This reflects the notion that dumb people speak a simple language , or that learning a complex language increases your brain capacity and thus makes you smarter . This is the argument the Hungarians use for example to explain why they have so many top notch mathematicians .

But the theory has many holes . For example German is a more comped language than English . Maybe Germany has more composers and theoretical philosophers than England but I think England has more practical philosophers and more inventors . Furthermore , in both cases , well in the case of Hungary too , they are not spread evenly through history but seem to have come and gone in waves . So chalking this up to language only is building a theory on scarce primary evidence .

It would also be interesting to look at countries that changed their language , such as say the Philippines , to see if this has affected their intellectual productivity .

So a French guy will pay the fines for the Niqab and not the Burka😂😂

Apparently he already paid fines in Ticino.

I think intellectual productivity has to do with education more than with everything else. Perhaps I haven't watched enough of this Peterson guy.

Yes, he'll join the large group of those 30 men who'll pay the fines.

Alternative facts? They match well the fringe theories we hear about.

Never underestimate their tenacity. Ha, so true. I think it's an illness or a kind of suffering..

It could, obviously it looks like you see it that way. I don't think it is that causal. The inventory of instruments is there but what we do with it depends on the individual. Still, how complex the instruments are is going to define the complexity of activity, I think. Well, not only I. There have been studies linking language complexity to cognitive complexity, whether that translates to smarter is a point of interpretation. I think some studies do say so, Piaget would agree. I saw it years back but it doesn't really interest me that much. You can do a lot of dumb stuff with sophisticated instruments. Wheather smart means precise, immediate, sufficient, economical or adequate will again depend on what we are looking for. For you in your post smart meant inventive or mathematical, for me smart may mean other stuff. For neurosci it will mean a bigger lobe.

I think that has been already researched, together with music learning, solfege, instrument, etc. Similar gray matter growth.

Sure beans! As is true with most theories. And I also wouldn't rush chucking smarts only under complexity of language. My biggest hole would be the link with lexical diversity I used it for the innitial post - creating more pronouns probably doesn't affect the quality of intellect but maybe feeling of justice and righteousness in this political case.

English has a large lexical body but not much morphology, zero declension, very minimal conjugation. Compared to flexive languages where all changes all the time. Adding a few extra terms isn't going to create a big effect. I do not think that volume of terms per se would. But the operations we do with them might (morhology, syntax, etc. or thinking about the comm situation differently, ie new genders, from pragmatic linguistics point of view). And the fact that we keep archaic stuff and look for reasons, opose them...all that adds neurons. So, to wrap up - creating a new (dumb) term will still enrich, it does make it more complex in a quantitative way and that should affect the quality of the process, too, to certain extent.

__________________
"L'homme ne peut pas remplacer son coeur avec sa tete, ni sa tete avec ses mains." J.H. Pestalozzi

“The only difference between a rut and a grave is a matter of depth.” S.P. Cadman

"Imagination is more important than knowledge." A. Einstein

…this have to do with resources of the former Empires...you can't really compare by language people speak how smart they are...it have to do first with genetic inheritance, but if is not nurtured, is lost...20% of the people at the birth are near genius, but because they are not born in right places, is lost cause...then of course if you born for example in Austro-Hungary Empire, you go to school at the capital, if smart enough...through ages all the smart will concentrate at the heart of Empires, then the genetic value of that capitals will increase...
…same thing is happening now in USA, because is the greatest economical empire is get all the smartest people in the world, but at the same time they have probably one of the dumbest in the world, which is nothing have to do with the how complex are the language...

Sure that's anybody's choice, including the risk of being not or mis-understood.
However that's different from trying to force everybody else to do one's bidding.

That said, I would suggest people use the two relatively well-known ancient languages to that end, Latin and Greek.
They probably don't know yet that the more chocolate a country consumes per capita the
more nobel prize winners it "produces". Of course it took a Swiss researcher to notice this.

Nah, I thought it started in the US: regarding the link, I just googled the pronouns and took the first one that came up. Didn't even look where it was from since I got my example to clarify what MC meant.

Was not aware of 29 others , just read he already spent almost 300k paying fines throughout Europe.

Very correct. I was being ironic when said that they might get a wee bit smarter by enlarging their lingustic repertoire, since there are theories about it. It still probably holds. Any creative ideas today?

But I think we know that understanding isn't their goal, signalling new take on gender philosophy is.

Hahahaha. It is not Nespresso by any chance? Or Nestle yoghurts? Any particular chocolate type? I believe that 99% Coop chocolate does it for me, makes up for me not having urges for new pronouns and campaigning!

Ok I jumped straight to page 23 and there seems to be a debate on linguistics!

Nesquick my dear, Nesquick.

If it isn't liquid I prefer the white variant, or zartbitter (dark?).

Not Ovomaltine?
I see, with Ovo you do it longer and with Nesquick better?

Suchard!!!!!!

Laderach. Super dark with roasted almonds. I don't eat much chocolate, though. It's overstimulating.

Then you think wrong.

The only right choices.

Hahaa, are you saying size matters?

Either way, it takes two to party

(lest you ask, two are just right)
I must remember to pay Läderach a visit next time near a branch, this keeps slipping from my mind.

you said it was about Nobel prices?
<<They probably don't know yet that the more chocolate a country consumes per capita the more nobel prize winners it "produces". Of course it took a Swiss researcher to notice this. >>

Must be a Nobel price category I've not hear of you're on about now.

"you do it longer" ...