The main problem with education

[asterism]

Because I have studied the matter in some detail.

So have I and I disagree with your opinion.

It's not my opinion, it is a fact.

You're going to have a hard time refuting the original claim that was made but go ahead and do your best. Use published research with clear results.

 

[Unkotare]

So have I.

Excellent. Do you also hold a master's degree in Linguistics?

No, and don't edit my quotes.

I didn't edit your quote, I quoted the part of your post to which I wished to respond.

 

[Unkotare]

So have I and I disagree with your opinion.

It's not my opinion, it is a fact.

You're going to have a hard time refuting the original claim that was made but go ahead and do your best. Use published research with clear results.

I have already explained. What part do you need help with?

 

[asterism]

Excellent. Do you also hold a master's degree in Linguistics?

No, and don't edit my quotes.

I didn't edit your quote, I quoted the part of your post to which I wished to respond.

You edited out the words between "have" and the ending period.

 

[Unkotare]

No, and don't edit my quotes.

I didn't edit your quote, I quoted the part of your post to which I wished to respond.

You edited out the words between "have" and the ending period.

Read the above words.

 

[asterism]

It's not my opinion, it is a fact.

You're going to have a hard time refuting the original claim that was made but go ahead and do your best. Use published research with clear results.

I have already explained. What part do you need help with?

The part that refutes the original claim. No mention of adults was made so your statement regarding them was irrelevant. Stating The Critical Period does not refute the concept that kids are most receptive to learning new languages between 3 and 6. Regardless of the different meanings of "immersion," it's still generally accepted that total immersion is the best way to learn languages.

While you may disagree, you have not refuted the point.

I'm curious as to why you have avoided answering what languages you have learned and whether or not you've ever been fluent. Usually that means you are insecure about what you are saying and are then relying on the body of work done by others rather than actual experience.

My opinion is formed by a combination of both formal study in linguistics and actually becoming fluent in multiple languages. For the sake of this discussion, I define "fluent" as being able to function in the target language without any other language assistance.

 

[Unkotare]

You're going to have a hard time refuting the original claim that was made but go ahead and do your best. Use published research with clear results.

I have already explained. What part do you need help with?

The part that refutes the original claim. No mention of adults was made so your statement regarding them was irrelevant. .

Age was specifically mentioned.

 

[Unkotare]

Stating The Critical Period does not refute the concept that kids are most receptive to learning new languages between 3 and 6.

It is part of highlighting that the above claim is too categorical and too specific.

 

[Unkotare]

Regardless of the different meanings of "immersion," it's still generally accepted that total immersion is the best way to learn languages. .

You can't claim something as irrefutable without defining it.

 

[asterism]

I didn't edit your quote, I quoted the part of your post to which I wished to respond.

You edited out the words between "have" and the ending period.

Read the above words.

You edited the post. Don't do that. If you wish to only use a phrase or a snippet of mine, use notation to make it clear that you are only partially quoting me instead of giving my words a connotation that I did not intend.

In the above post, you said this:

"I didn't edit your quote, I quoted the part of your post to which I wished to respond."

A proper way for me reference your words but only quoting the part to which I wish to respond would be one of these:

I didn't edit your quote...

Without including a direct link to a post that says more than what you said and in a way that is phrased contrary to my intent.

"You said, 'I didn't edit your quote,' and I disagree."

Again, no attempt is made to say something that you didn't say.

Otherwise according to your logic this would be accepted (only being used as an illustration):

I edit your quote, I respond.

See the difference?

 

[asterism]

I have already explained. What part do you need help with?

The part that refutes the original claim. No mention of adults was made so your statement regarding them was irrelevant. .

Age was specifically mentioned.

Yes, as a statement regarding the age in which people are most receptive to learning new languages not as a statement regarding the ability of adults to learn languages. Therefore, your comment, "And the idea that adults can't learn languages well is a misconception," is irrelevant.

 

[asterism]

Stating The Critical Period does not refute the concept that kids are most receptive to learning new languages between 3 and 6.

It is part of highlighting that the above claim is too categorical and too specific.

In your opinion. I disagree.

 

[Unkotare]

I'm curious as to why you have avoided answering what languages you have learned and whether or not you've ever been fluent.

I have already addressed this question. While working toward my master's degree I studied many languages. As I've told you before, the word "fluency" is problematic, but I can get by in 4 or 5.

 

[Unkotare]

Stating The Critical Period does not refute the concept that kids are most receptive to learning new languages between 3 and 6.

It is part of highlighting that the above claim is too categorical and too specific.

In your opinion. I disagree.

I don't think you really do.

 

[asterism]

Regardless of the different meanings of "immersion," it's still generally accepted that total immersion is the best way to learn languages. .

You can't claim something as irrefutable without defining it.

You also can't successfully communicate your opinion and sway others by using the nebulous nature of the claim as a refute in and of itself.

 

[asterism]

It is part of highlighting that the above claim is too categorical and too specific.

In your opinion. I disagree.

I don't think you really do.

Well then I guess there's nothing more to talk about if you think I'm being dishonest. It's such a minor point of no consequence anyway.

In what language have you ever been fluent other than English?

 

[asterism]

I'm curious as to why you have avoided answering what languages you have learned and whether or not you've ever been fluent.

I have already addressed this question. While working toward my master's degree I studied many languages. As I've told you before, the word "fluency" is problematic, but I can get by in 4 or 5.

Which ones?

 

[Unkotare]

I edit your quote, I respond.

See the difference?

I "see" that I did no such similar thing to your words. You seem to be confused.

 

[Unkotare]

I'm curious as to why you have avoided answering what languages you have learned and whether or not you've ever been fluent.

I have already addressed this question. While working toward my master's degree I studied many languages. As I've told you before, the word "fluency" is problematic, but I can get by in 4 or 5.

Which ones?

I'm not here to boast. Send a PM.

 

[Unkotare]

In your opinion. I disagree.

I don't think you really do.

Well then I guess there's nothing more to talk about if you think I'm being dishonest.

I didn't say you were being dishonest. I just think you haven't considered it carefully.