You are a JSON assistant. You only reply in valid JSON and never in normal text. Asigne un nivel de dificultad a la informaci�n del video proporcionada a continuaci�n. La salida debe ser una �nica propiedad llamada "result" con un valor de punto flotante entre 0 y 1. Los niveles de dificultad se categorizan de la siguiente manera: 
0.0 - Completo Principiante: Este nivel incluye vocabulario muy b�sico y frases simples, acompa�adas de visuales y contexto claros, lo que lo hace adecuado para individuos sin conocimientos previos del idioma objetivo. 
0.3 - Principiante: Este nivel presenta oraciones simples y vocabulario de uso com�n. El video puede proporcionar algunos recursos visuales y contexto para ayudar con la comprensi�n. 
0.5 - Intermedio: Este nivel presenta oraciones m�s complejas y un rango de vocabulario m�s amplio. Puede incluir algunas expresiones idiom�ticas que requieren conocimientos adicionales de fondo. 
0.6 - Intermedio Superior: Este nivel incluye vocabulario especializado y conceptos relevantes para campos espec�ficos. Los espectadores deben tener una competencia razonable en el idioma objetivo para una comprensi�n completa. 
0.8 - Avanzado: Este nivel utiliza vocabulario avanzado y estructuras de oraciones intrincadas, potencialmente involucrando discusiones matizadas que requieren un fuerte dominio del idioma. 
1 - Muy Avanzado: Este nivel est� dirigido a hablantes fluidos, incorporando terminolog�a y conceptos especializados que pueden no ser familiares para todos los hablantes nativos.
 Descripcin: "Each language is a way of seeing the world."
This is a phrase that many of us think,
that we accept and that seems super logical to us, right?
There are languages ​​in which the future does not exist,
in Spanish yes, then, obviously,
our way of seeing the world will be different, right?
There are bilingual people who even say that their personality changes
depending on the language they speak.
Maybe if they speak French they are Goku
and if they speak Estonian they are Frieza.
Who knows.
What is true in all this?
Hello, good afternoon.
When I was little, I was told that the Inuit
could differentiate many more shades of white
because they had more words that to us were just "white."
How many of you differentiate here more than one shade of white?
Oh really?
Well, if you have been able to differentiate more than one shade of white,
it means that you have a much higher cognitive and visual capacity than normal.
Let's see, I can't tell you what those whites are called
(basically because I don't care),
but a quick Google search tells me that there is
off-white, off-white, chalk white, silk white,
and many more . that they don't add anything to this video...
Furthermore, this thing about the whites and the Inuit is a myth,
what the linguist Franz Boas said
is that they had several words to refer to snow,
depending on whether it was on the ground, dragged by the wind,
falling...
But I think that we are also able to differentiate that if we see it, right?
And well, the verb "to get up early" doesn't exist in English,
so English speakers will never get to work on time
or they won't get up early for any job...
Is there a verb in English that means getting up early?
But only one verb.
How to "get up early"?
Ok, you got me...
Wow, it's just that if it doesn't exist in English,
I want to work somewhere that speaks English,
so I'm going to book a class to prepare for a job interview
on italki!
Come on, I'm going to find a teacher…
of English…
Look, “Benji”, Benji seems wonderful.
"Practice job interview",
this is what interests me.
There are the prices...
I'm going to do it by Zoom.
Come on.
Well, I want to prepare for a computational linguist interview
in Massachusetts.
- Where?
Massachusetts.
- Huh?
Massachusetts.
- Massachusetts.
Exactly, what I said...
- Thank you for your time.
- Definitely, we will interview more candidates.
Well, as you have seen, this is a class in italki.
You choose the teacher, you have one-on-one classes,
just you and the teacher
, and obviously this allows you to focus on what you want to learn.
Before booking you can even watch a video presentation of the teacher.
Benji is the best, I tell you. I loved your class, it's great.
You pay per class and each teacher marks his price.
And, furthermore, this had never happened before,
but now, only until May 1, 2023,
if you buy a 10-euro class and use my code “LINGURIOSA5”,
you get a 5-euro discount.
In addition, there are studies that say that speaking a second language
can increase your salary between 10% and 15%.
Let's see, whether you like it or not, speaking English stands out in a job interview
and can get you hired faster.
Also, that way you don't have a language barrier,
you can work on whatever you want,
on what you've always wanted
(well, let's see, on whatever you want...
the same if you want to be an astronaut, well, neither does English...
But it is true that for the tests they ask you for English).
So if you want to be an astronaut,
book a business English class on italki!
Let's see, my C2 in biology
tells me that what we see does not depend on our language
or our culture,
but on some biological faculties
that we all have more or less the same.
It does not matter what we call it:
vision, perception, reception of visual stimuli...
the images that our brain creates of what surrounds us,
definitely, do not depend on language or culture,
but on our eyes and our brain. .
[Dorotea] But, let's see, I don't think anyone is referring to the fact that,
[Dorotea] depending on the language you speak, you see a carrot or a zucchini,
[Dorotea] but rather that you see the world, you understand it, it You reason in a different way.
Alright. So, I am going to ask you a question:
where is the limit between culture, language and thought?
Or, even, what is culture, language or thought?
Are they influenced?
If so, a lot? bit? enough to be relevant?
The first difficulty is precisely in defining these three concepts.
It seems that it is more likely that they are not indivisible,
and that parts of them are more likely to be influenced by others.
We can ask ourselves many questions regarding this,
but perhaps the one that interests us the most in this video is:
the effect that one produces on another,
is it determining or is it an influence?
It is a super complicated topic,
with many questions and many answers
that raise many different hypotheses.
This issue continues to cause much controversy among scholars
(not only linguists, but also neurologists, anthropologists, psychologists, philosophers...)
and is one of the issues in which
the most scientific literature is created in theoretical linguistics.
And, in addition, it is very fashionable, but this has not always been the case.
[Dorothea] But what scientific basis does all this have?
I am going to talk about a theory,
but to get to it, we are going to go mainly
through France, Germany and the US
(in that order)
and in a very very summarized way
because if not, this video would be very long.
We would have to start, perhaps, with the 18th century
(it is where it seems to me that we have to start, period).
At that time, in enlightened France,
people began to talk about the concept of the people, the nation.
What happens is that at that time "nation"
was not what we understand by nation today.
For the French enlightened "nation"
was a legal, civil and bureaucratic concept,
that is, that a nation was the individual that is part of the state
and that responds to its right.
In principle, at that time,
it had nothing to do with the cultural, linguistic,
ethnographic or anthropological parameters that we associate with it today.
Then, in the 19th century, with romanticism,
nationalism also arose,
a movement born in the bourgeois layers of society
that sought independence, union or simply exacerbation
of what they considered a human group
that shared a history, traditions or common language.
The nation went from being a legal concept
to being a visceral, living entity
that had a soul and was millennial,
almost a kind of divine idea
that had been in the hearts of its people
during an existence that had neither beginning nor end.
This almost religious or spiritual vision
was very successful in Germany.
Consider that Germany was born and ascended
from the political, economic and cultural point of view
during nationalism.
Surely you did not know
that when the 13 American colonies of the United Kingdom were being founded
and also in subsequent decades, like the US,
Germany was one of the countries that gave them the largest population.
For this reason, many Germans who emigrated
brought their romantic and nationalist ideas with them.
This idea began to spill out of literature and politics
and spread throughout human culture, including science.
[Dorothea] Science??
Let's see, I'm going to be a little pedantic here.
Normally we confuse science with the phenomena that science studies.
That the fire burns is not science,
is a natural phenomenon,
science is the research method that is applied to analyze,
understand and explain that phenomenon.
And science changes,
it changes so much that things that were previously explained with science
now seem ridiculous to us
(like all the racial theories of the 19th century,
perfectly understandable, although not justifiable,
given the time in which they arose).
Science is neither exact nor perpetual,
it is a product of human culture that changes over time.
Well, that's how we have, at the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century,
especially in the US,
a methodology based on the prevailing nationalist theories.
Let's see, obviously not all sciences
are equally influenced by cultural fashions.
For example, it is unlikely (but not impossible)
that a physicist would fall for the hype by studying a ray of light.
However, the human and social sciences
will be more easily vulnerable.
And, well, among all these human and social sciences,
there was one in which the nationalist ideology was very present:
anthropology.
Interestingly, in the US at that time,
linguistics was considered a branch of anthropology,
and it was not trained linguists who were engaged in it,
but anthropologists who were trying, according to their anthropological methods,
to draw linguistic conclusions.
And language is one of the pillars of nationalism:
it is the most superficial,
the first tangible difference between human groups
beyond the color of their skin or the shape of their noses or eyes.
We are going back to Germany. But already at the end of the XIX century.
At this time there were two very different linguistic schools:
one associated with the neogrammarians and their comparative and historical study of languages
​​(that is, with a more scientific vision),
and another more socio-philosophical school
that had a more political vision of language
as a language. nation identifier.
This vision of linguistics continues to exist not only in the US,
but also in specific areas of Europe.
In the US, the romantic,
socio-philosophical version triumphed,
perhaps because it had just become independent
and wanted to get as far away from its old metropolis as possible.
American English represented the spirit of the young nation,
not British English.
Then, in addition, his English coexisted with more languages,
the Native American languages.
These languages ​​served to claim equality,
false superiority or false inferiority
of some linguistic systems over others.
Now we jump to the 20th century.
Here appears a very important person in the subject of this video.
A person who is going to study a lot the relationship between thought
and language.
This person is Edward Sapir.
This very nice gentleman was an American anthropologist,
a student of Franz Boas, also an anthropologist
(the linguist I mentioned before about the Inuit)
and a teacher of Benjamin Whorf
(spoiler alert: another linguist who is going to be very important in this story).
Sapir was the first to work seriously
on the theory that the language we speak
affects how we think.
He did not usually display a radical or extremist attitude on this subject,
but his student, Benjamin Whorf, did.
The theory that thought is shaped by language,
whether influenced or determined,
is known as the Sapir-Whorf theory,
although it was later abandoned.
However, chan chan chan…
in recent years it has become super fashionable again.
[Dorothea] And why was the theory abandoned?
Possibly because in the middle of the 20th century
more radical theses were defended,
hardly credible, of a more deterministic nature
(that is, that your language determines your thought).
[Dorothea] And how is it possible that these ideas are triumphing again now?
Well, now the New Whorfians
approach the problem from a softer perspective
that does not speak of determination, but of influence,
that is, linguistic determinism has been abandoned
and linguistic relativism has been adopted.
[Dorothea] So, regardless of that deterministic theory
[Dorothea] does our language affect or does it not affect our way of thinking?
[Dorotea] Stop winding up…
Well, let's see, there are, mainly, 5 options to answer you:
1. that our language determines our thinking
(linguistic determinism),
(linguistic determinism),
2. that our language greatly influences our thinking,
3. that our language influences thought,
4. that our language has little influence on thought
(all of these would fall within linguistic relativism).
5. or that our language does not influence thought
(what is called autonomous thought).
These are the main ones, but there are many more in between
and then, each author who writes on the subject has a personal vision,
so this subject is endless...
The most serious current theories vary between points 2 and 4,
and it seems that there is a tendency not to consider any of the three concepts as isolated,
come on, scholars would say that it does seem that there is a relationship between them.
Now, it also seems true that no concept that fits in the human mind
is incomprehensible to another human mind.
For example, the famous case of how we perceive the future.
A Spanish speaker thinks of the future as something ahead,
while a Vietnamese as something behind.
[Dorothea] How how? Behind why?
Well, the explanation would be that what is behind you is something unknown,
dark, mysterious, indecipherable, like the future,
however, what is in front you can see,
like the present or memories of the past.
But come on, as you have just seen,
if we explain why, anyone in the world who speaks any language
will be able to learn, understand and assimilate them.
Furthermore, it is difficult to say that the Vietnamese speaker
sees the future behind for purely linguistic reasons.
How can we ensure that it is not something cultural?
I have not found this,
but it would be interesting to know if a Vietnamese speaker
who speaks Vietnamese at home but who lives, I don't know, in Canada,
would also see the future behind
or would they see it in front, as all Westerners do?
And well, now I am going to tell you something
that would show that our way of seeing the world
does not depend much on our language:
translation.
Let's see, if this were really the case,
there would be no translation
because no language would be capable of expressing what another expresses.
And there is not a single concept in one language
that cannot be translated into another.
Yes, maybe you have to think about it more,
use more words, explain more,
but you can always explain everything in all the languages ​​of the world.
And now, surely you are thinking
“yeah, but, Elena, there are a lot of lists of words
that cannot be translated into other languages”.
I have seen them too, and almost always the Spanish word “estrenar” appears.
Let's see, it won't have an equivalent,
but I'm sure that a Chinese, an English, a Japanese...
also premieres things,
even if they don't have an equivalent word.
I give you another example: the German word “Fernweh”,
if we look it up in the dictionary:
“It is the longing for the distant, for distant countries”.
"A feeling that only a person who speaks German can feel."
Oh really?
Well, I haven't seen photos of Caribbean beaches and I thought
“pff, I wish I was there”.
A very simple way to translate a word into another language,
when there is no equivalent in yours,
is to do what I have done: look it up in the dictionary of that language.
And, well, well…
A classic argument of people who defend determinism
it was the color
There are many languages ​​in which our concepts "green" and "blue"
have only one word.
[Dorothea] How? Let's see, without intending to offend, I ask this completely seriously:
[Dorothea] Is it not because there is a higher percentage of color blindness among the speakers of that language?
My C2 in biology does not allow me to answer you,
but I am going to tell you about some experiments that were done
to see if they really were not able to distinguish the color
because they really saw them the same,
or if they simply did not have words to differentiate them.
Determinists say that if a person's native language
doesn't differentiate between these colors
(ie, there aren't different words for each one),
that person is going to have a hard time distinguishing those colors in real life.
Well, between the 1960s and the 1980s,
five experiments were carried out in this regard,
I leave you in the bibliography.
In most experiments it was concluded that
although some influence could be observed in some cases
(in others not),
in no case was it seen that the language determined
the classification or perception of colors.
One of the experiments is super interesting.
We have two groups of speakers,
one of Anglo-Saxons
and the other of a language that has no words to distinguish between blue and green.
Three tokens were placed in front of them:
one green, one blue, and one of an intermediate tone.
They made them separate them in two ways:
by language,
that is, the words they had in their language to classify them,
and by what they saw,
without taking the words into account.
With the language filter, you could see how English and non-English speakers
separated the tiles differently
(non-English speakers a bit randomly).
But, without the language filter, EVERYONE separated them the same.
What does this mean?
That the language can influence,
but it does not determine our vision of the world.
Many people defend the Sapir-Whorf theory
because they think that it is the best justification
for defending the protection of languages.
[Dorothea] Why?
Because as each language is a different way of thinking,
we are making humanity less and less rich
in terms of thoughts, interpretations
and visions of the world that surrounds us.
But come on, whether or not we believe in deterministic theories,
we should defend languages ​​not because of the relationship
(or at least not only because of the relationship)
between the individual and society with their world,
but simply because they are languages,
and value them for what they are: unique and unrepeatable structures.
And well, already related to all this there is a super interesting theory:
Mentalese.
This theory explains to us that all human beings,
in our deep thought,
use a kind of innate language.
What we want to think would first be formed in that language
and, when we pass it on to superficial and conscious thought,
it would gradually become the languages ​​we know and use to think.
And you? What do you think?
Ttulo: Una LENGUA, un PENSAMIENTO
Leyenda: La teoría de Sapir-Whorf y el determinismo lingüístico
Regístrate en italki y encuentra tu profesor de idiomas particular: https://go.italki.com/byc-linguriosa 

🥕Mi Newsletter (más contenido gratuito):  https://bit.ly/newsletter-linguriosa

👇👇Si quieres y puedes apoyar este PROYECTO
https://www.patreon.com/linguriosa
https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/linguriosaES

📚BIBLIOGRAFÍA:
- Antonio Blanco Salgueiro *La relatividad lingüística (variaciones filosóficas)* ediciones Akal S.A. 2017, Tres Cantos (Madrid)
- María Xosé Fernández Casas *Edward Sapir en la lingüística actual, líneas de continuidad en la historia de la lingüística histórica* Servizo de publicacións e intercambio científico Campus universitario sur, Santiago de Compostela, 2004
-  Oswald Ducrot *Princípios de semântica lingüística* Hermann, París, 1972
- https://www.invesa.com/lo-que-debes-saber-sobre-la-pintura-blanca/
- https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/psychology/sapir-whorf-hypothesis

🔴LINGUCOMUNIDAD:
https://discord.gg/3kYuqAbzC4

🎁WEB:
https://www.linguriosa.com/

INSTAGRAM:
https://www.instagram.com/_linguriosa_/

FACEBOOK:
https://www.facebook.com/Linguriosa-106220947464950

🎵Música de mis vídeos: https://www.epidemicsound.com/referral/bxtod9/

Dorotea (Patreon):
Manel F. Martinez-Aroca Marin
Curtis Walker
Craig Ludington

Los Señores de la RAE (Patreon):
Mario Pacheco
Franz Pereira
Pierre Laplante
Leo Edermaniger
Begoña
Julia Mc Cray
Javier Álvarez García
Héctor Vilar Górriz 
Jose Hernandez
Ela Valentina
Jonathan Miljus
Victor Sanchez
Kathrin Mendoza
Charles Lee
Steve Groen
Edgar
Oded Lahat Bursztyn
Billy Billy
Leonor Loução
Sam
Capatapa
David Bissinger
Victor Tavares
José Horacio Cabrera
John Adams
Portuguese With Leo
Gianluca Repossi
Kathy Rugg
Pablo Torres
sergio valdez
Davide Gemello
Jean Pierre Lefebvre 
DonL
Bo Hemphill
Doug Lefler
Ruben Ferreyra
Monika B
EK Powell