Do you have any science based advice?Everything I find on youtube is>muh IMMERSION>DON'T READ A TEXTBOOK!>just IMMERSE yourself in the language>just listen to shit you don't understand a single word of just to IMMERSE >watch the same TV show 50 times in a row and you'll understand bro!
>>17038400You MUST study grammar and do the complete opposite to what this prick says.The "muh intuition not grammar" is propaganda based on emotions and whose purpose is to make goyim avoid learning precise thinking in their formative years so they become intellectually permanently crippled.Anti-intellectual propaganda is to be found everywhere desu.
>>17038400I mean, language learning is inherently not a scientific thing. It’s like asking how to be rich or succesful “scientifically”. Not to mention, the only thing everyone agrees to work, SRS/anki, is based on pseudoscience.If you believe those neuroscience grifters like Dehaene, Huberman, etc., they basically say passive learning with adult brains (>20s) is near impossible. Immersion surely falls under passive learning. I mean it’s literally the same logic as watching math lectures and thinking you can solve math problems afterwards. Personally I watched many tv shows in my target foreign language, video games too. And I didn’t learn much.
>>17038913That’s immersion by consuming media anyways. Certainly a passive activity. But moving to the foreign country, and using the language speaking to locals, writing emails, etc. is definitely a form of active learning. And still can be called as immersion too.And it’s not like you can’t make your media consumption more “active”:- pause when there is a new word- check dictionary- find example sentences- write sentences with the new word- add it into anki- review the anki regularly- write a summary of what you just watched- summarize vocally, record it, self-criticizeStuff like that. But at that point just get graded readers/videos that come with questions.
Grammar is definitely very important. Knowing all the basics is what allow you to confidently check a dictionary for a new word. Without good grammar knowledge, you’ll just get confused. Just grind a grammar book, and anki list of irregular words/verbs/etc.
>>17038400I’m also a bit suspicious about shadowing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed_auditory_feedback#Effects_in_people_who_do_not_stutter would suggest similar effect should happen when you “shadow”. You need to record it to be sure. Remember that language teachers in class expect you to repeat after them, not shadow them.teacher says a sentence -> you repeat -> teacher gives correctionRinse and repeat. You see this everywhere btw. When you learn the alphabets. You copy the model alphabet on empty space. Not tracing the shape underneath over and over.
A lot of the language learning guru are grifters. Multiple people have called them out for shitty pronunciation and other issues like that.
The science community goes way overboard with the big words and stuff. You find someone who explains it well and you understand. You read scientific papers and it's like they are just showing off. Philosophy does the same thing, they all have these weird words they all use and then you read the actual point and it's relatively simple.
>>17039075>stop using words outside of my low iq 10k word vocab!
>>17039079Another one of you bell ends.The language part of IQ tests isn't an indicator of intelligence. Anyone can learn big words by rote learning.
>>17038400no
>>17038400Immersion is one of those things that makes sense up until you actually think about it. That's not even really how children learn their first language so the foundational premise is just wrong.A lot of the ways parents play with their pre-vocal children involves showing an object, declaring the name of the object, and interacting with the object repeatedly. Parents in the real world dedicate a lot of time and energy telling their children what things are called, even if that's not explicitly the reason they're playing in this way. And it takes years of these explicit associations being made before the child has enough of a grasp of the basics to intuit the meanings of unknown words through context (granted, they spent many of these years being too immature mentally to form those sorts of logical relationships but the broader point still stands).If you're going to use children's shows to assist in your learning, your current knowledge of the language is going to need to be on par with the expected comprehension of that show's intended audience or you're not going to know what the hell anyone's talking about. And you'll probably not get as much out of watching the show as a child would unless you're as interested/invested in the show's content as a child would be. Though this general rule is also confounded by the fact that you're a mature adult watching explicitly to learn new vocabulary rather than a child who wants to know how Billy the Bluebird navigates finding his lost toy or some shit.
>>17039075The reason for complex-sounding jargon is for precision. Simple vernacular can be misconstrued. What kinds of things a statement applies to can be interpreted as being more broad, or narrow, than the author's original intent. And using a lot of small words to clarify what that intent exactly is can easily make the argument much more verbose.Papers are written for an audience of people who are already educated on the topic in question and would know what these words mean. The goal is to see if the claims stand against scrutiny from experts, not to be comprehensible or convincing to some rando on the street.
>>17039238I speak with scientists. When they talk like scientists I never understand, and when they talk like normal people I get it and can talk about it. Keep the scientific shit to the naming of all the stuff you guys talk about. You just used vernacular for no reason for example.Someone might figure out how something or offer a great insight if you can figure out how to talk to regular Eutherian primate hominid bipedal anthropoid sapient morphologic constructs.
>>17039238On the contrary, more abstract language (that is, simple vernacular) is always more precise, with fewer words. Jargon is only necessary to make things comprehensible for people with limited abstract thinking.
>>17038400you need to actually speak and write the language.
>>17039963I just want to read foreign books. Don’t care about visiting.
>>17039980output is how you learn a language
>>17039981more pseudoscience
>>17040057if you don't speak it you'll never attain effortless recognition
>>17040057If you never speak the language you ll never know how well you actually know the languageYou might think you're some hot shit because you understand 95% of what you hear, but then when you try to express something new yourself you realize you don't know how the language works and what you spit out is mostly nonsense
I'm ESL and I didn't really learn English until moving to an English speaking country.
>>17041113You must be really subhuman then, with all the media available in english
>>17038400>hurrr worse literacy isn't a problemMen like this are going to burn society into the ground.
>>17040057>I know more by using duolingo than actually interacting with the native population!
>>17039084vocabulary is actually super g-loaded with a correlation of between r = .7 and .8 which is ironically roughly tantamount to the "culture fair" raven matrices test lol being able to use "big words" isn't just about rote memorization; it requires a high level of abstraction with more complicated, specific words acting as heuristic symbols -- it's basically a form of data compression and data compression basically *IS* intelligence (which, put simply, is why LLMs are so much more than "spicy autocompletes"). Take the word "defenestration" for example: "The brokers defenestrated themselves after the flash crash" requires less information to express than "the brokers threw themselves out of the window after the flash crash"
