What is religion?
Religion is a language for talking about faith…
America has a police problem
“You play stupid games, you win stupid prizes.”
There’s so much video now of people being shot by police officers. It’s not just 2015. You can go back 2014, 2013, etc..
One of the better commentaries on this issue is here, by TnnRawNews.
Basically, he says, cops are trigger happy. They WILL shot you. So don’t play stupid games with them. Don’t play dumb. Don’t try run away. Don’t do anything they might perceive as threatening or unusual. Listen to them and cooperate.
Interview with Jack Ma
35:45
“In american movies, the heroes start weak then overcome challenges to become heroes. In chinese movies, the heroes always die. That’s why no one wants to be a hero in China.”
Geography of Thought review
A review of Geography of Thought by Richard Nesbitt. http://www.amazon.com/The-Geography-Thought-Westerners-Differently/dp/0743255356
I’ve read about a third of this book carefully now and skimmed through the rest. I had to put it down. It just rubbed me the wrong way. So then I read some reviews online and thankfully found other people who were also a little bit disgusted by it. And I think it boils down to Nesbitt overstating his conclusions.
Nesbitt does a good job of collecting a lot of research findings (I’m reluctant to say evidence) that show Asians perform differently on many cognitive tests compared to Americans and Europeans. However, he then makes huge leaps and jumps to posit that this proves there’s immutable differences between Asians and Americans. I’ll agree that you may find differences in perception and thinking tendencies amongst difference groups of people. However, to keep pinning it back to race or ethnicity is not cool. Nesbitt should also know that you’ll find a lot of differences in language ability amongst Asians and Americans, but this is not because of their race! We grow up in different environments and our brains develop to take advantage of what’s available around us. This is human, not racial. If a baby of chinese parents is born and raised in America, he will speak and sound -get ready for this- American. I’m pretty sure this applies to other cognitive skills too, not just language.
The other thing that got me hating this book is Nesbitt’s writing style. He doesn’t really let the reader do his own thinking. No numbers are presented with any of the research findings. You won’t find a single graph in this book, nevermind p-values and effect size. I could accept this if Nisbett was a journalist, but he’s a professor!
And then there’s Nesbitt’s prejudices. On page 188, he asks, “Why do nonlogical Asians tend to do so much better in math”.. (p188), ). “Nonlogical Asians”? Oh f*ck off Nesbitt. And, “Americans do tend to generate more counterarguments than Chinese do. In effect, Americans may not know their own strength, failing to understand how easy it is for them to attack an argument” (p.183). Really? Americans are so awesome, they don’t even know it. Give me a break man, you’re killing me. The book is full of prejudiced writing like that. Here’s my favorite: page 189, “Asian superiority in math and science is paradoxical, but scarcely contradictory”. He concedes Asians do better in math and science… but wait, it’s not because they are smarter, it’s because they work harder. I wish I was making this up.
Anyways.. onto the end. I give this book a 2/5. Interesting topic. Well researched. But poorly analysed, badly written, and (in my Asian opinion) misguided.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Geography-Thought-Westerners-Differently/dp/0743255356
Introduction to Language review
I just finished reading an older edition of ‘An introduction to Language” by Fromkin, Rodman, Collins, and Blair.
It’s a very easy to read book. The concepts are explained very well with good supporting material and exercises. For a textbook, it does lack a lot of research references. Still, it’s a good introduction to the topic and it should be used, even if only as a supplementary text.
A few things I got from the book…
Language is something very special to humans. Even the worst human communicator can produce language that is more descriptive than the smartest animals (p.20). On face value, this is easy to accept. Animals are believe to communicate only a limited range of things (hunger, danger, happiness, etc.) You might argue that animals have their own complex language which we cannot understand. But our cultural evolution suggests that our language is qualitatively different from any other animal. We can do so much more with our language, like tell stories and jokes. However, the complexity of our language could be related to the complexity of our thoughts. There is no evidence that a dog’s language would not be complicated, if only it could have deeper thoughts.
Language is the only hard thing that is easier to learn when you are 3 than when you are 30. Every other skill or subject (take math, physics, etc.) is easier to learn when you are older, but language seems the opposite. It is easier to learn when you are young. The theory is that there’s a critical age, after which language cannot be ‘acquired’. You can no longer just ‘pick up’ a language automatically. This is intuitive. Kids seems to pick up languages extremely quick while adults take a long time to learn a second language (if ever). There’s some anecdotal evidence about adults acquiring a language, but I think it’s still rare to hear of it. The critical age hypothesis is an interesting one. But I what I am more fascinated about is that language skills goes against other types of skill acquisition. It is like H20, the only element lighter as a solid than as a liquid.
Overall, an excellent introduction. A lot of insights and eye-openers. I think there’s good examples here to get something interested in the field, but also has a lot of substance for this who already study it. 5/5.
How Khan Academy started
Teaching unplugged
Teaching unplugged refers to teaching without a textbook and without a lesson plan. This may sound lazy or unprepared, but there’s a method to the madness. First of all, it puts also all of the focus on the student and teacher. There is nothing in-between them. The success or failure of the class relies solely on what’s already ‘in the heads’ of the teacher and students.
It’s more akin to having a conversation. But even better, it’s a conversation a student has with a really smart person. So you can say it’s a kind of formal mentorship, in maybe an older socratic style using the “live” word. There is a fluidity and dynamism to it. The ‘live word’ is fresh, new, in-the-moment, ever changing, but always relevant.
How to Vlog/Podcast
An aside to the discrimination debate
So I’m looking at articles on discrimination and a lot of people seem to equate discrimination of white/colored with native/non-native.
In my experience, the native/non-native argument is academic. That is, it has no bearing on practice and trying to use this argument to effect practice is.. impractical. Schools are not discriminating against native and non-native speakers. They are discriminating against white and coloured teachers.
So the real questions is, why do language schools love the white man?
More to follow…
Primer to the discrimination debate in ELT (part 1)
Marek from http://teflequityadvocates.com/ left a comment on my blog. Asked if I wanted to contribute to the discrimination in ELT discussion. What a great opportunity. But before I send in my ‘official response’, I thought I should collect some of my thoughts. So here goes:
First some vocab (PTV, amirite?)
NEST = Native Speaking English Teacher
NNEST = Non-native English Speaking Teacher
American’s Next Top Model
Thread 1: I will call the ‘better model’ argument. I present David Crystal. http://teflequityadvocates.com/2014/07/06/interview-with-david-crystal/ He says the definition of NEST is problematic. And when you look at the components of the English model (“phonology, orthography, grammar, lexicon, and discourse”), then you shouldn’t assume a native is better than a non-native, especially when you factor in socio-economics (and specifically, education level). Basically says that some NEST are not as good as NNEST when it comes to the ‘language’. I cannot disagree with David Crystal because he is David Crystal, but I can that this is a very academic argument. In practice, most native speakers who have an undergraduate are “good enough” with the language to teach it up to B2/C1 level. Let’s be honest, the language is not that complicated. So if you have a white guy who is ‘good enough’, then you take the white guy. It’s a no-brainer.
The Matrix
Thread 2: So you have a native and a non-native who are both ‘good enough’ with the language, why take the non-native guy? Introducing the ‘no spoon’ argument. Take the non-native because he is a better teacher (hypothetical). He does the rapport building, has good empathy, provides a good learning environment, etc. Skin color and passport are a red herring. You shouldn’t consider it at all. But let’s assume the non-native and native are both EXCELLENT teachers. How do you decide? No-brainer again, take the white guy.
No Country for Old Men
Thread 3: Assuming language skills and teaching skills are equal, the white guy will usually get hired. Why? Because he’s exotic. Of course, white guys are appalled by this. Question is, if you are in a non-white country, where else will you come in contact with a higher concentration of white guys other than an English school? (no brothel jokes please.) Fact is, non-white people REALLY LIKE white people. They like looking at white people and they like listening to white people. It is even a sort of status symbol to be in the company of white people. Some of this undeserved attention has led to what I will call the “white settler complex”. Needless to say, there is moral outrage, which has spurred on many posts about America’s Top Model and The Matrix.
Long story short, we can look at strengths and weaknesses of natives and non-natives all we want, but at the end of the day, there is no shortage of EXCELLENT white teachers who are GOOD ENOUGH with the language. So schools can be selective when it comes to hiring. It just so happens, many schools take white guys.
So how do we get out of this situation? More thoughts coming in part 2 of this post…
Life in Vietnam 