|
thedeadhaji
39489 Posts
I've been learning Chinese for the last year or so, and I've had a stupidly simple realization. It really is hard, almost impossible, to learn the material without putting in the time and effort to actually study. Before you roll your eyes in disbelief, thinking "I opened this blog for this nonsense?" let me explain. In the past I've been nothing less than a good student, and at times a great student. But I can see now that this was solely because I was fully committed to my studies. From Junior High to my Masters Degree, I always studied the material. Sometimes there were things that I simply couldn't comprehend (damn you Quantum Mechanics and Biochemistry!), but in general, I had a decent grasp of things. But it's a little bit different this time. I'm working full time now while I study, and have other studies that take precedence over my Chinese. My studies are now aimed at distinct, concrete purposes in the future, which have priorities against one another. Compounded, this has meant that I've spend about 1/5 the amount of time I'd need to fully understand, memorize, and control the material in my Chinese class. And it shows. I'm currently in "Chinese 5", as offered by my local community college. The further I have progressed in the curriculum, the more my deficiencies in the subject have become exposed. It has shown me that I can't just get away with doing the bare minimum to get "okay grades" in the class. It's honestly amazing how poorly I learn without putting in the time. My fluency in Japanese has bought me some time, but the chrome is coming off. If good students or talented students by nature were equipped to excel in their studies, then I probably would be able to get away with this minimal amount of effort. No such luck though; there really is no other road than the road well traveled[1]. It' stupidly obvious and stupidly simple, yet something that even the best of us forget from time to time. There are no shortcuts, and there are no excuses. If we want to learn, there's no choice but to pack our bags and go along for the ride. The road ahead is long and hard. I hope you know what you're getting into[2].
[1] Though to be honest, I don't expect to increase my effort level in Chinese too significantly (maybe 2x what I'm doing now); the biggest effort will invested in increasing my vocabulary. [2] I think that the only way we can persevere through the oft painful process of learning, is to know why you're learning the subject. Without this why, we don't have the ammunition to back ourselves up mentally when the going gets inevitably tough.
Crossposted from my main blog
 
|
I studied chinese for a while and it really is super hard.
Good luck!
(and consider taking a short trip to a chinese exclusive zone)
|
LOL, I was just talking to my friend about learning Chinese and saw this post!
|
|
|
Yeah this is a good insight. Sometimes there's a misconception that being smart = you master material with no effort. That may pass in grade school, and maybe for a rare few geniuses, but it'll sink you in regular circumstances.
|
Chinese is obscenely difficult to learn, and there is a severe shortage of teachers who are strong enough in both Chinese in English to help educate the students. From my experience, there would often be teachers who are very fluent, if not native speakers of Mandarin, but their English is subpar or lack the ability to effectively communicate with their students.
Second, the learning materials, such as books, are not the most well written from my experience. Many of them simply give an essay, then a list of vocab words, pinyin, and only sometimes the english translation. There might be a few examples, but it basically compells the student to simply memorize.
Source: I have been studying Chinese for many years, and I would consider myself fluent in oral communication and proficient in writtten communication (too many words to memorize).
|
On February 23 2012 02:47 Bagration wrote:
Chinese is obscenely difficult to learn, and there is a severe shortage of teachers who are strong enough in both Chinese in English to help educate the students. From my experience, there would often be teachers who are very fluent, if not native speakers of Mandarin, but their English is subpar or lack the ability to effectively communicate with their students.
Second, the learning materials, such as books, are not the most well written from my experience. Many of them simply give an essay, then a list of vocab words, pinyin, and only sometimes the english translation. There might be a few examples, but it basically compells the student to simply memorize.
Source: I have been studying Chinese for many years, and I would consider myself fluent in oral communication and proficient in writtten communication (too many words to memorize).
There's no need. I learned Japanese from teachers who barely spoke any English at all. All you need is time, pictures and teachers/materials which know how to pace the education.
|
I've studied it for a good 2 decades of my life, and I still suck at it.
Go figure.
|
|
|
Thats about where I came to the same realization, 5th semester. It's tough dude. I wish I could take it again now but grad school isn't known for free time :/
|
The why is hard, in general.
I'm right with you Haj.
|
I am of the belief that Chinese is impossible to learn without immersion.
|
On February 23 2012 04:03 See.Blue wrote:
Thats about where I came to the same realization, 5th semester. It's tough dude. I wish I could take it again now but grad school isn't known for free time :/
Isn't 5 semesters of Chinese enough for you to understand it though? Sorry if I'm wrong, I've never took any Chinese classes.
|
As they say, if you don't use it you lose it. Applies to when you're first learning too. Gotta practice everyday or you just forget in a week/become super slow at recalling it.
I'm trying to self-teach Japanese, but what I need most is to structure my learning so that I am actually challenging myself instead of just going at my snail's pace. At first I tried just saying 'from this time to this time is Japanese time' but then I'd end up with weird questions like 'how many vocab is really possible to learn in one sitting? How valuable is it to write the same things out over and over when my hand already hurts from writing them out and I feel like I know these ones?' Sometimes it feels like if I add more, then the ones I just did will be less likely to be remembered, but this is probably not even that true.
Learning seems to get trickier when you worry about success. If you ask me if I ever worried about forgetting stuff when learning about StarCraft, I'd say it never crossed my mind. And what I know about StarCraft is probably a language's worth 
|
I took Chinese 1 year in uni, dropped out after 1 week. I'm such a failure. lol
|
On February 23 2012 01:56 thedeadhaji wrote:+ Show Spoiler +<p>I've been learning Chinese for the last year or so, and I've had a stupidly simple realization. It really <em>is</em> hard, almost impossible, to learn the material without putting in the time and effort to actually study. Before you roll your eyes in disbelief, thinking "I opened this blog for <em>this</em> nonsense?" let me explain.</p><p>In the past I've been nothing less than a good student, and at times a great student. But I can see now that this was solely because I was fully committed to my studies. From Junior High to my Masters Degree, I <em>always</em> studied the material. Sometimes there were things that I simply couldn't comprehend (damn you Quantum Mechanics and Biochemistry!), but in general, I had a decent grasp of things. But it's a little bit different this time. </p><p>I'm working full time now while I study, and have other studies that take precedence over my Chinese. My studies are now aimed at distinct, concrete purposes in the future, which have priorities against one another. Compounded, this has meant that I've spend about 1/5 the amount of time I'd need to fully understand, memorize, and control the material in my Chinese class. And it shows. </p><p>I'm currently in "Chinese 5", as offered by my local community college. The further I have progressed in the curriculum, the more my deficiencies in the subject have become exposed. It has shown me that I can't just get away with doing the bare minimum to get "okay grades" in the class. It's honestly amazing how poorly I learn without putting in the time. My fluency in Japanese has bought me some time, but the chrome is coming off. </p><p>If <em>good students</em> or <em>talented students</em> by nature were equipped to excel in their studies, then I probably would be able to get away with this minimal amount of effort. No such luck though; there really is no other road than the road well traveled[1]. </p><p>It' stupidly obvious and stupidly simple, yet something that even the best of us forget from time to time. There <em>are</em> no shortcuts, and there <em>are</em> no excuses. If we want to learn, there's no choice but to pack our bags and go along for the ride. The road ahead is long and hard. I hope you know what you're getting into[2]. </p><p><hr>[1] Though to be honest, I don't expect to increase my effort level in Chinese too significantly (maybe 2x what I'm doing now); the biggest effort will invested in increasing my vocabulary. </p><p>[2] I think that the only way we can persevere through the oft painful process of learning, is to know <em>why</em> you're learning the subject. Without this <em>why</em>, we don't have the ammunition to back ourselves up mentally when the going gets inevitably tough. </p> Crossposted from my main blog
As has been demonstrated throughout history, whether or not students students are naturally equipped to excel in their studies, or alternatively, the extent to which students are able to naturally excel in their studies, is largely based on individual characteristics. There are people who are not "naturally talented" but put in a lot of hard work, and manage to excel, there are people who put hardly any work in at all, and manage to excel, and of course there is everything in between. For example, take Jose Raul Capablanca, who was World Chess Champion, one of the greatest players of all time, one of the fastest of all time, owner of one of the most impressive overall records of all time, and perhaps the most naturally talented of all time. He faced opponents who practiced/studied for hours per day, year after year. Capablanca never studied, and never practiced (he didn't even own a chess board). Take the example of Stephen Hawking, it is documented that he hardly studied, and that physics came naturally to him. There are so many more I could name but it shouldn't really be necessary at this point. So for most mere mortals, then yes, there is no other road than the "road well traveled", but as for the "best of us," well, they are in actuality, not so restricted. I would caution against using single anecdotes, as a basis to generalize opinions to a broader context - these types of arguments can be extremely weak.
|
On February 23 2012 07:22 miercat wrote:
As has been demonstrated throughout history, whether or not students students are naturally equipped to excel in their studies, or alternatively, the extent to which students are able to naturally excel in their studies, is largely based on individual characteristics. There are people who are not "naturally talented" but put in a lot of hard work, and manage to excel, there are people who put hardly any work in at all, and manage to excel, and of course there is everything in between. For example, take Jose Raul Capablanca, who was World Chess Champion, one of the greatest players of all time, one of the fastest of all time, owner of one of the most impressive overall records of all time, and perhaps the most naturally talented of all time. He faced opponents who practiced/studied for hours per day, year after year. Capablanca never studied, and never practiced (he didn't even own a chess board). Take the example of Stephen Hawking, it is documented that he hardly studied, and that physics came naturally to him. There are so many more I could name but it shouldn't really be necessary at this point. So for most mere mortals, then yes, there is no other road than the "road well traveled", but as for the "best of us," well, they are in actuality, not so restricted. I would caution against using single anecdotes, as a basis to generalize opinions to a broader context - these types of arguments can be extremely weak.
Saying Capablanca never studied or practiced is false. He devoted a lot of time to the game when he was young, and when he went to college in the states he failed because he spent too much time at the New York chess club. No doubt he had matchless natural talent, but before he was the best in the world he had to mature by being surrounded by a lot of strong players and playing with them. Maybe he didn't "study" as in sit down with a book, but he certainly did study the game and practice for many hours.
One interesting thing about some of the "natural" chess prodigies (Morphy, Capablanca, Pillsbury) is that they all had phenomenal memory. Morphy supposedly memorized the whole book of Louisiana state laws or something for his bar exam. Capablanca is said to have been able to hear or read several pages of text then reproduce it perfectly, and Pillsbury used to give exhibitions where he could memorize long lists of name/words.
|
|
|
It's so much more depressing when you sit down and realize that you'll never reach the fluency of a native speaker or understand the language as perfectly as a native speaker if you pick up a language past the age of 12.
At least for dead, ancient languages, you know that if you keep at it, you'll eventually know all there is to know about it (at least insofar as everyone else knows about it).
|
On February 23 2012 07:40 Mothra wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2012 07:22 miercat wrote:
As has been demonstrated throughout history, whether or not students students are naturally equipped to excel in their studies, or alternatively, the extent to which students are able to naturally excel in their studies, is largely based on individual characteristics. There are people who are not "naturally talented" but put in a lot of hard work, and manage to excel, there are people who put hardly any work in at all, and manage to excel, and of course there is everything in between. For example, take Jose Raul Capablanca, who was World Chess Champion, one of the greatest players of all time, one of the fastest of all time, owner of one of the most impressive overall records of all time, and perhaps the most naturally talented of all time. He faced opponents who practiced/studied for hours per day, year after year. Capablanca never studied, and never practiced (he didn't even own a chess board). Take the example of Stephen Hawking, it is documented that he hardly studied, and that physics came naturally to him. There are so many more I could name but it shouldn't really be necessary at this point. So for most mere mortals, then yes, there is no other road than the "road well traveled", but as for the "best of us," well, they are in actuality, not so restricted. I would caution against using single anecdotes, as a basis to generalize opinions to a broader context - these types of arguments can be extremely weak. Saying Capablanca never studied or practiced is false. He devoted a lot of time to the game when he was young, and when he went to college in the states he failed because he spent too much time at the New York chess club. No doubt he had matchless natural talent, but before he was the best in the world he had to mature by being surrounded by a lot of strong players and playing with them. Maybe he didn't "study" as in sit down with a book, but he certainly did study the game and practice for many hours. One interesting thing about some of the "natural" chess prodigies (Morphy, Capablanca, Pillsbury) is that they all had phenomenal memory. Morphy supposedly memorized the whole book of Louisiana state laws or something for his bar exam. Capablanca is said to have been able to hear or read several pages of text then reproduce it perfectly, and Pillsbury used to give exhibitions where he could memorize long lists of name/words.
Fair enough point; in my previous post, I was going to specify that he had never really devoted any time to the study of opening theory, especially in comparison to most of his peers(and considering how important understanding opening theory is at that level - quite notable) but I didn't think most people would have a good grasp of what I was referring to ( I left out a lot of specifics regarding my other points, for the same reason - I would go into them, and qualify my previous assertions, but based on your last message, I'm assuming you're already aware enough).
In any case, the most relevant point, which you alluded to, was the difference in natural talent, which naturally is going to significantly influence the speed at which one is able to learn. i.e. Capablanca would be able to put in a minimal amount of effort(relative to peers) and master e.g. chess, because he is that naturally skilled, however, someone with less skill, would not be able to put in minimal amount of effort , and master e.g. Cantonese.
Capablanca wasn't even one of the better examples to use (as I mentioned before, there are so many that could be mentioned, my point is essentially proven already (proven at the outset already, really - and really a very simple concept)), but I am a fan of his, and chess history in general :p
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
