless and paralysed as what they learn in schools is that to overcome abuse in your life is a lot of work, complete overhaul of your life and the strength to strike out against those who are "oppressing you". I think rather we need to think about how to be involved with your youth. How to be active with them, play with them, engage them in the community so that they have a rich and full life with many diverse aspects to it, so they can engage more things than finding intimate partners. For fear of sounding really catholic, we should also help our kids to value the preciousness of intimacy, and prepare them to wait to find that real person who they want to maintain long term intimacy with. While I know it is unpractical for everyone, there is a great value in the independence and self worth that comes with saying no.