Please or to access all these features

Mumsnet classics

Relive the funniest, most unforgettable threads. For a daily dose of Mumsnet’s best bits, sign up for Mumsnet's daily newsletter.

Genuinely interesting stuff you learned at school/university/work

214 replies

MrsHathaway · 25/07/2016 11:26

At a tangent from an otherwise rather tedious thread, some of us started talking about the history of the English language.

I did a paper called something like History and Structure of the English Language at university and honestly it didn't feel at all like work. The complicated bits have faded into the dusty corners of my brain, but some interesting snippets have remained within easy grasp.

For example, you can see a lot of the geopolitical history of the British Isles in what we now call English. Very basic words like low numbers (two, three) and natural features (sun, land, water) have their roots in our very earliest history and have scarcely changed since the Stone Age. They're also very similar to their equivalents in languages local at the time - northern European languages like Swedish, German, etc.

Place names come in odd clumps too - there are areas in eg Yorkshire and the Highlands which have very Norse names, and often there will be a geographical boundary between Norse place names and Anglo Saxon place names, such as a wide river or mountain ridge.

French came next, with the Normans in the eleventh century. A lot of our food words come from that period, including beef, pork, salmon, etc.

As English eyes looked further and further overseas we started adding more exotic ingredients to our kitchens and words to our vocabularies. Tomatoes, chocolate!

ANYWAY

We're often told that we won't use 90% of what we learn at school or even university, although we don't know which 90%. But I think it's almost always worth learning stuff for its own sake, if only because it's mildly interesting for one day or breaks the ice at one party where you happen to meet your soul mate.

So go on, what snippets have you retained from your years of formal education that are genuinely interesting in their own right? Can be a tiny thing or a major complicated theory, but it must be interesting - at least interesting enough for us to say "well, fancy that".

I'll leave you with this: in Japanese there was no word for "thank you". There were lots of ways of expressing gratitude, but no single expression in the European way. Then the Portuguese came, and suddenly the Japanese were trading with them. They used lots of hand gestures and gradually a kind of pidgin developed to allow them to communicate until there were enough on each side speaking the other's language. But one legacy from that time and that pidgin is a single-word "thank you" in Japanese: arigato. Which you'll notice is remarkably similar to the Portuguese obrigado.

OP posts:
GertrudeMoo · 26/07/2016 22:24

But DadDadDad, the prior probabilities in MH don't change. They aren't affected by any new knowledge as far as I can see. It's 1/3 if you stick and 2/3 if you switch. 1/3 comes from your original choice of one of three doors. The point is that Monty opening one of the doors does not change the probability that you chose the door with the car, which is still 1/3, and therefore switching gives you 2/3. Sames for DOND...though they don't always follow the simple format as the banker can mix things up...But in a simple game, if the probability you picked the £250K is 1/20, what changes that probability as boxes are eliminated? I don't see that anything does. There's no new information as to which box contains the 250k.
Sorry if I'm repeating myself. Anyhow, if I ever appear on DOND and am faced with two boxes one of which contains the biggy, I'll be swapping.

SillySausage1 · 26/07/2016 22:18

A few from the psychology world.....

Brain studies using fMRI have revealed a very small part of the brain that responds when the person has used marijuana but doesn't seem to have any other function at other times. It just lies dormant until marijuana is involved....now it doesn't mean it doesn't get used at other times, merely that scientists haven't worked out what else it does. But it does raise the question about what marijuana has/does that affects it like nothing else.

A well know one (but I still like it)....There is a part of the brain (called the Pons) which paralyses us when in REM sleep to stop us acting out our dreams. If you remove it, we become very active when dreaming (they did the experiment on cats).

Our short term memory can hold 7 items at once (e.g 7 numbers if trying to recall them straight after hearing them). Some people can stretch to 8 or 9 items but very very rarely more. It's called Millers magic number. Also our short term memory for this sort of thing lasts around 15 seconds (assuming you are not rehearsing the info in your mind).

A hugely exciting area of neuroscience is called 'mirror neurons'. Basically it was discovered by accident that parts of the brain are activated not only if we do an action, but also if we watch someone else do the action (i.e our brain almost responds the same way as if it is practising the action in the head without us realising). This is likely to be the basis of many forms of learning and communication, including empathy and understanding others.

iklboo · 26/07/2016 20:30

I love the Misis Kwin one. I remember my dad telling me that one. Bet it went down well Grin

DadDadDad · 26/07/2016 20:21

Gertrude - you don't have to convince me about MH, I've done the simulation and modeling myself. But I'm still not convinced that it translates to DOND. MH knows what's behind the door and the fact that he cannot open the prize door does introduce further information that changes the symmetry.

As I understand it, in DOND, nobody knows what's in each box, so the offer to swap does not change the symmetry. Try doing a sim and see how it goes.

Arkengarthdale · 26/07/2016 17:46

This is fascinating!

MrsHathaway · 26/07/2016 17:36

Indeed! Though the latter has a better projected return (same headline prize shared amongst fewer people).

OP posts:
GertrudeMoo · 26/07/2016 17:29

Or lottery numbers 1 2 3 4 5 6 being equally likely to win as 3 12 24 29 37 41.

MrsHathaway · 26/07/2016 17:25

I did a lot of Statistics and know that what feels true and what's statistically true can be very different.

In the MH problem you have the additional emotional layer of choosing. Language like giving up your door, choosing a door ... These things make a difference to our emotional understanding of the situation. Add the absurdity of the goat and the desirability of the car too, not to mention the murmurs of the studio audience and the faux jeopardy of the overpainted host.

Like if I have ten pairs each of red and blue socks and put my hand in drawer at random, I need to pull out 22 socks to be statistically sure of a blue pair ... whereas in real life we say "right, fuck this, I'll wear fucking red then" or pull out six of the DCs' Thomas the Tank Engine socks before even a red one.

If you throw heads ten times in a row then statistically your chances of throwing another ten are still 50/50 but they don't feel like it.

OP posts:
GertrudeMoo · 26/07/2016 17:15

Interestingly I did a talk on MH and half the room (of maths/stats types) didn't believe it was anything other than 50/50. You can do a simple simulation of it though and see how often you win if you stick or switch. It used to be my party trick (sad but true)..

GertrudeMoo · 26/07/2016 17:08

Not true DadDadDad. MH knows, but the contestant doesn't. The contestant doesn't have any new information, because Monty ALWAYS opens a door with a goat. If it was up to the contestant (rather than Monty) to eliminate a second door at random and they chose a goat, and were then offered to stick with their first choice or switch to the remaining door , then the probabilities would remain as 1/3 and 2/3 as the contestant would have no further information about what's in either box. Thos extrapolates to the Deal scenario I mentioned, doesn't it? The probability you picked the top prize initially is always small, meaning the probability of it being in the remaining other box (obviously assuming it hasn't yet been eliminated) is much bigger. It can't be 50:50, unless they are two completely new boxes and you are asked to just pick one.

DadDadDad · 26/07/2016 14:55

I agree with those questioning your explanation, Gertrude.

While the Monty Hall scenario is well known and you are totally right that it is better to switch, that is because MH knows which door has the prize behind so will knowingly reveal a goat. In Deal or No Deal, I believe no-one knows what is in the boxes, so no information is revealed by the offer to switch, and it is 50:50 whether your box or the one you switch to will have the higher prize.

omri · 26/07/2016 14:07

Love this thread. Will have to think about what I can add to but a quick one is based on the Irish language (Gaelic).
So black people in the Irish language are described as "daoine gorma" literal translation is "blue people". The reason being that when ancient celts first met black people (probably on trade missions from North Africa) all those thousands of years ago they assumed their blood must be a dark blue colour to make their skin show a different colour!

MrsHathaway · 26/07/2016 14:01

sluj - I can find the following, which fits with your half-memory.

"Lord" derives from "hlaef-weard" meaning loaf-guard, parallels with bread winner.

"Lady" derives from "hlaef-digge" meaning loaf-kneader.

She makes it, he stands guard. There's a metaphor for life there somewhere.

On a similar vein, "bridegroom": the groom bit comes from early "guma" simply meaning man. All the parties (-maids, -groom) are defined by their relationship to the bride, in her role as sacrificial offering

OP posts:
sluj · 26/07/2016 13:49

Two useless things I remember

  1. Muswell Hill in London was the furthest south the glaciers got, pushing the earth before them and creating a huge hill. I often imagine myself sliding down the front of a glacier when I am there 🤔

2 . Might need some clarification on this one, it's been a while since my English degree. The anglo saxon word for husband was hlafdigge = loaf digger = bread winner=husband. Ar least that what I was told. Had a particularly eccentric tutor at the time though who could have made it all up !

MrsHathaway · 26/07/2016 13:33

Ah well.

Why is it more logical to have a single morphological unit indicating past tense (-ed) than to keep the basic word and alter its vowels a bit (eat/ate)?

Answer: it isn't. We have inherited verb forms from all kinds of linguistic ancestors and the more basic the word meanings, the more likely it is the verb forms are irregular.

Look at "be", for example. Be, am, is, are, been, was, were - what kind of artificial intelligence would group those together? Particularly when you note than "been" can be a past participle for "go".

Chomsky is a very outdated model for child language acquisition. Linguists later observed that children don't make mistakes at random: they all make the same mistakes over and over again regardless of input source.

The more interesting model, of which I have embarrassingly forgotten the name, suggests that there are a very few possible settings for language and when a baby listens to speech it is trying to set its switches - prepositional or postpositional? Consonant clusters permitted or not? Tonal or not? This theory makes far more sense than the idea that each child is having to build an entire set of grammatical rules from scratch. And we note that some of these settings are very broad: so languages which do abc will also always do xyz, whereas cba languages will always do zyx; I have not retained the precise examples because they were complicated and technical and required intense revision!

At the moment my toddler appears to have some of his switches set wrong. He doesn't pronounce unstressed syllables or syllable-final consonants. He's got some of his switches on Japanese mode so we're toddling off to SLT to try to flick them back over.

OP posts:
sparechange · 26/07/2016 12:26

Handbag, I loved Chomsky and LAD theory during A Level English Language
My uni had a big speech therapy and linguistics department and I used to sit in on loads of the lectures. Probably explains why I did so badly at my degree, but still remember loads about linguistics!

One thing that really sticks is that when someone uses your name a lot in a conversation, they are trying to assert control over you and the conversation.
I always notice it in business conversations, and arguments with DH
It is a really useful negotiating tool as well...
If you say 'David, my offer is XX' and then reply back 'Thanks Jane, I'll think about it', there is more of a power struggle going on
If they reply 'thanks, I'll think about it', they are backing down to you.

Very few people will realise they are doing it though

LaContessaDiPlump · 26/07/2016 12:19

I loved reading about how we have an area of the brain that naturally imposes grammar rules, which ties in nicely with the Nicaraguan sign language story above. My boys display it all the time by saying 'I eated something' despite having never heard me or DH use such a construction; their little brains are imposing (clearly far more logical!) grammar rules than the ones currently in play. In fact it makes you wonder why we persist in imposing nonsensical irregular structures for generation after generation..... they clearly want to make it logical so why not let them?

MrsHathaway · 26/07/2016 11:59

It's very difficult to say when we lose the ability to learn a language natively, but it does seem to correlate with the onset of puberty.

There are a very few "studies" where children were not exposed to language until after the posited limit, but they are extremely problematic because they tended to have been abused or neglected (see eg Genie) so it's basically impossible to say whether the delay or the abuse prevented the language acquisition.

However, it's definitely fair to say that language acquisition is far easier for younger children than adolescents and adults, which is why modern languages are far more usefully taught in primary school than secondary IMHO.

OP posts:
HandbagCrab · 26/07/2016 11:25

I found language acquisition and language change really interesting at A level and did a partially linguistics degree.

It's fascinating watching children learn how to speak. Apparently there's a part of your brain geared to learning language that becomes less powerful around aged 8.

MrsHathaway · 26/07/2016 11:11

Ooh now yes I remember something another student told me she'd learned about how our hearing bones are descended from earlier jaw bones so we have a relatively inflexible jaw but good hearing. And when we have ear ache we can't tell if it's jaw ache!

OP posts:
Abrahamkin · 26/07/2016 10:58

I changed my username as I KNOW my sister will spot this immediately (hi sis!)

So, the most truly fascinating project I did at university that really got me to love what I was doing was a project on insect mouthparts! I was fascinated with how the different ways evolved to give what we have now. I am sure not fascinating for pretty much anyone else, but it probably was the first project that showed me that I can do research. It also made me miss my bus once as I was trying to catch a particular insect to study for this project grin

heron98 · 26/07/2016 10:46

I did linguistics at A Level - my all time favourite subject. Should have done it at Uni instead of French.

MrsHathaway · 26/07/2016 10:44

Here's an interesting thing I learned at university:

Singers produce their vowel sounds differently depending on how high or low a note they're singing. That is, the pitch of the note fixes how fast air is moving from the lungs through the vocal cords* and the singer then has to alter the shape of the her mouth (jaw, throat, tongue, lips) to make the right vowel sound result.

So if you sing eeee on a low note you probably have a Joker smile and the back of your tongue lifted high towards your soft palate, but as you raise the pitch of the note your lips have to slacken off and tongue dips slightly, otherwise the vowel sounds kind of tinny and nasal.

And what caught my attention is that this varies by the natural range of the singer, more than the note itself, so that in a full choir singing in unison, the face shapes of the basses will be different from the tenors and the altos and the sopranos.

  • cords because they are stringy. Vocal chords are when people sing several different notes at the same time, usually one each. Wink
OP posts:
MissHooliesCardigan · 26/07/2016 08:49

Gertrude I read that car/goat thing in 'The Curious Incident'. It's fascinating.

maamalady · 26/07/2016 08:23

Wow, what a great thread! I was just thinking about arigato/obrigato the other day and wondering if there was a connection, so interesting to realise that yes, there is!

The Monty Hall Problem bends my brain. I really struggle to accept it.

My contribution, from a developmental genetics module during my degree: if you remove the gene controlling eye development in a mouse embryo, and replace it with a gene controlling eye development from a Drosophila fruit fly, the mouse will develop a perfect mouse eye exactly like a normal mouse. Embryological development in animals is very, very old, and happens in the same way in pretty much everything. Mammals and insects are so different and yet we share this way of developing right down to the genetic level.

Another cool fact: when caterpillars are cocooned, they don't just grow wings to become adult butterflies. Their bodies liquefy first and then reform into adult butterflies.