Slashdot Mirror
Words Affect Our Reality - On The Right
The Whorf hypothesis claims that one's native language influences perception and thought. Researchers at UC-Berkeley and U-Chicago reasoned that, since language is predominantly processed in the left hemisphere of the brain, any effect on perception should have an effect predominantly on the right visual field, which is also processed on the left. After comparing reaction times for hues of blue-green -- colors with distinct names in one language but not another -- they concluded, in a just-published paper, that the Whorf hypothesis holds for the right visual field, but not the left.
And all this time I thought the Worf hypothesis was just "Today is a good day to die.".
Apparently the left visual field is "without honor".
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
What if one is Bi-Lingual natively?
...on the right
Based on last nights SOTU speech, let's hope there's an exception to that rule.
I'm convinced that the Eskimos settled in the Arctic, because they had so many different words for "snow".
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
It's actually called the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis, because it was primarily Edward Sapir's work.
StoneCypher is Full of BS
...may the barrage of bad Star Trek jokes be peppered with the occasional enlightening, thoughtful tidbit...
Sorry, but a Klingon warrior knows as much about language as a pointy-eared Vulcan does about child care.
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
Learning even some snippets of another language while trying to communicate with someone else (especially in a harmless context such as a game) would make us all smarter. Howzat?
it's a blue bright blue Saturday hey hey
I remember a similar study where a culture with only four words for colors could still distinguish different 'English' colors. It doesn't seem too surprising that it may take them a little longer.
What if that mime really is trapped in a box?
If language does have such a profound effect on our thought processes, does this mean the Time Cube guy is right, and "Teachers are hired evil word pedants who enslave childish minds to a lifetime stupidity."?
:-(
Are we really "educated as a stupid android slave to the evil Word Animal Singularity Brotherhood"?
I'm scared.
Is this why "right-wingers" are so adamant? Their brains are affected by their propaganda?
if I pass the dutchie on the left-hand side? What then?
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
Some people know only one language, yet they can't even speak that one properly.
This is a really outstanding result and leads to some interesting new territory. It would seem that there may well be two (or more?) discrete cognitive processes mediating reality for mind. Another blow to the idea of a comprehensive, unitary consciousness and the corresponding myth of a radical alterity labelled unconscious.
illegitimii non ingravare
I wonder if this is like native asians and the letters 'r' and 'l'-- if you don't learn the difference when you are young then your brain will have problems thinking that way.
If so, it would mean that it's not the language that causes you to think differently, but a seperate skill that you also use to speak the language. In this case of the Tarahumara speakers, it's distinquishing green and blue. They never needed to do so, so now they have problems when tested for it.
I wonder why the offer the sample image as a 2MB JPG file instead of a 10KB PNG (or a 2KB SVG!).
Patrick Doyle
I mod down every jackass who puts his moderation policy in his sig. Oh, wait a sec....
Everybody knows that the Right only see things in black and white!
(Funny, or Troll? What's it going to be? YOU DECIDE!)
Thanks, I'll remember to teach my kid real English and keep him away from perception-messing American.
Formally stated, it's, "Yes, you CAN be half-Klingon and still have an embarassingly sensitive demeanor."
The researchers found that participants responded more quickly when the color of the odd-man-out had a different name than the color of the other squares -- as if the linguistic difference had heightened the perceptual difference -- but this only occurred if the odd-man-out was in the right half of the visual field, and not when it was in the left half. This was the predicted pattern.
The conclusions seem sound. The experiment even proved its aim that only the left half of the brain shows a difference. As the article mentions, the linguistic distinction seems to heighten the left hemisphere's ability to distinguish the actual color distinction. But does this show a fundamental difference in thought processes, or simply a type of learned response.
For example, imagine an experiment whereby you walk down the street wearing a T-shirt with a CCCP logo on it. Most people born after say, 1980 might not even bat an eyelid. Someone who grew up amid the 50's red scare, practicing taking shelter under their school desk, might suddenly find their eye transfixed on the logo, their heart rate increasing, and a sudden urge to duck beneath the nearest school desk.
So does something similar occur when you've been taught your whole life that blue and green are different colors, verses say, being told that green was just a kind of yellowy blue?
May the Maths Be with you!
I believe this is somewhat of a simplification. It may be applicable in terms of auditory perception and processing, but as everyone knows, language is much more than the sum of individual words.
Neurolinguistic events are examples of associative cascade events. This is illustrated by the classic example: "Don't think of an elephant." Immediately after reading and comprehending the linguistic elements of the sentence, each and every reader of this post made the applicable associative connections resulting in the contemplation (even if minor and short-lived) of one of our long-nosed pachyderm friends. Even if it was understood that the instruction was not to make the association, by the time this level of awareness was achieved, the cascade was already in progress and unstoppable.
The context of such associative cascades (especially more sophisticated varieties) is largely cultural; however the portions of the brain most likely to respond is based on each association in the chain and its relative contextual weight, rather than the phonetics of the original sound itself.
Lyrical forms of linguistics, such as poetry and song, are particularly powerful because they offer a way to rapidly trigger abstract associations not related to logic, speech or visual images.
There's no way that Sapir Whorf can be true. If it were, that means that, just off the top of my head, we couldn't lie, entertain theoretical possibilities, hear two sides of the same event, understand that we were misinformed earlier but have correct information now, tell a fictional story, etc.
Stephen Pinker does a good job of debunking Sapir Whorf in _The Language Instinct_. The classic examples of the number of Eskimo words for snow is actually not true -- Inuit language has a lot of suffixes, but there are only a few different root words for snow. English has about as many root words for snow.
The other example was factory workers or something who mistakenly disposed of cigarette butts in 'empty' barrels that were actually full of flammable fumes. Well, the workers weren't fooled by language; there were fooled by invisible fumes. An empty barrel looks exactly like one full of fumes.
Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
-- Pablo Picasso
I don't find it surprising that our language constructs limit or expand our perceptions of reality. What worries me though is how little language an average American knows. Having worked many jobs over the years, I have been repeatedly struck by how limited in linguistical skills and vocabulary most people are. The average English speaking American seems to use the same words over and over to mean different things.
I wonder how many discoveries we have missed because our language constrains us away from thinking about certain things. If we had more words and thus more distinctions for fundamental ideas and objects, we would very likely have greater understanding and regard for those things. I am reminded of how the Greek language differentiated between several types of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_words_for_love love and whereas the English language does not. Because of the linguistic distinctions, the Greeks appeared to have a greater understanding of the concept of love than we do in America. Mix this limitation of the English language with the generally minuscule vocabulary of individuals and it isn't surprising that we Americans are so simple minded.
So the native english speakers were more able to distinguish the colours blue and green than the native mexican speakers..Is this a product of the language itself, or just the upbringing? A culture who's language doesn't differ between blue and green is not going to emphasise the distinction to it's children. Language does affect our visual outlook..but maybe not directly.
\(^o^)/
"It is easy problem to learn the things we do not know. The harder problem is trying know things that we do not know that we do not know."
Personally, I wonder if I am limited by the English language to thoughts I wish to express. Maybe my mind is a computer, the neurons the cpu, my memories is the hard drive storage, but my language is the OS.
However, what if I have Qbasic for DOS for my speaking language? No matter how powerful my brain is, I can't use this to create say "Doom 4" though expression for the mind. I'd need a specialized C++ compiler that optimized neurons in such a pattern to acheive this.
What if that language doesn't exist yet? Is it possible that my brain could have thoughts and emotions, but can't because I can't use language to express them.
On the bright side, English is a quickly mutating bastard language which seems fairly evolvable but sometimes I wonder if I should learn Japanese, Russian, or German and then end up with a new outlook on life.
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
or did they prove that the constant exposure to paint samples has sharpended our ability to distinguish color? I blame marketing.
The thoughts you can think consciously are framed in the language you speak*. Someone who creates a thought that isn't encompassed by the language will have a hard time expressing it. Once the vocabulary develops, everyone can express it.
It has been postulated that the computer language one uses most naturally will be the one that comes closest to one's native language. IIRC, Germans are supposed to like 'C' better than English speakers.
*That's why some groups try to change the language. The idea is that if you change the language then you change people's thinking. For instance, if you don't like homosexuals, they would like to label you as a homophobe. The idea is to make it sound like you have an abnormal psychological condition. By the same token, we have replaced 'mailmen' with 'postal carriers', etc. At some point it doesn't work. For instance, the word 'indian' has developed a racist connotation in some circles. The 'indians' would now have you call them 'first nations.' The problem is that the new term quickly acquires all the old baggage and we're no further ahead.
I did RTFA, but it wasn't clear to me how exactly the color tests were being used to judge perception. What interests me is that other studies have shown that those populations who historically have lived nearer the equator have eyes that filter greens and blues differently than do other ethnic populations who lived further north or south (the pigments in the eyes are different, causing those in climes with less sunlight to usually have lighter colored eyes). I would be interested in seeing this experiment done again, but based on evaluations of something like blue and green that might actually be seen differently by different ethnic populations.
Why settle for mundane utility languages? Learn Navajo or Swahili or Inuit, then design a programming language based on the linguistic concepts and world view you've now acquired. A Navajo-based computing language would be interesting, it would perhaps specialize in calculating only that which is actually worth calculating. Of course such a language would completely eliminiate Slashdot from existence.
This is illustrated by the classic example: "Don't think of an elephant." Immediately after reading and comprehending the linguistic elements of the sentence, each and every reader of this post made the applicable associative connections resulting in the contemplation (even if minor and short-lived) of one of our long-nosed pachyderm friends.
GOZER
SUBCREATURES! GOZER THE GOZERIAN, GOZER
THE DESTRUCTOR, VOLGUUS ZILDROHAR, THE
TRAVELLER HAS COME! DON'T THINK OF THE ELEPHANT!
VENKMAN
(shouting to be heard)
Is he talking to us?
WINSTON
What's he talking about? "Don't think of the elephant!"?
STANTZ
(to the heavens)
What do you mean "Don't think of the elephant"? We don't
understand.
GOZER
Don't think of the elephant!!
SPENGLER
I think he's saying that since we're about
to be sacrificed anyway, we get to choose
the form we want him to take.
STANTZ
You mean if I stand here and concentrate on
the image an elephant, Gozer will
appear as an elephant and wipe us out?
SPENGLER
That appears to be the case.
VENKMAN
(quickly)
Don't think of the elephant. Clear your
minds. We only get one crack at this.
GOZER
The choice is made. The Elephant has come.
VENKMAN
(in a panic)
We didn't choose anything!
(to the others)
I didn't think of an elephant, did you?
SPENGLER
No.
They look at Winston.
WINSTON
My mind's a total void!
They all look at Stantz.
STANTZ
(guilty)
I couldn't help it! The elephant just popped in there!
Maybe the language developed without a separate word for green and blue because the speakers of that language had trouble differentiating between the two. Why are the researchers assuming that it's the other way around?
Le français vous intéresse?
This reminds me of a page I started at Ward's Wiki:
r amming
Computer ProgrammingLanguages are only a subset of the different languages found on Earth. All languages from the most simplistic odors and back-archings to the most complicated multi-lingual pattern labyrinths are used to convey information and direct the actions of others. In order to be effective at communicating and directing actions in a complex world, many different languages must be employed. As soon as one's baby brain realizes how to use sounds and body language to get someone to do something, one becomes a programmer. While a child is a considerable novice to programming, an effective politician or entertainer is a master programmer. It's as simple as getting food and as complex as controlling the populations of several countries.
http://www.c2.com/cgi/wiki/wiki?AllLanguageIsProg
I find this interesting, because at the age of four, I was legally blind in my right eye. There was no damage, the eye was just dramaticly lazy, and incredibly far sighted. The correction was so strong that without my glasses I could barely see a foot square letter 10 feet away. My left eye, at the time was perfectly normal.
:)
Years of patching have brought my right eye very close to normal. With time my left has drifted into near sightedness, leaving me nearsighted in my left eye and farsighted in my right.
However even now my vision is almost exclusively left eyed. My perceived field of vision is biased towards my left, making me turn my head slightly to my right to "face" someone. The information from my right eye is there, it just feels a lot like peripheral vision. I read exclusively with my left eye. My brain actually has data from both eyes, but has difficulty co-ordinating them. Sometimes it uses the double vision to judge distance, but other times, my brain seems pretty good at shutting down the right-eye image when I'm reading. This is all done subconciously, I don't realize I'm doing it a lot of the time.
I'm still trying to figure out exactly what this would mean related to this article. That I'm unbiased by language? That I'm a wishy washy pinko liberal? I'd like to think that this means my perception of the world is unbiased. More than likely all of these explanations are absolute junk.
(See, I can't make up my mind.
Side note: Of course with eye problems like this we've watched very carefully for eye problems in our own children. Our oldest's eyes are fine, but my youngest daughter is very farsighted (5.5/6 diopters). People, Watch for and catch eye problems with your own kids BEFORE they turn four. Early corrective measures (potentially surgery, don't be afraid of it) can have a dramtic effect on proper vision into adulthood.
I think they should test colour blind people that are native american. They would see shades of gray. Also they could test how fast colour blind cand identify shades of gray when compared to normal people. Maybe they are faster even if the colour names are the same.
Could be some interesting experiments.
I guess maybe they could realize people don't even think about the color name when identifying it in the brain.
A lot of sci-fi books took already the idea of that the language in which we think changes us. If well is not exactly about a born language, reading Babel 17 of Samuel R. Delany is always an enjoyable experience.
Wait, wait, wait...
There's no way that Sapir Whorf can be true. If it were, that means that, just off the top of my head, we couldn't lie, entertain theoretical possibilities, hear two sides of the same event, understand that we were misinformed earlier but have correct information now, tell a fictional story, etc.
Why?
IANANL, but as I understand the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, on a basic level, it essentially stipulated that thought and language were interdependant. That language helps shape how we think, and that thought (and thus perception) is often a linguistic process, rather than language being the mere expression of abstract, non-linguistic thought. Furthermore, that culture helps shape language, which is, in turn, affected by how we think and perceive our environment.
It seems reasonable, to me, and my experience bears out the fact that often at least a pseudolinguistic process. To me, the fact that meanings of words are extrinsic to the words, and that they're intrinsic to the people using the words lends some creedence to this. I am also not a Doctor of Semiotics, so my opinion may not be worth much.
However, I don't see how the interdependance of languange and thought are exclusive to the possibility of fiction or theory. If you're referring to something like the 'prisonhouse' interpretation of the principle of linguistic relativity, where thought and perception is entirely defined by language, my experience/information indicates you're misinterpreting Sapir and Whorf's works.
As a by the by, I do know a bit about Inuit postbases and such, and am aware of the faults in the 'classic example,' but don't those refer more to strong linguistic determinism, rather than the Saphir-Whorf hypothesis (which is related, but as far as I can tell, not congruent).
Coming from Washington State, I *know* we have a ton more words for rain than many places elsewhere in the United States. ;-)
Using different languages can make an *enormous* difference in how easy it is for one to distinguish between, for example, blue and green !
Just look at the following Fine Example :
HTML : #0000FF - - - #00FF00
Perl : \0032 - - - \0033
BASIC : Navy - - - Chartreuse
Clearly, hexidecimal notation of HTML is far superior in clarity to all other languages !
...and I'm not a flaming liberal, or even close.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
I forgot that the Japanese word for brown is "chairo" or "the color of tea."
Red is an obvious first word thanks to how much it jumps out at us and because of the natural significance of seeing the color of blood. Green and yellow seem natural to distinguish plants. Blue seems to me to be a natural next thing given its presence in the sky, sky reflecting water, eye colors, and veins. I'm a little surprised that brown comes before the various "flower colors" or orange, pink, and purple, but it is far more common than all three of those. Grey seems a natural last since all grey things are either lighter than usual (hair, fur, etc.) or darker than usual (clouds, etc.).
It seems to me to be a natural order, but maybe that because of my own language biases.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
Except that, outside of locating the blocks in areas of very low friction, the 50 lb block won't move. It's like the old joke about the mathematician located on a desert island with canned food and no way to open them, "Ok, now assume we have a can-opener..."
On the other hand "everyone knows" (except people who watch Mythbusters) that if you shoot a 150-lb person with a 10-gram bullet, that the velocity of the bullet will cause the person to fly back several feet.
This sig has absolutely no significance and serves only to take up screen space and waste the time of the reader.
The whole idea of left/right brain split has become far less popular among actual brain researchers. Granted, certain brain structures occupy different areas of the entire brain, but it's not a split processor as was promoted in the 1980s (Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain, for example.)
Beyond that, it sure is refreshing to know that money was spent to "discover" through "research" that people whose language doesn't have words for something find it harder to describe the something than those people whose language does have such words.
Brilliant! Amazing!
You sir, just shot yourself in the foot. I can understand "Schadenfreude" iff I already have an understanding of the components of set A (A={the, malicious, satisfaction, obtained, from, the, misfortune, of, others}). Since english allows the members of set A to be expressed, english also allows "Schadenfreude" to be understood.
Now, I could be incorrect here, but I'm pretty sure the idea here is that if Sapir-Whorf were the case, and if you were missing an understanding of any members of A, you would not understand "Schadenfreude" without another explanation.
GENERATION 26: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
Too bad the article is on one of those annoying pay-per-view publishing sites.
In the US, politicians on the right have been using words to warp the views of the people. Coincidence? I think not.
Attention: After writing this I realize that this may well be the nerdiest post ever, but on the other hand I feel that it'd be a shame to let it go to waste...
Whorf actually said that the structure of ones native language would strongly affect or fully determine the world-view an individual gains when acquiring language. This is what is widely regarded as linguistic determinism in linguistics today.
Whorf also put forward a less extreme claim, namely that difference in the structure of two languages would generally go hand in hand with differences in non-linguistic cognitive processes in the native speakers of the two languages. This is what is generally regarded as linguistic relativity.
It's important to note the emphasis on "structure", since the Whorfian hypothesis would otherwise mean that because the Hopi have one word covering "pilot", "dragonfly" and "aeroplane" they can't distinguish between the three. (Obviously ridiculous.)
Ironically enough, Paul Kay (who co-authored the article in PNAS) was 50% of the infamous universalist duo that wrote Basic Color Terms (1969) --- the other 50% was Brent Berlin --- in which they argued for a universal categorization in the color domain, but lately he's been moving more and more towards a relativist stand-point.
Kay (along with Willett Kempton) was involved in a similar experiment (the one briefly mentioned on the U-Chicago website) in 1984, where they conducted it as a triad experiment. Three color chips were presented to the subject and s/he had to pick the "odd one out". They used Tarahumara (Uto-Aztecan) speakers and English speakers as subjects. Tarahumara does not make the same distinction between "green" and "blue" as English does, but use one word covering the whole spectrum instead. The colors presented to the subject would be close to where the distinction between "blue" and "green" is made in English, but the two colors closest to each other was not always on each side of the "border". (A is called "green", B is called "green" and C is called "blue", but A and C might be closer in terms of wave-length.)
The results came out that the English speaker used a naming strategy when picking the odd one out, whereas the Tarahumara speakers did not, they picked it in terms of wavelength (as expected). That was definitely strong evidence for linguistic relativity. I hope this new experiment is as well-conducted and thought out.
The text on the U-Chicago website states that "Language appears to sharpen visual distinctions in the right visual field, and not in the left visual field", however, I would think that "sharpen" is a bad choice of words and I hope that's not what is meant. Language cannot "sharpen" the distinctions between colors, it can only set up some sort of categorization (as Kay & Kempton described in 1984) and perhaps deceive our brain in various ways. The distinction must still be based primarilly in physiological conditions (color receptors in the eye etc...).
If you're interested in this subject, I suggest you check out the following:
Berlin, B. & Kay, P., 1969. Basic Color Terms: Their Universality and Evolution.
Davidoff, J., 1997. The Neuropsychology of Color. In Hardin, C. & Maffi, L. (eds.), Color Categories in Thought and Language.
Davidoff, J., 2001. Language and perceptual categories. Trends in Cognitive Science 5:382-87.
Davidoff, J., 2004. Coloured Thinking. Psychologist 17:570-72.
Kay, P. & Kempton, W., 1984. What is the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis? American Anthropologist 86:65-79.
Kay, P. & McDaniel, C., 1978. The linguistic signicance of the meanings of basic color terms. Language 54:610-46.
MacLaury, R., 1992. From Brightness to Hue: An Explanatory Model of Color-category Evolution. Current Anthropology 33:137-86.
Newcomer, P. & Faris, J., 1971. Basic Color Terms. International Journal of American Linguistics 37:270-75.
And of course...
Whorf, B., 1971. Language, Thought and Reality: Selected Writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf.
Ok, go ahead, mod me -1bn, karma whore. :-p
"Live free or don't."
Language is the fundamental structure of consciousness. Not just ordinary language but all languages. The appearance of an "I" predicates the "other" and therefore a relationship between the two. Every animal that is self-aware in some form has a mode of communication. Some of it is simple like a bee dance others are complex like a human language.
The informational reality that results in language is equivalent to the physical reality that results in consciousness. So language is the structure of our thought. Yet many of our thoughts are wordless. However they must entail some form of language or else translating wordless thought into words would be impossible. The structure of thought must be the same as the structure of language.
So if this is true that language is the structure of thought and fundamental to consciousness it is no surprise it would influence us in deep ways. In a sense language is the consciousness API.
The limits of my language mean the limits of my world - Ludwig Wittgenstein
The best education consists in immunizing people against systematic attempts at education. - Paul Feyerabend
I thought the Whorf Hypothesis referred to some temperature constant for revenge?
The "midori" kanji also has Chinese-derived "roku" and "ryoku" readings which are used in some compounds, so that "light green" can be read as "asamidori" (kun) or "senryoku" (on)!
We effect the very reality around us just by being. That act of observeing a particle can change its motion.
there was this one evil experiment ...
in the medival times where they locked up a
child in a cellar and orders were given to not
talk in the presence of the child or speak to
it. it died.
another child was taken care of by wolves.
it never learned to speak after it was found
but would make howling noises and walk on all
four
In an attempt to summarize what I have just said in my last two comments, I return to the original proposition of the discussion, which is "Words affect our reality". In the process of presenting my thoughts on the subject, I have come to the conclusion that in my opinion, words have little impact on our reality. I have mentioned that I have been living in a foreign culture and speaking a foreign language for the past five years. Then, what have I personally learned by achieving fluency in a second language? I have learned that words are but analogies and symbols for something else, something closer to the truth. I have noted with great academic interest that a different language can use a completely different analogy to imply the same thing, but I think in practical terms learning a second language in itself has had little impact on my perception of the world. What has had a profound impact on my perception of the world is living in another culture, with a very different perspective on things than my original culture has. I will never be the same after this experience. Language is only the tool that provided me access to that other culture and different point of view.
I's sounds like "phonetic phrenology" to me, but what do I know, the only science that I do is "live".
It is interesting to note that in my limited experience it seems that the more nuclear bombs a culture has, the more words for colors they invent or co-opt...
I grew up in L.A., and (no joke!) I have 18 words for smog.
... and I'm sure most of them can't be used in polite company, eh?
This sig has absolutely no significance and serves only to take up screen space and waste the time of the reader.
that should be left visual field not left eye. See here for why this is so. The short version is that a single eye is connected to both hemispheres of the brain. But anything viewed to the left of center of vision will be sent only to the right hemisphere and anything viewed to the right of center will be sent to the left hemisphere.
You know, that's one of those things that always confused me. In the older psychology books, they state that it's per eye and have tests to prove it. Now, they state visual fields and have tests to prove it. Were the earlier tests incorrectly done? Or has the field of psychology affected how it all works? I could see early research subjects "knowing" how the model worked so that they blocked out out the right visual field of their left eye when the right eye was covered. *shrug* It just always struck me as kind of funny.
This sig has absolutely no significance and serves only to take up screen space and waste the time of the reader.
It may sound Freudian, but this time the mechanism for "repressing memories" is backed up by evidence.
On the other hand, there's firm evidence that it's possible to induce false memories in the process or recovering "repressed memories." I wonder if perhaps the people able to "repress memories" aren't actually just inducing false memories which are more bland to replace it. You know, kind of like the opposite of where your childhood spelling bee memories go from spelling nickel correctly to a titantic clash of the champions from which to emerged victorious.
This sig has absolutely no significance and serves only to take up screen space and waste the time of the reader.