The Language Blog:

Herein are the results of engaging in a conversation for fifteen minutes without speaking.  This test actually turned out to be pretty easy for me.  Primarily because my partner in this endeavor was my wife.  We have been married for more than twenty years.  She usually knows what I’m thinking before I do.  As for my being quiet for 15 minutes, well I think her thoughts were that we need to do this experiment more often.  My partner’s impression of the test was that little had changed.  She was able to answer questions like, “is this my coffee?” and “how long have we been married?” without missing a beat.  I was able to tell her that the ducks that visit our pool almost every day are here and that one of our pets wanted to come sit with us.  I was surprised how quickly the fifteen minutes passed.

How does a speaking culture that uses symbolic language view a culture that does not?  I think there is little doubt that symbolic language is considered a universal human attribute. Cultures without this basic attribute are considered to be something less. Historically societies with even a slight technological advantage have usually brutalized their fellow cultures.  Language is not just an adjunct to technology; it is itself a technology.

If my wife and I had been from two different cultures meeting for the first time the advantage of complex ideas would have been to her distinct advantage.  She retained the full use of all of her language faculties.  My communications were relegated to simple requests or well-worn, routine tasks.  If the ducks did not visit almost every day, I doubt that it could have communicated it effectively.  None of our non-verbal conversation was of a complex nature.

In our society when people are unable to communicate fluently with spoken language, complex thoughts and ideas are the first to go.  Simple concepts become the primary focus and even they can be a struggle.  This being said, I do know that the difference is not merely language.  There is also a huge cultural component.  When my wife and I went to China in 2007, I remember vividly walking down the street and acknowledging that I couldn’t even read a street sign.  Not a number, not a letter, nothing.  I remember searching for a pharmacy in an attempt to buy a “nasal decongestant spray.” Imagine the hand gestures and pantomime that accompanied that description.  When I later spoke to our guide about my unsuccessful attempt, he told me “we don’t use that type of product here.”  I can only imagine what they thought I wanted.  The cultural norms and experience of a people can cause even non-verbal and paraverbal communication to break down.

There are individuals who live in countries and do not speak that native tongue.  Often when communicating with these people, only the most simple concepts and basic communication are ever attempted.  When strictly simple concepts are associated with an experience it tends to reflect simplicity on its participants.  Within our spoken language we transmit, not just the usual intended message but an implicit understanding of our place within the context of the circumstance.   We are establishing an intellectual presence within each moment with our every word. 

  

In the second part of the experiment I was required to communicate for fifteen minutes without any physical embellishments. This test actually proved harder for us than the first.  Although I was able to speak, we found that we both communicate to a much greater extent using non-verbal and para-verbal elements.  These are the most important parts of our communication.  My test partner actually found this more difficult because she reads my facial expression and tone to interpret what I’m trying to communicate.  Nevertheless, this was also not that difficult.  I found that I was inclined to use more words than usual to try to explain my intent.  If my test partner had not been my wife, and didn’t know me as well as she does, this would have been much more difficult.  This experiment is a clear demonstration of the power of both non-verbal and para-verbal communication.

Are there people who have trouble reading body language?  Yes, most people on the autism spectrum have trouble reading body language.  These people often have difficulty in attributing mental states to others. This is thought to be one of the main reasons of their struggle to know how other people feel.  This has nothing to do with general mental ability.  These people can be academically intelligent, creative, and logical.  They struggle to read someone's body language because completely different brain functions are at work. 

Para-verbal and non-verbal communication is so important that it is hard to imagine a condition that could benefit from their absence.  This strikes me as looking for an advantage to being left in the dark.  It is possible that there could be temporary benefit when body language clues are misinterpreted and throw-off the verbal intent.  Some body language clues could be learned behaviors and so vary from culture to culture.  These could create confusion or a mixed message if misconstrued.  Most body language, however, is innate.  We can see the same postures, gestures and facial expressions across cultures. We see its harbingers in animals.  We can watch a video of a person who is mad or proud or happy or distraught, it doesn’t matter what language they speak or what culture they’re from.  The sound can be muted. We know what’s going on.

Eoanthropus Dawsoni: An account of seek and yea shall find.

Genesis:

Following the publication of Darwin’s’ controversial book in 1859 “On the origin of Species” hominid fossils were taking on a new significance.  In 1912 the search for the, so called, missing link was at the forefront of science. Add to this mixture an atmosphere of intense national pride fueling the concept of social Darwinism, and you have the perfect storm for the perpetration of the Piltdown Man Hoax.

In 1912 and amateur archeologist, Charles Dawson, reportedly found pieces of, what he believed to be, an early human skull in the gravel pits of Piltdown, an area in Sussex, England.  This was welcome news because Neanderthal fossils had been discovered in Germany in 1856, Java Man in 1891 in Indonesia, and Cro-Magnon fossils were found in France in 1868, but the British Isles were left wanting in a “Proper Englishman” as an early progenitor.

Excavous:

The initial discovery, by Charles Dawson, of five pieces of skull found in what was Pleistocene strata was reported to Arthur Smith Woodward, Keeper of Geology from the Natural History Museum. Woodward soon joined Dawson in the hunt and together they unearthed skull fragments, a jawbone and two teeth.  Later, stone tools found in the vicinity appeared to complete the picture. 

 
  

Legiticus:

Woodward made a reconstruction of the skull and the conjecture began.  The large human-like braincase but ape-like jaw, with human-like teeth indicated that this was an early human relative who lived about five hundred thousand years ago. He was dubbed Eoanthropus dawsoni, more commonly known as Piltdown man.  

Tamen Dubito:

In 1912 little was known about human evolution, and to some it seemed reasonable that this could be an ancestor. Even in 1912 however there were dissenters. It was pointed out that the skull was the same size as a modern human and possibly the jaw and skull did not belong together. Access to the fossil evidence, however, was severely restricted.  Many scientists did not believe this was the "Missing Link" it was purported to be. In 1915 Dawson found more skull fragments and a tooth at a site two miles away. This effectively silenced the doubters. When Australopithecus and Peking Man were discovered, Piltdown again came under scrutiny.  Various later finds indicated that early man and his forebears had jaws which were essentially human. Piltdown did not fit anywhere into the human evolution timeline. 

 Judgements:

In the period 1930-1950 Piltdown man was increasingly marginalized. For the most part it was simply ignored. From time to time it was puzzled over and then dismissed again. Over the years it had become an anomaly; some prominent authors did not even bother to list it.  In Bones of Contention Roger Lewin quotes Sherwood Washburn as saying "I remember writing a paper on human evolution in 1944, and I simply left Piltdown out.   You could make sense of human evolution if you didn't try to put Piltdown into it." David Wateston, an anatomist at King's College in London, was one who never accepted that the jaw and skull were from the same animal.   As the discrepancies grew, new dating technology emerged. By the late 1940’s the hoax was about to have run its course. 

Revelation:

In 1949, Kenneth Oakley, from the the Natural History Museum, ran a series of fluorine tests on the Piltdown fossils. These tests makes use of fluorine's capacity to accumulate in calcium-containing organic matter. Oakley discovered the fossils were not nearly old enough to be from a species with such ape-like features. When the tools were tested they were found to be from a source outside the gravel pit.  In July 1953 an international congress of paleontologists, under the auspices of the Wenner-Gren Foundation, was held in London. At this congress Piltdown Man barely got a mention. The fossils just did not fit in.  According to Dr. J.S. Weiner, Piltdown man was a piece of the jigsaw puzzle that was the right color but the wrong shape. It was here that the possibility of forgery occurred to Dr. Weiner. Once the possibility was raised it gained momentum quickly. A dental examination quickly confirmed the fraud. The teeth did not show authentic wear patterns and showed signs of deliberate fabrication.  In 1953, some forty years after its discovery Piltdown Man was officially declared a hoax.

Errorous Humanus:    

One of the interesting aspects of the day was this idea of fossil Nationality.  The location of Man's genesis was a great source of pride. Just prior to his death in 1944 Arthur Smith Woodward finished his book about the Piltdown discovery. He titled it “The First Englishman.”  Why fossils from the Pleistocene would be attributed a national entity when those nations did not even appear for hundreds of thousands of years I’m not sure, but this was a real manifestation. This was not a strictly English phenomenon, lest we forget Nebraska Man or Calaveras Man. To this day the “out of Africa” theory meets some resistance sometimes for the same reason. “Another fault was the failure to examine and re-examine the evidence.  The fact that access to the fossils was greatly restricted should have caused greater skepticism. Closer scrutiny probably would have exposed the hoax sooner. The trust of authority and failure to embrace the possibility of dishonesty was also a factor in this hoax.  Because Woodward was a trusted scientist and all of the “Piltdown Gang” were respectable English Gentlemen the thought of deception was not considered. It should have been. Finally the ubiquitous problem of Human perception. We all see what we want to see, even more so when it's important to us. In the grip of desire it's easy to fool yourself.    

Processae Scientia:

The real beauty of the entire hoax is the final affirmation of the scientific process. The first step of which was the adjunct of Fluorine absorption dating. This method is used to determine the amount of time an object has been underground.  Fluorine absorption dating can be carried out based on the fact that groundwater contains fluoride ions. Items such as bone that are in the soil will absorb fluoride from the groundwater over time. From the amount of absorbed fluoride in the item, the time that the item has been in the soil can be estimated. This was a new process of dating and so a method for science to check-up on itself. New methods are constantly being developed allowing science both new discovery and review of older findings. Secondly, Piltdown had been losing acceptance in the years previous to this testing. The scientific process of peer review was chipping away at it's foundation. Finally, when the teeth were examined, the admission that we had been duped came quickly. This type of admission comes begrudgingly from any quarter, but is a cornerstone of the scientific process. While errors in science, no doubt, share some of the blame for allowing this hoax to get started, and the veil of scientific expertise most certainly assisted in its early acceptance and longevity, it was science that ultimately put it to rest. Scientific dating, scientific examination and scientific skepticism was ultimately the death knell for Piltdown.

Predicamentum Humanus:

Science is a process, a way of knowing. Unfortunately the human being is both an imperfect data collection tool and an imperfect data analysis tool. Any process carried out by human beings is a flawed process. As to whether this can happen again; it already has. It is inevitable. Just look at the “Cold Fusion debacle.” Our desire to reduce human bias in science is logical and commendable, but our ability to remove it completely is ultimately impossible, because science is a human endeavor.   
 

Parables vitae:

The primary take away from this episode in hominid history is to remain skeptical. This is especially true when you seek and subsequently find exactly what you knew was true all along.  Experts can offer informed opinions, but they too are human, with the same human flaws, desires and biases.  The scientific adage is that fantastic claims require fantastic evidence, and that evidence requires verification. The final caution is “the easiest person for you to fool is yourself.”