Do you have a dumb question that you're kind of embarrassed to ask in the main thread? Is there something you're just not sure about?
This is your opportunity to ask questions. No question too simple or too silly.
Culture war topics are accepted, and proposals for a better intro post are appreciated.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I'm sure some variation of this question has been asked n number of times in LessWrong and associated forums, but eh.
IQ to some extent determines the ceiling of how much about a given thing you can learn. You can probably learn more with more time but ain't nobody got the time. And in fast-moving fields like software engineering or research academia, perhaps just learning what you need to for once isn't a sustainable strategy since there is a constant stream of new things you need to stay on top of.
However, how flexible is the limit for the number of things you can cram into your head? I'm pretty sure there is a ceiling as a function of IQ there as well, but probably much less utlizied than the former for most people?
For example, I am probably reaching the point of diminishing returns of how much ML I can learn per unit of time with whatsoever hardware I have in my head.. Maybe now its time to expand sidewards into backend engineering and other fields of software engineering?
Other than intellectual pursuits, I have also noticed that I can probably get good at very many different things and I am nowhere near having to tradeoff (other than time) skill from one domain to another. So maybe for most of us higher than average IQ but not genius people, if we want to be the most "rounded" individuals, that is the best path to take ? As opposed to single-mindedly sticking to one domain.
I've seen enough Youtube polyglots to be convinced that you can probably learn, if not an arbitrary number of languages, then certainly a large number without it 'crowding out' anything else. I suspect the same is true for physical skills, like playing instruments (loads of musicians can play multiple) and sports (or sport-like skills such as juggling).
I guess it depends how much time and energy you've got to spare.
I have a baseline high level of suspicion towards Youtube polyglot videos. These people are like magicians in that they give an illusion of an ability when their real talent is for something somewhat orthogonal (that is, less about being actually proficient, but rather about looking proficient in select settings that they tune). A few tricks include:
Controlling the conversation: The main skill many of these "polyglots" have is in pushing conversations towards topics about which they have the appropriate stock phrases well rehearsed. Sentences about how much they "love the culture", "I always thought [insert country] was so beautiful", "the [insert cuisine] is delicious" etc. If someone says something the "polyglot" doesn't understand they'll smile, nod, say "that's great" or "hmm, I'm not sure" and quickly try to change the subject. The better ones can do this more subtly, but even the clumsier ones can get away with it since most viewers aren't watching critically.
Selective editing: The format lets them use staged videos or simply to selectively include footage of their best performances. Given the incentives on Youtube I don't really trust most to not do these things. For every free-flowing Mandarin conversation there may have been 10 where the polyglot just totally misunderstood the native speaker.
Optimizing study: Words and phrases are Pareto distributed, so you can get to a basic conversational level in most languages with about 3000. If you're good at point 1 above you can probably get away with much fewer. For comparison, a native speaker is estimated to have a vocabulary of 20k to 35k. If you're loose with the definition of "fluent" you could just study these most optimal 3k for several languages instead of becoming highly proficient in one.
Piling up on highly similar languages: The distinction between a "language" and a "dialect of a language" is more political than anything objective to the forms of speech themselves. An English-only speaker could likely become fluent in Spanish, Portuguese, Catalan, Italian, and French with less effort and time than it would take to get equivalently fluent in just Japanese (or Mandarin or Arabic or Korean). By largely focusing on clusters of highly similar languages, they more easily inflate their "language count".
Most genuine "polyglots" (high proficiency in 3 or more) I've spoken with say that they can only have thorough, complex conversations in 2-3 highly distinct languages at any given moment. Even a few months of disuse is enough for them to feel significantly sluggish retrieving words and forming sentences in their native languages, albeit still highly proficient. If they know they'll need a particular one soon (like they'll be traveling to [insert country] next month), then they can review for a week or two and revive the quick access (like putting it in RAM), but trying to keep all of them active simultaneously makes organizing thoughts a bit chaotic.
This is also my experience, but if the question is "how many languages can you have stored in your brain in some form?" rather than "how many languages could you have a political debate in right this second?" I don't think anyone has demonstrated a limit, and seeing as even polyglots have to spend time doing things other than practicing languages it may as well be infinite. Of course, people may have different opinions on what counts as "knowing" something. If, given two days to prepare, I could pass a linear algebra exam by recalling what I learned in college, but I would fail miserably if presented with one right now, in what sense do I "know" the material?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link