yes, the process that converts thoughts to words is separate
however, caveat: the words are ALSO used for initialization of your concept network/tree, so these two might continue matching closely by default if you don’t do any individual work on improving them
I can’t give you a RCT for proof but I’ve had this idea for at least 7 months now (blog post) so I had lots of time to verify it
yes, training the concept network/tree directly looks completely different from training the verbal network/tree (though on some meta level the process of doing it is the same)
see this as an example of explicit non-verbal training (notes from improving my rationality-related abstract concept network) - the notes are of course in English, but it should be clear enough that this is not the point: e.g. I’m making up many of the words and phrases as I go because it doesn’t matter for the concept network/tree if my verbal language is standard or not
Haha, you seem to be on track:
yes, the process that converts thoughts to words is separate
however, caveat: the words are ALSO used for initialization of your concept network/tree, so these two might continue matching closely by default if you don’t do any individual work on improving them
I can’t give you a RCT for proof but I’ve had this idea for at least 7 months now (blog post) so I had lots of time to verify it
yes, training the concept network/tree directly looks completely different from training the verbal network/tree (though on some meta level the process of doing it is the same)
see this as an example of explicit non-verbal training (notes from improving my rationality-related abstract concept network) - the notes are of course in English, but it should be clear enough that this is not the point: e.g. I’m making up many of the words and phrases as I go because it doesn’t matter for the concept network/tree if my verbal language is standard or not