New Prof Argüelles Youtube Series

[Axon]

Yes, my experience matches tarvos' - I started with music a little bit after starting with languages, and although I don't play as much anymore, I have noticed that my ears get better and better over time with no real practice. I've always been able to sort of "separate" the different layers of instruments in songs and pay attention to each one individually. Now I can do it far more precisely and with a larger "canvas" (working memory?) to compare different layers simultaneously.

[David27]

These figures have not been looked at by a statistician, and need a multi variable analysis to see if there is true correlation. If someone has time and a basic stats background SPSS is a good program to work with and can plug in his numbers...
We also should be cognizant of the selection bias in the survey, that it’s really looking at people in the online polyglot comminity, not alcomer multilingual individuals. I suspect that explains the trend for less ‘polyglots’ coming from multilingual backgrounds... people who grew up speaking more languages don’t think of it as a big deal and don’t spend time on forums where the survey was distributed, and therefore could be underrepresented.

Personally I’m not compelled by a lot of the findings, particularly not by the traits that can be learned. Telling individuals you will have more success in a foreign language if you have a high level of education, are methodical, dedicate at least 2 hours a day is common sense, not groundbreaking findings. I guess you could argue that it is proof of concept that you can learn languages if you put in the time (and it shows really how much dedication is truly required).

So what’s left are innate traits that individuals in the polyglot community happen to have, and that’s what Michael Erard and the New Yorker seemed to focus on. The question isn’t necessarily how languages learned, but what kind of people have this obsession and life long dedication to learn all theses languages. What makes them (us) tick.

I also suspect that polyglots will be better at musical instruments than the general public because the same dedication and focus to learn languages will help with learning an instrument. As far as sightreading goes, he plays the flute (I play clarinet primarily) and it is much easier to sight read one note at a time. I sightread clarinet/saxophone easily, but struggle with piano (could be just because I’m a ooor piano player, but reading multiple notes at once on piano really adds a lot more difficulty).

OCD and OCPD are different psychiatric conditions, and what he means is OCPD (obsessive compulsive personality disorder, see DSM5 for details on both). Personality ‘disorders’ are a spectrum, and it would only truly be classified as OCPD if it is interfering with life function. I know some people do not like psychiatrists’ criteria and fitting people into boxes, especially personality disorders... I have no skin in this but for study purposes it is useful to have a fixed and correct nominclature for what he is referring to.

That’s just my 2 cents on it. While I have criticism, I still think it is interesting/fun to look at and I’m glad it was done. I just don’t think we should accept these findings as universal truths.

[David27]

Maybe the best thing here would be to say “obsessive or compulsive traits” to avoid any labeling/diagnosing and stigma associated with it....

[David1917]

While I have criticism, I still think it is interesting/fun to look at and I’m glad it was done. I just don’t think we should accept these findings as universal truths.

That's my feeling as well. I think Prof A more or less acknowledges this too, this video is just as much talking himself through the findings as it is presenting them. Now it would be very interesting to have a new hypothesis generated and tested in a more controlled environment.

[David1917]

Something I think is interesting is the questions about what kind of music you listen to while studying.

First, I want to say that I am generally disinterested in the idea that "classical" music is all calm/relaxing. Maybe some movements of pieces for quartets or solo instruments could be considered as such, but whole symphonic works are about as exciting as it gets. If I'm putting on Mahler, I'm going on a journey, I'm not taking a bubble bath and relaxing. So I don't really buy into the dichotomy presented here, but I do realize that the general public does differentiate this way, and so I concede.

Second, I am definitely the type that listens to "loud/exciting rock music with vocals" while working. My favorite study soundtrack is Meshuggah. I'd guess it follows the same pop-science guess that goes along with walking while shadowing - you can only concentrate on so many things at once, so occupying your mind with a background task like walking (or counting polyrhythms) means you will have less opportunity to be distracted. I will say it generally needs to be something I know really well for it to work as study music.

[PeterMollenburg]

I must be the only one around here... I just don't see the point of this data/information.

Okay maybe Professor Argüelles is simply curious, and that's really probably what it amounts to. However, and with all due respect (I really like his learning methods, enjoy watching his videos, feel I share a love of certain course brands, enjoy hearing about how his children have acquired/learned languages etc), but I just don't see how this information is useful. To categorise language learners? To put them in boxes? To know you're likely to fit into the common or uncommon categories... and why is that useful? All in all my behaviours won't change based on such a survey and its results. I'll continue to learn the way I learn, regardless. It must be simply that he was curious, I'm almost sure it is that (and maybe he even said so and I didn't pay attention). He's less obsessive about learning languages it seems nowadays and is seeking more of a balanced life, so perhaps this is just fun.

[Iversen]

I have now listened to both videos, and especially the one about music intrigued me. For instance I had not expected that so many people could sightread music - but it would be interesting to know whether this means that people can read one line of music, two piano staves with chords or a full orchestral score.

Another thing that would merit a further study is how people (and in particular the polyglots in the study) deal with music. Personally I may be atypical insofar I'm very interested in music, but I prefer instrumental music and I find the texts not only irrelevant and useless, but possibly also the part of music that irritates me most. I very often listen to classical instrumental music while I read or study languages or watch TV without sound, and I have not felt a strong interference between language and music, which is strange. The two things must be processed in different parts of my brain. On the other hand listening to 'strong' languages (or languages at all) harm my ability to think, speak and even read (and understand the texts) in weak languages. So I can listen to classical instrumental music without problems while I study - and I mostly do. But this is NOT the same thing as accepting the mostly ugly and boring and repetitive background noise in TV programs (I hate background music), and that kind of noise and any kind vocal music WOULD disturb me.

And of course I'm as surprised as the professor about the finding that people who love to listen loud vocal music (like rock or hiphop) while they study are more likely to learn many languages. But classical music through earphones can also be loud, so it is not just a question of decibels.

[tarvos]

I used to be able to sight-read guitar as a kid, but I've lost that ability. So I don't know about that. My main instrument is the guitar.

Also, Meshuggah sounds like a very weird background to study music. I like Meshuggah, but that would just confuse me with all the obscure polyrhythms.

[garyb]

Personally I’m not compelled by a lot of the findings, particularly not by the traits that can be learned. Telling individuals you will have more success in a foreign language if you have a high level of education, are methodical, dedicate at least 2 hours a day is common sense, not groundbreaking findings. I guess you could argue that it is proof of concept that you can learn languages if you put in the time (and it shows really how much dedication is truly required).
...
So what’s left are innate traits that individuals in the polyglot community happen to have
...
I also suspect that polyglots will be better at musical instruments than the general public because the same dedication and focus to learn languages will help with learning an instrument.

I must be the only one around here... I just don't see the point of this data/information.

These hit the nail on the head for me. The results and evaluations just seem like a mix of describing the typical kind of person who participates in niche Internet communities (the fact that the sample happened to be language learners is far less relevant IMO and I strongly suspect the higher proportion of males, LGBT, Aspergers, etc. would be similar for ones based around many other subjects), stating the obvious (people who have learned a lot have developed efficient learning methods and routines), speculation on unfounded conventional wisdom about music and languages, and a dash of fuel for the typical "Look, I'm/we're so special" ego-masturbation found among certain typical members of these communities.

Sadly language learning hasn't helped my musicality one bit, or vice versa, but my ear is terrible for both pronunciation and tones. Like language, music has lots of different aspects and it often makes more sense to talk about talent for particular aspects than for the area as a whole: some are good at accents but struggle to pick up grammar, some naturally play with good technique but have a weak ear, etc. From anecdotal evidence it does seem that starting with and further developing a good ear for one can benefit the other.

[David1917]

I must be the only one around here... I just don't see the point of this data/information.

Maybe long run - in a world where "polyglottery" is considered as real a goal as anyone else, who might be encouraged to pursue this endeavor? Someone who tinkers with every toy might become an engineer, etc. I think it's all part of Prof A's quest to legitimize the conscious learning of multiple languages as a worthy pursuit rather than just a (very time consuming) hobby. The "Price of Polyglottery" video and the "Mental Exercise and Discipline" video from the Polyglot Gathering are sort of why I think this.