A lot has been made in these fora about the word “efficiency” as a term that implies time and effort being used smartly to get to language fluency fastest. In practical application, these efficiency-focused contributors use the efficiency argument to suggest techniques that engender quick results over other techniques that tend towards lifestyle alteration and 24/7 immersion. I would argue however that these contributors' two ideas of efficiency are actually at opposition with one another.

First a clarification of terms:

Within forum contributors’ approaches to language study, a dichotomous relationship seems to exist between two constellations of ideas that we find ourselves drawn to, efficiency vs. context:

The efficiency-focused sphere would include ideas like bi-lingual dictionaries, only using media that is level-appropriate, textbooks and classes, core vocab study, not doing rtk3, and generally using English up until an “advanced” level.

The context-heavy sphere would include ideas like going monolingual early on, sleep immersion, exclusively exposing oneself to L2 media, sentence cards/MCDs/Subs2SRS as opposed to core vocab, and generally excluding English as much as possible.

this dichotomy as we are using it has an interesting economic corollary in the idea of ‘utility.’ Quoting the wiki: In economics, utility is a measure of relative satisfaction. In other words, it is a term referring to the total satisfaction received by a consumer from consuming a good or service.

In other words, if you do ‘X’, you get ‘Y’ positive outcome of utility (for this topic I am using the term to mean moving closer to fluency)

For those of us without a background in microeconomics, or as a refresher:
http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E9%99%90%E...9%E7%94%A8
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marginal_utility

One of the cornerstones of commonly accepted, non-contentious economic theory is the Law of Diminishing Marginal Utility:
“The law of diminishing marginal utility is at the heart of the explanation of numerous economic phenomena, including time preference and the value of goods. . . . The law says, first, that the marginal utility of each (homogenous) unit decreases as the supply of units increases (and vice versa)” Polleit, Thorsten (2011-02-11) What Can the Law of Diminishing Marginal Utility Teach Us?, Mises Institute



Forgive my crudely drawn diagram, but one can see that while the context-heavy language learners spend more and more time immersed, not in English, etc… they get less and less marginal benefit from each ‘unit’ of study. However, as they spend much more time in their L2 (using monolingual definitions, doing SRS with context/media, only being exposed to L2 media, sleep & general immersing, overall lifestyle adjustment) they have a much higher utility overall.

The converse is also obviously true, and while efficiency-focused study probably ‘feels’ like it is producing great results, (which it is per unit of study) the eventual outcome is much less utility overall. Possibly the most telling implication of this analysis is that the most efficient method of language study possible will in fact achieve zero utility and therefore never reach fluency.

[edited c/o thora's watchful eye]

dtcamero Wrote:A lot has been made in these fora about the word “efficiency” as a term that implies time and effort being used smartly to get to language fluency fastest. In practical application, these efficiency-focused contributors’ use the efficiency argument to suggest techniques that engender quick results over other techniques that tend towards lifestyle alteration and 24/7 immersion. I would argue however that these contributors' two ideas of efficiency are actually at opposition with one another.

First a clarification of terms:

Within forum contributors’ approaches to language study, a dichotomous relationship seems to exist between two constellations of ideas that we find ourselves drawn to, efficiency vs. context:

The efficiency-focused sphere would include ideas like bi-lingual dictionaries, only using media that is level-appropriate, textbooks and classes, core vocab study, not doing rtk3, and generally using English up until an “advanced” level.

The context-heavy sphere would include ideas like going monolingual early on, sleep immersion, exclusively exposing oneself to L2 media, sentence cards/MCDs/Subs2SRS as opposed to core vocab, and generally excluding English as much as possible.

this dichotomy as we are using it has an interesting economic corollary in the idea of ‘utility.’ Again, quoting the wiki: In economics, utility is a measure of relative satisfaction. In other words, it is a term referring to the total satisfaction received by a consumer from consuming a good or service.

In other words, if you do ‘X’, you get ‘Y’ positive outcome of utility (for this topic I am using the term to mean moving closer to fluency)

For those of us without a background in macroeconomics, or as a refresher:
http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E9%99%90%E...9%E7%94%A8
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marginal_utility

One of the cornerstones of commonly accepted, non-contentious economic theory is the Law of Diminishing Marginal Utility:
“The law of diminishing marginal utility is at the heart of the explanation of numerous economic phenomena, including time preference and the value of goods. . . . The law says, first, that the marginal utility of each (homogenous) unit decreases as the supply of units increases (and vice versa)” Polleit, Thorsten (2011-02-11) What Can the Law of Diminishing Marginal Utility Teach Us?, Mises Institute

http://i1179.photobucket.com/albums/x382...ility5.jpg

Forgive my crudely drawn diagram, but one can see that while the context-heavy language learners spend more and more time immersed, not in English, etc… they get less and less marginal benefit from each ‘unit’ of study. However, as they spend much more time in their L2 (using monolingual definitions, doing SRS with context/media, only being exposed to L2 media, sleep & general immersing, overall lifestyle adjustment) they have a much higher utility overall.

The converse is also obviously true, and while efficiency-focused study probably ‘feels’ like it is producing great results, (which it is per unit of study) the eventual outcome is much less utility overall. Possibly the most telling implication of this analysis is that the most efficient method of language study possible will in fact achieve zero utility and therefore never reach fluency.

It's not either/or, it's both, and integrating strategies to make your learning more efficient is superior for long-term learning. The reason it seems either/or is because those advocating the extreme end think in polar terms. The diminishing returns you get comes from overlearning rather than using efficient strategies such as spaced retrieval. The short-term benefits at the expense of long-term learning comes from seeking ‘fun’ only, without metacognitive thinking, and avoiding strategies and deliberate study at the onset.

nest0r Wrote:It's not either/or, it's both, and integrating strategies to make your learning more efficient is superior for long-term learning.

This. It's not focused study vs. just have fun all the time study. It's doing focused study and then immersing yourself.

It's go to class and study, then go home and watch a drama.

Asriel Wrote:It's not focused study vs. just have fun all the time study. It's doing focused study and then immersing yourself. It's go to class and study, then go home and watch a drama.

Ya I think that's something that we all can agree upon... the context people i'm sure are doing anki reps also, etc. But I'm referring specifically to the more contentious points on this forum:

dtcamero Wrote:The efficiency-focused sphere would include ideas like bi-lingual dictionaries, only using media that is level-appropriate, textbooks and classes, core vocab study, not doing rtk3, and generally using English up until an “advanced” level.
The context-heavy sphere would include ideas like going monolingual early on, sleep immersion, exclusively exposing oneself to L2 media, sentence cards/MCDs/Subs2SRS as opposed to core vocab, and generally excluding English as much as possible.

The difference in terms of actual L2 interaction is huge, not to mention the significance of staying in the L2 for a longer period of time. Yes most people probably fall somewhere between the extremes, tending towards one or the other. But I'd say there is an oppositional relationship between these constellations of ideas, so therefore they can be essentialized and analyzed in comparison to one another.

It's not useful to advocate an extreme view like input-only and characterize a non-extreme view of doing both in order to pretend it's an either/or, all-or-nothing equation. It's simply wrong.

And if you want more input and to make the most of your input, add in deliberate study. The difference is huge, as you say, you'll have much more time to read and watch stuff, and you'll get much more out of it, if you do both.

You can generalize that any extreme is bad and thus if you only SRS or primarily do explicit study, etc., then you won't have as much exposure, but no one does that, the extremists are on the other end. At most you can speculate on hypotheticals, the dangers of too much deliberate study, etc., but as I said, no one actually advocates that, because they know better, and for people who screw up and do too much deliberate study, then increasing their metacognitive skills will help with that, not following some widely advocated extreme advice in the other direction, similar to what I told gdaxeman in another recent thread, re: encouraging use of the L2 (you don't need a monolingual approach for that).

Oh and the obvious flaws in your perspective come from your mentioning subs2srs and MCDs on the extremist side of things. Huh? You mean clozing passages of text? I don't recall calling that MCD when I came up with it, but thanks for mentioning. And subs2srs, I'm glad you like it, I hope my many comments in that thread helped you learn to use this efficiency-increasing tool.

And it's not an imaginary efficiency-focused sphere that advocates level-appropriate materials and bilingual dictionaries, it's people who know the research supports using L1 to learn an L2 and that you learn more words, more quickly, with better long-term retention and impact on comprehension, with comprehensible input with an element of strategic, deliberate design to it.

wow that was an unusually incoherent and rambling response nestor... I must have struck a nerve. ;P

a few points of interest:

nestor Wrote:the extremists are on the other end

you sound like an efficiency-centric Rush Limbaugh saying its only liberals that incite violence.

nestor Wrote:Huh? You mean clozing passages of text? I don't recall calling that MCD when I came up with it, but thanks for mentioning

if anyone came up with clozing text in anki it was Damien Elmes, but truly this claim sounds like people who say Columbus discovered the western hemisphere. i think the pique actually comes from using your bf khatz's nomenclature :D

seriously i didn't use your name and I think you're taking the OP rather personally... it wasn't directed at you.

dtcamero Wrote:wow that was an unusually incoherent and rambling response nestor... I must have struck a nerve. ;P

a few points of interest:

nestor Wrote:the extremists are on the other end

you sound like an efficiency-centric Rush Limbaugh saying its only liberals that incite violence.

nestor Wrote:Huh? You mean clozing passages of text? I don't recall calling that MCD when I came up with it, but thanks for mentioning

if anyone came up with clozing text in anki it was Damien Elmes, but truly this claim sounds like people who say Columbus discovered the western hemisphere. i think the pique actually comes from using your bf khatz's nomenclature

seriously i didn't use your name and I think you're taking the OP rather personally... it wasn't directed at you.

Apparently you're taking this personally, you're going for the ad hominem approach. Time for more ‘nest0r's a guy’-based gay jokes? Oh wait, ‘your bf khatz's nomenclature’, guess it's already happened.

At any rate, now you know that it wasn't extreme context-only people who came up with idea of subs2srs or clozing passages of text on cards. It's not either/or, all-or-nothing.

And if you want to prove me wrong and point out instances of folks saying only or primarily to do deliberate study and avoid native media, feel free. Bonus points if you can point to it being a consistent trend.

You'll find that the only dichotomy is: Faction 1: Do both. Faction 2: No, just be extreme and avoid English, SRSing, classes, etc.

well if we are getting personal here...

could you please stop making these enourmous redundant citations before your comment? Everyone knows what what written and it clogs up the forum.

also if you're going to post repeatedly on every topic, a teaspoon of humor would make the nestor medicine go down a bit easier perhaps...

dtcamero Wrote:sleep immersion

To latch on to a tangent here, let me just say sleep immersion is completely bunk: there is no evidence that it works and a lot of positive evidence that it doesn't.

dtcamero Wrote:well if we are getting personal here...

could you please stop making these enourmous redundant citations before your comment? Everyone knows what what written and it clogs up the forum.

also if you're going to post repeatedly on every topic, a teaspoon of humor would make the nestor medicine go down a bit easier perhaps...

Just because people don't find your resorting to tasteless, juvenile insults amusing doesn't mean they don't have a sense of humour. It's you, not us.

And I know you'd prefer it if I didn't quote you, people like you often prefer to insult and then edit out their insults after their target has read their comments.

No offense nest0r but both of you are contributing to the problem here, not just dtcamero.

nest0r Wrote:You'll find that the only dichotomy is: Faction 1: Do both. Faction 2: No, just be extreme and avoid English, SRSing, classes, etc.

that's pretty much as i see it.

everyone here molds what they see into a workable study program with varying rates of success that each person finds satisfactory to themselves.

the groups aren't even split into such hard lines as the OP states. there are many people here who promote textbooks but not classes. some who prefer a mix of both level-appropriate media and advanced media. some people who SRS sentences with core.

dtcamero Wrote:most people probably fall somewhere between the extremes, tending towards one or the other. But I'd say there is an oppositional relationship between these constellations of ideas, so therefore they can be essentialized and analyzed in comparison to one another.

ya i think there is a big grey area... and i've never heard of anyone who does all input with no srs. but since this ideological division does seem to exist, I wanted to clarify the extremes in order to be able to talk about their differences.

In the thread where I was first introduced to the four strands, I remember you said:

dtcamero Wrote:what are these professors going to do for you that is so helpful? get you onto a better textbook like Genki? help you memorize verb conjugation tables? explain a handful of idioms? have an awkward hour of forced incorrect japanese? these techniques are bunk and you just need to immerse with and study actual jmedia in the wild. the irony is that khatz doesn't need to be smarter than a prof because The Japanese People are doing the teaching, and largely know what they're talking about.

Now, I'm not necessarily talking about classes here, but more about the focused learning that they bring you. These techniques are not "bunk," nor are they ineffective. They bring a lot to the table that help you pick up on things better in the wild.

Sitting in class and doing homework is well and fine, but you'll learn better if you supplement it with some outside immersion. If you're just immersing and not doing any focused study, you're not going to advance too quickly. If I were to choose one of the extremes, it'd probably be the all-focused study, because you're hitting more of the "strands," as it were. At least at the beginning stages...

But I don't think anyone here is advocating one of the extremes, so I'm not even sure what this discussion is about?

dtcamero Wrote:The efficiency-focused sphere would include ideas like bi-lingual dictionaries, only using media that is level-appropriate, textbooks and classes, core vocab study, not doing rtk3, and generally using English up until an “advanced” level.
The context-heavy sphere would include ideas like going monolingual early on, sleep immersion, exclusively exposing oneself to L2 media, sentence cards/MCDs/Subs2SRS as opposed to core vocab, and generally excluding English as much as possible.

well I hear the term efficiency talked about a lot in association with certain methods like the ones above, and wanted to define 2 ideological positions within these methods. I also find the economic argument relevant to weighing them against each other.

I should stress that I never advocated for extremism in any direction, but rather simply noted at the end of my post the result of extremism as an interesting aside that could help in assessing the above methods.

50% of what we all do is probably the same... we all srs, we all watch movies. But the above methods are controvertial and merit informed discussion.

First up, dtcamero, your OP presented an interesting theory. Thanks for writing it.

I think no one is saying that less immersion is better than more. What it comes down to for me, is quality of immersion. I want high quality (high effectiveness) immersion multiplied by a lot of time. To present an overly simplified equation:

R(result) = T(time) X E(effectiveness).

To me, something like AJATT (an extreme(ish) example of your context heavy sphere), maximises T but E is lower than it needs to be. It may still get results but the time required is huge and time is a valuable resource.

Then on the other end, you have people who supposedly only spend time memorizing grammar rules from textbooks (does anyone actually do this?). These people are likely to think E is high, but it isn't because they are neither training useful (real) language skills nor learning useful information quickly (which would increase E). T will likely be low too due to boredom and low motivation. Then again, people only have a certain amount of T available to them. Increasing E is vital.

So how do you maximise E in a way that doesn't demotivate you from spending sufficient T or motivates you to spend more T. This is the most important question to me. For me the most effective method (high E) is simply consuming the target language in a comprehensible way. The higher the quantity of comprehensible target language entering your brain per unit of time the better. This is why I recommend:
-bilingual dictionaries (make content comprehensible quickly and without confusion)
-parallel texts (same reason)
-phrase books with translated example sentences (same reason)
-audiobooks (increase comprehension and E of audio content)
-comprehensible audio content (higher E value)
-massive vocab learning (increase comprehension and therefore increase E)
-search for grammar explanations only when strictly necessary (increases E but is time consuming)
etc etc.

There's also a bunch of things (from both of your hypothetical spheres) that I recommend against because their E value is low and I'd be getting better bang® for my time(T) by focusing on things with high E value.

I think it's worth mentioning that apart from the vocabulary learning, my study is immersion (your so-called context heavy sphere), but I'm using my L1 when necessary to increase comprehension (your so called efficiency-focused sphere)

Hi Nadiatims, thanks for your very considered reply. I was actually waiting for it because I largely wrote this piece in response to something you wrote a long time ago in the “don’t repeat my mistakes” thread:

nadiatims Wrote:DON’T:
spend more than 10% of your study time in SRS.
bother making sentence decks
[…]read materials way above your level
[…]listen to music
[…]do RTK 3

As well as the now infamous characterization of ajatt's 24/7 idea of lifestyle adjustment as “complete overkill instead of efficiency.”
This along with the above methods:

nadiatims Wrote:-bilingual dictionaries (make content comprehensible quickly and without confusion)
-parallel texts (same reason)
-phrase books with translated example sentences (same reason)
-audiobooks (increase comprehension and E of audio content)
-comprehensible audio content (higher E value)
-massive vocab learning (increase comprehension and therefore increase E)
-search for grammar explanations only when strictly necessary (increases E but is time consuming)

create an interesting picture of a study practice that uses time in a very focused way, and more than SRSing focuses on lots of (carefully selected) reading and active listening that I would presume is enjoyable and comprehensible. My idea of the “efficiency-centric” extreme would actually be based on you:

dtcamero Wrote:The efficiency-focused sphere would include ideas like bi-lingual dictionaries, only using media that is level-appropriate, […], core vocab study, not doing rtk3, and generally using English up until an “advanced” level.

Rather than “people […] memorizing grammar rules from textbooks”… But I don’t mean extreme as a negative judgement at all. I think you have a rather interesting method that gets you a lot of enjoyment and will be highly sustainable… a big plus in my book.
But anyways this article was in a way my reaction to your posting oeuvre ;D

As expressed above, after focused study (of any sort) is over for the day, lifestyle alteration and 24/7 immersion is very inefficient as you say (the overkill sentiment). However my point was to try to illustrate the usefulness of such inefficient tasks, which after patience/attention for focused study runs out can be backgrounded into everyday life. Out of sheer quantity those inefficient units of study add up to significant utility in this view.

On a side note, polyglots also tend to say that switching between L2 and L1 is unhelpful for thinking in the L2… i.e. that there is a language-acquisition efficiency to staying in the L2 longer (through a J-J dic, for example), even if your j-book’s page-turning efficiency is lower. In the OP I referred to that as simply being additional context, but perhaps it would be doubly-efficient…

Anyways, one full page later, I disagree yet respect your position. ;D

nadiatims Wrote:I want high quality (high effectiveness) immersion multiplied by a lot of time. To present an overly simplified equation:

R(result) = T(time) X E(effectiveness). [...]

That's a quite interesting equation that can perhaps be applied to anything we want to learn; one thing I would point to improve it though is that E is not all about the quality of materials being used but it also depends on personal factors — that is, someone who's applying a lot of time and using the most appropriate materials possible could still not be achieving higher Rs than others doing the same. Maybe we could expand E like this:

E(effectiveness) = Q(quality of material) × F(student's focus) × S(student's speed)

Note that focus and speed are separate variables; you can have a lot of focus and be slow, or be fast and have no focus at all. (And focus and speed also depend on things like adequate sleep, food, and mental hygiene; well, it's possible to detail the equation even further, but I think this is enough for now.)

I (in another thread) Wrote:DON’T:
spend more than 10% of your study time in SRS.
bother making sentence decks
[…]read materials way above your level
[…]listen to music
[…]do RTK 3

That was very general advice and I should probably explain the 'why' of these statements.
Actually neither of these activities are bad per say, it's all about how much (quantity) information these things will teach you and the relative quality/relevance/priority of that information balanced against enjoyment and digestibility. If used in the right way any of these activities can teach you something. For example super difficult reading material can teach a beginner a lot (the quantity of useful language data is huge) but if approached badly, the speed of absorption could be very slow and it could also be very frustrating, basically it's slow and frustrating for a beginner to digest unless they approach it the right way. An example of the right way would be to have it in a digital format, read through it making however much sense of it as you can while extracting unknown vocabulary with a mouse-over dictionary such as rikaisan. Another example would be using a parallel texts or other translated material so you can start attaching meaning to the target language in that way. An example of a bad way would be battling through a novel with a paper dictionary and grammar reference hoping for complete comprehension, constantly stopping and starting, adding cards to an srs and/or searching for example sentences.

dtcamero Wrote:...create an interesting picture of a study practice that uses time in a very focused way, and more than SRSing focuses on lots of (carefully selected) reading and active listening that I would presume is enjoyable and comprehensible. My idea of the “efficiency-centric” extreme would actually be based on you:..

The reading material doesn't need to be all that carefully selected even. The only criterion really is that I can enjoy consuming it (i.e the content is interesting enough and digestible enough). I can just alter my expectations regarding thoroughness of comprehension and how I study it based on the difficulty. I wouldn't call any of my listening particularly 'active' either. Until my comprehension is high enough, I'm almost always doing something else at the same time. I just prioritise listening to content that I have some hope (however small) of comprehending. I don't want to have to stop what I'm doing and concentrate to get something out of the listening practice. That is boring to me. I'm like this even with English. My methods are actually based on laziness and corner cutting.

dtcamero Wrote:However my point was to try to illustrate the usefulness of such inefficient tasks, which after patience/attention for focused study runs out can be backgrounded into everyday life. Out of sheer quantity those inefficient units of study add up to significant utility in this view.

Yeah I can dig what you're saying. But as far as the backgrounded tasks I don't think we're really that much in disagreement. My contention is just that if you consider the logistics of what you're trying to learn and are efficient in the 'study' component you learn more quickly and actually benefit more from the backgrounded tasks (I assume you're referring to maximising listening practice) because your comprehension will be higher. I also think theres a contradiction inherent in the idea that you can maximise R(result) purely by addressing T(time) while allowing E(effectiveness) to be low. Surely you want to maximise both.

dtcamero Wrote:On a side note, polyglots also tend to say that switching between L2 and L1 is unhelpful for thinking in the L2… i.e. that there is a language-acquisition efficiency to staying in the L2 longer (through a J-J dic, for example), even if your j-book’s page-turning efficiency is lower. In the OP I referred to that as simply being additional context, but perhaps it would be doubly-efficient…

I agree that there is language efficiency to staying in L2 longer, I just don't think that falling back on consulting L1 translations when necessary is really as serious an interruption as you think when balanced against the benefit it provides. As far as polyglots are concerned I disagree. Steve Kauffman makes heavy use of bilingual dictionaries. Alexander Arguelles makes heavy use of parallel texts. If you watch videos by polyglots on Youtube (such as lokiloki2504, poliglotta80, glossika and others) they frequently recommend and review various bilingual learner materials. To me translations = good (you just stop looking at them as they become unnecessary). Explanations = unnecessary most of the time.

dtcamero Wrote:Anyways, one full page later, I disagree yet respect your position.;D

likewise

gdaxeman Wrote:E(effectiveness) = Q(quality of material) × F(student's focus) × S(student's speed)

gdaxeman Wrote:Note that focus and speed are separate variables; you can have a lot of focus and be slow, or be fast and have no focus at all. (And focus and speed also depend on things like adequate sleep, food, and mental hygiene; well, it's possible to detail the equation even further, but I think this is enough for now.)

Yeah, the equation could be made much more complex of course. It was just something I thought up to illustrate that all study methods are not equal and that efficiency/effectiveness is a relevant thing to think about. Your additions are probably about right. I think students focus and speed are very closely related. Also Q would probably effect F and S too, so they're not really independent variables. A few things worth noting, any activity that involves frequent multitasking (such as reading, then looking up a word, finding an example sentence for it and then making an srs card) is likely to reduce S and possibly F. Simple relatively mindless tasks that are enjoyable may be conductive of the 'flow' state, increasing both S and F. So for high E you want material that will allow you to enter this flow state (high S and F) and allow you to start internalising a high quantity of useful information.

dtcamero Wrote:However, as [context-heavy language learners] spend much more time in their L2 (using monolingual definitions, doing SRS with context/media, only being exposed to L2 media, sleep & general immersing, overall lifestyle adjustment) they have a much higher utility overall

Just because you spend much more time on a task than someone else, it does not mean you get more done.

dtcamero Wrote:Possibly the most telling implication of this analysis is that the most efficient method of language study possible will in fact achieve zero utility and therefore never reach fluency.

This just proves that your analysis is wrong (reductio ad absurdum). The most efficient method of language study will make you fluent in less time than any other method (by definition).

@dtcamero, I also don't see the "efficiency vs context" "dichotomous relationship". It's a mindset that baffles some people. Attempting to squeeze nadiatims into some kind of extreme box strikes me as a distortion of reality to fit some artificial "ideological" divide. Learners use activities from both your "groups". We are one. ;-)

If you're into discussing the merits of particular methods, go for it. (You might want to check out several previous threads first, though.) I just don't see why you'd need to force some kind of broad artificial division in order to evaluate different methods.

About your economics example (which is micro, btw): I think basic economic theories can help us conceptualize stuff, but they tend to fall apart when we try to apply such abstract concepts to real world examples. Reading about language would probably be more useful, if you're genuinely interested.

I don't know economics (econ101 is a very distant memory), but since you took the time to make fancy graphs, I'll take the bait (separate post). :-)

(btw, if you like to apply economics to random life stuff - which doesn't quite fit - you might like Posner's "Sex and Reason".)

Okay, this is basically a tl;dr version of nadiatims' and isoron's points for dtcamero using the OP econ example. Maybe someone who knows econ will follow with something sensible before that blog fellow tries to use dtcamero's graphs to sell his stuff as "scientifically proven". haha

dtcamero Wrote:Forgive my crudely drawn diagram, but one can see that while the context-heavy language learners spend more and more time immersed, not in English, etc… they get less and less marginal benefit from each ‘unit’ of study. However, as they spend much more time in their L2 [...]they have a much higher utility overall.

Isn't drawing a graph to prove your conclusion a bit backwards? Why would the respective curves necessarily look like that for language learning?

What is the bottom axis? study units per day? per year? It's difficult to understand what diminishing returns would mean without knowing the time frame. (daily physical limitations? knowledge saturation? limitations inherent in activity? increasingly rare content?)

Why did you draw marginal utility so high relative to total utility at the start? [Isn't the utility of the first unit = its mu?] If mu starts high then wouldn't utility rise steeply, intercept mu and keep increasing (so long as mu is positive)? It seems more likely that mu of (overall) language learning would be flat (and even increasing at times). If diminishing returns applies at some high number of study units, the utility curve would only start to flatten out then.

So a learner (who has nothing else going on in life...) would maximize their utility by studying the number of units at which utility peaks, right? And any learner who chooses to exceed that number of hours would be considered to be acting irrationally. They'd get almost no increased benefit from more units of study. At high units of inefficient study, mu would probably hover above zero and utility would effectively plateau. Wasting time, right?

If someone were to choose a super high number of study hours, then physical exhaustion and boredom might mean mu would actually drop below zero and the utility curve would descend. They'd be worse off.

Quote:The converse is also obviously true, and while efficiency-focused study probably ‘feels’ like it is producing great results, (which it is per unit of study) the eventual outcome is much less utility overall. Possibly the most telling implication of this analysis is that the most efficient method of language study possible will in fact achieve zero utility and therefore never reach fluency.

huh? You've got apples and oranges on the same axis, don't you? What if someone did many efficient hours, or a few inefficient hours? And, as mentioned, the graph as drawn doesn't seem to reflect reality.

"eventual outcome"? "less utility overall"? We're looking at choices of utility vs study units for a given time frame, aren't we? So why are you talking about time as a variable with "eventual outcome"? Learning doesn't have static utility. (5 Day 1 hours won't have the same utility as 5 Day 100 hrs. Likewise with 100 hrs in Yr 1 vs Yr 2.)

The last sentence doesn't make any sense to me either. Surely you're not pointing out that someone who studies 0 hours won't have any utility?

Here are a few more basic problems I see:

Units/activities Language learning isn't homogeneous units. Each learning activity would require its own graph. A learner needs to determine how to allocate his time between different learning activities. Also, the activities are inter-dependent, so the graphs for each activity would change as the combination of activities change. And each individual's graph for each activity would look different.

In your example, why lump two different types of study into one function if you're trying to compare them? You might instead draw separate graphs for your 'efficient' and 'less efficient' learners. (This is nadiatims' point: her E is MU, her T is study units, her R is total utility). So mu for efficient learners is high and probably flat therefore utility rises steeply to high levels. A less efficient learner would have a lower and diminishing mu with utility increasing very gradually and only reaching the same max level at many many hours.

Opportunity cost The notion of opportunity cost is at the core of criticisms of "24/7 of anything L2" type immersion. You'd have to factor in utility foregone by not using other methods with higher mu.

Utility You've arbitrarily decided utility=satisfaction=fluency (language improvement) which seems problematic. It suggests some kind of objective measure of skill. Isn't utility more about individual subjective perception of benefit or satisfaction? (i.e. a higher price on a demand curve doesn't mean the product is better.) Just b/c a learner is willing to spend hours study b/c they 'feel' it's beneficial, doesn't mean it's actually effective. Aren't you starting with your conclusion that time = fluency? So you're back at square one: how effective are all those hours of background listening? As others have pointed out, effectiveness isn't only a function of time.

If it were utility=satisfaction=enjoyment in your example, then perhaps people seeking to maximize fun would indeed select a higher number of hours. Those hours aren't necessarily effective, though. Maybe you could look at productivity curves rather than utility curves?

Time A learner's graph for each activity would keep changing over time depending on their level and what combination of activities they've previously used. Also, not all activities would have diminishing returns. Some would be flat, others would increase.

Take listening: An absolute beginner can use incomprehensible audio to learn to hear unfamiliar sounds, so their mu might be flat and then quickly drop off. When they are more proficient [supplementing with explicit learning], they'll start off with higher utility and have a long wavy stretch of increasing returns as their comprehension builds on itself. In between those stages, listening to hours of incomprehensible input would have low mu and total utility would start lower and build only very slowly.

Indifference curves Just for fun, imagine indifference curves for different constant utility (fluency/proficiency) levels. Pretend there's only efficient and non-efficient learning methods to choose from. ;-) The budget line here would be a learner's available time (whose -45 slope wouldn't change). You can shift the indifference curve out for greater desired proficiency and shift the time line out for folks with more time. So what kind of results does that get you?

You're going to pick the combo where the fluency curve is tangential to the time budget line. It wouldn't make sense to select a point on a time line with more non-efficient units b/c it would put you on a lower fluency curve. And because efficient methods are more well ... efficient, ;-) the optimum ratio (given the indifference curve shape and fixed time line angle) will have more efficient study units than inefficient. (Now ... can we draw indifference curves in multiple dimensions to reflect all combinations of actual activities?) :-)

This is kinda fun, but econ isn't my thing and I don't really think it works for overall language learning beyond outlining relationships which are already pretty straightforward. Folks here often talk more specifically about diminishing returns (based on decreasing frequency) of large pre-made vocab lists or of knowing massive numbers of kanji. That makes more sense to me.

edits in [ ]

Thora I think you're great and you write very sincerely, so I mean this from the heart when I say that we have veered off into crazyland.

this is literally a graph that I redrew from my micro textbook (thank you for the correction btw, that was embarrassing ;D). it is an intentionally vague graph that illustrates an abstract idea... but that idea is however fundamental to our understanding of the way the world works.

your complaints are for the most part literally complaints that could be leveled at the original diagram (legitimately), yet it is still useful for explaining an abstract idea.

and while we're talking about abstract ideas, this efficiency v context ideological divide may be artificial...by which I guess you mean unnecessary and unproven, however such is the nature of most big-picture thinking. econ as a field is essentially an artificial structure that we use to organize the mass of statistical data created by the world's activity. by that criteria what's the next thing we kill off... art history? sports journalism??

as for the last sentence it gives me this greasy feeling doing so but i guess i have to kill the joke by explaining it. the idea of a 'most efficient method possible' was intended to be a hyperbolic "as x approaches infinity" kind of impossible idea... not what would happen with an actual person studying really efficiently.

and dingdingding to you for picking up on the (slightly meta-) joke that while I mean what I wrote, this was my impression of an ajatt post ;D

iSoron Wrote:

dtcamero Wrote:Possibly the most telling implication of this analysis is that the most efficient method of language study possible will in fact achieve zero utility and therefore never reach fluency.

This just proves that your analysis is wrong (reductio ad absurdum). The most efficient method of language study will make you fluent in less time than any other method (by definition).

I agree. However, to be charitable, I assume that dtcamero meant that the apparently most efficient method will have little real-world application and demotivate the learner. Nevertheless, if this analysis is correct, then we reach the exact same conclusion. The apparently most efficient method is not actually the most efficient method. As you (iSoron) so well put it, the most efficient method is the method that "will make you fluent in less time than any other method."

@dtcamero
I appreciate your eagerness to challenge theories and go against convention. However, whenever doing so, be ready for criticism. When a new theory is offered, it is reasonable to expect the new theory to be barraged with criticisms. If the theory is good, it will withstand the criticisms and replace its predecessors. If not, its strengths and weaknesses will be made clear. These observations are all obvious, but it is helpful to be reminded of them when we feel like we're under attack.

Now, I won't make any assumptions regarding your background, but I will mention that many bright, young university students share a similar mindset as you. They learn a few basic concepts, and then begin challenging longstanding theories. Afterwards, there are two general outcomes. Either they become dogmatic and simple-minded, or they realize the nauseating complexity and nuance of the theories they once challenged. The second group begins to realize the amount work that goes into a major theory (such as a theory language acquisition). Even looking at the theories on language acquisition advocated on these boards, pages upon pages and threads upon threads have been devoted to their development. Despite all of this work, many of these theories are plagued with unsupported generalizations and assumptions, lack of evidence, and flawed reasoning. It makes you realize how its a grandiose dream to imagine that you can take down such theories with just a few shallow criticisms. I know this because I speak as someone who experienced this conversion, and I continue to see this in the students whom I now teach.

Anyway, I typically don't speak so candidly on internet forums, especially since I often have no personal connections to any of the individuals posting on such forums. However, it'd be a waste of talent if you fell into the first group of intelligent, but dogmatic and narrow-minded people. Therefore, I broke out of my habit, and choose to post in such a personal tone. I hope you find my post useful in some way.

dtcamero Wrote:Thora I think you're great and you write very sincerely, so I mean this from the heart when I say that we have veered off into crazyland.

I think you're great too, love. I figured we were already in crazyland at the OP, but responded sincerely anyway. How weird is that? (It's like I need to take care of you...) ;p

You seem to think I found your example too abstract, but otherwise okay. So let me be more clear, darling. I'm saying the idea of applying this graph to language learning was a mistake to begin with (for reasons mentioned) and your analysis of it was messed up. (And when I tried to force the econ take on it, it worked against you.)

Quote:this is literally a graph that I copied from my micro textbook [..]it is an intentionally vague graph that illustrates an abstract idea... but that idea is however fundamental to our understanding of the way the world works.

Not how the world works ... how utility relates to quantity of homogeneous units. Neither of which fit your example. (I understand you were illustrating a concept, but the concept just doesn't work here, sweetheart.)

Quote:your complaints are for the most part literally complaints that could be leveled at the original diagram (legitimately), yet it is still useful for explaining an abstract idea.

The problems with your analysis went beyond the observation that simple economic models don't account for messy real life. Models state their assumptions and define their variables. Your graph was a bit of a mash up. ;p

Quote:and while we're talking about abstract ideas, this efficiency v context ideological divide may be artificial...by which I guess you mean unnecessary and unproven, however such is the nature of most big-picture thinking.

Call it what you like, lovey, but I believe we have enough information in this forum to show that your categories aren't valid. Folks disagree on specific topics like implicit vs explicit grammar learning, using L1 when learning, input vs output, but I don't think they fall into two groups like you're suggesting.

In sum, my dear, I'm still not a "24/7 of background incomprehensible audio" convert. But it's great to see you so passionate and well behaved! xoxo

You know, Khatz did mention marginal utility...hmm ;p