ryuudou wrote:

Oh I'm sorry, I must have missed the conclusive evidence part where it states that studying kanji via Heisig is more efficient. Perhaps some people are more talented than others, an just happened to study via Heisig? Farce! Farce! Nonsense!

The part you just quoted from me was the only part of my post that didn't contain an argument, I'm sure it must be very convenient for you to highlight that part and ignore the rest of my post though.

ryuudou wrote:

And yet you've both spent hundreds of hours reviewing and learning via this "farce" Heisig theory, despite so many outside variables that can be cited to effectively "water down" the anecdotal "Heisig - Kanji efficiency" correlation, despite no formal studies on the Heisig method by any reputable cognitive scientists; this inconsistency in your behavior is further proof that both of your actions here are nothing more than an emotional knee-jerk reactions because StanField123 has pointed out things you don't like.

Sorry but your entire inconsistency-argument is completely false. I have never, ever claimed that virtuoso violinists and people wanting to master chess should spend 8 hours of focused training every day, but I have stated that you can spend 8 hours doing RTK (which I have personal experience of, mind you). Did you even read my last post? Do you honestly believe that looking at a kanji, finding a story on this site, imagining it, entering it in Anki and then rince and repeat are equally mentally straining as actively studying complex topics like chess? Or are you claiming that 4 hours is the limit no matter what kind of mental activity or studies you are doing? But really, for some people 4 hours might be the limit I don't know (and never claimed otherwise), what I'm arguing against is Stanfield trying to turn the interview into evidence that sprinters aren't learning RTK properly (which he don't know shit about).

And also, citing an interview claiming that the limit for "deep work" requiring "deep focus" is 4 hours and then just applying that to any kind of mental activity just doesn't hold. Like I wrote in my last post, I didn't find doing RTK very mentally straining. This of course doesn't mean I didn't learn it properly.

ryuudou wrote:

The evidence cited here is definitely not as strong as the collective good word for Heisig, but it's still a significant correlation as successful people don't "accidentally" have extremely specific time-management routines "just for the hell of it". Nobody has stated that you can't study at your hardest for 8 hours a day, but that the "Effort:Reasonable Benefit" ratio goes down effectively wasting time for miniscule gains; this is supported by plausible evidence via a correlation of successful people having productivity schedules that work around getting the most out of the these four hours — additionally there is a significant amount more of supporting information online for the things pointed out by the thread starter that rival the amount of "unfounded" support that Heisig has.

If you read my posts on page one I have already agreed that you get less effective as time goes on, I never argued against that. If you want to finish with something as early as possible though, your productivity per hour ratio doesn't have to be optimized, that's not interesting. What I am arguing against is mainly Stanfields claim that his post somehow is evidence that people here sprinting through RTK is not really learning it properly, which is simply not true. No such evidence has been presented.

ryuudou wrote:

While it's fine not to believe it you also can't so easily fundamentally dismiss it just because you don't like it and it hurts your feelings. Not believing in something doesn't make it a "farce" as you two have either said or implied; "I don't believe in X" is not logically equivalent to "X is wrong". The difference between you two and the thread starter is that he has a good amount of support evidencing for his claims, and you don't. Please have some more respect for someone who is going out of his way to attempt to advance our collaborative learning efforts like the thread starter. This is not a playground.

Look, I don't mind Stanfield sharing this information about this and recommending a 4 hour schedule. And I do agree with you that you should show respect for people attempting to advance the collaborative learning efforts (as you nicely put it). What I get annoyed at is when he also puts down the efforts of people who did RTK faster than him and claim they didn't learn it properly just because they didn't follow his 4 hour schedule. This is not only rude but he has nothing to support this claim. And I also know from experience it is simply not true.

Whatever works for all the virtuoso violinists, it's a fact that I could never had gone through RTK as fast as I did if I only spent 4 hours a day.

But to sum it all up I can just say that sure I can't disregard the possibility of the 4-hour method being superior in general even for RTK, but what I can do is to completely dismiss his link as any kind of evidence that sprinters don't learn RTK.

I think a Buddhist or Shaolin monk could easily concentrate for more than 4 hours :-)

chamcham wrote:

I think a Buddhist or Shaolin monk could easily concentrate for more than 4 hours :-)

It's easy to concentrate when you limit the variables to focus on and mental strain thereof. Many people loss focus and overload themselves because they are trying to be present while also focusing on related future deadlines, etc. The point of many Buddhist forms of mediation isn't to show how stoic one is by idling themselves for extensive periods of time but to find focus on the present moment. Sense of time becomes relative to those trying to exert against it.

Er, I probably took that a little too seriously. *laughs*

Interesting article that ties into this discussion:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/10/opini … wanted=all

"Working in 90-minute intervals turns out to be a prescription for maximizing productivity. Professor K. Anders Ericsson and his colleagues at Florida State University have studied elite performers, including musicians, athletes, actors and chess players. In each of these fields, Dr. Ericsson found that the best performers typically practice in uninterrupted sessions that last no more than 90 minutes. They begin in the morning, take a break between sessions, and rarely work for more than four and a half hours in any given day.

“To maximize gains from long-term practice,” Dr. Ericsson concluded, “individuals must avoid exhaustion and must limit practice to an amount from which they can completely recover on a daily or weekly basis.”