NationStates Jolt Archive

How so?

The fact that you claim not to know how learning a language can change the way you think tells me that your claim about knowing Latin is complete bullshit. Or at least partial bullshit - you learned a few phrases handy enough to impress the easily-impressed.

Anyone I know who has learned any language other than their native one has gained significantly from it. Not least, in their ability to communicate without coming across as an egotistical blowhard. You should look into it.

Why wouldn't a solid knowledge of math do the same thing? You certainly learn logic and I would think that's a better foundation than just knowing a few French folk songs in French.

Yeah, see, people (obviously not you) actually learn a language, not just "know a few folk songs" in it.

To such people - whom we might for the sake of convenience call "educated" - they gain quite a bit more.

You only betray your own ignorance here with this line of arguments.

______________________

MODEDIT: This thread is a split from the US Election Miscellaneous thread. Somehow Barringtonia and Jocabia ended up arguing about brain plasticity. I have included some of the posts that I think show how they got there. But if you want to comment on the actual topic, it's now brain plasticity -- can it be preserved, is it inherent, and so on, 'mkay?

As far as the idea of broadening your thinking, any other language would probably do. And doing so would make it easier for you to learn a language for a specific utility (ie. if you don't know German but your company deals with many German customers) later on.



Mandarin Chinese would actually be a very useful language to learn.

Personally, if I had the time/resources, I'd like to learn at least one romantic language and at least one Asian language. In my field, Japanese would probably be the best for the latter.

I haven't had any problems picking up a language in a foreign country without any classes or study, as long as I got to stay there at least six months and live with a woman.

I could probably get you around in a fair number of countries, but I wouldn't be very good at reading a book. I seem to have ended up mastering current local idiom while leaving out any ability to write novels.

It hasn't improved anything economically for me - I work with people who already speak English (funny how a lot of foreign programmers speak English).

It does, however, improve your chances of getting laid enormously.

I would say that it's not fair to compare everyone though - most people don't have the ability to pick up other languages quickly and easily, except when they are small children.

Spin it any way you want to, the fact remains that the rest of the world accommodates me by learning my language and is likely to continue to do so throughout my lifetime. English may go the way of Latin (of which I took four years in school) but not in the near future.

Compulsory language education is silly. Learning a second language is unnecessary unless you have a specific purpose in mind.

Well, of course, unless you know ANYTHING about the workings of the human brain, then you realize that language acquisition greatly assists your ability to continue to do so. But, hey, it's better to make ignorant assertions based on nothing but arrogance. Don't base it on, you know, any understanding of the various purposes of second language acquisition.

When I went to public schools in NY state, we had to select a language to study -- both in middle and high schools. I went with Italian.

When I went to college, I studied French for a year.

I won't pretend I am fluent in either, but I can understand and communicate in Italian if people speak slowly, and I can read in Italian, French and Spanish enough to understand most of what's going on. Were I to be immersed in any of those three languages, I'd probably pick them up pretty quickly.

When I went to public schools in NY state, we had to select a language to study -- both in middle and high schools. I went with Italian.

When I went to college, I studied French for a year.

I won't pretend I am fluent in either, but I can understand and communicate in Italian if people speak slowly, and I can read in Italian, French and Spanish enough to understand most of what's going on. Were I to be immersed in any of those three languages, I'd probably pick them up pretty quickly.
But did that and if so, how did that make you understand the subtleties of being Italian or French?

Those give us a universal understanding of the world around us. Which one language would do that?

Hint: English is spoken more places than anywhere else.

Same thing. Language acquisition as you've demonstrated allow us to better understand our own language. It also excercises a part of our brain that can not be excercised as an adult. It also gives a particular kind of cultural understanding that ONLY comes from language. The focus of a language, how it's formed, it's vocabulary, how it's conjugated, tell us much about the focus of those who created it.

For example, what would a language that had base 36 rather than base 10 numbering tell you?

Same thing. Language acquisition as you've demonstrated allow us to better understand our own language. It also excercises a part of our brain that can not be excercised as an adult. It also gives a particular kind of cultural understanding that ONLY comes from language. The focus of a language, how it's formed, it's vocabulary, how it's conjugated, tell us much about the focus of those who created it.

For example, what would a language that had base 36 rather than base 10 numbering tell you?
Fine. Then make that language English. What kind of nuances are you going to pick up from a year of Italian. Hell, a year of Hebrew, Hindi, or Sanskrit might get you past the alphabet. If you're going to learn a language, learn one well. Learn your mother tongue.

You still haven't told me which one language would be sufficient to convey the cultural understanding that you seem to think is so desperately needed and can ONLY be obtained by fluency in that language.

Fine. Then make that language English. What kind of nuances are you going to pick up from a year of Italian. Hell, a year of Hebrew, Hindi, or Sanskrit might get you past the alphabet. If you're going to learn a language, learn one well. Learn your mother tongue.

You still haven't told me which one language would be sufficient to convey the cultural understanding that you seem to think is so desperately needed and can ONLY be obtained by fluency in that language.

You really don't know anything about this do you? And if you'd like to try reading, we're all talking about SECOND language acquisition. As you pointed, the second often aids you in your understanding of the first. Nice job contradicting yourself.

So tell me, since you're of course not arguing with no understanding here, what are some of the effects of acquiring a SECOND language? Of course, you've studied this, because you wouldn't just ignorantly make assertions. At what age does second language acquisition become difficult, and according to many, impossible?

The ONE language isn't the point. Second language acquisition IS. Much like the study of geometry isn't the point. The overall understanding of mathematics IS.

Well, of course, unless you know ANYTHING about the workings of the human brain, then you realize that language acquisition greatly assists your ability to continue to do so. But, hey, it's better to make ignorant assertions based on nothing but arrogance. Don't base it on, you know, any understanding of the various purposes of second language acquisition.

Actually, for most people, acquiring a second language after roughly the age of eight becomes progressively more difficult.

It's because the brain undergoes permanent changes as the child moves into puberty and becomes an adult.

Once those changes take place, it becomes nearly impossible for most people to become quickly fluent in another language.

But I didn't think you would know that. I only knew that you'd know that I knew. Did you know THAT?

Actually, for most people, acquiring a second language after roughly the age of eight becomes progressively more difficult.

It's because the brain undergoes permanent changes as the child moves into puberty and becomes an adult.

Once those changes take place, it becomes nearly impossible for most people to become quickly fluent in another language.

But I didn't think you would know that. I only knew that you'd know that I knew. Did you know THAT?

Yes, yes. The operational words here being "nearly", "mostly" and "quickly". The learning per se is still quite possible.

Actually, for most people, acquiring a second language after roughly the age of eight becomes progressively more difficult.

It's because the brain undergoes permanent changes as the child moves into puberty and becomes an adult.

Once those changes take place, it becomes nearly impossible for most people to become quickly fluent in another language.

But I didn't think you would know that. I only knew that you'd know that I knew. Did you know THAT?

It becomes more difficult after 8 and 14 is about the absolute end of it. I am aware of it. I enjoy reading about Second Language Acquisition.

Incidentally, if you really were in the military, you probably took the test I mentioned that tested your ability to acquire languages by teaching you a fake language.

You really don't know anything about this do you? And if you'd like to try reading, we're all talking about SECOND language acquisition. As you pointed, the second often aids you in your understanding of the first. Nice job contradicting yourself.

So tell me, since you're of course not arguing with no understanding here, what are some of the effects of acquiring a SECOND language? Of course, you've studied this, because you wouldn't just ignorantly make assertions. At what age does second language acquisition become difficult, and according to many, impossible?

The ONE language isn't the point. Second language acquisition IS. Much like the study of geometry isn't the point. The overall understanding of mathematics IS.
I'm still looking for the answer to my question. It's assumed that I'm talking about a second language. My position is that there is no added benefit from learning a second language. You disagree. Tell me what second language will convey the same kind of universal understanding of culture that math and science give us in understanding how the physical world works.

Then tell me how long one must study it.

On second thought, don't bother. Foreign language speakers that also speak English have no more idea of how our culture works than we do theirs. It isn't a language thing. It's an experience thing.

Let's compare two English speaking countries. India and the U.S. We have little or nothing in common. We don't even speak the same English. It's not possible to understand cultural differences based on language. And that's not a second language for either of us. So I fail to see how learning a second language will lead to any great cultural understanding.

Yes, yes. The operational words here being "nearly", "mostly" and "quickly". The learning per se is still quite possible.

Most people don't have the time. You know of course that a significant number of people don't go to college. They have to go to work and that leaves little time or money for learning a language they are unlikely to use.

Between your admission and that last fact, most (that's the majority) people aren't going to learn another language unless they absolutely have to (say, if they live in an area bordering another country that is economically better off).

Learning it because you say it's a good idea is stupid.

Hmm. Work at a job, and pay the rent, or be unemployed and learn a language because Heikoku says that in three years, I might be able to speak Urdu?

I find my ability to learn spoken language quickly a rare gift. Most people don't have it.

So... Most children have to work at a job, and pay the rent, or be unemployed? Because, y'know... Most people subject to such a "mandatory learning" would be children.

Your point?

After a certain age, as I told you, it's largely a useless endeavor, except for those who can still learn one.

If you start them after puberty (say, at age 14 like they do in most US high schools) most of them won't absorb shit.

I certainly need to get out more, for, should I do so, I'd not be having the pleasure of talking to such enlightened souls as yourself.

And I'm not talking about the ability to convince someone, I'm talking about the ability of conveying information. Language has more purposes than insurance salesmanship.

Regardless, do feel free to point out HOW I'm being naive.
But commerce is what drives the world. I can convey information that makes my product essential to your space program. You're naive in that you don't recognize the importance of commerce. You're also naive in that you don't recognize the forces of personality and character in the pursuit of commerce.

No, you'd almost be forced not to, by circumstance.

It just confuses me when you say "I fail to see how learning a second language will lead to any great cultural understanding". Of course, relationships with people are incredibly important, and these can be made without speaking the same language.

But it helps a fucking lot.
Maybe this makes it more clear. If you're not native born into a culture -- Japan for this example -- I don't think you'll ever understand all the nuances of the culture. Learning Japanese would be an essential step, but you need someone to mentor you in the culture. Language, alone, isn't enough. So this cultural understanding that everyone sees as a "good thing" is really two parts.
1. Learn a language
2. Find a mentor

The result is that you have a better understanding of one culture.

My thought is that it's not worth requiring mandatory language education just to fulfill that first part. And the question is still open about which second language and which second culture we should commit ourselves to understand.

I'm still looking for the answer to my question. It's assumed that I'm talking about a second language. My position is that there is no added benefit from learning a second language. You disagree. Tell me what second language will convey the same kind of universal understanding of culture that math and science give us in understanding how the physical world works.

I take it you can't deal with the argument made, so you have to change it. It's not a specific language as you've been told repeatedly. It's the actual act of acquiring a second language that is the point. That's why schools allow you to choose from multiple languages and most colleges wave the language requirement for any second language.

Your position denies the evidence. You might want to keep it quiet. Usually when people know they don't know what they're talking about they don't advertise it to the world.

Then tell me how long one must study it.

It depends on which benefits you're talking about. Your question is exceedingly difficult to answer simply. Excercising the part of your brain that allows you to form words that use sounds found in other languages is excercised relatively quickly. The benefits there begin rather quickly, but the complex understanding that offers you an understanding of the formation of language is very advanced. It would depend on the curriculum and the student.


On second thought, don't bother. Foreign language speakers that also speak English have no more idea of how our culture works than we do theirs. It isn't a language thing. It's an experience thing.

Well, unless you understand how language is formed and unless you understand how language classes are taught and unless you have the first bit of understanding of context. Unfortunately, you constantly prove you don't understand any of those.


Let's compare two English speaking countries. India and the U.S. We have little or nothing in common. We don't even speak the same English. It's not possible to understand cultural differences based on language. And that's not a second language for either of us. So I fail to see how learning a second language will lead to any great cultural understanding.

Well, at least your aware of the problem. You FAIL to see.

We don't speak the same English? Really? Why wouldn't we? According to you there is nothinng you can learn about culture from the English one speaks. Obviously, there would be no reason why English would vary by culture, right? I mean, it couldn't be that culture determines language usage. Nah, that's too.... scientific and based on actual information.

Language, alone, isn't enough.
Oh, certainly.

I took you for saying, however, that it wasn't important at all.

Maybe this makes it more clear. If you're not native born into a culture -- Japan for this example -- I don't think you'll ever understand all the nuances of the culture. Learning Japanese would be an essential step, but you need someone to mentor you in the culture. Language, alone, isn't enough. So this cultural understanding that everyone sees as a "good thing" is really two parts.
1. Learn a language
2. Find a mentor

The result is that you have a better understanding of one culture.

My thought is that it's not worth requiring mandatory language education just to fulfill that first part. And the question is still open about which second language and which second culture we should commit ourselves to understand.

You're right that you're never understand all the nuances of that other culture. That's not a reason to not want to understand some of the nuances. Fortunately, SLA has more advantages than simply an understanding of a foreign culture, much like history has more advantages than simply what happened on what date.

Oh, certainly.

I took you for saying, however, that it wasn't important at all.

Uh, he did say that. He said there is no advantage to SLA.

Miymi: "My position is that there is no added benefit from learning a second language."

But commerce is what drives the world. I can convey information that makes my product essential to your space program. You're naive in that you don't recognize the importance of commerce. You're also naive in that you don't recognize the forces of personality and character in the pursuit of commerce.

So... You're trying to argue that you can use any given language better than people that studied it by trying to claim that convincing people is the only (or main) use of language and that you are "nice", thus better-equipped, followed by a "money makes the world go round" argument? Even accepting the "money makes the world go round" premise, you'd have to prove that convincing is the only or main use of language, rather than conveying information. You can do so by disproving just about every Linguistics expert in existence.

Good luck.

I take it you can't deal with the argument made, so you have to change it. It's not a specific language as you've been told repeatedly. It's the actual act of acquiring a second language that is the point.

Then type slowly and explain with facts why you are right. All I've seen so far is the unsupported argument that learning a second language will open up a whole new horizon of cultural understanding. You say with certainty that the act of learning a second language is beneficial. Show me why that is so.

Then type slowly and explain with facts why you are right. All I've seen so far is the unsupported argument that learning a second language will open up a whole new horizon of cultural understanding. You say with certainty that the act of learning a second language is beneficial. Show me why that is so.

How will the speed at which I type help you understand the specific language isn't the post after you've ignored that explicit statement repeatedly?

If this -"All I've seen so far is the unsupported argument that learning a second language will open up a whole new horizon of cultural understanding."- is the only argument you've seen, then you've made an excellent argument why YOU should focus on learning English better rather than other languages.

Here are some of the other arguments I and others have made:
1. SLA helps you understand your first language
2. SLA helps you understand the formation of language
3. SLA helps you understand how culture affects language vocabulary
4. SLA excercises a part of the brain that cannot be activated after a certain age

Do you need me to list all of them out, or do you think it's time to employ the mystical reading comprehension that appears to eluding you?

After a certain age, as I told you, it's largely a useless endeavor, except for those who can still learn one.

If you start them after puberty (say, at age 14 like they do in most US high schools) most of them won't absorb shit.

After a certian age it becomes much more difficult, which is an argument for making the requirement part of grade school. It's not impossible, but you'll always have a strong accent after age 14.

After a certian age it becomes much more difficult, which is an argument for making the requirement part of grade school. It's not impossible, but you'll always have a strong accent after age 14.

Hmm, not really.

The only real difference I suspect is that you lose the willingness to learn a new language - it may get harder after mid-30's since the brain is losing more cells than it's producing but you can always learn a language quite quickly, you just feel that it's more effort than you're prepared to put in.

For a 6 year old, the only real thing the brain is doing is learning to communicate, hence it's very open to new languages. By 14 or so, we're interested in exploring relations and/or defining ourselves, the brain is simply focused on other areas.

People can immerse themselves in a new language and speak it flawlessly.

I'd also argue that people are not inherently 'good at languages', again, I'd posit that it's a mental approach where, if one believes one is good at languages, one's mind is more open to learning them.

Hmm, not really.

The only real difference I suspect is that you lose the willingness to learn a new language - it may get harder after mid-30's since the brain is losing more cells than it's producing but you can always learn a language quite quickly, you just feel that it's more effort than you're prepared to put in.

For a 6 year old, the only real thing the brain is doing is learning to communicate, hence it's very open to new languages. By 14 or so, we're interested in exploring relations and/or defining ourselves, the brain is simply focused on other areas.

People can immerse themselves in a new language and speak it flawlessly.

I'd also argue that people are not inherently 'good at languages', again, I'd posit that it's a mental approach where, if one believes one is good at languages, one's mind is more open to learning them.

The only real differences? On what do you base that?

The brian loses plasticity as we age. The ability to acquire langauge after the onset of puberty is almost universally agreed to be impaired. It's been demonstrated that those that lose language through injury recover fully as children but only recover a set amount as adults. It's also been shown that after a certain age you'll always have somewhat of an accent in new languages. There is much evidence. "I suspect" doesn't exactly revese the evidence.

The only real differences? On what do you base that?

The brian loses plasticity as we age. The ability to acquire langauge after the onset of puberty is almost universally agreed to be impaired. It's been demonstrated that those that lose language through injury recover fully as children but only recover a set amount as adults. It's also been shown that after a certain age you'll always have somewhat of an accent in new languages. There is much evidence. "I suspect" doesn't exactly revese the evidence.

The idea that younger people acquire a second language quicker is a bit of a myth, there's many factors and older people are often quicker for various reasons...

http://www.now.carleton.ca/2005-03/720.htm

Pronunciation can be more to do with mouth shape rather than brain, speaking one language to a certain age means the mouth is less used to the positions, and is even shaped differently, required to vocalise certain sounds, hence why English speakers have difficulty with certain Chinese sounds, but it's not insurmountable at all.

The idea that younger people acquire a second language quicker is a bit of a myth, there's many factors and older people are often quicker for various reasons...

http://www.now.carleton.ca/2005-03/720.htm

Pronunciation can be more to do with mouth shape rather than brain, speaking one language to a certain age means the mouth is less used to the positions, and is even shaped differently, required to vocalise certain sounds, hence why English speakers have difficulty with certain Chinese sounds, but it's not insurmountable at all.

Reread your own source and get back to me.

What your source says is that no age is optimal for all aspects of learning language. Why is that different than what you're arguing? Because there are aspects of learning language that play in, like the maturity you've reached in your own language that play better for someone older.

That isn't the same as saying that you lose plasticity and therefore it's better to encourage SLA in younger children. The person you linked to is arguing that you should still try when you're older, not that there isn't an advantage for children.

"This is why there are age differences in the acquisition of different aspects of language learning. Phonology in this respect is a good example and children will have the advantage of speaking with a better accent."

Your link DIRECTLY contradicts you. It says children have an advantage with accent. Not so surprisingly, your expert agrees with me. Next time, READ, then post.

Reread your own source and get back to me.

What your source says is that no age is optimal for all aspects of learning language. Why is that different than what you're arguing? Because there are aspects of learning language that play in, like the maturity you've reached in your own language that play better for someone older.

That isn't the same as saying that you lose plasticity and therefore it's better to encourage SLA in younger children. The person you linked to is arguing that you should still try when you're older, not that there isn't an advantage for children.

"This is why there are age differences in the acquisition of different aspects of language learning. Phonology in this respect is a good example and children will have the advantage of speaking with a better accent."

Your link DIRECTLY contradicts you. It says children have an advantage with accent. Not so surprisingly, your expert agrees with me. Next time, READ, then post.

You're taking what I say as an attack on your points, it's not, it's a supplementary commentary.

First, there is far, far less plasticity difference between adults and children than people have previously thought.

Second, accent, as I said - though I wrote 'pronunciation' - is more about mouth shape than brain function.

Here's an easy way to think about it. Imagine the brain as a large field, where people (information) traverse. At the start, any route can be taken and any individual might take a different route but, over time, pathways will form and they'll become more entrenched, deeper, wider and accepted as paths over time.

This doesn't mean a new path can't be formed. It simply means that it's easier to follow previously formed pathways.

Beyond that, there may be some hesitation in forming new paths, there may be a variety of factors as to why people don't form new paths but it still doesn't mean new paths cannot be formed.

At some point, parts of the field decay and one cannot pass them but that's a lot older than you'd think. Even then, the brain is very malleable, one can form paths around decayed bits that still perform the function of those decayed parts.

That's a simplistic way of putting it but it somewhat demonstrate why there's no real inherent problem in learning a second language beyond 14.

You're taking what I say as an attack on your points, it's not, it's a supplementary commentary.

Eh, my bad. You're correct I did. That does alter the context a bit.


First, there is far, far less plasticity difference between adults and children than people have previously thought.

Which isn't the same as their not being any. It has a demonstrable effect. Look at the difference in recover between young and old brain injury victims.


Second, accent, as I said - though I wrote 'pronunciation' - is more about mouth shape than brain function.

It's both and both are relevant.


Here's an easy way to think about it. Imagine the brain as a large field, where people (information) traverse. At the start, any route can be taken and any individual might take a different route but, over time, pathways will form and they'll become more entrenched, deeper, wider and accepted as paths over time.

This doesn't mean a new path can't be formed. It simply means that it's easier to follow previously formed pathways.

It also means that the forming pathways is easier before the ruts form. And you know that, since you've admitted the difference in plasticity.


Beyond that, there may be some hesitation in forming new paths, there may be a variety of factors as to why people don't form new paths but it still doesn't mean new paths cannot be formed.

Who said it did? I said it was harder. You're right to agree with me.


At some point, parts of the field decay and one cannot pass them but that's a lot older than you'd think. Even then, the brain is very malleable, one can form paths around decayed bits that still perform the function of those decayed parts.

That's a simplistic way of putting it but it somewhat demonstrate why there's no real inherent problem in learning a second language beyond 14.

It doesn't demonstrate. You've demonstrated why it's not impossible, not why it's not better to learn it at a young age. It's better in many ways to learn it as a child, as it is to learn math, or history, etc. It doesn't mean you can never learn new things as an adult, but that the more ways you work your brain as a child, the more ability your brain has. Diversified learning increases plasticity, but I'll assume you know that and just ignored it in your argument.

*snip*

Well, all this is at the edge of what's being discovered. It's no easier to follow a well-trodden path than it is to form a new one, it's just that we follow the well-trodden by habit. There's a slight difference.

I've said plasticity is far, far less than previously thought but the gap is closing with every new discovery, to the point where people are wondering whether there's any at all. There's work on violinists that relates to this if I can go find it.

Hence, 'it's all in the mind' becomes a reasonably accurate pun.

I'm going to comment on the Marine's around the world post now :)

Well, all this is at the edge of what's being discovered. It's no easier to follow a well-trodden path than it is to form a new one, it's just that we follow the well-trodden by habit. There's a slight difference.

I've said plasticity is far, far less than previously thought but the gap is closing with every new discovery, to the point where people are wondering whether there's any at all. There's work on violinists that relates to this if I can go find it.

Bullshit. Honestly, if that were true, then we would get the results we do with brain injuries. Often with brain injuries, your brain has to find new ways to do things. You literally have to learn things all over again. With older brains it's rather apparent that full recovery is anything but. Not true of young brains. In fact, with young brains it's not uncommon for an injury that would be apparent in the speech and movement of an adult to be completely unnoticable in a child.

There is a difference in plasticity. You've even presented a source that says as much. I truly want to see the study that concludes there is no difference. Show me the paper that questions the existence of a difference in plasticity. I'd love to see it.


Hence, 'it's all in the mind' becomes a reasonably accurate pun.

I'm going to comment on the Marine's around the world post now :)

Amusingly, not according to your own source. You really should figure out what you're arguing before you post evidence. See, if your source is wrong, then you're wrong to post it. If it's not, then you are. However, it doesn't support your claim that there is no difference in plasticity or even that such a difference doesn't matter. The only thing your SLA expert said was that the differences isn't a reason to discourage learning as an adult.

It does, in fact, support the need to learn languages younger. Saying that SLA when older is still possible and there are some advantages does not contradict my point. It DOES however contradict your claims that the differences in plasticity may not exist.

*snip*

Once, researchers believed that only young brains were plastic. They thought that the connections between the brain's neurons developed in the first few years of childhood. Then they became fixed and very hard to change. An enormous amount of animal and human data uncovered in the past two decades, however, confirms that the brain retains its plasticity throughout life.

The study shows the brain's ability to readjust its circuits to process language -- at any age.

http://www.sfn.org/index.cfm?pagename=brainbriefings_brainplasticitylanguageprocessingandreading

Again, if you think of the pathways analogy, you'd see that there's no inherent reason why the brain is not as flexible at any age, the difference is more following habit than inability to change.

I'm not stating this as fact, no one would, but it's a growing opinion.

EDIT: The original source I gave was simply to say it's probably no harder to learn a language when older than when younger, mostly as a comment on your post to say 14 was some kind of cut off date - no more no less.

It certainly did not say that there was no advantage to teaching young people a second language, there absolutely is and I support it wholeheartedly.

Bullshit. Honestly, if that were true, then we would get the results we do with brain injuries. Often with brain injuries, your brain has to find new ways to do things. You literally have to learn things all over again. With older brains it's rather apparent that full recovery is anything but. Not true of young brains. In fact, with young brains it's not uncommon for an injury that would be apparent in the speech and movement of an adult to be completely unnoticable in a child.

There is a difference in plasticity. You've even presented a source that says as much. I truly want to see the study that concludes there is no difference. Show me the paper that questions the existence of a difference in plasticity. I'd love to see it.


I'm sorry, Jocabia, but I must differ.

If what you were describing were true, there would be cases of children treated with hemispherectomy (for Sturge-Weber syndrome and other pediatric degenerative neural disorders) making essentially full recoveries, their remaining brain tissue emulating all functions of the lost lobes, including such specialized regions as Wernicke or Broca's areas associated with language.

I would call you a lying Jew ****, but I've been warned for flaming.

I'm sorry, Jocabia, but I must differ.

If what you were describing were true, there would be cases of children treated with hemispherectomy (for Sturge-Weber syndrome and other pediatric degenerative neural disorders) making essentially full recoveries, their remaining brain tissue emulating all functions of the lost lobes, including such specialized regions as Wernicke or Broca's areas associated with language.

I would call you a lying Jew ****, but I've been warned for flaming.

I'm guess you're joking, but it should be noted that some of the physical impairment is permanent and would obviously be. Plasticity doesn't mean the entire body can be rewired, so you'd naturally seem some motor issues with one side of the body after losing a hemisphere.

As to the extent of the recovery, though, I'll say we've reached the limit of my knowledge on the subject. Where's Aerou when we need her?

I'm guess you're joking, but it should be noted that some of the physical impairment is permanent and would obviously be. Plasticity doesn't mean the entire body can be rewired, so you'd naturally seem some motor issues with one side of the body after losing a hemisphere.

As to the extent of the recovery, though, I'll say we've reached the limit of my knowledge on the subject. Where's Aerou when we need her?

Even just differentiation between recovery of pediatric patients and those of adult patients would strengthen the premise that there is substantially improved reparative extrapolation with pre-adolescents. If this were not all Jew science, I would be in agreement with you, but it is.

Look at Schartz and Begley's work on neuroplasticity and it supports some of what Barringtonia is saying, but again, Jews.

http://www.sfn.org/index.cfm?pagename=brainbriefings_brainplasticitylanguageprocessingandreading

Again, if you think of the pathways analogy, you'd see that there's no inherent reason why the brain is not as flexible at any age, the difference is more following habit than inability to change.

I'm not stating this as fact, no one would, but it's a growing opinion.

EDIT: The original source I gave was simply to say it's probably no harder to learn a language when older than when younger, mostly as a comment on your post to say 14 was some kind of cut off date - no more no less.

It certainly did not say that there was no advantage to teaching young people a second language, there absolutely is and I support it wholeheartedly.

PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, read THEN post. Saying that the brain retains some plasticity throughout life is not the same as claiming there is no difference. Your source says the first NOT the second.

This is why your study details special activities to stimulate plasticity that would be naturally stimulated in a young brain. It's a workaround. The simple fact that such a thing is necessary is evidence against your claim. Acquiring the same level of plasticity takes more work with adults.

And the author of the original source said he envied the ease with which children obtain a second language. I couldn't have supported my point better with my own source. So thanks for that.

Even just differentiation between recovery of pediatric patients and those of adult patients would strengthen the premise that there is substantially improved reparative extrapolation with pre-adolescents. If this were not all Jew science, I would be in agreement with you, but it is.

Look at Schartz and Begley's work on neuroplasticity and it supports some of what Barringtonia is saying, but again, Jews.

It supports that plasticity at some level exists throughout life (or at least most of it). If I'd denied that, he'd actually be arguing against my points. Unfortunately, I never denied that. I simply pointed out there is a difference. As you rightfully point out, that difference has irrefutable evidence in the difference in recovery between pediatric patients and adult patients. And if he wishes to attribute this to other age related factors that are non-physical, he cannot, since some of the recoveries include those with no or little memory. The evidence is entirely and undeniably consistent on this front.

One can argue about the degrees of plasticity, but that there is no difference I've yet to see as a conclusion from anyone, include all of the sources B has provided.

PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, read THEN post. Saying that the brain retains some plasticity throughout life is not the same as claiming there is no difference. Your source says the first NOT the second.

This is why your study details special activities to stimulate plasticity that would be naturally stimulated in a young brain. It's a workaround. The simple fact that such a thing is necessary is evidence against your claim. Acquiring the same level of plasticity takes more work with adults.

Read my posts first.

A child is only focused on learning, it doesn't have to deal with relationships, with a job, with thinking about much beyond learning, it's relying less on habit.

Just because the brain is devoted to learning doesn't mean it's necessarily better at it.

Just because a brain is older doesn't mean it's worse, or less adaptive.

You're saying your opinion is 'definite', the extreme end of a spectrum, I'm not saying 'definitely not', but 'possibly not'.

Read my posts first.

A child is only focused on learning, it doesn't have to deal with relationships, with a job, with thinking about much beyond learning, it's relying less on habit.

Just because the brain is devoted to learning doesn't mean it's necessarily better at it.

Just because a brain is older doesn't mean it's worse, or less adaptive.

You're saying your opinion is 'definite', the extreme end of a spectrum, I'm not saying 'definitely not', but 'possibly not'.

Except it does, and everything you've linked has evidenced it.

I accurately predicted you'd suggest there were external pressures that make the difference, but we've seen similar results when looking at those who have memory loss, where those external pressures would be nearly identical. Your claims don't match even the research you've presented.

Not to mention that YOU introduced that these external factors explain the difference without the slightest bit of support. It's not been shown that in an adult who ignores all relationships and isn't required to work that there is a difference in the acquisition, just a difference in the effort. Less effort needed cannot be explained by the external factors you referenced. IN FACT, your original source suggested that adults focus harder on the specifics of acquiring a language, while in children it's acquried naturally through immersion much more quickly. They acquire it easier WITHOUT focusing on it. They're distracted as well. For one, language isn't the only thing that's new to them. EVERYTHING is. So while an adults learning can be focused on acquiring another language, a child is still acquiring their first language, math, history, reading, hell, they're still learning how to control their bodies properly.

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/8.30/helthrpt/stories/s10302.htm

I believe you mentioned this research with violins and braille earlier. (if not you someone else who argued your point)

"Again, the amount of adaptation is smaller than compared to the ones who start as children, particularly before the age of ten."

"that the adult brain is almost as malleable and plastic as the child's."

"And what we see is that if you start early in childhood playing the instrument, then this change is greater."

Research upon research supports that special techniques are need to stimulate the plasticity of adults. That while it has the potential, it's more resistent to change and even with proper stimulation it's not complete.

That's the opposite of "no difference". Nothing you've shown has supported no difference. All of it supports my original premise about the plasticity advantages presented in young children.

It supports that plasticity at some level exists throughout life (or at least most of it). If I'd denied that, he'd actually be arguing against my points. Unfortunately, I never denied that. I simply pointed out there is a difference. As you rightfully point out, that difference has irrefutable evidence in the difference in recovery between pediatric patients and adult patients. And if he wishes to attribute this to other age related factors that are non-physical, he cannot, since some of the recoveries include those with no or little memory. The evidence is entirely and undeniably consistent on this front.

One can argue about the degrees of plasticity, but that there is no difference I've yet to see as a conclusion from anyone, include all of the sources B has provided.

It would be interesting to see how much of this relates to the specific kind of neural material we're really talking about.

For example, if the mitosis of glial cells is much more propagative in pre-adolescence, but development of dendrites remains prolific (or potentially so, depending on either environmental impetus, nutrition, Schwartz's idea of focused "mindfulness", whatever) throughout life, it might make a difference.

At the other end of the spectrum, some propose models indicative of geriatric patients staving off dementia through deliberate and vigorous mental activity, which may indicate that neural tissue, at least in the slowing of deterioration if not the pioneering of new synaptic circa, is likely impacted by willingness to depart from habit.

"that the adult brain is almost as malleable and plastic as the child's."

Look, previously they thought the adult brain functions were hardwired, now they're finding this is less and less the case and understanding the brain is one of the last frontiers we have in terms of understanding the body.

Hence, 'the trend', and 'growing opinion'...

The fact that there is any brain plasticity in adults is a fairly new idea, we're a long way from full understanding.

Look, previously they thought the adult brain functions were hardwired, now they're finding this is less and less the case and understanding the brain is one of the last frontiers we have in terms of understanding the body.

Hence, 'the trend', and 'growing opinion'...

The fact that there is any brain plasticity in adults is a fairly new idea, we're a long way from full understanding.

Pffft. You sound like Levi-Montalcini and Cohen. What a crock of shit.

You know what I hear with all this stuff about brain development?

Jew. Jew? Jewy Jew Jew. Jew Ja-Jew Jewity Jew Jew.


Support White Nationalism! Stop growing your brain!

Pffft. You sound like Levi-Montalcini and Cohen. What a crock of shit.

You know what I hear with all this stuff about brain development?

Jew. Jew? Jewy Jew Jew. Jew Ja-Jew Jewity Jew Jew.


Support White Nationalism! Stop growing your brain!

If Jocabia realised this is essentially all I've been saying, I'd probably make the reading of Mein Kampf this evening.

If Jocabia realised this is essentially all I've been saying, I'd probably make the reading of Mein Kampf this evening.

To be honest though, even in contemporary research, there may be some data lending credence to Jewcabia's position that differences in brain adaptability with age may be tissue-intrinsic, albeit even a genetic potential scale should conceivably be subject to fine tuning even in adults.

Schwartz's bit on the subject focuses on treating adult OCD patients using a sort of cognitive behavioral approach to initiate precisely that.

As a racially aware white man, I am compelled to reject his conclusions, as Jew's produce Jew data and Jew conclusions.

Or as I call them, conjewsions.

Look, previously they thought the adult brain functions were hardwired, now they're finding this is less and less the case and understanding the brain is one of the last frontiers we have in terms of understanding the body.

Hence, 'the trend', and 'growing opinion'...

The fact that there is any brain plasticity in adults is a fairly new idea, we're a long way from full understanding.

I so knew you were going to say that. They have evidence, tons of it for a difference. That evidence hasn't gone away.

They used to believe that difference occurred at a more accelerated pace than they now believe. That's far from arguing that there is no difference.

Similarly, they've discovered both natural and nonnatural methods to slowing the muscle density decay of the human body as we age. They used to believe this impossible as well. However, NO ONE is arguing that the loss of muscle mass doesn't occur. They've only realized that it's not what they originally thought.

They thought that it wasn't possible to continue to stimulate plasticity. Now, they've found that they can. However, the fact they have to do this for adults and not in children evidences that there is a difference. Every single study evidences that difference. None has suggested in any way that there is no difference and with EVERY study the evidence for a difference becomes more solid, not less.

That the degree of difference is in dispute doesn't mean that the difference is in dispute. The "trend" is toward a more refined understanding of the difference that all evidence suggests exists.

So, do you have ANY significant researcher in the field of neuroscience that claims that we'll ignore the bulk of the evidence for a difference and decide there isn't one? Quote them.

None of this evidence contradicts a difference. None of it. None ever has. It contradicted a lack of plasticity in adults. They debunked something entirely different that was an invalid conclusion BASED on the bulk of the evidence for a difference. That doesn't debunk the evidence only the conclusion.

If Jocabia realised this is essentially all I've been saying, I'd probably make the reading of Mein Kampf this evening.

The problem is that your conclusion isn't found in the evidence present.

You're arguing that because I'm driving up my driveway that it's reasonable to say I might possibly end up in my backyard, so long as you ignore the wall at the back of my garage. The problem with your "possible" conclusion is that it requires me to ignore evidence. Science NEVER ignores evidence. You've not offered a way to address that evidence in any new way that explains the apparent difference. Until you or someone else does so, the ONLY rational conclusion is that there is a relevent difference, as evidenced by *gasp* the observed difference.

Hmm, not really.

The only real difference I suspect is that you lose the willingness to learn a new language - it may get harder after mid-30's since the brain is losing more cells than it's producing but you can always learn a language quite quickly, you just feel that it's more effort than you're prepared to put in.

For a 6 year old, the only real thing the brain is doing is learning to communicate, hence it's very open to new languages. By 14 or so, we're interested in exploring relations and/or defining ourselves, the brain is simply focused on other areas.

People can immerse themselves in a new language and speak it flawlessly.

I'd also argue that people are not inherently 'good at languages', again, I'd posit that it's a mental approach where, if one believes one is good at languages, one's mind is more open to learning them.

I thought I'd quote this again just to point out those changing goalposts.

Originally, you claimed the only difference in SLA for adults was a shift in focus. Then you linked to a specialist in the area that claimed that the differences were much more than that. You danced around that point.

Then you linked to additional studies (and reference another) that pointed out relevant differences in the operation of the brain between adults and children. This you again explained away to external factors, despite the studies themselves actually showing a relevant difference in the brain.

Somewhere in there you back off and claimed you weren't making a claim at all, but just saying it was possible.

Regardless of your moving goalposts, you're still offering conclusions that are counter to the evidence. Even if some of what you offer up has evidence, your basic conclusion still ignores the bulk of the evidence which is that there is a difference. The only thing you've offered is that that difference may be smaller than previously thought. That conclusion doesn't contradict me, it contradicts you. Because a difference that is "smaller than previously thought" is still a difference.

I thought I'd quote this again just to point out those changing goalposts.

Originally, you claimed the only difference in SLA for adults was a shift in focus. Then you linked to a specialist in the area that claimed that the differences were much more than that. You danced around that point.

Then you linked to additional studies (and reference another) that pointed out relevant differences in the operation of the brain between adults and children. This you again explained away to external factors, despite the studies themselves actually showing a relevant difference in the brain.

Somewhere in there you back off and claimed you weren't making a claim at all, but just saying it was possible.

Regardless of your moving goalposts, you're still offering conclusions that are counter to the evidence. Even if some of what you offer up has evidence, your basic conclusion still ignores the bulk of the evidence which is that there is a difference. The only thing you've offered is that that difference may be smaller than previously thought. That conclusion doesn't contradict me, it contradicts you. Because a difference that is "smaller than previously thought" is still a difference.

Hence 'I suspect'...it was possible.

Link (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17046669)

The traditional view has been that functional decline in aging is unavoidable because it is a direct consequence of brain machinery wearing down over time. In recent years, an alternative perspective has emerged, which elaborates on this traditional view of age-related functional decline. This new viewpoint--based upon decades of research in neuroscience, experimental psychology, and other related fields--argues that as people age, brain plasticity processes with negative consequences begin to dominate brain functioning. Four core factors--reduced schedules of brain activity, noisy processing, weakened neuromodulatory control, and negative learning--interact to create a self-reinforcing downward spiral of degraded brain function in older adults. This downward spiral might begin from reduced brain activity due to behavioral change, from a loss in brain function driven by aging brain machinery, or more likely from both. In aggregate, these interrelated factors promote plastic changes in the brain that result in age-related functional decline. This new viewpoint on the root causes of functional decline immediately suggests a remedial approach. Studies of adult brain plasticity have shown that substantial improvement in function and/or recovery from losses in sensation, cognition, memory, motor control, and affect should be possible, using appropriately designed behavioral training paradigms. Driving brain plasticity with positive outcomes requires engaging older adults in demanding sensory, cognitive, and motor activities on an intensive basis, in a behavioral context designed to re-engage and strengthen the neuromodulatory systems that control learning in adults, with the goal of increasing the fidelity, reliability, and power of cortical representations.

It's not necessarily brain plasticity itself that degrades, in itself it might be cause for greater rigidity of thought.

Just because we see differences now when we test doesn't mean that we won't discover techniques to maintain plasticity at a level rate, which studies into meditation are seeking to do.

Much like a muscle, if you don't use it, it gets weaker - doesn't necessarily mean you can't build it up again, akin to liquified jelly being put in the fridge of aging, the resulting solidity is, yes, a difference, but it doesn't mean it's irreversible and it doesn't mean that the scope of plasticity is fundamentally altered irreversibly, nor does it mean we couldn't maintain a liquid state given the knowledge.

Loss of activity, in terms of wider focus and thus less concentration on specifically learning, may be reversible and, again, I suspect that's the only difference until loss of brain function, which is from aging, makes this irreversible. The other factor, behavioral change, once we have the knowledge, we may well control, hence 'the only difference'.

EDIT: I'm have to leave in a bit so might not respond to your inevitable reply :)

We should also move this to another area as it's a complete hijack of the Obama thread - I should ask the Mods to split it.

EDIT EDIT: I also do see my changing goalposts but it's more a result of originally giving a 'forum reply' rather than an essay on my point of view.

Hence 'I suspect'...it was possible.

Link (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17046669)



It's not necessarily brain plasticity itself that degrades, in itself it might be cause for greater rigidity of thought.

Just because we see differences now when we test doesn't mean that we won't discover techniques to maintain plasticity at a level rate, which studies into meditation are seeking to do.

Again, if we need techniques to maintain plasticity at a level rate, it's evidence that plasticity degrades. You're again agreeing with my point and disagreeing with your own. No one disagreed that at some point in the future we might not be able to address the differences.

But, hey, you just keep moving those goalposts.

Since you're now agreeing that there is a need to address the differences with these techniques are we done here?

Meanwhile, there are advantages to the creation of common pathways. There are also advantages to making sure that pathways we may need in the future are formed early if we are aware of them. This was my original argument. You unfortunately decided to claim there was no difference in the plasticity of adults and children and upon discovering this was false to constantly shift rather than simply admit when you're in over your head.

Much like a muscle, if you don't use it, it gets weaker - doesn't necessarily mean you can't build it up again, akin to liquified jelly being put in the fridge of aging, the resulting solidity is, yes, a difference, but it doesn't mean it's irreversible and it doesn't mean that the scope of plasticity is fundamentally altered irreversibly, nor does it mean we couldn't maintain a liquid state given the knowledge.

Loss of activity, in terms of wider focus and thus less concentration on specifically learning, may be reversible and, again, I suspect that's the only difference until loss of brain function, which is from aging, makes this irreversible. The other factor, behavioral change, once we have the knowledge, we may well control, hence 'the only difference'.

No one argued that maintaining plasticity was impossible. No one. I simply argued that plasticity naturally degrades. By our very nature, SLA becomes more difficult with age. You've trying dancing around this issue from every side, but no shifting of the goalposts changes that a difference exists, that you're now acknowledging that difference, and that your argument has changed.

Here is the difference between what I originally said and what you're now arguing.

I would argue that muscle density also degrades with age.

If you told me there was no difference in the development of muscles in children and adults, I would laugh at you.

However, if you told me that through effort one could maintain a muscle density of a child, I wouldn't argue for a moment, since I wrote a paper on both the issue of muscle degradation and brain degradation 20 years ago as a teenager based on studies of children with progeria and extending those findings to the elderly.

The point being that if you'd argued that, as we learn more, the difference could be dealt with, I'd have agreed. You didn't. You said they didn't exist. And you're wrong.

*snip*

No, because I said 'inherent ability', hence, if it can either be maintained or reversed, the inherent ability remains regardless of whether the current ability is different or not.

The two factors posited - admittedly in this paper, not claiming fact - are degradation, which happens later than 14 and behaviour. I always allowed for degradation being irreversible but not behavioral effects.

EDIT: I'm off, requested a thread split as well - apologies for the cheeky scamp comment (not) - so hopefully can continue in a separate thread and let the Obama discussion continue.

No, because I said 'inherent ability', hence, if it can either be maintained or reversed, the inherent ability remains regardless of whether the current ability is different or not.

If it requires special techniques to acquire it, it's not inherent. I don't have an inherent ability to do flips. I can learn to do them, but were it inherent, I would just do them.

Inherent means permanent... it's always there. If you have to develop it, that's not inherent.

The two factors posited - admittedly in this paper, not claiming fact - are degradation, which happens later than 14 and behaviour. I always allowed for degradation being irreversible but not behavioral effects.

EDIT: I'm off, requested a thread split as well - apologies for the cheeky scamp comment (not) - so hopefully can continue in a separate thread and let the Obama discussion continue.

Again, you demonstrate your ignorance. I'm sorry, but there is no other word for it at this point. There are different kinds of degradation, there are different times when different parts of the brain finish forming. You do realize that you are born without a fully formed brain, yes? You still baking a bit even after you're out of the oven. There a ton of complicated factors and because you got caught out, you read a blip and pretend to understand it. For those of us, who actually recognize how complex this is, your statements are just silly.

Degradation of certain abilities start young. One of the papers mentioned 10 as a point when a difference becomes noticeable. Now you could dispute my source of that line, except, hehe, it's your source.

As far as the degradation goes, that it's not irreversible doesn't question its existence. You said there was no difference. You didn't say that with certain techniques it could be negated. But, hey, if you're comfortable changing your position after I've schooled you and pretending that was your position all along, go for it. I don't care where your understanding come from as long as the correction occurs. Here, it did. I've pounded on your position till it screamed, but finally it resembles something accurate. Now if I could get you to stop oversimplifying it and just admit you don't actually have the first clue what all this means, that would help, but I won't hold my breath.

I am semi-fluent with french (enough to find a hotel for the night, pay in US dollars, find an airport, and travel home), but I'd clearly be using broken french.

As for other languages, best is spanish, where I know exactly one phrase -- "No habla español.". And I normally say "no hablo español" instead, as it makes no sense to confuse people with flawless spanish that claims to not know spanish.

If it requires special techniques to acquire it, it's not inherent. I don't have an inherent ability to do flips. I can learn to do them, but were it inherent, I would just do them.

Inherent means permanent... it's always there. If you have to develop it, that's not inherent.

You can inherently perform flips, you have the body structure in the way a worm doesn't - whether you choose you use that inherent ability is up to you.

involved in the constitution or essential character of something : belonging by nature or habit

By nature, the very construct of your body, you can perform flips.

Again, you demonstrate your ignorance. I'm sorry, but there is no other word for it at this point. There are different kinds of degradation, there are different times when different parts of the brain finish forming. You do realize that you are born without a fully formed brain, yes? You still baking a bit even after you're out of the oven. There a ton of complicated factors and because you got caught out, you read a blip and pretend to understand it. For those of us, who actually recognize how complex this is, your statements are just silly.

Degradation of certain abilities start young. One of the papers mentioned 10 as a point when a difference becomes noticeable. Now you could dispute my source of that line, except, hehe, it's your source.

Show me where it states that the brain physically decays from young - how it matures is irrelevant, not sure why you go there.

As far as the degradation goes, that it's not irreversible doesn't question its existence. You said there was no difference. You didn't say that with certain techniques it could be negated. But, hey, if you're comfortable changing your position after I've schooled you and pretending that was your position all along, go for it. I don't care where your understanding come from as long as the correction occurs. Here, it did. I've pounded on your position till it screamed, but finally it resembles something accurate. Now if I could get you to stop oversimplifying it and just admit you don't actually have the first clue what all this means, that would help, but I won't hold my breath.

You can step back and see that we're not overly contradicting each other, saying that there's evidence that shows that degradation of plasticity is not necessarily permanent until physical degradation of the brain is merely saying that the brain doesn't irreversibly change at 14, one can learn a second language as quickly and it may just be different focuses that cause a difference, one that isn't irreversible.

We're not at polar opposites so don't treat the discussion as though it is.

You can inherently perform flips, you have the body structure in the way a worm doesn't - whether you choose you use that inherent ability is up to you.

involved in the constitution or essential character of something : belonging by nature or habit

By nature, the very construct of your body, you can perform flips.

Uh, no I am not capable of performing flips unless I'm trained to. The very construct of my body doesn't make me able to. I have to add something to it. Training.



Show me where it states that the brain physically decays from young - how it matures is irrelevant, not sure why you go there.

That there is a difference from the time you are young? I already quoted in in-thread. That the difference is noticeable particularly morseso if you look at someone 10 or younger? Why more noticeable 10 or younger? Because at that age, naturally, you see a greater growth. Again, READ then post.


You can step back and see that we're not overly contradicting each other, saying that there's evidence that shows that degradation of plasticity is not necessarily permanent until physical degradation of the brain is merely saying that the brain doesn't irreversibly change at 14, one can learn a second language as quickly and it may just be different focuses that cause a difference, one that isn't irreversible.

We're not at polar opposites so don't treat the discussion as though it is.

The problem is that you're now arguing against something no one ever said. I never said that. I agreed with your new stance 20 years ago when I wrote the paper for Chemistry.

No one ever said that it was irreversible. What I said was that it changes and that SLA helps to stay that change. That's the opposite of the claim that you're making. I specifically listed SLA as a way to keep that part of your brain active and thus keeping it more plastic.

So you have anyother strawmen you want to resurrect?

As far as not being at the polar opposite, you can be very close to right and still be wrong. You are.