Game Provides Language Development Insights 18
void*p writes "The Economist is running an article about a computer game developed by Bruno Galantucci, a cognitive scientist at Yale. In the game, two players must find each other in a four-room building by making a single move. The catch is that the players can only communicate using invented symbols. Surprisingly, Galantucci found that teams not only communicated effectively, but also developed startlingly different sets of symbols. Galantucci's 2004 dissertation on the subject (PDF) can be found online."
WOW! (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:WOW! (Score:3, Interesting)
I also got the impression you could probably do morse code with the device though.
Re:WOW! (Score:2, Funny)
What about an experiment with a bushman (or an australian aborigine) and a texan?
Re:WOW! (Score:2)
These experiments do not provide any definitive answers about the development of language, it just proves a means for continuing on with further studies using the methodology developed.
This experiment is about the experiment itself, not about the result.
Stuff (Score:1)
Re:Stuff (Score:2)
One possible exception to this could be the adoption of Morse code. However, this is a rather remote possibility for it is highly improbable that two randomly chosen participants both know enough Morse code to use it in a reliable manner. Moreover, should the unlikely event occur, the pair would be dropped from the study. (Incidentally, this way of proceeding is preferable to explicitly telling players that they should not use the Morse code, for such a pres
Tork (Score:4, Interesting)
TORK [abc.net.au]
You are stranded on a foreign planet, and can only comunicate with the aliens in a sort of sign language. As you progress throught the game you have to become more and more fluent. Try it!
Re:Tork (Score:3, Informative)
Attn, Grammer, Speling Freaks (Score:2)
Hundreds of slashdotters disagree.
Seriously, though, I'm not sure this applies to effective communication beyond what was tested. If you want to communicate effectively about very complex concepts, you need a complex language, and most likely a shared perception of how your language describes t
Re:Attn, Grammer, Speling Freaks (Score:2)
Color blindness (Score:1)
Except for the color, all 4 cards are identical
You'll have a lot of men dropping out of your experiment due to defective color vision genes.
Ok, I did RTFA. (Score:2)
Conclusions from a nerd's point of view:
Cool game with some nice catches. I'd probably love to play it with some other nerd, and we would probably sweep the board.
But there is one problem: moron co-players. If I was pitted with a cretin like player A from game 5, I'd likely tear my hairs or just quit after 5 mins. The game does force thinking and developing cooperative strategy, and if one of players isn't willin
Re:Ok, I did RTFA. (Score:2)
"You cannot use your brain to decide, it's luck..." that's funny.
Rob
Re:Ok, I did RTFA. (Score:2)
Well, "You cannot use your brain to decide, it's luck...", the answer is "No, YOU cannot, I can."
Likely first 2-3 minutes on establishing the dictionary. Forget icons, won't remember them. Use "door locations", L, +, =| |= etc. symbols. Easy to scale.Game 1, answer with target location, self - not moving, or common meeting point, move in there. Prey: Yes, split search, mark location, split in map in 2 unequal ownership shares, call when prey found. Foes: Again
Re:Ok, I did RTFA. (Score:2)
Re:Ok, I did RTFA. (Score:2)
What am I missing here? (Score:4, Interesting)
How can you find someone if you have never been to where they are and they have never been to where you are?
I mean, if you or the other player has been through the whole place, then one of you would have the info needed to describe (sketch) the directions to the other person.
If you only know the room you are in and the other person only knows the room he/she's in, how would either of you know what is in between and if there is anything in between you at all?
RTFA (Score:2)
Rob