Re: PM’s French Re-entry into the Matrix - Phase 1: 500 Hours Extensive Reading

Continue or start your personal language log here, including logs for challenge participants
User avatar
smallwhite
Black Belt - 2nd Dan
Posts: 2386
Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2015 6:55 am
Location: Hong Kong
Languages: Native: Cantonese;
Good: English, French, Spanish, Italian;
Mediocre: Mandarin, German, Swedish, Dutch.
.
x 4876

Re: PM's French Target: C1 2018

Postby smallwhite » Mon Jan 15, 2018 4:07 am

Xmmm wrote:Edited to remove my previous response.

And I thought that was what you did. Now I see you've added to it instead, after I've posted my response. I really should read faster and learn more online discussion tactics. Who cares about grammar!
0 x
Dialang or it didn't happen.

Xmmm
Blue Belt
Posts: 821
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2015 1:19 am
Languages: ru it tr
x 2221

Re: PM's French Target: C1 2018

Postby Xmmm » Mon Jan 15, 2018 4:14 am

smallwhite wrote:
Xmmm wrote:Edited to remove my previous response.

And I thought that was what you did. Now I see you've added to it instead, after I've posted my response. I really should read faster and learn more online discussion tactics. Who cares about grammar!


I thought my original post was lost ... I waited several minutes and reposted. This isn't the first time this weekend my posts have disappeared. "Technical difficulties."

Anyway, I stand by what I said. The original conversation was about being a slow reader in L1. The experiences of L2 hobbyists learning or mislearning their TLs for low stakes is irrelevant. And I'm very sorry if I thought "global statistics" meant actual evidence with numbers and stuff. My bad.
1 x

Ещё раз сунешь голову туда — окажешься внутри. Поняла, Фемида? -- аигел

User avatar
smallwhite
Black Belt - 2nd Dan
Posts: 2386
Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2015 6:55 am
Location: Hong Kong
Languages: Native: Cantonese;
Good: English, French, Spanish, Italian;
Mediocre: Mandarin, German, Swedish, Dutch.
.
x 4876

Re: PM's French Target: C1 2018

Postby smallwhite » Mon Jan 15, 2018 4:21 am

Xmmm wrote:The original conversation was about being a slow reader in L1.

The quote I saw in PM's post was:
Cavesa wrote:Extensive reading: let's say you read 40 pages per hour. Ok, 35, to not be called unrealistic (but 40 are realistic in a not too difficult language rather soon, from my experience).

so L2.
0 x
Dialang or it didn't happen.

User avatar
PeterMollenburg
Black Belt - 3rd Dan
Posts: 3229
Joined: Wed Jul 22, 2015 11:54 am
Location: Australia
Languages: English (N), French (B2-certified), Dutch (High A2?), Spanish (~A1), German (long-forgotten 99%), Norwegian (false starts in 2020 & 2021)
Language Log: https://forum.language-learners.org/vie ... 15&t=18080
x 8029

Re: PM's French Target: C1 Nov. 2018

Postby PeterMollenburg » Wed Jan 17, 2018 1:42 am

been shadowing Assimil NFWE in the car, working on the 2nd wave of Assimil Using French (lesson 52), reading through Using French in another wave from the first lesson, and just listening to it in the shower, doing dishes and other activities in another wave. Oh and reading the digital copy in short breaks at work some days. Assimil all round, while I’m continuing to watch TV in French most evenings, ensuring I turn off any subtitles where the option allows for it. Exciting stuff lately... not.
4 x

User avatar
Carmody
Black Belt - 1st Dan
Posts: 1747
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:00 am
Location: NYC, NY
Languages: English (N)
French (B1)
Language Log: http://tinyurl.com/zot7wrs
x 3395

Re: PM's French Target: C1 Nov. 2018

Postby Carmody » Wed Jan 17, 2018 2:20 am

Trivia:

I walk, talk, and read, real........slowly.

Former President JFK took the following course to speed up his reading.

http://www.ewrd.com/ewrd/index.asp

I also took the course. I was able to read Albert Camus's The Stranger in English in 45 mins. with 90% comprehension. Please to note that speed does not equate in my case with enjoyment. I can do a lot of things faster but I don't find them as enjoyable.
2 x

Cavesa
Black Belt - 4th Dan
Posts: 4960
Joined: Mon Jul 20, 2015 9:46 am
Languages: Czech (N), French (C2) English (C1), Italian (C1), Spanish, German (C1)
x 17565

Re: PM's French Target: C1 Nov. 2018

Postby Cavesa » Wed Jan 17, 2018 4:27 am

I still cannot see how could overall reading speed affect grammar so much. You cannot compare people just by it, as you will not find two learners who are just the same except for their reading speed.

The idea that reading fast equals bad grammar is not based on anything. In L1 or in L2.

Why has such an innocent thing attracted such defensive answers? The issue was an estimate of how much time would a large pile of books take someone to read. That was all. There was no need for basically calling faster readers careless and bad learners paying a price for the speed. Firstly, it is nonsense. Secondly, nothing offensive was said about slower learners, so it might be nice not to attack faster readers. Really, have we moved nowhere since the first and second grade? :-D
3 x

User avatar
Elenia
Black Belt - 1st Dan
Posts: 1888
Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2015 1:22 am
Location: London
Languages: English (N), Swedish (C1), French (Massively Atrophied) German (lowly beginner, somehow learnt to read)


Finnish?!
Language Log: viewtopic.php?t=708
x 3280
Contact:

Re: PM's French Target: C1 Nov. 2018

Postby Elenia » Thu Jan 18, 2018 7:49 pm

PeterMollenburg wrote:been shadowing Assimil NFWE in the car, working on the 2nd wave of Assimil Using French (lesson 52), reading through Using French in another wave from the first lesson, and just listening to it in the shower, doing dishes and other activities in another wave. Oh and reading the digital copy in short breaks at work some days. Assimil all round, while I’m continuing to watch TV in French most evenings, ensuring I turn off any subtitles where the option allows for it. Exciting stuff lately... not.


Might not be all new and exciting stuff but trucking on is what it's all about, really. I need to get some continuity back in my studies, that's how we move forward, after all.
3 x

User avatar
PeterMollenburg
Black Belt - 3rd Dan
Posts: 3229
Joined: Wed Jul 22, 2015 11:54 am
Location: Australia
Languages: English (N), French (B2-certified), Dutch (High A2?), Spanish (~A1), German (long-forgotten 99%), Norwegian (false starts in 2020 & 2021)
Language Log: https://forum.language-learners.org/vie ... 15&t=18080
x 8029

Re: Languid Language Learning

Postby PeterMollenburg » Tue Jan 23, 2018 1:29 am

Cavesa wrote:
PeterMollenburg wrote:On the topic of Vitamin D, I have also read some decent information suggesting that being behind glass (windows, car windows, wearing glasses - sunglasses, reading glasses, contact lenses) blocks our body's ability to produce melatonin, important in immune function, mood regulation, circadian rhythm, sleep, healthy skin. Another conspiracy anyone? Sunglasses companies do not like the idea that you shouldn't wear sunglasses (or should reduce your use of them). The reason behind such advice is that sunglasses block melatonin production by not allowing UV light to interact with the retina and in turn the pituitary gland, which in normal synergy would create melatonin and even helps the skin protect itself against the sun. Yet another piece of evidence imo that shows that we are living at odds with nature. https://philmaffetone.com/sun-and-brain/. Marketing focuses on the negatives of the sun, but there are plenty of positives.


No conspiration here. Basic biology and physics. I've heard of a girl, who told her biophysics professor that she could get a suntan through glass at the exam, of course she failed immediately.

There is no conspiracy. UV simply doesn't pass through normal glass to a large extent (but that still doesn't mean sunglasses are a fraud). And the seasonal changes in mood of populations and individuals, including depression, are well known too. Yes, sun is good for you, to some extent. But melanomas are a common problem.

It all about the balance between protection, and getting enough sunshine. You definitely cannot generalise. For example: melanomas became much more common among scandinavians during the last twenty or thirty years. Why? Those phototype 1 and 2 people are richer than they used to be, and spend a lot more time on holidays in the south. The opposite: immigrants of african origin in the scandinavian countries are much more likely to suffer from lack of vitamine D. Two sides of the same coin. A nice epidemiology example :-D

Please, use the sunglasses as you find comfortable. And use a protective cream based on your phototype. The Melanoma is not something invented by big pharma. And go outside a lot, to not suffer from lack of vitamine D, that is also true. If you think you have the symptoms of such a lack, which are very non specific and it is true doctors often won't identify (not because of a bad intention, but they are the symptomes of absolutely everything), consider a few short visits to a tanning booth during the winter, it works well for some people, or vitamine D supplements.

I have never heard of such importance of UV for your retina, even though that doesn't mean it is not so, ophtalomogy is boring for me, so I am not that knowledgeable. But eye melanomas are a hell. UV filter in the glasses, however, can definitely have some affects. It was worsening my depression, but it could have been either relative lack of UV, or simply seing everything in darker colours literally (and btw no, those glasses changing colours don't clear up indoors as fast as advertised :-D )

The key is the same as usual: No extremes, use various sources of information, your experience, and your brain to decide. Try what works for you. Truth be told, living in the north may be challenging in this aspect. Perhaps you'd like to consult your doctor about similar issues, as you are moving there :-) Should you suffer from lack of daylight in Sweden, there are also lamps imitating day light. Their positive effect is proved and used in psychiatry, but I think they are recommendable to almost everyone. I've got one too :-)

Perhaps you might like to get glasses with a "screen" filter. It filters out the blue wavelengths or something, which are overrepresented in the light from computer displays, smartphones, tablets, television, and so on. I find it really more comfortable. I agree with Peter here, that such a filter is a nice thing to have. But of course your solution, limiting time spent with these things, is a better one :-)

And of course we are living at odds with nature. We've been that way since we had abandoned caves.


We are living progressively further from nature.

If Scandavians are having more problems from the sun due to more exposure in southern Europe, as well as sudden unusual exposure to more UV, could it be they are wearing sunglasses far too often thereby blocking their body’s natural ability to adjust to sudden increase in exposure? (rhetorical question, not requiring an answer). Standard sunscreens pose many issues too imo...

The conspiracy is that the sunglasses companies insist in the danger of UV, while there may/may not be one (perhaps depending on circumstances of which some I touch on below), UV also holds benefits, as suggested.

Interestingly, I have come across in my reading that fluoride in water interferes with the pituatry gland and limits it’s function... It’s very intersting that we are shutting our light and changing our interaction with it in many ways. I follow, like many aboriginal populations, that the sun is very important for us and perhaps much like a ‘god’ of life. Why are we so scared of it? (who benefits from that)

I have also heard hypothesized that diet is a major part of our protection (anti-oxidants etc which help protect our skin, diabetics can have visual deterioration - sugar likely to affect eyesight for example) and that melanoma is the sun drawing toxins to the surface and an indicator of ‘serious inbalances’ for want of a better description internally (and not just a reaction on the surface). I simply do not trust the run of the mill reasons at face value, there’s more depth to it than just more exposure = skin cancer. Mind you, I agree, exposure can pose a problem, particularly when we aren’t exposed to enough natural light, and when we are, sometimes it’s in areas devoid of trees as we’ve cut many of them down.
3 x

Cavesa
Black Belt - 4th Dan
Posts: 4960
Joined: Mon Jul 20, 2015 9:46 am
Languages: Czech (N), French (C2) English (C1), Italian (C1), Spanish, German (C1)
x 17565

Re: Languid Language Learning

Postby Cavesa » Tue Jan 23, 2018 4:51 am

? I am not sure I even follow anymore.
1. We have been adapting to our natural habitat for millenia. A phototype 1 person in the Mediterranean may eat whatever they want, but it won't help much.
2.I'd much rather risk a slight vit D deficiency than a melanoma. The risks of melanoma, the epidemics, the risk factors, all that has been proved. I wish we knew at least all that about half the diseases we face. It is not just melanoma, UV is a either one of the causes or at least a risk factor of various health conditions and diseases.
3.The possible vit D deficiency is unlikely to be too harsh, except for rather rare cases. Everyone else, should they feel the need, can simply supplement it as they see fit. VitD deficiency can be fixed before it does any persistent damage. Melanoma is a totally different story.
4.I must admit I have no clue about the vit D connection to the pituitary gland. But whatever the function is, it doesn't get there through some direct connection with retina, the gland doesn't care at all where was the vitamine made.

Yes, we are steering away from the nature and so on. But how long does a usual aborigine live? Let's remember our ancestors. They lived completely organically, no glasses, no artificial light, no artificial chemistry. And in areas well covered with trees, sure (except for all those living in naturally less forested areas, everything wasn't a jungle). Well, I guess they were worried neither about their vit D nor their melanoma. They didn't live long enough for that.

PeterMollenburg wrote:I have also heard hypothesized that diet is a major part of our protection (anti-oxidants etc which help protect our skin, diabetics can have visual deterioration - sugar likely to affect eyesight for example) and that melanoma is the sun drawing toxins to the surface and an indicator of ‘serious inbalances’ for want of a better description internally (and not just a reaction on the surface). I simply do not trust the run of the mill reasons at face value, there’s more depth to it than just more exposure = skin cancer. Mind you, I agree, exposure can pose a problem, particularly when we aren’t exposed to enough natural light, and when we are, sometimes it’s in areas devoid of trees as we’ve cut many of them down.

Of course there is more to it! That's why studying medicine takes so long and is such a hell!
Each of these points you've just mentioned in a few words, as awesome simple examples, is actually worth several huge tomes of knowledge. There are dozens of years of research, and there will need to be many more.

Don't get me wrong. It is a bit sad I just cannot bear to watch this, even though I don't like taking too much place in Elenia's language log. But there is a lot of oversimplification in your posts. I know how wrong today's medicine is in various areas much better and closer than vast majority of people. Perhaps more than most people summed up. But I think you are choosing wrong targets, weird sources of information you trust, and sometimes a weird way to argument about it. The disparity between the awesome way you argument about the language learning stuff and this is rather significant.
5 x

User avatar
PeterMollenburg
Black Belt - 3rd Dan
Posts: 3229
Joined: Wed Jul 22, 2015 11:54 am
Location: Australia
Languages: English (N), French (B2-certified), Dutch (High A2?), Spanish (~A1), German (long-forgotten 99%), Norwegian (false starts in 2020 & 2021)
Language Log: https://forum.language-learners.org/vie ... 15&t=18080
x 8029

Re: PM's French Target: C1 Nov. 2018

Postby PeterMollenburg » Tue Jan 23, 2018 9:36 am

Continued from Elenia's log....

Sujet : Languid Language Learning

Cavesa wrote:? I am not sure I even follow anymore.


I don't blame you, I'm poor at explaining myself often on this forum, usually because I just cannot be bothered using up my time writing lengthy posts, finding the research, referring to articles, or I can't recall properly what i've read and where, and I just reel of in a sloppy blurr what I can recall. As I really just have very little time and prefer to spend my time doing other things, I also rush and get things wrong. Still, as you know, I do make those comments regardless..... and I leave holes. I will try to clarify (I have some time).

Cavesa wrote:1. We have been adapting to our natural habitat for millenia. A phototype 1 person in the Mediterranean may eat whatever they want, but it won't help much.
.
Point accepted. I don't disagree.

What I was getting it with regards to living further from nature, if that's what you're responding to, is that as modern technology increases, as pharmaceutical companies aim to make profits, as food becomes more large-scale and run by powerful companies which aim to make a profit, as GMO's increase in presence, as chemicals in the environment increase, as we watch TV's with increased radiation, we cut down forests, wear sunglasses and sunscreen (with chemicals inside), use mobile phones and other such devices that interfere with our natural light exposure (as well as increased EMF)... and so on, my general argument is that we are interacting less with nature. I don't believe we've had sufficient time to adapt to these changes, and as they are unnatural, we may never fully thrive in the presence of such things.

If you take a look at Australian aboriginals and the effects on their dental health when compared to aboriginals eating a traditional diet, modern western processed food diets are unkind to the human body and promote disease (increase the likelihood). Other races have adapted somewhat, but it's still conducive to increased disease. His observations extended to other areas of the globe.

Dr. Weston Price visited Africa in 1935. His journey into the interior began in Mombasa on the east coast of Africa, inland through Kenya to the Belgian Congo, then northward through Uganda and the Sudan.

Throughout his studies of isolated populations on native diets, Price was continually struck by the contrast of native sturdiness and good health with the degeneration found in the local white populace, living off the “displacing foods of modern commerce” such as sugar, white flour, canned foods and condensed milk.

(https://www.westonaprice.org/health-top ... an-tribes/)
(https://www.westonaprice.org/health-top ... -the-land/)

If we lived like aboriginals did once, eating naturally occurring foods available in our environment, which were not carbohydrate dense, we weren't sedentary and in contrast were very active, we didn't have sunglasses, we were hunting and gathering, we didn't have sunscreen, but trees were covering most open areas, we didn't have technology, we sought natural remedies, I hypothesize that melanoma (once we'd adapted after -insert number- of generations perhaps) would be rare. I say this to show where i'm coming from with this argument, not to advise that we return to living as they did, as it's simply unrealistic to completely live this way, as it currently stands, but we can certainly learn from such.

Cavesa wrote:2.I'd much rather risk a slight vit D deficiency than a melanoma. The risks of melanoma, the epidemics, the risk factors, all that has been proved.


Easy to prove that sunlight causes melanoma in general populations when they are living the way modern man does - blocking natural light during the day, living indoors, travelling in vehicles behind glass, using chemical sunscreens, only going outside in bursts so that the body can't adapt (and possibly as you suggest for those from cooler populations heading for the warmer weather in bursts we are unadapted for), eating less than ideal diets devoid of essential vitamins, minerals, fats and important antioxidants, then limiting melatonin production at night due to use of devices and so on... Any wonder you can draw such a conclusion... almost every time, I don't refute that. Now to be clear, I am not saying that the above risks are unfounded and completely false. They are dead real. I'm just suggesting that by living so far from interacting with nature, as some indigenous populations did so in the not so distant past, that is, naturally, that any wonder such results can be found, because we have been eroding away our natural protection. And for the record, I do not advocate anyone spend prolonged periods in the sun without sunscreen or sunglasses, or even with. I am suggesting that melanoma is potentially prevalent because we are too far from living naturally, and are now almost devoid of natural defences.

Here's a link that I quickly found, which has links to sources throughout. The article is on diet and risk of skin cancer. I apologise if it's not from a well respected medical journal. Nevertheless the information is out there.
http://nutritionadvance.com/scary-real-link-diet-skin-cancer/

Cavesa wrote:I wish we knew at least all that about half the diseases we face. It is not just melanoma, UV is a either one of the causes or at least a risk factor of various health conditions and diseases.

But I don't think cures for cancers, osteoporosis and other diseases will become widespread common knowledge in our lifetime as long as there remains concerns from powerful figures over the numbers of human beings on the planet. This is in part why I do not put the modern medical system up on the pedestal that many do. It's majorly one-dimensional and flawed with deliberate limitations, it seeks to find answers with Band-Aid fixes that bring huge profits while inducing nasty side-effects. It's unwilling to acknowledge much beyond mechanical interventions and pharmaceuticals, and where there's profit to be made, natural cures are ignored. How much of your medical training went into the importance of healthy diet (just curious - not meaning anything malicious by that)?

Cavesa wrote:3.The possible vit D deficiency is unlikely to be too harsh, except for rather rare cases. Everyone else, should they feel the need, can simply supplement it as they see fit. VitD deficiency can be fixed before it does any persistent damage. Melanoma is a totally different story.

I'm not sure what your point is, you're possibly responding to one of my comments, which likely made little sense or was incomplete. I do agree that vitamin D supplementation is a valid option.

Cavesa wrote:4.I must admit I have no clue about the vit D connection to the pituitary gland. But whatever the function is, it doesn't get there through some direct connection with retina, the gland doesn't care at all where was the vitamine made. .


You know nothing about the pituitary gland and vitamin D, because I was wrong. I was thinking of melatonin production. Here's a good article on that:
https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2013/10/10/melatonin.aspx

and some short explanation for anyone curious...

The retina responds to light (blue light), well it registers it, and interacts with the pituitary gland, and this regulates melatonin production, as you more than likely know. Electronic devices interfere with this, hence the orange filters, as does WIFI and so does unnatural light (ie lights in a house). Again, being further from nature, sees us interrupting our sleep patterns, producing less melatonin (a hugely powerful protector of good health).

In addition to the healthy affect on your skin, sunlight also provides another positive benefit. The human eye contains photosensitive cells in its retina, with connections directly to the pituitary gland in the brain. Stimulation of these important cells comes from sunlight, in particular, the blue unseen spectrum. A study by Dr.’s Turner and Mainster of the University of Kansas School of Medicine, published in the British Journal of Opthamology in 2008 states that, “these photoreceptors play a vital role in human physiology and health.” The effects are not only in the brain, but the whole body.

Photosensitive cells in the eye also directly affect the brain’s hypothalamus region, which controls our biological clock. This influences our circadian rhythm, not just important for jet lag but for normal sleep patterns, hormone regulation, increased reaction time, and behavior. Most cells in the body have an important cyclic pattern when working optimally, so potentially, just about any area of the body can falter without adequate sun stimulation. Turner and Mainster state that, “ensuing circadian disturbances can have significant physiological and psychological consequences.” This also includes “increasing risk of disease” as the authors state, and as numerous other studies show, including cancer, diabetes, and heart disease.

The hypothalamus also regulates the combined actions of the nervous and hormonal systems.

The brain’s pineal gland benefits directly from the sun stimulation. The pineal produces melatonin, an important hormone made during dark hours that protects our skin. In addition, melatonin is a powerful antioxidant for body-wide use, is important for proper sleep and intestinal function, and can help prevent depression. (Aspirin, however, reduces melatonin production.)


As for some more information on the benefits of vitamin D in general...

Before the Industrial Revolution, more than 90 percent of people living in Europe and North America obtained their supply of vitamin D from this sunlight-driven process. With work and life style changes over the last 100 years, the decrease in UV exposure has led to an increase in vitamin D deficiency. Today, vitamin D deficiency has been linked to 17 types of cancer, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, autism, multiple sclerosis, schizophrenia and even influenza. (1,2,3,4)

You are vulnerable to the lack of sunlight if you live in a northern climate, have black or dark brown skin, work indoors, or are housebound and elderly. Infants also are considered vulnerable. Therefore, it appears that the degree of UV B sunlight exposure you receive based on the latitude in which you live, your race, and working environment (office vs. outdoor worker), can greatly affect your health.

(https://www.aoa.org/patients-and-public/caring-for-your-vision/diet-and-nutrition/vitamin-d)

I would rather take the 'increased risk' and take the sunlight, thanks (without getting burnt).

I do not mean any offence if you at any moment feel that a lay-person is trying to educate a doctor here (i'm not trying to 'educate' you), I don't mean this in a condescending way at all Cavesa. I do feel however that any training designed to produce professionals working as a part of the modern medical system is devoid of many things, particularly when it comes to natural living, cures and diet. I'm certain your knowledge on medicine is MASSIVE compared to mine, I don't discount that at all, but I believe what is taught to med students and other medical professionals, is detailed and very focused, yet ironically also limited in it's range and scope.

Cavesa wrote:Yes, we are steering away from the nature and so on. But how long does a usual aborigine live? Let's remember our ancestors. They lived completely organically, no glasses, no artificial light, no artificial chemistry. And in areas well covered with trees, sure (except for all those living in naturally less forested areas, everything wasn't a jungle). Well, I guess they were worried neither about their vit D nor their melanoma. They didn't live long enough for that.


Just because I am equating the benefits of sunlight with a healthy life does not mean that you can therefore rule out my arguments on the basis of those who were exposed to ample sunlight and lived very natural lives, but lived shorter lives. Equally, I could counteract your argument and say, well look at the massive gap between life expectancy in Australian aboriginals today and the rest of the Australian population... because they are living in the modern era now, because they live less naturally, less like they used to. Would you prefer to have our statistics rise and rise while our health fails us unless we run to the modern medical system for help? It enables us to live lives of gluttony and escape the consequences. I would prefer to be independent as much as possible, find my own ways to live very healthily and avoid the modern medical system as much as possible. When an emergency arrives, i'm there, and voila, I affect the statistics. How long would aboriginals have lived IF they lived the way they did, and had access to surgery and other procedures that saves lives? I think you'd find that they'd outlive us.

Cavesa wrote:
PeterMollenburg wrote:I have also heard hypothesized that diet is a major part of our protection (anti-oxidants etc which help protect our skin, diabetics can have visual deterioration - sugar likely to affect eyesight for example) and that melanoma is the sun drawing toxins to the surface and an indicator of ‘serious inbalances’ for want of a better description internally (and not just a reaction on the surface). I simply do not trust the run of the mill reasons at face value, there’s more depth to it than just more exposure = skin cancer. Mind you, I agree, exposure can pose a problem, particularly when we aren’t exposed to enough natural light, and when we are, sometimes it’s in areas devoid of trees as we’ve cut many of them down.


Of course there is more to it! That's why studying medicine takes so long and is such a hell!
Each of these points you've just mentioned in a few words, as awesome simple examples, is actually worth several huge tomes of knowledge. There are dozens of years of research, and there will need to be many more.


Yes, I agree, you learn a hell of a lot, studying medicine, and I admit I do not fully comprehend this, but I do reserve the right to reiterate that the training is still devoid of much.

Cavesa wrote:Don't get me wrong. It is a bit sad I just cannot bear to watch this, even though I don't like taking too much place in Elenia's language log. But there is a lot of oversimplification in your posts. I know how wrong today's medicine is in various areas much better and closer than vast majority of people. Perhaps more than most people summed up. But I think you are choosing wrong targets, weird sources of information you trust, and sometimes a weird way to argument about it. The disparity between the awesome way you argument about the language learning stuff and this is rather significant.


A fair observation (see my earlier comments). It's easy to follow a language course, or two ;) and I have said it before, in my own words, that I often form poor arguments, rush things, look hardly credible and so on. Still, I do find it difficult not to take offence to your above comments, but I won't :) And I'm sure equally, I could have offended you here. That wasn't my aim.

I would like to get on with language learning, so if you want to continue this discussion, I advise pick one point at a time that we can talk about, because this is one hell of a time sink trying to discuss so much in one post! I also want to finish saying I respect you greatly Cavesa, your language learning, your judgement, your medical opinion (honestly), and I hope we can mutually respect each other, even if you have to compartmentalise yours to just my language learning and forget about the rest (no cynicism meant). I just wanted to point out my one main point - that living naturally, in many aspects of life, I feel, is so much better for our health, and finally, living optimally, has benefits for the things we love to do, like language learning.
3 x


Return to “Language logs”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests