This site is not affiliated with Electronic Arts Inc., or its licensors. Trademarks are the property of their respective owners.
Pogo game content and materials copyright Electronic Arts Inc. and its licensors. All Rights Reserved.
BadgeHungry is an affiliate of Big Fish Games .
BadgeHungry is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program
designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to .
Graham considers a hypothetical Blub programmer. When the programmer looks down the “power continuum”, he considers the lower languages to be less powerful because they miss some feature that a Blub programmer is used to. But when he looks up, he fails to realise that he is looking up: he merely sees “weird languages” with unnecessary features and assumes they are equivalent in power, but with “other hairy stuff thrown in as well”. When Graham considers the point of view of a programmer using a language higher than Blub, he describes that programmer as looking down on Blub and noting its “missing” features from the point of view of the higher language.
Another example is from Whorf's experience as a chemical engineer working for an insurance company as a fire inspector.  While inspecting a chemical plant he observed that the plant had two storage rooms for gasoline barrels, one for the full barrels and one for the empty ones. He further noticed that while no employees smoked cigarettes in the room for full barrels, no-one minded smoking in the room with empty barrels, although this was potentially much more dangerous because of the highly flammable vapors still in the barrels. He concluded that the use of the word empty in connection to the barrels had led the workers to unconsciously regard them as harmless, although consciously they were probably aware of the risk of explosion. This example was later criticized by Lenneberg  as not actually demonstrating causality between the use of the word empty and the action of smoking, but instead was an example of circular reasoning . Pinker in The Language Instinct ridiculed this example, claiming that this was a failing of human insight rather than language.