|
 |
The Ultimate Accelerated Learning Exp. ! | ||
Share with:
| ||
 Language Learning Forum : Learning Techniques, Methods & Strategies |  | |
| s_allard Triglot Senior Member Canada Joined 5433 days ago 2704 posts - 5425 votes  Speaks: French*, English, Spanish Studies: Polish | Message 169 of 200 26 April 2011 at 3:10pm | IP Logged | |||||
|
When I look at the time and energy that the OP has spent writing about this failed experiment, I think he would have done better to study a good Russian grammar book. Frankly, I have had enough of this mumbo-jumbo about esoteric learning techniques. I still have no clue as to how much Russian was actually learned. Maybe we could have a sentence or two on some feature of Russian grammar or vocabulary that was actually acquired.
2 persons have voted this message useful | ||||||
| Volte Tetraglot Senior Member Switzerland Joined 6442 days ago 4474 posts - 6726 votes Speaks: English*, Esperanto, German, Italian Studies: French, Finnish, Mandarin, Japanese | Message 170 of 200 26 April 2011 at 4:13pm | IP Logged | |||||
The OP is in a bit of a no-win situation here. He's getting hammered by various people for: a) Spending time writing instead of studying. b) Not writing exactly what whoever's posting wants to hear about. c) Not demonstrating competence via other means, such as video. d) Not knowing things that this one experiment didn't even begin to address. e) Not writing things out in Russian, despite having used an entirely-audio course. f) Wasting time addressing/not spending enough time addressing every critique which comes his way. g) Trying to explain what he thinks, and why. I really wish that people wouldn't pounce so much on every newbie who's a bit flamboyant. It doesn't help the posters, the newbie, or anyone reading this... Most of the posts seem to be beating dead horses, too. Is he drastically wrong about some stuff? I think so - but I don't have anything worthwhile to add to what's already been said in that regard. I still think it was an interesting experiment, I'm still glad he wrote it up, and I'm still boggling at many of the attitudes in this thread (including some of the ones supporting the OP). He clearly also realizes that a lot of this has been a waste of time - not the experiment itself, but the energy used to reply to people here, and the sheer negativity involved. I don't mean saying that he's wrong, or that technique X would be better - most of the negative feedback here hasn't been even ostensibly constructive. For an experiment like this, the first thing that matters is recording what one does, and the results of that. This remains useful information, no matter how wrong the explanations about why something does/does not work are - and I think some posters would do well to bear this in mind. 8 persons have voted this message useful | ||||||
| Arekkusu Hexaglot Senior Member Canada bit.ly/qc_10_lec Joined 5384 days ago 3971 posts - 7747 votes Speaks: English, French*, GermanC1, Spanish, Japanese, Esperanto Studies: Italian, Norwegian, Mandarin, Romanian, Estonian | Message 172 of 200 26 April 2011 at 4:52pm | IP Logged | |||||
|
Can we stop being so apologetic?!
The OP learned a humbling lesson, period. There is nothing to apologize for. 1 person has voted this message useful | ||||||
| rapp Senior Member United States Joined 5734 days ago 129 posts - 204 votes Speaks: English* Studies: Esperanto, Spanish | Message 173 of 200 26 April 2011 at 6:19pm | IP Logged | |||||
I have read them. It was your original intention to do it in 61 uninterrupted hours, but you couldn't as you fell asleep twice. But so what? I don't see your point here. Moving on, how does glossolalia fit into this? You've mentioned it a couple of times now. According to the same wikipedia link you gave: Samarin found that glossolalic speech does resemble human language in some respects. The speaker uses accent, rhythm, intonation and pauses to break up the speech into distinct units. Each unit is itself made up of syllables, the syllables being formed from consonants and vowels taken from a language known to the speaker. ... Samarin found that the resemblance to human language was merely on the surface, and so concluded that glossolalia is "only a facade of language".[9] He reached this conclusion because the syllable string did not form words, the stream of speech was not internally organised, and– most importantly of all– there was no systematic relationship between units of speech and concepts. Humans use language to communicate, but glossolalia does not. Therefore he concluded that glossolalia is not "a specimen of human language because it is neither internally organized nor systematically related to the world man perceives". So what is the point of learning to produce nonsense utterences that sound vaguely like a language you already know? Although gibberish does seem appropriate for this thread. 1 person has voted this message useful | ||||||
| jazzboy.bebop Senior Member Norway norwegianthroughnove Joined 5421 days ago 439 posts - 800 votes Speaks: English* Studies: Norwegian | Message 174 of 200 26 April 2011 at 6:39pm | IP Logged | |||||
|
Abazid, one of the reasons why you will find many people being very skeptical over some of the theories you believe in, is the extraordinary claims without extraordinary evidence.
If the theory of morphic resonance could be proven via peer-reviewed experiments in respected scientific journals with the experimental results able to be replicated in further experiments by different researchers with consistency then the theory would be given credence and garner some respect in the scientific community. Instead, the serious scientific community appears to see it as pseudoscience with no solid supporting evidence and with evidence to the contrary. On Sheldrake's wikipedia article there is an example of a joint-experiment that he did with neurobiologist Steven Rose where day-old chicks were trained to react negatively to a small light when the light was later followed by an injection which would cause the chick to feel temporarily ill. As a result, the chicks would link their pecking of the light to being ill and therefore became strongly averse to pecking it. The aim though was to see whether successive batches of day-old chicks would progressively become more averse to pecking the light for the first time which would suggest that perhaps morphic resonance would cause them to "remember" the experience of previous generations of chicks. According to Rose and an independent analysis of the data by biologist Patrick Bateson, there was no indication that successive batches of chicks were any more wary about pecking the light for the first time than previous batches, though of course Sheldrake claims otherwise. As for the seven experiments in that quote you gave from that site "co-intelligence", I find it interesting that on the site itself it gives no citations whatsoever to any recorded experiments in any scientific journal. They can claim all they want but if they can't even provide a citation then there is no reason to believe their claims about these experiments. Also, if morphic resonance were true then it should really be staring us in the face with children in successive generations able to learn their native language more quickly than previous generations and do better in education. Instead, many British universities are complaining of falling standards in literacy and numeracy among new students where, assuming morphic resonance were true, the opposite should be occurring. As for glossolalia, the wikipedia article gives various sensible explanations without the need of the idea of information somehow being beamed into their brain and I fail to see how your quote from the section in the article saying it could be a learned response is any indicator of morphic resonance being true. If you think that the investigation by the Lutheran Medical Center which shows that the influence of a particular leader can shape a group's glossolalia, that can be explained in psychological terms and does not require the belief of tapping into some kind of collective unconscious store of information and that these people are actually reproducing some kind of language and not actually just warbling gibberish. I remember you mentioning the documentary film "What the Bleep do We Know?" as something for people to watch but it is a film that has been heavily debunked by skeptics. For example: What the Bleep do we Know Debunking Video It also actually provides citations, like statistics to actual crime figures. It is important to try and be careful about what information you accept as being true or likely to be true and not to let wishful thinking get in the way. I suspect you may be in need of a "baloney detection kit": Baloney Detection Kit Edited by jazzboy.bebop on 26 April 2011 at 7:03pm 3 persons have voted this message useful | ||||||
| Cainntear Pentaglot Senior Member Scotland linguafrankly.blogsp Joined 6014 days ago 4399 posts - 7687 votes Speaks: Lowland Scots, English*, French, Spanish, Scottish Gaelic Studies: Catalan, Italian, German, Irish, Welsh | Message 176 of 200 26 April 2011 at 8:18pm | IP Logged | |||||
|
Look, I know I can be harsh, and I know some other people can too, but when someone turns up and conflates the double-slit experiment with quantum superposition and then claims that the result of this all depends on what you expect to see (it doesn't, the double-slit experiment always generates an interference pattern despite the apparent mass of light suggesting the existence of the photon, thus causing the seeming paradox called "wave-particle duality", and quantum effects are completely and utterly random -- the presence of an observe collapses potential quantum states to a single physically realised state) and then complains that people are accusing him of pseudo-science without proof... well, it's hard to fault the really sarcastic guys.
I've tried to stick to the pertinent issues in terms of language learning, as has s_allard, but the OP's posts have been ridiculous, and therefore drawn ridicule. And it really doesn't matter how quickly or how well Mezzofanti learned Cingalese -- he was an accomplished polyglot when he started, and in case you hadn't notices, language learning gets easier the more languages you learn. 3 persons have voted this message useful |
|  | 
Printable version
|
| Copyright 2024 FX Micheloud - All rights reserved No part of this website may be copied by any means without my written authorization. |
