For the Sapir-Whorf, my opinion is that it may likely be correct about some people. As the thread on generalizing from one example has shown, people literally think different and it appears entirely plausible that even fairly strong version of Sapir-Whorf hypothesis holds for some people. Universally though, Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is grossly inconsistent with human ability to step outside the language and invent new things.
One needs also to avoid generalizing from averages—even if the effect in question is caused by linguistic issues, it may be affecting only small percentage of population (e.g. those incapable of mental visualization of any kind).
Furthermore the language’s future tense constructs may themselves be a result of cultural attitude towards future; the correlation may come from common cause. Or it could be that the researchers had too many degrees of freedom.
For the Sapir-Whorf, my opinion is that it may likely be correct about some people. As the thread on generalizing from one example has shown, people literally think different and it appears entirely plausible that even fairly strong version of Sapir-Whorf hypothesis holds for some people. Universally though, Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is grossly inconsistent with human ability to step outside the language and invent new things.
One needs also to avoid generalizing from averages—even if the effect in question is caused by linguistic issues, it may be affecting only small percentage of population (e.g. those incapable of mental visualization of any kind).
Furthermore the language’s future tense constructs may themselves be a result of cultural attitude towards future; the correlation may come from common cause. Or it could be that the researchers had too many degrees of freedom.