blackbrich wrote:

nadiatims wrote:

same. I wanted to hear the panelists.

I love how they showed some scientific test about memorizing words or something and the host did badly. Then the researcher says something along the lines that hyperpolyglots would probably do much better. Pure speculation. Why not test it?

That seems like a ridiculous test anyway. The only way it could prove something is if they test some monolingual person, they do well, and years later they become a hyperpolyglot. Otherwise all it proves is that hyperpolyglots are better at learning new words which you still couldn't attribute to being born differently since they're already hyperpolyglots.

In a single paragraph, you've invalidated weeks, if not months, of design study and a significant amount of grant money. Not to mention, the demise of someone's promotion to tenure. I have two questions. How much are you paid, and how did you get your job?

Edit: the above is obviously a joke, but just in case someone objects, let me add that such a study is still useful to prove the differences in word-memory between polyglots and non-polyglots. Nonetheless, as blackbrich indicated, such a study cannot prove whether polyglots are born with better word-memories or not (i.e. it doesn't rule out the possibility that they developed and honed their word-memorization abilities through language study or otherwise).

Last edited by vileru (2012 May 06, 7:18 am)

Splatted wrote:

Testing if polyglots do significantly better seems like a sensible first step before embarking on a 5 year study, but maybe that's just me.

It would have been fine if she said polyglots brains work differently. But she goes on to say she was pretty sure they were born differently without proof. If she had said there may be a possibilty, cool.

Last edited by blackbrich (2012 May 06, 8:58 am)

Point taken. I still have doubts about her ability to find it to be true without at least 2 before and after polyglots.

Last edited by blackbrich (2012 May 06, 9:48 am)

Saw it. I also wish they showed more of the panel talk...I mean, there might be some differences in hyperpolyglots' brains, but with half the segment being devoted to asking if there are differences, it seemed like the host just wanted to find an excuse as to why she isn't one, and "their brains are made differently" sounds like a better excuse than "they have the drive, and devote the time to learning languages".

vileru wrote:

On a side note: although the program did not point this out, I had the impression that most of the panelists are introverts. Although many of them are outgoing, it doesn't seem like their natural disposition. Did anyone else have a similar observation?

That was interesting! Especially since I thought extroverts would become better at speaking languages quicker...

AlexandreC wrote:

The line between introvert and extrovert is not always clear and some people may be introverts in certain situations, yet extroverts in others. Still, studying a language can be a very intellectual and introvert activity, so this isn't so surprising. I also suspect that those who are able to become extrovert when using the language is necessary will tend to learn to speak faster (although not all polyglots care about speaking and many only want to read a language).

Hmm, interesting points. I guess I just thought that because when I was studying at a Japanese language school, the super-extroverts were always the ones who tried out as much of the language as they could, and doing stuff like prioritizing working on how to be funny in Japanese over learning grammar. They were usually the ones with the largest vocabulary, and the largest amount of Japanese friends, although their accents were usually the worst, they seemed like the best at actually communicating in the language.
But it could be that I was a little jealous of them (as an introvert who acts extroverted sometimes to make socializing easier, but doesn't make friends quite as effortlessly as an extrovert) too...