Language Is a Tool for Communication, Not for Thought, MIT Researchers Argue

I think transforming "it's possible to think without language" into "language is not a tool for thought" is an overreach. Definitely a lot of our internal voice is post-thought, but crystalizing those thoughts into words can provide footholds for further thought. Some would argue it's not possible to think through a complex issue without writing:

• https://paulgraham.com/words.html
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtIzMaLkCaM&t=312s

But in many cases, language may also serve as a framework construct around which thoughts are rendered.

And it’s not unreasonable to expect that well-spoken, articulate individuals are also clear thinkers.

Yeah no. Aren't there some workshops for CEO's and managers & co. who try to learn the creative thinking of neurodiverses? Because we usually think without words, we "translate" afterwards.
Thinking is actually more efficient without language. I don't know of any neurotypicals who think about deep physics for fun.

This is interesting work, but I don't think it justifies the plain-English summary. If you're going to claim that language is not a tool for thought, I would expect you to demonstrate that a difference in language does not lead to a difference in thought. To answer that, you shouldn't just look at whether language-focused brain regions are activated during non-language-based activity, but also whether a lifetime of using Language A leads to differences outside of those regions compared to a lifetime of using Language B. Isn't that the crux of linguistic relativity? That different languages encourage and train different modes of thought?

Any chess player will tell you that they apply their "chess brain" to all sorts of things outside of chess. It's not that we literally view life as a chessboard, but rather that a lifetime of playing chess has honed a set of mental skills that are broadly applicable. The fundamental logic applies everywhere.

In particular, some deaf children who are born to hearing parents grow up with little or no exposure to language, sometimes for years, because they cannot hear speech and their parents or caregivers do not know sign language. Lack of access to language has harmful consequences for many aspects of cognition, which is to be expected given that language provides a critical source of information for learning about the world. Nevertheless, individuals who experience language deprivation unquestionably exhibit a capacity for complex cognitive function: they can still learn to do mathematics, to engage in relational reasoning, to build causal chains, and to acquire rich and sophisticated knowledge of the world

It seems like they are using a narrower definition of "language" than is appropriate. e.g. I don't think it's controversial to include body language under the umbrella of "language", so I am very skeptical of the claim that any of those deaf children had "no exposure to language".

That's pretty easy to hypothesize. People generally don't think in complete sentences, for example. Children raised without language, while often developmentally delayed, learn and exhibit plenty of thought process faster than they do language.

How does that work for aphantasia?

This is pretty interesting. I mean I've seen dogs dream vividly and am not quite sure how much I believe all them Babe the Pig-alike movies. :)

But I think the definition of a thought is a problem here. Everything we say (or contemplate of saying or trying to remember) is also a thought which precedes our verbal output. Those thoughts will inevitably be in a language of our preference. And actually in process of learning a new language that is often times the pivotal point - once your thoughts switch to a new language, you know you adapted it.

I would argue he shouldn’t argue it since language isn’t a tool for thought. Maybe try hooting I hear owls are smart.