I think speaking more than one language (from distant language groups) does help a fair lot. You see how a continuum can be bucketed differently, among other things.
Other big issue is that great many people actually see a form of compression as some amazing virtue of “Abstract thought”.
That is itself an example of compression—mixing together the human capacity to create useful abstractions, to be able to make predictions about the real world by using very little computational power, with the human brain limitations that disallow fine grained modelling and which in fact greatly impede our ability to make predictions about the real world.
While it is awesome that we can describe weather in terms of different cloud types, the most accurate weather simulation is the one working at the lowest abstraction level that we have the computational power to work at—cells with air properties, the smaller the better—the division into cloud types only helps when you are pretty much incapable of modelling clouds to any extent.
I propose that one should try to think of things as non-abstractly as one can (except for very special cases where abstractions are surprisingly close to the territory). The less stuff you abstract out the less likely you are to make dumb mistake or over the chain of reasoning slowly diverge from correctness.
I think speaking more than one language (from distant language groups) does help a fair lot. You see how a continuum can be bucketed differently, among other things.
Other big issue is that great many people actually see a form of compression as some amazing virtue of “Abstract thought”.
That is itself an example of compression—mixing together the human capacity to create useful abstractions, to be able to make predictions about the real world by using very little computational power, with the human brain limitations that disallow fine grained modelling and which in fact greatly impede our ability to make predictions about the real world.
While it is awesome that we can describe weather in terms of different cloud types, the most accurate weather simulation is the one working at the lowest abstraction level that we have the computational power to work at—cells with air properties, the smaller the better—the division into cloud types only helps when you are pretty much incapable of modelling clouds to any extent.
I propose that one should try to think of things as non-abstractly as one can (except for very special cases where abstractions are surprisingly close to the territory). The less stuff you abstract out the less likely you are to make dumb mistake or over the chain of reasoning slowly diverge from correctness.