Okay, I set aside some time to track down each card and try to pin it to the exact source from which it derives.
Just so all the cards are on the table (we’ll get the long part of out of the way first, and/or feel free to just skip to the bottom as this is really just a rehashing of what we’ve talked about before, but I wanted to put it here for organization’s sake):
Card 1 (nid:1555292668684):
- Text: The {{c1::Whorfian hypothesis or Sapir-Whorf hypothesis}}, also known as {{c1::linguistic relativity}} states that {{c2::the lens by which we view and interpret the world}} is influenced by {{c2::language}}.
- Source: Kaplan (page 185) and UWorld (page 131).
Card 2 (nid:1560894490572):
- Text: {{c1::Strong linguistic determinism}} states that {{c2::language}} determines {{c2::thought completely}}.
- Source: KA video (4:15).
Card 3 (nid:1590818992078):
- Text: Strong Linguistic Determinism is also known as the {{c1::Sapir-Whorfian}} hypothesis
- Source: KA video (4:19).
Card 4 (nid:1590818815577):
- Text: {{c1::Weak linguistic determinism}} AKA {{c1::relativism}} states that language influences {{c2::thoughts}} and we think in ways based on {{c2::how our language is structured}}
- Source: KA video (3:24).
Card 5 (nid:1560894338773):
- Text: {{c1::Linguistic determinism}} is the idea that {{c2::language and its structures limit and determine human knowledge or thought}}.
- Source: sort of UWorld (page 131), KA Video (2:58)
I definitely see where you’re coming from, and think there is room for a bit more cohesion in how these cards pair, and complement, each other.
The (hopefully obvious) constraints by which we want to abide are that we want to avoid, or minimize, contradictions and resulting confusion as much as possible, and we want to hew to MCAT-specific resources as much as feasible and tenable.
Any proposed edits need to keep in mind that these are live documents, and thus need to be minimized in the degree to which outright changes are going to be disruptive to the existing user base (many of whom may be actively reviewing these very cards).
Edits should preferably be clarifying, and demonstrative improvements, without throwing the baby out with the bathwater. In a pinch, if we need to we can add a new card or two if we deem that the best possible approach that maximizes benefits while still minimizing detriments.
Happy to brainstorm further, but let me know your thoughts. I have a few other things to get to today but I’ll make time to circle back to this most likely later today and, worst-case, tomorrow. 