|
 |
"Rule of Seven" | ||
Tags: Number of Languages | ||
Share with:
| ||
 Language Learning Forum : General discussion |  | |
| Gamma Octoglot Groupie Brazil Joined 6728 days ago 82 posts - 85 votes  Speaks: Portuguese*, French, English, GermanC2, Italian, Spanish, Russian, Finnish Studies: Icelandic, Dutch | Message 17 of 78 29 January 2007 at 1:58pm | IP Logged | |||||||||||
In fact, slucido, the human brain has an unlimited capacity to store information. It has been scientifically proved that the time required for a human being to fulfil his brain with information is approximately 400 years, considering 12 hours of study a day. In a nutshell, the power of the human brain is limited, however, we cannot live long enough to reach its limit. Edited by Gamma on 29 January 2007 at 3:13pm 1 person has voted this message useful | ||||||||||||
| slucido Bilingual Diglot Senior Member Spain https://goo.gl/126Yv Joined 6460 days ago 1296 posts - 1781 votes 4 sounds Speaks: Spanish*, Catalan* Studies: English | Message 18 of 78 29 January 2007 at 3:00pm | IP Logged | |||||||||||
What scientific evidence is it? I would like to read that scientific evidence.
-We cannot live enoug because our life is limited. -Our brain is part of our life. -Our brain life is limited. -Our brain needs ilimited time to store ilimited information. -Ergo our brain's capacity to store information is limited. And that is assuming that our brain has some ilimited hypotetical capacity.. 1 person has voted this message useful | ||||||||||||
 Hencke Tetraglot Moderator Spain Joined 6679 days ago 2340 posts - 2444 votes Speaks: Swedish*, Finnish, EnglishC2, Spanish Studies: Mandarin Personal Language Map | Message 19 of 78 29 January 2007 at 3:27pm | IP Logged | |||||||||||
|
There will always be a theoretical limit somewhere up there in the hazy blue reaches of the unknown, definitely at some point short of infinity, but far beyond our practical possibilities even so. The brain is of course not unlimited in the mathematical and scientifically theoretical sense.
But as the capacity is large enough that we will never ever come anywhere close to those limits, and we are limited by other factors instead, such as the time available to train it to perform new tricks, it is in fact "unlimited" for all practical intents and purposes. However, the above only applies to the pure storage capacity of the brain, ie. capacity to hold information, skills etc. There are other brain capacities to consider, which are most definitely limited, and limiting in practice too, such as learning efficiency: Some brains will aquire new language skills after just one or two runs through the new material, while some of us need to repeat and repeat and repeat. If I need to work hard at my studies for three years to learn the same that a Mezzofanti could pick up over a couple of weeks, then I can only ever hope to aquire but a small fraction of his language ability during my lifetime, all this as a direct result of the limits of my brain capacity - not capacity for storage but for learning efficiency. 1 person has voted this message useful | ||||||||||||
| tujiko Senior Member United States Joined 6318 days ago 140 posts - 144 votes Speaks: English* | Message 20 of 78 29 January 2007 at 3:56pm | IP Logged | |||||||||||
Learning efficiency (pardon the pun) is learned. Even people with savant-like skills in mathematics or drafting who seemingly acquired their abilities in childhood train obsessively - often for several hours per day - both to hone and maintain their feats. As we've discussed, in the field of language, the more languages you learn, the faster you learn new ones - not because you learn the "hard" languages first and the "easy" ones later, but because you learn how YOU learn. I assure you Mezzofanti was not a hyperpolyglot waiting to happen, fresh from the crib. Yes, there likely is a hereditary component - but it does one absolutely *nothing* without practice, whether the field concerns mathematics, chess, linguistics, music, or memorization. 1 person has voted this message useful | ||||||||||||
| slucido Bilingual Diglot Senior Member Spain https://goo.gl/126Yv Joined 6460 days ago 1296 posts - 1781 votes 4 sounds Speaks: Spanish*, Catalan* Studies: English | Message 21 of 78 29 January 2007 at 4:31pm | IP Logged | |||||||||||
I agree. In fact, people who achieve amazing results (mnnemonists, human calculators and so on) train a lot (several hours) and for years with techniques that they refine for themselves. But that doesn't mean that there are not limits, only human beings with circus goals. And usually this means nothing for the average people, because it is useles. The same thing can be applied to gymnastics, athletes and so on. Edited by slucido on 29 January 2007 at 4:33pm 1 person has voted this message useful | ||||||||||||
| Hencke Tetraglot Moderator Spain Joined 6679 days ago 2340 posts - 2444 votes Speaks: Swedish*, Finnish, EnglishC2, Spanish Studies: Mandarin Personal Language Map | Message 22 of 78 29 January 2007 at 6:09pm | IP Logged | |||||||||||
This confuses the issues here in more ways than one. Learning efficiency can obviously be trained, and needs to be trained for truly great achievements, but so what ? Even after being boosted by training obsessively it will still be the limiting factor, rather than brain storage capacity, so that fact does not change anything one way or the other. On the other hand you seem to be making a case for training as the exclusive element which is where you are in danger of deluding yourself. The fact that talent needs to be developed does not support the notion that you can do the same without any talent to begin with.
He was exactly that. And he did.
So? 2 persons have voted this message useful | ||||||||||||
| Hencke Tetraglot Moderator Spain Joined 6679 days ago 2340 posts - 2444 votes Speaks: Swedish*, Finnish, EnglishC2, Spanish Studies: Mandarin Personal Language Map | Message 23 of 78 29 January 2007 at 7:28pm | IP Logged | |||||||||||
Further on the subject of natural talent vs. obsessive toil, even if the following is not directly about language talent, I think it can still be interesting and relevant, to contrast the above discussion with the case of World Chess Champion José Raúl Capablanca. A couple of relevant quotes from that article:
and here is the surprising part, under the title "Criticism":
He must have done some work to develop his talent. But apparently he was known for working much less on preparation than other chess masters of the time. 1 person has voted this message useful | ||||||||||||
| delectric Diglot Senior Member China Joined 6966 days ago 608 posts - 733 votes Speaks: English*, Mandarin Studies: German | Message 24 of 78 29 January 2007 at 11:11pm | IP Logged | |||||||||||
|
So if the "Rule of 7" is true what 7 foreign languages would you like to learn including the ones you already know?
French Spanish Portuguese Chinese Russian Arabic Indonesian 1 person has 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. |
