not just ADHD, dylexia disability there is the other end of ability, autistic savants like Daniel Tammet, a mathematical and linguistic genius
2 Likes
Believe it or not I don’t doubt that first sentence. There are innumerable second language learning methodologies, believe it or not there is one that uses coloured sticks. Each method has its own adherents and/or fanatics and/or swivel eyed loons. 
I’ve pretty much used that approach for over a year with German and LingQ and for me it was not effective. I struggled to learn words. I accept it works for you, but you shouldn’t assume it works well for everyone. I note that you make no mention of output. And I would call that input with study, not input. But what you call it is your choice.
This isn’t etymology, it’s just breaking words down. It’s no more than an aid to help me remember. beruhigen is a lovely example. Ruhe is of course calm, the prefix be can indicate to come about thus beruhigen means to calm, to reassure. Perhaps Germans intuitively understand and use this aspect of German, but that is supposition. There are of course other methods such as mnemonics which have their own adherents. You clearly don’t appreciate how much I struggle to remember German words and structures e.g. is the verb reflexive.
What I’m trying to explain is that for me the methods you promote do not work, or work poorly. You seem to assume that methods that work for you work for everyone. In fact each famous and not so famous polyglot has their own preferred techniques. Whether this is just personal preference, or some methods work better for some than for others, I know not.
I’m talking about the basic use of prepositions, word order and conjugations. My experience is that input only, albeit with some study thrown in, does not lead to an ability to actively use prepositions etc. I think that is in part due to a lack of noticing, in part because the brain can piece together meaning without understanding everything therefore it is not forced to learn this aspects. My belief is that output is necessary, and that is backed up by research, I stress that this is my experience, others may have a different experience.
Do you aim to 0nly understand an L2 or understand and speak it?
That is your assertion that it would be a better method. Presumably you are assuming that your experience is universally applicable.
I made no such statement. My argument is with people who assert without evidence that we all learn the same way. As far as I am aware we don’t know if we all learn the same way, or to be more precise, whether or not there are significant differences between people’s language faculties. I think it reasonable to assume that we do all have the same language faculties, in the same way that, ignoring deformities and accidents, we all have two arms, two eyes etc.
As an example of a difference, it is known that children have better procedural memory, which in later childhood declines as they age, whereas their semantic memory improves as they age. I have seen measurements of the two memory systems for young and old adults. Not only do the older adults perform less well on average, but within each group there is a statistically significant spread, such that data for the young and old groups overlap. I don’t know if good semantic memory correlates with good procedural memory.
As another example, we can store a small number of items in working memory. Online sources suggest 3 to 5, though I always thought it was more like 7 +/- 2. I can store about 7 items, but I can add one or two more using visual memory. I don’t think this impacts language learning, but I might be wrong.
No doubt there are other potential differences that I am not aware of.
I’m not talking about extremes. The normal distribution of IQ is quite wide and not narrow, and in a random group we will expect to see significant variations, not just a few extremes and the rest all roughly the same. Mathematical ability shows wide variations across a population, not just relative uniformity with a few extremes. That’s just one example.
I play hockey, and see a wide range of people, from company directors, ex Olympians, an army major and a senior officer in the armed police, to people who dig holes in the road, and drive lorries, with plenty in between. There is a wide spread of intellectual ability.
You make assumptions based on what you expect.
Again you use the term I would expect.
I assume you means Steve Kaufmann? I have no idea how he compares to Jo Average. He clearly has considerable experience and achievements, that’s all I can say given that I don’t know him, and I don’t know how he actually learns. His videos are of course promotional videos for LingQ. Luca Lampariello told me, in answer to a question in one of his videos, that he does not have an unusually good memory. That may be so, I’m not questioning his honesty, perhaps he has some other unusually good language learning abilities, perhaps he’s just very hard working, I have no idea. I have no idea if these people do learn faster than ‘mere mortals’.
It is of course possible that through good fortune, or hard work, they have stumbled on good techniques. I tend to think these polyglots are in general not inately exceptionally talented language learners, but rather that they enjoy it, and they have above average but not exceptional ability. But that’s merely a guess. There are exceptions such as Vaughan Smith.
My personal experience is that the number of exposures to a word that leads to long term memorisation is very variable. In French I sometimes learn a word after only one or two exposures e.g. I come across it while listening to a video. There is a known connection between learning, and degree of emotional intensity. We form episodic memories, which are stored in semantic memory, after one exposure to an event that involves considerable emotional excitation e.g. hearing about the twin towers atrocity, seeing Neil Armstrong descend a ladder onto the moon’s surface. I think that is one reason why a dry list of words is not very effective, and a more immersive experience is noticeably better. Krashen introduced his effective filter hypothesis, but I think it goes far deeper than that. The presence of chemicals associated with heightened emotions seem to help the formation of memories. I believe children feel emotions more strongly than adults, which may be one reason for their improved language learning capacity.
It does mean that a good teacher, who can capture the students attention, and keep them entranced by the lesson, will produce better learning outcomes than her colleague, Mr Dull.
When coming across a new word or phrase, I try to create little ideas around the concept to bring it alive, and bestow it with an emotional wrapper. It sometimes works.
We also know that memory is rather complex, and we don’t just store a fact , rather we create a whole network of connections. Thus adding images and context to a concept can help storage and retrieval.
I suspect that little stories are more effective than dry exercises because they have some emotional involvement and more complex interrelationships between words i.e. context.
2 Likes
Yes, you are correct. I assume that all who are learning languages have a brain made up of neurons. I don’t have direct evidence of this, but I think this is a good assumption to make. I also assume that, yes, there are actual universalities in how humans learn. I could be wrong about this, but I suspect this would be the majority view amongst neuscientists and psychologists. Or do you think that there is a sizeable portion of experts who think that there are no universalities in how humans learn? For instance, even the disproven viewpoint of learning styles was still not arguing against universality. While on the other hand, my understanding is that theories such as neuroplasticity are considered universal across all humans.
In any case, you don’t need complete evidence of something for it to be true. Most things do not have evidence to six sigmas. Most things in life are built from patches of evidence here and there, all of varying quality, ranging from case studies (such as personal experience) to scientific research to a high statistical significance. From here, theories and ascertions are built from first principles, logic, educated guesses, and assumptions. For instance, I remember reading a paper way back which stated that the vast majority of advice given by primary care physicians was from low-quality evidence or was simply expert opinion (i.e. based on first principles, personal experience, or intuition).
For instance, let me give you an example where you can use first principles and deduction without any evidence to come to a fact about language learning. Is exposure to a language a requirement to learning the language? Another way to think of it is, would a person who has had zero contact with a language manage to learn the language? Eg. Would a person in an isolated, Amazonian tribe with zero contact to the outside world ever learn, say, Polish? You can deduce that the answer is no. No need for evidence.
It’s definitely good to question assumptions, such as “Why is there the assumption that people all learn in the same ways?” I consider the fact that humans learn in much the same ways to be the default, so I ask, “Why do you think that people learn differently? What exactly do you have in mind? Do you have any ways in which humans would learn differently?”
Yes, the so-called “magic number” was 7 +/- 2 based on some paper many decades ago. It was later revised to be 4 +/- 1. But an important caveat of this is that it’s for completely novel domains. Any domain in which you have spent time in and have experience in, this rule of thumb does not apply.
In other words, your memory is better in a domain, which you have experience. In fact, your experience in that domain is what improves your memory in it. As far as I’m aware, this is considered universal across all humans, bar a small number of people with certain severe brain issues.
This phenomenon was what Luca’s above video I linked was describing, the better you get at a language, the easier it is to learn it. Eg. to learn a new word, on average you require much fewer repetitions as you gain experience. It is the phenomonen that Luca was trying to describe with his spiderweb analogy.
This is why I consider you should actually expect that the beginner phase of the language learning journey is so slow, bar sister languages. I definitely expect that as a beginner, it’ll be a grind. If you actually expect this slow process in the beginner stages, you don’t beat yourself up as much, and hence experience less emotional struggle.
You should not expect that your ability to understand prepositions well (input) means that you can actively use them well (output). These are literally two different things. It’s like saying that your ability to catch a basketball does not lead to an ability to throw a basketball. If you want to be good at throwing the basketing or output, you need to practise it. There is some transfer, yes, but not 100%.
Depends on the language I’m learning. In Russian, my goal is to also speak it, yes. For Italian dialects, I want to be able to understand certain ones, but I do not want to dedicate time on learning how to speak them, no. For instance, I want to one day read Dante’s Divine Comedy, a poem written in 13th Florentine dialect, but I do not want to be able to speak such dialect. I have are different goals for each language and they change over time.
1 Like
@nfera we seem to have a lot of agreement.
I believe Karl Popper, a philosopher of science, was the first to suggest that we can never prove a theory, only disprove it. In practice we accept a theory when the weight of evidence is such that it is likely to be true beyond reasonable doubt. Thus Darwin’s theory of evolution is not proven but the weight of evidence is overwhelming. As a disgression, there is a nerve that leads from the brain to an organ in the throat. It takes an indirect route by going to the bottom of the neck, and then back up, a small detour. In the giraffe it also goes all the way to the bottom of the neck, and then back up again, a huge detour which is seemingly absurd unless we assume that the giraffe evolved and was not designed by a god. Of course we could assume that it was designed by a god with a serious psychiatric disorder, and given the world as it is today, I find that idea quite pursuasive.
The problem with most theories in SLA and linguistics in general is that they lack sufficient evidence to be considered proven beyond reasonable doubt. Often they are promoted by strong personalities. Thus we have the theories of Krashen and Noam Chomsky which may have done more harm than good. The latter declared that there is a Language Acquisition Device that shuts off in late childhood and hence adults cannot learn foreign languages. I suspect Steven Kaufmann and others might beg to differ. I am also sceptical when famous polyglots put forward theories, as opposed to personal observations and experience.
I have no idea if there is a universal model, or if each person needs to find what works for them, I assume the latter.
In my own case I’ve found using trial and error a way to learn that works for me, and I assume that each person has to do the same for themselves.
There does seem to be one key aspect, and I’ve heard some polyglots say this, which is that the learner must take control of their learning.
Absolutely.
I have previous language learning experience i.e. French and Welsh, using so-called traditional methods. German seems to be posing particular difficulties, which I believe is due to starting off with online apps, and then adopting a Comprehensible Input approach. These apps are pushed by organisations that are driven by money and they are backed by clever well funded marketing campaigns.
I could ask why you assume that all people learn the same way to be the default.
We might have a little confusion here, so I will clarify. I’m sure we both agree that, ignoring disorders, it is highly likely that every person has the same brain architecture, with the same specialised brain areas, processing input and output in the same way,
We also share, ignoring disabilities and rare abnormalities, the same architecture in the rest of the body. And yet some people are genetically better adapted to sprinting because they have more fast twitch muscles. In the general population we see a spread in fast twitch muscles, not just a few outliers. Other people are better adapted to basketball because they are taller. Again. we see a spread of heights, not 90% sharing the same height, and a few outliers. In other words, there is a spectrum of abilities. Why should the brain be any different? In fact it could be argued that neural diversity is beneficial to a population, just as physical diversity is.
Research has shown that on average men are better than women at navigation (such as map reading), and on average women have finer motor control. Women tend to have better language skills than men. As I mentioned, I’ve seen research showing a spread in semantic and procedural long term memory. Thus differences in the function of different brain areas do exist, and are not rare.
I have an analytic mind, I like to decode language and analyse it. Some people are good at conceptualising ideas in their head, others aren’t. Some people like to learn on the job, by watching others rather than from theory. And they can often attain a very high level of performance. My belief is that these differences reflect differences in temperament, personality and, yes, brain function. So I think it reasonable to assume that there is no one size fits all learning methodology. In other words, a given methodology might suit some people better than others. That at least matches observation, whereby all polyglots seem to use different methods.
Language learning is best summarised by this song rather than my twaddle:
1 Like
I don’t disagree that there are a difference in abilities. I ask, how does it change your choice in technique to improve your specified sub-goal?
For instance, how does having more or less fast-twitch muscle fibres affect your choice in training method to increase your base in preparation for a marathon? Do marathon coaches recommend different methods to improve your base based on your percentage of fast-twitch muscle fibes you have in your legs? How does whether your height is 150cm or 220cm affect the training methods you use to improve your free throw? Do baskbetball coaches recommend different training methods to improve your free throw based on your height?
I assume that all people learn the same way because I consider the underlying circuitry to be the same, abnormalies aside. Secondly, the biggest contender to this assumption was that of learning styles which failed continuous scientific experiments. As of current, as someone who does not keep up-to-date with this, I don’t know of any other serious contender. Maybe you are aware one? Obviously, someone might come up with a contending theory which later proves to be correct, but at the moment, as someone who isn’t in the loop, I am not aware of one. Until that time, the default that all people learn the same way shall remain.
Occam’s razor of this would be that people use different methods because they have different preferences.
There is definitely at least some amount of learning how to use some techniques though.
For instance, I find shadowing to be challenging and have never gotten into it because I haven’t managed to do it correctly. Some people swear by it though. Or another example is that a grammar-heavy language learning approach is more beneficial to those who are already familiar with grammar theory. So there appears to be some fixed cost to be able to use some techniques, such as learning what a verb or the dative case even is before you can apply this knowledge, or improving your ability to use the technique itself before it reaches its peak efficiency. Or, for instance, another example would be being already able to read in another language means you can use certain techniques, which would otherwise be unavailable, such as using a dictionary.
These aren’t differences in brain function which affects your choice in language learning method though.
I’ve answered all of your questions several times already. This is getting circular.
That last sentence is a very dogmatic statement. You have presented no proof. It is your opinion.
The brain is not a monolithic structure with one function. The brain has many faculties that contribute to its function, and specifically it has many faculties that contribute to language learning. There is no reason to suppose that they all function equally well, or equally poorly. Thus there is no reason to suppose that a given learning methodology is equally effective for everyone,
As I’ve stated several times, simple observation tells us that in general people learn differently. People are not all equally good at thinking in abstract terms, some do so poorly, others love to think in terms of abstractions. That will impact the kind of exercises that are appropriate. As I explained earlier, research demonstrates that semantic and procedural memory vary with age, and within a population of a given age. There is no reason to suppose that they are co-variant. People also have different attention spans. I am sure there are other differences too.
As regards those so called learning styles referred to earlier, they always strike me as mostly rather bizarre. From my reading, the research is rather a mess, with no reliable way to determine the so-called learning style of a given student, and no convincing evidence. Ignoring the question of whether or not it is valid, the research appears not to have addressed SLA. There is widespread agreement that language learning is distinct from subjects such as mathematics and history. For example, an L2 involves far more information than a mathematics course, and learning is largely unconscious.
I don’t doubt that people do have preferences. Of course the interesting question is whether underlying neurological differences influence or cause preferences. I would say that they do.
As regards underlying brain function, beyond IQ, influencing performance in various language learning exercises, I’d rather not make a dogmatic statement either way.
I consider the three methods I listed here to be affected by your knowledge/ability of how to use the method itself, rather than brain function. The proof is as follows:
- language learning methods using a bilingual dictionary, such as LingQ - bilingual dictionaries are made up of L2 to L1 translations. If you cannot read in your L1, you simply cannot read the L1 translations, the whole point of a bilingual dictionary. Therefore, you are limited by your ability to use methods which use a bilingual dictionary by your ability to read in your L1. Your ability to read in your L1 is a skill learnt. Pretty much, every human being can learn this skill, and those who can’t are considered to have a disability, one way or another, and in some cases it’s literally part of the diagnosis (and as we’ve agreed, we are ignoring those with a disability in our discussion). Ipso facto, you are limited by learnable knowledge / something trainable, i.e. your ability to read in your L1, not brain function to use this method.
- grammar-heavy learning methods - these methods require some foundational knowledge before they become fully effective. For instance, stating that a particular word is a verb, so it should go in the second position in the word order, requires you know what a verb even is in the first place. Otherwise it makes no sense. I mentioned way up that grammar is transferrable between languages. This is the reason why because at a bare minimum the theory is transferrable. Therefore, knowledge of grammar theory, a learnable thing, is required before you reach peak efficiency with this technique.
- shadowing - this is more my hypothesis, so take this with a grain of salt. The reason why I suspect that this technique itself has a learning curve and you can improve your efficiency in using the technique itself is related to some personal experiences of other techniques. I won’t bore you with the details, but this is just my suspicion based on personal experiences. As mentioned, I have never really gotten into this technique and haven’t tried it much at all.
I’m particularly interested in this because training techniques used in sport follow something akin to survival of the fittest due to the competitive nature of sport. As a result, the losing athletes alter their training techniques either by adopting those of the winner or testing new techniques, while the winning athletes continue to use the same training techniques. I am not super versed in sport science, only having read several books and listened to several podcasts directed to amateurs. Maybe I missed it, but I never heard anything about your percentage of fast-twitch muscle fibres affecting which training technique you should use, for instance. Maybe you have heard things I haven’t? How does knowing you have a higher or lower make up of fast-twitch muscle fibres actually change your selection in training technique?
Let’s use this case then. How exactly would your difference in procedural memory affect your choice in language learning method? I’m interested in how exactly a difference in procedural memory translates to a different choice in learning method.
Let’s consider a hypothetical example of two identical people Jack and Jim who both want to learn, say, Norwegian to a high conversational level because they will be posted there for work in the coming years. Jack has procedural memory sitting at -1 standard deviations from the median, while Jim has it at +1 standard deviations from the median, all else remains equal. What learning methods would be considered great for Jim, but garbage for Jack? What alternative methods would Jack use that is more appropriate for someone with lower procedural memory? I understand that Jack may be learning slower, but how does his lower procedural memory affect his choice of the method he uses?
This is my key question. How exactly does a difference in ability, such as procedural memory, translate into a choice about which language learning technique you use? It’s all well and good knowing that Jack has lower procedural memory, but how exactly does that change his selection of methods?
I agree. You prefer/like things you are good at. And things you aren’t good at, you often avoid. It doesn’t matter where you gained this ability from, genetics or environment. Even the same person could experience them not liking/preferring something cause they aren’t very good at it, then for some reason they are forced to improve their skill/ability with it, and then they end up liking/prefering it.
1 Like
I’m not really interested in going into this in detail, given that I am neither a neurologist, nor a psychologist nor a professional linguist, but it is worth commenting on grammar since you raised that aspect. Someone with a strong faculty for abstract thought could well benefit from spending some time on grammar heavy exercises, with the grammar taught in a formal manner. I know of one polyglot who learns grammar tables. He finds that approach very effective. However, people who struggle to think in more abstract terms would be completely lost. They need to see the grammar used in context. With some people I know I can talk in abstract terms, whereas with some others I cannot as they can only deal with concrete scenarios. Some of the latter group struggle to hold two opposing ideas in their head, and tend to accept conspiracy ideas e.g. covid vaccines cause significant illness.
This is why I dislike it when influential people tell us to learn using the methods they use, and that we should avoid using methods that they dislike because they are supposedly wrong, or bad. Making recommendations based on bad science is worse than no recommendations.
You have gone down a rabbit hole. I do hope you carry a good torch. You in effect said we all have the same brain, with the same faculties and hence think in the same way. I demonstrated that although we all have the same bodies, ignoring illness etc, the various parts of our body do not all function alike. Hence we might expect the same to be true of the various parts of the brain. And in fact brain studies do show a range of cognitive abilities.
To address the question of muscles, though we are going off piste, and there may well be some dangerous ravines nearby, an ancient human with a fast sprint but poor endurance would not hunt in the same manner as an ancient human with a slow sprint but good endurance.
Someone with very good semantic memory is better at remembering facts. They can use a method that leverages that strength. I have a poor semantic memory, I have to prioritise other methods, such as analysing the structure of German words. I find it fascinating that you never considered doing that. I assume you just memorise the words?
However, as said earlier, I ain’t no neurologist, and I can only make suggestions.
I think it was in the book Make It Stick that pointed put that often the easiest learning method is the least effective. No pain, no gain, so to speak.
You wouldn’t choose the very tall person as your spy in the fascist demonstration. No matter how often they practised blending in, they would still stand out. Proprioception is a brain faculty that varies across the population. It can be inproved to an extent, but there is a genetic component.
In a language class, you’d probably be better off just using the same methods for everyone, and making sure you used a range of techniques.
Correct me if I’m wrong, your thesis is as follows:
Not including those with disabilities, there are significant differences in non-trainable abilities, such as procedural memory, semantic memory, intelligence, abstract thinking, etc. across the population, therefore there is no one-size-fits-all language learning method as certain methodologies are better suited to certain individuals than other methodologies as they are aligned with these non-trainable abilities.
You come to this conclusion through both intuition (first quote) and reasoning (second quote saying you “think it reasonable to assume”).
I find this thesis is a large jump from premise to conclusion without specifying the reasoning in between. I’ve tried to see this thesis from multiple angles but I’m still unconvinced:
- intuitively I’m not convinced
- your above example of how this would play out in language learning was unconvincing
Here you are implying that the person with high abstract thinking is better off using grammar-based methods, going through grammar exercises, and plowing through grammar tables than doing any other method while the person with low abstract thinking should use another method instead. It seems (?) that the two potential method options to learn grammar here are: (1) formal explanations of grammar and looking through grammar tables, and (2) concrete scenarios (unspecified what this means? input? cloze exercises? other methods?) The details aren’t specified and neither is the reasoning behind it.
- the transferrable example in another domain (fast-twitch muscle fibres) goes unanswered, as the goal is not “to hunt” but “to increase one’s endurance in preparation for a marathon.” As far as I’m aware, to train base for a marathon, the gold standard used by absolutely everyone is long runs in lower training zones, no matter if you have a high or low percentage of fast-twitch muscle fibres in your legs. I could be wrong about this, as I’m not super knowledgeable in this field.
- I tried to reverse engineer a proof for your thesis and it just feels like a house of cards of debatable assumptions. Maybe you have a more elegant proof with fewer assumptions than what I had? Which assumptions did you have for your jump from premise to conclusion and what was your reasoning behind them?
Just to be clear, I also agree with the final quote “Thus there is no reason to suppose that a given learning methodology is equally effective for everyone.” I’m more dubious of the assumption of that there is now another methodology which would be more effective than the first methodology, which means you should adopt the second methodology.
For instance, if someone has low intelligence, the effectiveness of all methodologies across the board would be lowered, not just for that single methodology. The most effective methodology doesn’t change. Sure, it’s less effective than with someone of high intelligence, but it’s still the most effective out of the available techniques.
Another faculty you would initially think plays a role would be musical ability and that it translates into your ability to recognise subtle differences in sounds. This would be advantageous at the beginning of the language, when you are learning the sounds. The issue is how exactly does this musical ability translate into your selection of the best way to learn the sounds in a language? What other technique do you have to learn to distinguish extremely similar sounds apart from practising minimal pairs? Maybe the less-musically-adept individual needs to practise minimal pairs with a dozen different sound pairs before they achieve their sub-goal of being able to distinguish all sounds of the language, while the musically-adept individual only requires to practise on one sound pair, but the technique to learn to distinguish the difference remains the same. Apart from minimal pairs to achieve this sub-goal, what other methods do you have to choose from?
It’s about there being changes in the ranking of the effectiveness of multiple techniques. The ranking doesn’t change if there’s only one option. Or maybe a reduction in effectiveness of certain techniques occurs, but it doesn’t change the ranking.
This is a bit of a generalisation, as difficulty isn’t always useful, but, yes, the misinterpreted-effort hypothesis is a thing. It’s part of the reason why self-directed learning is often not as effective as direct instruction, as plenty of people assume that effortful learning is inefficient learning.
1 Like
No that is not my ‘thesis’. You stated that we all have the same brain and think in the same way. I disagreed. I pointed out that the brain consists of multiple faculties, and research shows that they do not all perform identically within a population.
Are these differences significant? Well we do know that differences in IQ within a population are significant, with a broad spread, not relative uniformity with a few outliers as you suggested. Some of that IQ difference is for sociocultural reasons e.g. poor diet, low stimulation environment etc, and some of it is genetic. Some countries, Germany and Britain for example, do stream school students according to ability.
Are other differences significant? And if they are significant, do they impact SLA? I don’t know the answer to either question, I’m neither a linguist nor a neurologist. I have given some hand waving arguments, but they are no more than that. However, your statement that there are no differences, which you deliver with absolute certainty, is not supported by evidence. Rather, there are differences, but it isn’t clear if they are significant in the SLA domain, ignoring IQ. My personal view is that they are not insignificant, and do impact our preferred learning methods. But that is my opinion, based on subjective experience, it is neither supported nor disproved by evidence.
Regarding the last paragraph above, I said no such thing. I’ve highlighted the relevant words that you have misread.
I quite clearly state in the paragraph quoted above that “They need to see the grammar used in context.”
No, fast twitch muscles evolved long before marathons were ‘a thing’. And they benefit sprinting, not marathons.
As I understand it, sprinting is one of the few sports where genetics plays a large role. In general, training is far more important e.g. Sebastian Coe under the guidance of his father pioneered new training methods for long distance running, and won Olympic gold. And yes, I don’t doubt that in language learning in general (ignoring outliers), hard work is far more important than any genetic differences.
So you think an old style grammar based approach would still be useful for low IQ people? I am sure a low IQ person would get zero benefit simply because they would find it impenetrable. You just can’t make such a sweeping statement as you did above.
My issue is with people who state that we all learn the same way, and then claim that to be scientifically proven after misinterpreting some research. Sometimes this is done in order to promote a product e.g. “this method works for me, we all think the same, therefore you should all use my method”.
For whatever reason, people do like to learn in very different ways. What works well for one person, might not work well for another. My guess is that you agree with that statement.
In my own case, I have gradually changed my learning methodology according to my subjective assessment of what works, and what doesn’t, and not according to how enjoyable it is. I suspect I might have arrived at this methodology quicker had I not listened to YouTube experts.
You did make an interesting point earlier on about musical ability. When I was at school and then university, we were not trained to learn. Training hearing prior to a language course would be one example. I am sure there are other techniques that would help school and university students progress more rapidly. Lectures are, for example, a very poor way to learn.
If you are curious, some terms you might google could be: VO2max and lactate threshold training. Or glance through an article such as this: The Science Of Ingebrigtsen Threshold Training: Top 3 Tips For Success
Honestly, the practice of adjusting training to the individual athlete is not really new, but these kind of terms may lead to you a variety of discussions about some of the more recent approaches.
1 Like
And IQ doesn’t have this broad spread by definition? I mean, they design the test, then translate it into this relative measure after all. You could definitely design a test and a measure to fit a spread you are looking for. I’m not super versed in the details of how exactly they calculate it though.
This (the bolded part) are the key questions.
Compared to you, I’m sceptical that the differences in capacities actually results in the most effective techniques actually changing amongst individuals. At least in a significant way.
So we’re gonna have to agree to disagree on this one.
I really don’t know what a very-low-IQ person without a disability would be capable of mentally, but let’s consider what is considered low: an IQ between 70 and 85. In most definitions of IQ this represents between -2SDs and -1SDs. This makes up ~14% of a normal distribution. This means that approximately every seventh person you pass in the supermarket would sit in this range (ignoring selection bias). Do I think every seventh person I pass in the supermarket on average would still benefit from learning a bit of grammar in their language learning? Yeah, sure. (Of this ~14% probably a not insignificant amount may have disabilities though, especially as you get further and further away from the median, so ignore those.)
Do you think that every seventh person who you walk past in the supermarket really has so low of a mental capability to literally not be able to understand anything related to grammar? Literally zero? Either I’m too optimistic or you’re too pessimistic of the capabilities of the people we see in the supermarket. 
Edit: maybe this selection of -1SD to -2SD was too big of a range and there are actually huge differences between what an IQ of 70 and an IQ of 85 actually means. Maybe you have more insight?
I’m definitely with you being against those scam artists who use misinformation to sell their product so-called “based on research.” I’ve definitely seen some, especially more popular in certain language communities.
Yes, I agree that people like to learn in different ways. I also agree that that same technique might have a different effectiveness on another person.
I don’t however say that just because it doesn’t work well for the second person doesn’t mean it’s not the best technique out of their small number of options.
Thanks @zorbital for the link. It was an interesting read. As I was reading it, I had a small sense of deja vu that I actually read that same article before, but I could be wrong.
There are huge and obvious differences in the intellectual capabilities of a random selection of people. According to various sources, the US army will not recruit anyone with an IQ less than 83. Some sources give a higher value, the exact value is unclear. The reason is that such people are no longer of use in combat: they are hard to train, and perform poorly in action.
Have you never taken an IQ test? Some people can easily see a pattern in a sequence of drawings, and predict the next one, others will never figure it out. Some people can intuitively solve logic problems, other people need to think a bit, and others will never find the solution. A low IQ person would never succeed as an actuary, a high IQ person would get bored stacking shelves. When I was doing a PhD at Cambridge, I met people whose intelligence was far above mine.
I said no such thing. No-one could draw such a ridiculous conclusion from my post.
In this post you attribute to me without justification a ridiculous idea, You did the same in your previous post. You even quoted the paragraph that you had misread, making it clear as day that you were in error. I pointed out the error, but you haven’t apologised, or acknowledged your error. It is impossible to have a discussion with someone who plays childish games i.e. trolling. 
You are “sure” that a low-IQ person who does not have a disability (as we have excluded them the whole conversation) would get “zero” (literally zero, not one iota) benefit from a grammar-based approach to language language. This is literally a sweeping statement, which in the very next sentence you go on to condemn me for making.
I tried to come up with some concrete representation of what your reference to low-IQ represented, as you did not specify the details. As we weren’t including those with intellectual disabilities, I came with up a guess of what I thought you may be referring to (though, it was pretty dubious to begin with, as IQ is a relative measure and does not actually specify what you can and cannot do, so you really need to know what it actually represents). I’m sorry that you feel angry that I did not accurately represent the numbers you had in mind.
The fact that IQ has a “very large spread between the most and least able in a random population of say 100” (as you’ve said above) is literally by design. The psychologists designed the test to significantly increase in difficulty then transformed the raw test results into a relative score with a median of 100 and a standard deviation of 15 (or another number depending on the IQ test). This relative measurement was designed to have a spread like this. The new data is constantly being adjusted to avoid the median and standard deviation deviating from this standardisation (the Flynn effect).
In any case, we ended up talking about not what I would consider the majority of the population (technically >50% but I was open to considering a population slightly greater than this, but not super much).
Have a good day.
With regards to this, the entire discussion has been about how you think it’s wrong to offer generic advice to everyone on which language learning methods work best as you think there is no evidence to support the view that the same technique is the best technique for everyone.
I assumed you were bringing up the point that “someone with a strong faculty for abstract thought could well benefit from spending some time on grammar heavy exercises” was adding to this topic.
Of course someone with a strong faculty for abstract thought “could well benefit” from “grammar-heavy exercises.” This is obvious to all except those who are ardent haters of learning grammar. One of those I am not. I have mentioned multiple times in this thread and on the forums that I think grammar-based instruction and exercises have their place and can be beneficial.
I would also say that someone with a medium faculty for abstract thought or even someone with a low faculty “could well benefit” from at least some grammar instruction too. But then if I can say that everyone barring those with mental disabilities “could well benefit” from grammar instruction, how does that contribute to the topic at hand?
I assumed that you were contributing to the topic at hand by emphasising either (a) how those with certain mental strengths such as abstract thinking should focus on techniques which utilise those strengths, or (b) those with mental weaknesses in a capacity, such as abstracting thinking, should better choose another technique. I apologise for assuming that you were trying to make either one of these points with your statement.
No I not sure for the simple reason that I never said that nor implied any such thing.
Ignoring the above waffle, in practice there is a huge spread in intellectual abilities in the general population.
No, we’re talking about the majority.
The highlighted text in your post is a fabrication by you. I never made any such claim.
No I did not say that and don’t think that. What I said is in previous posts, but sadly this thread has long since gone to pot.
There’s no need for sarcasm.
As regards the claim that I said “those with certain mental strengths such as abstract thinking should focus on techniques which utilise those strengths”, no I didn’t say that.
I said “Someone with a strong faculty for abstract thought could well benefit from spending some time on grammar heavy exercises”.
Little words can completely change the meaning of a statement.
This discussion is pointless as you repeatedly attribute to me things I did not say.