Just a few quick answers:
“I thought you were creating a method about Ultra reading/listening”
I didn’t have time to read most of the new comments, but
my impression is that your understanding of a “method” is that
it has to be mathematically precise and foolproof.
That’s not possible in the context of SLA.
Instead, you always want to be highly flexible and have a toolbox with many
approaches / practices and digital / non-digital tools.
Focused exposure time in timeboxing approaches should
be enough for RWL. Just increase the number of Pomodoros -
If you want to do more.
That said, if someone has done 1-2 RWL-Pomodoros and now
wants to read in / listen to his / her L2 for several hours? Sure, why
not. And you don’t need Pomodoros for that either
To be clear here:
I’m not interested in increasing the number of hours more and more
and more, but in the “minimal effective dose” (MED) so that busy bees
(professionals with a day job, moms with kids, etc.) can use this approach.
I’d I have the wrong impression?
Book: yes.
SW: yes.
Unfortunately, I don’t have time for this now bc. my dad died
at the end of 2022. My sister and I have to wind down his company.
This plus my day job takes most of the time now.
I hope I can finish the book till dec. bc. I’ve still
got 5 weeks of vacation this year.
@davideroccato At the end of the day, it’s all anecdotal and opinion based, because it’s based off experience or we see ourselves as applying logic. That is, increasing the audio speed has two benefits: increases your exposure to the language (which we think is a good thing, because we assume our experience and the experience of others means exposure = learning the language), and increases your comfort with listening to fast talking (also personal experience and recounted experience of others).
I’m not interested in making a method for anyone else, but personally, I have had very positive experiences with increasing audio speed.
Ah okay. I agree that lots of different tools can be distracting, that’s why I try and keep them to a minimum. But I’m completley okay for using more than one tool. But each to their own.
To me, LingQ is an incredible time and effort-saver. At a low-to-intermediate level, it takes me MUCH longer to look up words than it takes to click the word on LingQ, even if I need to read through a few non-ideal definitions, or even if I need to click through to one of the dictionaries.
But you’re right, at some point as you become advanced, that flips around. It would be ridiculous of me, e.g., to use LingQ for English. I need to look up maybe a word or two per month, and usually that’s not because I didn’t understand it so much as to double-check. It would be an incredible waste of time trying to do all that through LingQ.
@fabbol For sure, it is a lot faster than using a paper dictionary. It is also faster than having a second tab open and copying and pasting the word into there every time you want a definition. We all agree on that. The question is how does it compare with other methods of looking up definitions? I want my time-waste to be an absolute minimum.
For me with Italian, as a B2+, I still need to look up a lot of words. I’m just saying that, on LingQ, my experience of wanting to know the definition of a word still requires a lot of time-wasting faff. The comparison of my wpm on LingQ and on Language Reactor (55 wpm vs 150 wpm) is just an example of how much my use of LingQ is actually not studying the language, but rather navigating the software.
For me, this comparison was a wake up call (almost 3x slower!). I never really thought about it, so I thought going through a lesson was studying. But it turns out, no. Over half my time is dealing with the software, clicking here, clicking there, opening dictionaries, and writing definitions. It took a comparison with a different software to realise this.
This is just my use of the software though. Perhaps it’s different for others. Especially those who are beginner or lower intermediate in popular languages, because can actually be good Community Definitions. Though, it still requires two clicks per word though, which means you have to be fast, if you don’t want to pause the audio. But maybe others have a better LingQ practice than me, so waste less time.
I definitely agree with that and LingQ could definitely help a lot. If they would care about this, they could definitely help with an better UI that would reduce a lot of clicks and waste of time. But I suppose we all know that and sometimes we just get angry about it or ZEN!
If LingQ would take this seriously, I bet your wpm would increase.
The fact is that you are the first on saying that you are not really sure on what you have gained after your extensive reading experience (vocabulary wise). I wouldn’t be sure either and I would have a sort of psychological block about it. It is like if processing with LingQ gives me more confidence that I’m actually doing something more than just R+L without looking up words and focusing on learning. Different thing is that we just focus on content.
However, you could definitely increase your wpm if you reprocess the same material a second time with LingQ. Because in this scenario, you don’t have to stop looking up blue words, and you can focus only on converting yellow words.
In these cases, I only stop here and there to check some yellow words, the ones that jump on my mind with more curiosity. I bet in these cases the wpm would be similar to Language Reactor. With the advantage to have already my own dictionary on those yellow words.
I don’t remember if you wrote about it already but I’m curious to know, how do you use Language Reactor in those circumstances? What is the exact process and material you are using? Could you make an example?
With this extensive reading/listening, I wouldn’t use it on LingQ with blue words, but it might be worth trying with another software.
Well, you shouldn’t be me.
I was kicked out of OpenAI’s ChatGPT permanently bc. I provided
some ideas about the optimizations of xenomorphs and terminators
(btw., esp. the hybrid “Xenomorph - Mickey Mouse” was very nice) for
the AI superintelligence to come (let’s call it: SkyNetGPT).
So, I’m probably on the hit list of SkyNetGPT as well:
“Knock, knock. Hey, Peter! Thanks for your optimization
ideas. There are some creatures that like to pay you a
visit”
In short, not being me is probably better for your future health.
BTW, how do you like my little monster? (“Man, thanks to Craiyon, I feel
like I’m seven again. Ergo, it’s a fountain of youth for the mind” ).
In general, skill acquisition practitioners are much more successful when they adapt to their environment and the specific problems they encounter. In short, you want to have a box with several approaches and tools - and then you try to use (or even invent) the “right approaches / tools for the job”. Examples:
(Art) craftsmen have been practicing this flexible adaptation for centuries.
The Chinese culture has had a similar view on “strategy” for thousands of years. See: F. Jullien, " A Treatise on Efficacy: Between Western and Chinese Thinking",
And you see the same flexible “logic” applied in Coach Wade’s books about “progressive calisthenics”.
etc. pp.
BTW, people who practice this “flexible adjustment” usually don’t stay on a plateau, because before they do that for a longer period of time, they change what they do …
The 1st lever you have here is: the selection of the material (known - unknown topics,
fiction vs non fiction, poetry vs prose, long vs short, contemporary vs non contemporary,
etc.).
Monster: you are right @PeterBormann , I like way too flexible meat but I taste many, no problem with that! Btw, I received a call from a baby SkyNetGPT, it was talking about knocking someone’s door. Knock, knock!
@PeterBormann So the vast majority of my study at the moment (Harry Potter series test aside) is YouTube. One of the channels, which I watch, is Nova Lectio, where he essentially makes mini documentaries mainly on modern or historical geopolitics. He uses a large range of vocabulary, so there are many words I would like to learn. According to my LingQ stats, a 25 minute video generally may have between 120-160 New Words in it (8-11%). With Language Reactor, I just open the video, increase the speed to 1.25x, and then press play.
The reason I can listen without much stopping on Language Reactor is because it doesn’t require a minimum of two clicks to get the meaning of the New Word (or more, if I need a dictionary), which often means I have to pause the audio. On Language Reactor, I can quickly glance down at the English translation to understand the word. This auto-translation works better, because Google Translation / DeepL (whatever they use) has the context from the sentence to correctly guess the word, unlike LingQ, which translates the individual word. If I’m still unsure, I hover the mouse over the word and it shows me several definitions, no click required. At my level, because there is often only one unknown word per sentence, the English sentence is often enough to understand the definition of the word - that is, scan for the single word I don’t know. If there are several unknown words in a sentence (at 1.25x), I generally can’t get all definitions. In those cases, hovering on a definition may suffice, as it auto-pauses the playing at the end of the subtitle timestamp (unpausing also requires no click, but merely moving the mouse off the subtitle), or pressing the hotkey to repeat the subtitle. Playing at 1.25x, even with my repeating sentences and momentarily pausing, I spend much more time with the language than on LingQ.
The main issue hindering my LingQ effective reading speed is the dictionary issue. If I could just buy a bilingual dictionary and easily import it into LingQ, it would massively reduce my time-waste on LingQ. Secondarily, Language Reactor has applied things to really reduce the number of clicks (English subtitles, hovering over the word to get the definition and auto-pausing while looking up a word, etc.).
Really? Like they banned you based on your chat with AI about optimizations of xenomorphs? These OpenAI are so open… I’d vote against Sam Altman’s being in Congress or even close to Congress, I’m suspicious of this guy for some reason
Lil monster is cute! And perfectly suits to the terrifying tendency of AI application. They’re selling AI based systems for even better controlling employees in their workplace, did you know about that?
AI enthusiastic people would go on and on about Neural Nets making our life easier, but in the meantime they’re going to help authorities to enslave us more effectively, like starting right now.
Or to recongnize the type of traffic we’re getting and sending to just block everything of this type without the need for details. In the Ministry of Truth they’re testing such systems for blocking VPNs, I guess it’s just the greatnessness(-nessness) has been shaken by all those dangerous leaks of foreign information :]
I think what really would improve the lookup problem on lingq would be a combined sentece mode. Currently LingQ has.
Normal mode (TL only, full page).
Sentence Mode (TL and Translation, but only one sentence and you have to click on the translate button)
A great addition might be a combined sentece mode (TL and Translation under each sentence, without the requirement for additional button presses, and fill the page with as much sentences as possible).
EXACTLY. This would massively reduce the search. I would definitely pay to buy an internal dictionary. It wouldn’t be enough BUT it would be for 90% of the time!
Nothing new to add, but thank goodness for the new message board. I would’ve given up on this thread a long time ago on the old message board as I would never have known where the new posts were hidden =)
Can’t you already display translations under the sentences? Although I think that’s only if you have a translation saved, not if it needs to be generated first.
Well, OpenAI is not “open” bc. many topics are taboo (sexuality, politics, religion, violence -
and “monster optimization” ).
IMO, an AI superintelligence evolving from LLM is probably nonsense. However, what is a real threat is that AIs become weaponized (beyond the military) bc. they are increasingly part of all the ongoing global conflicts (states, warlords, terrorist organizations, and organized crime).
Anyway, OpenAI probably banned me bc. I wanted to devise a presidential campaign for Trump for 2024:
Monster hybrid: Trump and Pennywise (looks “cute” thanks to Craiyon!)
Slogan: “Make America eat again!”
Advantage: When a giant alien spider wants to hunt you down and digest you, it doesn’t matter which skin color you have, if you’re rich or poor, pro-Trump or against Trump, etc. Meat is just meat. There’s something liberatingly egalitarian about such an alpha predator logic, right?
Or, maybe, an even better campaign slogan would be: “America, let’s float together!”
