The language of thought: how will it evolve?

Truncated communication is a feature of everyday life. We imagine linguistic experts would say that while this tendency has been with us for a while, it's rapid growth is due to a diffusion of technologies and cultural adoption of their expressive possibilities. Texting and emoticons have been augmented more recently by the trend for microblogging, through Twitter and Facebook.

Though linguists, psychologists and anthropologists might disagree on the degree of emphasis, we imagine that they'd concur that one of the richest ways to understand how a culture thinks is through its language.

The relationship between language and thought raises an interesting question about the uptick trend in communications truncation: what impact does it have upon thinking and coherence of thought? Does one beget the other?

As seems characteristic of the digital medium (across the variety of channels people use to communicate) there is a seductiveness in the speed with which people can contribute. Our research suggests that the efficiency and ease with which one expresses one's self or dispatches a reply invokes a confidence in the content itself. (Feel free to contact us to learn more about our findings.)

An opinion however is not synonymous with an idea nor does it confer rigor, though there seems to be a widespread assumptiveness (or at the very least a misconception) that it does.

There is an alarming casualness with which people claim expertise today, a disturbing comfort with which they adopt a tonality that suggests authority, when in reality they are far from having that earned stature. One only has to surf the net on a relatively modest number of sites to witness this in action.

A welcomed if unexpected visitor

As with reading, we’re all aware of a kind of ‘voice’ in our minds which is how we are aware of our thoughts. Sometimes it is as if we actually ‘hear’ the words spoken in a literal sentence form, while at others it’s a cognitive state of mind that emerges and crystallizes in the moment.

Reflect upon last 24 hours. Through your journey from stepping out of bed, the morning wash and dress routine, the hours you spent engaged in industry, the commute home, the arrival and passing of dinner and retiring to bed: several thoughts came into your mind during that time. But how many did you actually choose to think and how just many appeared in your mind beyond your will?

Your thoughts might have seemed deliberate and connected in a direct way to your own personal life, such as musing while passing a grocery store on the ride home “What am I going to have for dinner tonight?” Especially in situations where there is no evidence of context and it seems to happen spontaneously, the question of control or influence in the emergence of a thought is a perplexing one. Can we reasonably claim to be in control of what we think if the emergence of a thought it beyond our control?

One we’ve had a thought, are we any more in control of what happens with it? Can we choose deliberately not to think about something like a pink elephant and shut it out of our mind? Can we stop a thought once banished from returning? If so, why is it that some have an orbital trajectory, cycling into our awareness persistently over a matter of minutes, or days, or weeks, or years?

One of the few times that we deliberately seek to exercise control over our thoughts happens while in a meditative state, or an activity inducing one such as Yoga. But even here at a time when the consciousness is being purposefully channeled in a specific way, the deliberate focus on specific thoughts or senses is usually not our own, but being guided by an expert, or advice.

There is no conspiracy theory lurking here. Psychologists would contend that we are the originators of much of our thinking even though it may be beyond our direct control or access. That the magnificent machinery operating in the expansive reaches of the subconscious is the forge. And the gifts of everyday existence are the thoughts that break the surface and appear in our mind, often unannounced.

Think different?

Field research this week took the form of exploring the content of fridges belonging to a random sample of people willing to allow OFD researchers to look inside without a warrant.

We made an alarming discovery, particularly regarding condiments. There was an incredibly high occurence not only of same kinds of condiments, but brands too.

It got us hungry and got us thinking. About not thinking.

This is exactly the problem in the marketing, branding and advertising world today. Everybody's reading the same thing. The same blogs. The same books. Recommended by the same sources. No wonder there is a dearth of creativity across our fields. We've not dumbed ourselves down, we've numbed ourselves through collective consensus exposure.

We've been too willing to idolatrize writers like Russel Davis, Malcolm Gladwell, David Droga. The sycophantic agreement needs to stop and more discriminating thinking needs to begin. But it won't happen when we're all reading the same material.

Participation culture expects more than merely voicing opinions on others people's opinions. It means coming up with you own thinking. Original ideas. Are you up for it?