[HN Gopher] We overestimate our short-term ability, but underest...
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       We overestimate our short-term ability, but underestimate our long-
       term ability
        
       Author : p44v9n
       Score  : 346 points
       Date   : 2023-02-13 09:45 UTC (13 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (paavandesign.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (paavandesign.com)
        
       | credit_guy wrote:
       | Indeed, a good example is that people overestimate how many
       | pounds they can lose in the short term, and underestimate how
       | many pounds they can gain in the long term.
        
         | cloverich wrote:
         | Best example I ever saw was doing my family practice rotation.
         | Patient was complaining they'd gained 10 lbs. Physician asked
         | "You add a can of soda to your lunch or dinner last year?".
         | They said (paraphrasing) "Yes lol how did you know". They did
         | the math. Keep everything constant. Add ONE can of soda a day.
         | One year will add 10lbs. Was mind boggling for the patient and
         | me at the time.
        
       | kerblang wrote:
       | All good, but esp. in the tech industry people tend to make 1001
       | excuses for 100% short-term thinking at the complete exclusion of
       | long-term thinking, and that means a mountain of unresolved
       | always-just-barely-worked as well as an organic journey that
       | lands you in a random spot instead of an ideal one.
       | 
       | Put differently, consecutive short-term investment payoffs do not
       | add up to the same value as long-term investment over the same
       | period. The long play is harder with greater rewards accordingly.
       | So you balance "keeping the lights on" with "where do I wanna be
       | in 10 years?"
        
       | voisin wrote:
       | Tony Robbins has been saying this for decades. People
       | overestimate what they can do in a year but massively
       | underestimate what they can do in a decade. One implication being
       | that if you take up a hobby (say, playing the piano) after a year
       | you are probably not very good and a lot of people then give it
       | up because their performance doesn't meet their
       | (over-)expectation. But stick with it, grinding it out year after
       | year, and almost anyone can meet their expectations. The trick,
       | of course, is to only undertake those few things which you think
       | you'll want to stick with over the long term.
        
         | Spooky23 wrote:
         | I think people are wired to seasons and beyond that things get
         | pretty abstract.
        
         | bitexploder wrote:
         | Brazilian Jiu Jitsu, a grappling martial art, is very much like
         | that. And there was a great post on HN yesterday about this.
         | And I just randomly had a talk with my son about effort and
         | hard work (he is 16, struggling with school, ADHD, just like
         | me). Here are my anecdotes:
         | 
         | BJJ: After one year, all but the newest people still make you
         | feel like you don't know anything, they can submit you pretty
         | easily. Train for 10 years and you are at or close to "black
         | belt" (Which takes on average 10-12 years in BJJ, it is not
         | easy to get at all) and you can fold people up on instinct. The
         | funny thing about the 1 year mark, you FEEL like you haven't
         | learned anything, but you can gently fold the average human up
         | now if it comes down to it.
         | 
         | Business: We built a business over 8 years. It was hard. The
         | first year we were negative in profit, paying ourselves out of
         | our bank accounts. Overnight success in 8 years. Just keep
         | learning everything that wasn't tech, marketing, people
         | management skills, etc. Eventually we did well got up to like
         | 20 person head count purely with organic growth and were
         | acquired.
         | 
         | Skills in general:
         | https://gist.github.com/gtallen1187/e83ed02eac6cc8d7e185 "A
         | little slope makes up for a lot of y-intercept".
         | 
         | So now when people ask me anything. Career advice. How do I
         | lose weight. How do I get in shape. "Let me tell you about my
         | 10 year plan for you. you can't even imagine how long and hard
         | 10 years is, I know, but that is what it is going to take to
         | make a life long change. do you still want my advice?" Of
         | course many good things happen sooner, but I only talk to
         | people that can at least accept it is going to be hard and I
         | don't hold any secrets about anything other than you have to
         | work really hard and apply effort.
        
           | borroka wrote:
           | BJJ black belt who has been training for 12 years and
           | previously trained in wrestling.
           | 
           | "After one year, all but the newest people still make you
           | feel like you don't know anything, they can submit you pretty
           | easily": this is not true in general, only with context.
           | Athletic people in general would not be hopeless after one
           | year at the local club level. I have athletic kids who show
           | up and immediately give me problems because, despite still
           | poor technique, their speed, power, cardio, flexibility, etc.
           | make them dangerously competitive.
           | 
           | The fact is that the vast majority of adults who start jiu
           | jitsu today are not athletic. Jiu jitsu attracts a population
           | of mostly nerds who, because of the cerebral nature of jiu
           | jitsu, can do very well over the years, but for the first
           | year or two their still poor or average technique does not
           | allow them to overcome athletic limitations.
           | 
           | Moreover, except for a few clubs, there is no pedagogy to
           | speak of around jiu jitsu. If trained properly, many
           | hobbyists will improve much faster, but jiu jitsu clubs are
           | for-profit businesses that need first to make money and then
           | to make people better.
           | 
           | Also, it is common to hear "it's been a while since I've seen
           | Jack on the mat" with a disappointing tone, without realizing
           | that doing any activity, especially one that is psychically
           | demanding and involves being "beaten up," for more than 2 or
           | 3 years requires uncommon dedication. "Keep doing it for 10
           | years and see how good you will become" sounds much sweeter
           | in print than when you live it.
        
           | blueorange8 wrote:
           | Yes this is exactly right. In my case the business has been
           | 12 years and now we are probably valued around $65m. 12 years
           | is a really long time. I never would have thought it would
           | take this long, but also I never would have expected to have
           | the success we have had. I often look at other startups and I
           | think to myself -- This was really freaking hard to build
           | this business bootstrapped, but it wasn't impossible. It also
           | didn't take any special skills. It just took determination
           | and hard work and continuing to do that for a long time - and
           | i wonder why they don't try the same thing I did. It must be
           | because people underestimate the impact of hard work over
           | time. The key thing is don't die and continue growing, even
           | if its a small amount. Continue fixing things, getting
           | better, getting more customers, etc. Just like you said
           | above.
           | 
           | In the case of my business i wasn't thinking long term, i
           | just was obsessively focused on it and never gave up. I think
           | the human mind is just really poorly equipped to think long
           | term and there are many many opportunities out there for
           | people who can.
        
           | matwood wrote:
           | I'm glad someone brought up BJJ. I'm ~4 years in, and it
           | works exactly this way. The day to day doesn't seem like
           | you're learning that much. In fact, I don't even feel like I
           | know that much after 4 years. But, when I roll with high
           | belts now many have to really work to get me. And like you
           | said, if I go against someone who has never grappled before,
           | I can gently fold them up without breathing hard.
        
             | aidenn0 wrote:
             | I'm also doing BJJ; due to <life stuff> I haven't been able
             | to be consistent. I would say I'm about at the 1-year
             | equivalent mark though. Hard part for me is that I'm big,
             | so it's hard to tell if I can fold up beginners because I'm
             | big or because I've learned, though I'm sure it's a
             | combination of the two.
        
               | bitexploder wrote:
               | Just play guard or give up some position to smaller folks
               | and see how it goes. I was pretty tired on Sunday so I
               | just flopped around playing defense and subbing the white
               | belts from bad places during Randori :)
        
             | bitexploder wrote:
             | I am at 4 years. Lay off for COVID. Just starting to get
             | the hang of some things and present problems to higher
             | belts. The interesting thing to me, once I can funnel
             | someone into a dilemma game I know well, there isn't as
             | much difference as I thought there would be between upper
             | belts. I would say tougher black belts have seen it all
             | before and give a really hard fight at each decision point
             | in the attack tree, and can often just escape if technique
             | is a little lose, but it isn't insanely different. I know
             | how to fix things and make it harder every time I find a
             | little gap like that now and they are little gaps. I still
             | just get beat up most of the time, heh, but when things
             | work they really work as I implement more of the game I
             | like. I think that is an interesting place in skill
             | development. Not an expert, but not a novice.
        
               | matwood wrote:
               | I definitely still get beat up most of the time. Also,
               | within black belts there can be a lot of variation. But
               | to your point, you have enough tools now that if you
               | execute properly and lead a high belt down your path, you
               | _could_ catch them. That simply would never happen until
               | 3-4 years in (and I 'm not counting life long wrestlers
               | who show up with 'no' BJJ experience).
               | 
               | A big turning point for me was when I would lose and
               | could walk backwards the whole roll in my head and see
               | the root error. BJJ is a lot like chess in this way. When
               | you start you just get beat and see the move that beat
               | you. As you get better you see the chain of events that
               | lead to the finish.
        
               | bitexploder wrote:
               | Yeah, I am not great at visualizing 3d space, but I have
               | thought enough about BJJ that I can map it all back out
               | as well now. Plus you learn the heuristics. Usually it is
               | something small. Lost a grip, allowed a grip, let
               | something get loose in your half guard that lead to being
               | cross faced, passed, etc. Often I know right away now
               | when something is bad, though it takes a little work to
               | figure out exactly how it happened (upper belts are
               | sneaky like that) and unforced errors happen as well, at
               | least those are easier to figure out :)
        
               | sizzle wrote:
               | How do wrestlers fare at BJJ? Do they throw you for a
               | loop so to speak because their moves are so unpredictable
               | and they have advanced grapple reflexes?
        
               | rezz wrote:
               | Nicky Rodriguez, a life long wrestler was beating world
               | class black belts in only a year of training. We had a D1
               | wrestler join our gym and after the first week was
               | awarded a blue belt (usually takes 2-3 years).
               | 
               | They won't know many submissions, and initially are more
               | susceptible to exposing their back (in wrestling being on
               | your back is the worst possible outcome where in jiu
               | jitsu it's an offensive position), but at the end of the
               | day grappling is grappling.
        
               | bitexploder wrote:
               | Nicky Rod is also a big exception. D1 wrestlers are a
               | small % of all wrestlers. Most wrestlers I encounter are
               | like good white belts, but they have a ton of bad habits
               | like you mentioned. Wrestlers do alright in BJJ though,
               | for sure. They have a good sense of bodies and weight,
               | though I have seen it hinder some wrestlers who stay in
               | their comfort zone and never branch out, eventually
               | losing out to folks who focus more on BJJ technique.
        
               | matwood wrote:
               | Wrestlers aren't that unpredictable, and are usually more
               | controlled than an untrained person off the street.
               | Depending on how much wrestling experience someone has,
               | it can definitely start them out at a higher level. But,
               | they still have a lot of blind spots - particularly if
               | you put a gi on them.
        
       | diceduckmonk wrote:
       | Same as how cumulative effects and exponential are unintuitive.
        
         | JadeNB wrote:
         | > Same as how cumulative effects and exponential are
         | unintuitive.
         | 
         | Indeed, I'd argue that cumulative effects are unintuitive
         | _because_ (if done right! ... or badly wrong, I suppose) they
         | 're exponential.
        
       | SunghoYahng wrote:
       | Well, then if I'm only interested in getting results in the short
       | term and don't care about getting results in many years from now
       | when I'm old, what could I do?
       | 
       | A psychotherapist? Denying reality and dooming myself?
        
         | elSidCampeador wrote:
         | > Well, then if I'm only interested in getting results in the
         | short term and don't care about getting results in many years
         | from now when I'm old, what could I do?
         | 
         | become good at learning from your mistakes quickly
        
         | michaelbuckbee wrote:
         | Something to consider is that if things go well, you'll get
         | old. So the big choices are really about where you want to be
         | when you are old.
         | 
         | Short term I feel like this article is still useful advice as
         | it helps to avoid the trap of working on something for a small
         | amount of time and feeling like it was a waste when it was
         | really stacking bricks to make a larger effort.
        
           | bluGill wrote:
           | You won't be old for long either. Some religions (not all)
           | offer some form of afterlife, but they mostly say "we are the
           | only ones that can deliver, all those others cannot deliver
           | so follow us". Navigating this is left as an exercise to the
           | reader.
           | 
           | Religion aside (don't go against whatever religion you choose
           | says), you need to compromise between short term and long
           | term. You might die tonight, you might live to 120, and odds
           | are you don't have any better idea. You also don't know how
           | you will age. There are people climbing mountains at 90.
           | There are people at 65 who need to help get out of bed. If
           | you are lucky to be healthy enough climb mountains at 90,
           | then it makes sense to save a little now so you have enough
           | money to afford to do what you want. If you lose your health
           | by 65 then there is no point in savings as you can't enjoy
           | life anyway.
        
           | SunghoYahng wrote:
           | >Something to consider is that if things go well, you'll get
           | old. So the big choices are really about where you want to be
           | when you are old.
           | 
           | It feels like shit vs more shit
        
             | esperent wrote:
             | This is a sign of depression or something similar. Usually
             | people will suggest therapy in these situations, have you
             | considered it?
             | 
             | It's far from the only path though. There's many possible
             | causes of depression and even more possible solutions. Find
             | one that works for you. You deserve more than shit. As
             | someone who's been deep in that shit more than once, you
             | can claw your way out and once you do, the world is a
             | beautiful place that's worth growing old in. Then you'll
             | end up in the shit again but each time climbing out gets
             | easier.
             | 
             | Personally it took me moving country, changing career more
             | than once until I found one that gave me a sense of
             | purpose, finding a beautiful and totally surprising
             | partner, and lots more to find my present stability.
             | 
             | That's what worked for me. What will work for you? You need
             | to find that out. You only have one life, if it's shitty
             | now them what have you got to lose by making every possible
             | effort to change that? I mean, what could possibly be more
             | important than making that effort? Certainly not a shitty
             | career or a shitty relationship or a shitty family. Leave
             | them if you need to. Nothing controls you except you. And
             | physics, and the law and immigration officers and so on.
             | But there's always room to maneuver.
        
             | xyzelement wrote:
             | What a gross attitude. At its best , life means you get to
             | do hard work now and see it benefit others later. Eg raise
             | your kids and then enjoy their kids when you are old.
             | 
             | This is incredibly meaningful and if someone can get their
             | mind working this way, they appreciate every minute of
             | life.
        
               | avgcorrection wrote:
               | What a gross attitude.
        
         | DharmaPolice wrote:
         | I don't know how old you are but there's usually a midpoint
         | between now and "when you're old". It's like people who want to
         | lose a drastic amount of weight in a month - that's only going
         | to be achievable through fairly unsafe surgery and maybe not
         | even then. But over the course of 3 years? Or 5 years? That's
         | almost always going to be possible.
        
         | bluGill wrote:
         | Jack of all trades, master of none.
         | 
         | You have to accept and enjoy not being great at anything, but
         | in turn you can do anything. It is a different mindset. You
         | will never be the star of whatever you do, but you will often
         | be the guy in the background at all events who jumps in to take
         | care of something unrelated to the event in question that needs
         | to be done.
        
           | rumblerock wrote:
           | As someone grappling with a career that has seen fits and
           | starts, bouncing between roles this is an interesting
           | perspective.
           | 
           | I'm currently looking at jobs and definitely harbor a lot of
           | self-doubt because I don't have specialized skills that match
           | desired skills, but have so much other experience outside of
           | any one domain.
           | 
           | One of my aims is certainly to sit down and master something
           | in the domain of work that can make things smoother / more
           | sustainable, but at least going into jobs assigning proper
           | value to my suite of skills is a helpful thing to keep in
           | mind.
        
         | codingdave wrote:
         | Acceptance of who you are and where you are in life is a
         | perfectly healthy place to be. If you want improvement in your
         | life, act on it. If you are fine where you are, just be happy
         | with it. There is no rule that say you cannot just get to a
         | good place in life and stay there.
         | 
         | So it really comes down to your own decision - are you
         | satisfied with your life or not?
        
       | augustk wrote:
       | Got me thinking of
       | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tortoise_and_the_Hare
        
       | xianshou wrote:
       | Very similar to Amara's Law, the equivalent for technology - we
       | overestimate short-term impact while underestimating long-term.
       | Funny how this phenomenon crops up at both the societal and the
       | individual scale:
       | 
       | https://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/amaras-law
        
         | p44v9n wrote:
         | Ooo sweet. Thanks for sharing!
        
       | revskill wrote:
       | Done means perfectable. It means it's not perfect, but there must
       | be a simple way to make it perfect.
       | 
       | That's why monopoly, or monothlic architecture eventually failed.
       | They can't scale.
        
         | cosmojg wrote:
         | > That's why monopoly, or monothlic architecture eventually
         | failed. They can't scale.
         | 
         | Could you provide some examples? One counterexample: Linux, the
         | world's biggest monolithic kernel, seems to be going pretty
         | strong.
        
           | kzrdude wrote:
           | It's called monolithic but it still has modules
        
           | wongarsu wrote:
           | On the software level the monoliths are going strong, but I
           | guess you could make the argument on the hardware level? IBM
           | system Z revenue is half what it was two decades ago, and
           | every new system is designed to achieve scale and uptime by
           | using multiple smallish servers, instead of one giant
           | earthquake-safe mainframe with hotswappable processors.
        
       | sharadov wrote:
       | I see this most often with people who get all gung-ho about
       | working out, they get themselves into these hours-long intense
       | workout regimens and then either run out of steam or hurt
       | themselves.
       | 
       | Rather just do a 30 min routine 3-4 days a week and look at
       | yourself after 1/3/6 months.
       | 
       | You will have built a habit and achieved a lot more.
        
       | kmt-lnh wrote:
       | In April 2021 I started to read 4 pages a day from big books I
       | always wanted to read, but never had time for it. 4 pages and
       | stop even if I get into the flow, 4 pages even if I'm falling
       | asleep because it's so boring.
       | 
       | Not even 2 years in, I've already read the Bible, the Elements of
       | Euclid, Zeldovich's Intro to Higher Math, and am in the middle of
       | Das Kapital. The Great Books canon never looked more
       | approachable.
       | 
       | Just 4 pages a day. It really adds up.
        
         | fitzroy wrote:
         | I keep thinking of a service that sends famously long books in
         | short chunks.
         | 
         | "Infinite Text" or "War 'n Pieces"
        
           | p44v9n wrote:
           | Dracula Daily does this! More because the novel is itself
           | epistolary
           | 
           | https://draculadaily.substack.com/about
        
         | soupfordummies wrote:
         | Totally! This translates too. I've had a home office conversion
         | project going on the back burner for a while and always put it
         | off because its so "monumental". I've started just working
         | 10mins a day on it and the progress I made in two weeks was
         | really astounding to me.
         | 
         | I would say, maybe DON'T stop if you get in the flow but don't
         | feel bad if you can ONLY manage the 4 pages/ten minutes.
        
         | munificent wrote:
         | My dumb but astonishingly effective life hack: I leave a big
         | non-fiction book in the bathroom and don't take my phone in
         | there. I've made my way through so many textbooks one bowel
         | movement at a time because even the most boring one is more fun
         | that reading the shampoo bottle.
        
           | wahnfrieden wrote:
           | How do you disinfect
        
             | xboxnolifes wrote:
             | You don't. People have been reading in the bathroom for
             | decades. You're getting little shit particles in your nose
             | regardless of whether you read in there.
        
               | pmdr wrote:
               | Plus that's the only way to realize your brother-in-law
               | is actually a drug lord.
        
       | fsckboy wrote:
       | > _We overestimate our short-term ability, but underestimate our
       | long-term ability._
       | 
       | In a short timeframe, this guy started a whole bunch of projects
       | that he didn't finish. In the short term, he overestimates his
       | long term ability. And perhaps he underestimated his short term
       | ability because he's impressed with starting so many projects,
       | more than he could finish with his overestimated long term
       | abilities.
       | 
       | but don't listen to me, glass half empty sounds optimistic ("I've
       | identified the problem, I can see room for improvement! I know
       | how to fix this!") and glass half full sounds like you're trying
       | to convince yourself you don't need to do anything, that
       | everything is going to be OK.
        
       | JoshCole wrote:
       | I think we do overestimate short term things and underestimate
       | long term things. However, I think it is important to clarify
       | that it would be a mistake to think of this tendency in a
       | pejorative way. It is, best as I can tell, more correct than the
       | alternative.
       | 
       | Some reasons for that:
       | 
       | - Conjunction of events is less than the probability of its
       | individual constituents and unless the events were certain to
       | occur is always less than the probability that they occurred
       | given that they occurred.
       | 
       | - Making an estimate out of multiple different approximations
       | with unknown error bounds you should have decreasing confidence
       | in your approximation because you have increasing confidence of
       | error in your approximation.
       | 
       | - Modeling with the bellman equations such that overestimation of
       | true utilities in short term and bad underestimation of true
       | utilities in the long term can produce superhuman cognitive
       | abilities in many decision making contexts.
       | 
       | - We ought to see overestimation and underestimation: given a
       | coin that is biased, it does not follow that you bet on that coin
       | with probability proportional to the bias, but rather to the
       | rounding. So we should see actions that correspond with rounding
       | up in the short term which is more likely to be less conjuncted
       | and therefore higher probability and we should see rounding down
       | in the long term wherein there is more conjunction and therefore
       | lower probability.
       | 
       | This all leads me to suspect that a framing around faith being
       | justified, not around whether we overestimate or underestimate,
       | might be a more correct framing. This is actually exceedingly
       | true in the cooperative regime wherein other agents force
       | underestimation of probabilities due to the potential for
       | competition, but in which a cooperative environment supports
       | overestimation.
       | 
       | To get at what I mean by that, consider that no one must teach
       | you proper form such that you do not injure yourself at a gym, so
       | your probability of injury is actually pretty high if you are
       | estimating using only the things you can control, yet in practice
       | you will probably get high quality advice to avoid injury if
       | someone cooperative notices you are likely to hurt yourself - it
       | is not sufficient to point at the ability to learn this
       | information yourself to refute this, because all the information
       | available to you is a function of a cooperative society. So the
       | going to the gym and avoiding injury while doing so should use a
       | non-cooperative creature like an octopus going to an open
       | location and doing exercise there in sight of predators: they
       | don't have access to books to help them, they have access to
       | sharks. As an aside, lots of people are so surrounded by the
       | waters of cooperation they can hardly notice they are swimming,
       | which is kind of interesting to contrast with the octopus with
       | adaptive camouflage that is more prone to death the moment it
       | become visible.
       | 
       | But now we are getting into a defense for bad estimation -
       | because we are starting to get into estimates that are predicated
       | on self-reference: agent one observes agent two and makes a
       | decision based on their policy, but agent one is also making
       | observations of agent two and deciding policy based on that! This
       | is a regime wherein we start getting paradoxes like the halting
       | problem, godel's incompleteness proof, or the linguistic paradox
       | of heterological classification. In other words, we find strong
       | evidence for the need for some other concept than yes or no,
       | something more like the idea of mu or the idea of undecidability.
       | 
       | So here we reach another reason to disagree with the idea: how
       | can an answer which isn't even well defined because it is
       | undedicable be an overestimate or an underestimate?
        
         | [deleted]
        
       | grep_name wrote:
       | I think the former leads to the latter. I can't count the number
       | of times I set myself up to do a ton of different projects at
       | once, only to end up slowly paring it down to just whatever the
       | most critical project was and spending more time than the entire
       | estimate for the rest of the projects on that one thing. If that
       | happens to you enough times, you'll start to extrapolate the
       | pattern to long-term estimations of what you can do and it can
       | really mess with your self esteem.
       | 
       | Interestingly, I find this only happens with personal projects.
       | At work I just overestimate everything to protect myself. So, it
       | may also be that for things outside of work I simply
       | underestimate how many of my life resources (time, energy,
       | willpower) are eaten up by work and that confounds my estimates.
       | I'm honestly not sure which thing is the bigger factor.
        
       | neontomo wrote:
       | I think this also leads to taking on more projects than we can
       | manage.
        
       | retrac wrote:
       | Learning another (human) language is like that. Almost anyone can
       | do it. It requires no special skills, training, or experience.
       | There are some tricks that you can use, but mostly it's just an
       | enormous amount of work, not particularly challenging work
       | either, that you need to persist at for years, even decades.
       | 
       | I'd like to think this is common knowledge, but I have many times
       | talked with people who hope to learn French to fluency in six
       | months, and people who are convinced they could never learn it no
       | matter what. Both types are terrible with estimating their
       | abilities.
        
         | wazoox wrote:
         | Yeah it's funny. 25 years ago I could manage working in English
         | easily, and have English conversations, and I could read entire
         | books. Gradually I went into more complex books, but the
         | hardest thing was watching any movie without the need for
         | subtitles, took me several years of constant listening of
         | English language material, that's really what made a
         | difference.
        
           | wilburTheDog wrote:
           | To be fair, I turn subtitles on for half of the movies I
           | watch and I'm a native English speaker.
        
         | TigeriusKirk wrote:
         | That's the key behind success with using something like
         | Duolingo. Establish a daily habit with it and keep at it for
         | very long streaks. The app is the tool to keep your habit
         | intact.
        
         | ChrisMarshallNY wrote:
         | I remember talking with someone, who expected engineers to be
         | proficient in new computer languages "in two weeks."
         | 
         | For myself, and, as some folks here have pointed out, I am
         | possibly developmentally challenged, I've found that I can
         | learn the basics of a language in a short time (maybe two
         | weeks? I've never clocked it).
         | 
         | Becoming _good_ with the language, on the other hand, takes
         | _years_.
         | 
         | I've been writing Swift, every day (and learning new stuff,
         | just about every day), since it was announced, in 2014, and
         | there's still a _ton_ that I don 't know. The language is still
         | evolving, so I'll never know it all.
         | 
         | Also, in my experience, the difficulties are really with
         | learning frameworks and SDKs. I've been learning the ins and
         | outs of the various native Apple SDKs, along with Swift, all
         | that time, and I still have a ways to go.
        
         | wallflower wrote:
         | When I talk with friends and acquaintances who say they want to
         | learn a language, I always tell them it will be one of the most
         | difficult and rewarding things they will ever do. Number one,
         | you will literally vomit out words in the beginning that make
         | no grammatical sense and stink to high heaven in terms of
         | language non-ability. Two, you have to break away from
         | Duolingo. Like learning Scratch for programming, Duolingo is
         | only going to get you better at Duolingo type games and
         | quizzes. If you really want to learn a language, you have to
         | invest in live practice with a native speaker. In the near
         | future, this could become a conversational AI. For now, go find
         | a reasonable native speaker on iTalki. Practice at least twice
         | a week. Do not practice with friends or family as it will be
         | frustrating for both sides. Pay someone. Third, learning a
         | programming language compared to a human language is difficult
         | because there is shame and embarrassment connected with messing
         | up for most people. As you continue to vomit out your beginner
         | language, you will eventually ascend to the intermediate level.
         | Like L5 at Google, many of you will never make it to advanced
         | level. I think that is quite ok. You really do not have to be
         | able to understand live standup comedy in your chosen second
         | language. The ability to communicate thoughts, dreams, fears,
         | and stories will be enough. It took me about 3 years to get to
         | that level of being able to argue politics and economics in
         | Spanish. I freely admit my accent is gringo (never gonna be
         | able to roll Rs) and I still make mistakes and sometimes
         | accents make it hard to listen. You are never going to get to
         | 100% comprehension. 80/90% depending on the situation.
        
           | kurthr wrote:
           | I'm learning a language now. It's tough and embarrassing, and
           | what it takes to keep getting better seems to change as I
           | move along.
           | 
           | Something that was formative in my understanding of language
           | was visiting Glasgow years past, and realizing that just an
           | "accent" could easily knock me back to understanding only
           | 20-30% of words. Still, based on context it was possible to
           | get around and after a week I was up to 70-80% comprehension
           | with locals.
        
             | LemmyInThePub wrote:
             | In the UK, it isn't necessarily accent per-say.
             | 
             | In North England and Scotland, we pronounce words using
             | short vowel sounds (bath, castle) whereas in the South,
             | they use long vowel sounds (b-are-th, c-are-stle).
             | 
             | Not being able to easily pick out the vowel sounds makes it
             | much harder for a non-native speaker to understand.
             | 
             | The so called "BBC English" that you probably learnt is
             | based on a Southern England 'home counties' pronunciation.
        
               | JasonFruit wrote:
               | It's not clear to me how regional differences in vowel
               | pronunciation differ from accents.
        
               | ehnto wrote:
               | You may also hear BBC English called "The Queens
               | English"or just Queens English.
        
               | [deleted]
        
           | comte7092 wrote:
           | Duolingo is fine, you just have to be aware of its
           | limitations. Getting the trophy isn't going to represent the
           | finish line of most peoples language goals, but it's a decent
           | start.
        
           | Denzel wrote:
           | > You are never going to get to 100% comprehension. 80/90%
           | depending on the situation.
           | 
           | Key insight, people should set the realistic goal of being
           | _at most_ as good as their native language.
           | 
           | I can confidently say, in my native language, there are many
           | times throughout daily life where I have way less than 80/90%
           | comprehension. The other key insight though is that I can
           | remove that ambiguity with follow up questions and
           | elaboration if I want.
           | 
           | And that's what people should strive for when learning a
           | second language. Once you get to the point where you can
           | learn _in_ and _with_ the language, then you 're golden. That
           | requires far far less effort than most people estimate.
        
           | frogulis wrote:
           | > (never gonna be able to roll Rs)
           | 
           | Curious about this. Presumably you've given it plenty of
           | effort after more than 3 years of Spanish study. Where do you
           | feel that you're stuck, and what have you tried?
        
         | jack_riminton wrote:
         | Applies to almost everything (bar a few things with physical
         | limitations)
         | 
         | Some people define themselves as someone who "can't draw", but
         | drawing is literally just making a mark, comparing it to what
         | you see, adjusting the mark or making another
         | 
         | It's not easy, but it's very simple
        
           | Jensson wrote:
           | And some people don't got that kind of patience, so they
           | can't do it. Or, today we have pills that helps with
           | patience, but I'm not sure if that counts.
        
             | waboremo wrote:
             | Patience is the wrong aspect here. What you need isn't
             | patience, it's a reminder that this is a long process.
             | 
             | If all you can muster is 20 minutes per day, that still
             | adds up hugely. No patience required. Although of course,
             | you improve faster if you can actively practice for longer
             | periods. But nevertheless, it is just about showing up
             | every day. In the case of drawing, it's about drawing every
             | day, and wanting to improve some aspect of it. Simply doing
             | the same thing over and over again won't get you anywhere.
        
               | fluoridation wrote:
               | That's what patience is, though. It's the willingness to
               | wait. "It's just 20 minutes a day so it's not so bad" is
               | a thought that comforts the _busy_ person, not the
               | _impatient_ person. The impatient person hears that and
               | thinks  "so I have to do this every day for 7 years to
               | see results? Can't I get it down to 1 year somehow?"
        
               | waboremo wrote:
               | Yes exactly, the willingness to wait. But we're not
               | talking about waiting, we're talking about taking it day
               | by day by focusing on what you can do during that day to
               | the best of your abilities.
               | 
               | Hence, patience is irrelevant, if anything a wrongful
               | framing of the situation that doesn't help anybody. Show
               | up as much as you can every day for yourself and you
               | won't need a single drop of "patience".
        
               | fluoridation wrote:
               | We _are_ talking about waiting. The time between when you
               | start and when you reach a level of useful proficiency is
               | time you wait through. You don 't wait doing nothing, but
               | you certainly do wait. Yes, it's not a useful way to
               | frame the situation, but that's what makes impatience a
               | flaw. If an impatient person could distract themselves
               | from how much longer the task will take and concentrate
               | on actually performing the task they would not be
               | impatient, they would be a normal person coping with the
               | impatience everyone feels.
        
             | jack_riminton wrote:
             | Yes and I suppose patience is directly correlated with the
             | amount of interest one has in the subject. When people talk
             | of talent I sometimes think obsession is a better metric,
             | are they obsessed enough to keep going when others give up.
             | Or rather; are they obsessed enough to become talented
        
             | yamtaddle wrote:
             | I've spent shitloads of time drawing but there's something
             | mechanically wrong with how I do it--my marks don't come
             | close enough to resembling what I'm _trying_ to do. Weird
             | lumps and squiggles everywhere.
             | 
             | I'm sure I could fix that, but the focused practice on
             | _just_ making straight lines or circles or re-learning how
             | to hold a pencil or whatever would be boring as fuck, so I
             | 'm never going to.
        
               | jack_riminton wrote:
               | Actually you've brought up the next challenge of an
               | artist, which marks to make!
               | 
               | Look at the paintings of David Hockney (or even his iPad
               | doodles), there's not a straight line or neat circle in
               | sight. But he's a relentless doodler. As Hockney says
               | himself, art is just seeing. The more you practice, the
               | more you see, the better you are at knowing which marks
               | to make. I'd recommend this doc if you're interested
               | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cdqch3-D94A
        
           | getoj wrote:
           | As someone who has learned several languages but who has
           | never been able to draw, I don't think it's that simple.
           | 
           | Even among children, where the difference in experience is
           | negligible, some people are able to analyze the input they
           | receive from their eyes or ears in a way that others can't.
           | My friends who are artists amaze me by reducing a 3D object
           | to a series of deformed polygons, or drawing a perfectly
           | straight line with a pencil, and I amaze them by mimicking
           | accents or memorizing song lyrics on one listen. For both of
           | us, these are things that we've _always been able to do_.
           | 
           | I don't propose that this barrier is insuperable, but there's
           | only so many hours in the day. There is also likely to be a
           | hard limit on how good I can get compared to someone with
           | natural ability. Spending 10 years going from 0/10 to 7/10 is
           | a particular kind of commitment to make.
        
             | jack_riminton wrote:
             | Flip every mention you made about language with drawing and
             | you'll see it's the same thing. Likewise if someone said
             | they've "never been able to speak a foreign language",
             | you'd quite rightly say that's absurd, of course you can't
             | speak a foreign language naturally. Same with drawing, sure
             | some people are perhaps more gifted but everyone is able to
             | do it
        
         | akudha wrote:
         | You're saying it requires no special skills, just persistence
         | and hard work. I'd suggest that persistence itself is a skill,
         | which most people lack.
        
         | sebzim4500 wrote:
         | >people who are convinced they could never learn it no matter
         | what
         | 
         | Do these people actually believe that it would be impossible
         | for them, or merely that they would give up before success.
         | i.e. do they think that they would not be able to learn the
         | language in five years if they were offered a billion dollars?
         | 
         | Because personally I doubt I will ever learn a second language,
         | but I'm sure I could given enough time and the right incentive.
        
           | w0m wrote:
           | I _could_ learn another language. But I can 't learn a second
           | language insofar-as I can't foresee a situation where I"d be
           | willing or able to dedicate the mental capital toward the
           | task.
        
           | malshe wrote:
           | I am one of those people who think it is impossible for me to
           | learn a new language!
        
           | yamtaddle wrote:
           | > Because personally I doubt I will ever learn a second
           | language, but I'm sure I could given enough time and the
           | right incentive.
           | 
           | Yeah--I know I _can_ do it, and even know that I enjoy
           | learning another language, but also know from experience that
           | I don 't have enough natural reasons to use anything but
           | English, that I'll have any hope of keeping it up without
           | committing to _permanently_ spending 10+ hours a week doing
           | nothing but practicing the language for the sake of it, all
           | for the occasional few minutes a year (optimistically) in
           | which it 's actually useful, or for the once-a-decade trip I
           | might take to somewhere it's widely spoken.
           | 
           |  _Au revoir_ my once-somewhat-decent French.
           | 
           | Europeans sometimes imply Americans are dumb or hopelessly
           | provincial for being so persistently monolingual, but it's
           | hard as fuck to keep up a second language when you can travel
           | 1,000 miles and the locals are all still speaking English (at
           | least, mostly). European learners of other European languages
           | are doing it on easy mode, compared to us. It's hard to find
           | a route anywhere in Europe that long that doesn't pass
           | through at least three different languages, as primarily
           | spoken by the locals, and even finding one with _that few_
           | takes some effort.
           | 
           | So I'm both aware that I _can_ learn another language, and
           | aware that I in-fact _won 't_ short of some huge shake-up in
           | my life circumstances, which may as well be the same thing as
           | "can't".
        
             | myth2018 wrote:
             | > Europeans sometimes imply Americans are dumb or
             | hopelessly provincial
             | 
             | Indeed, and not only because of monolingualism.
             | 
             | During my time abroad, one thing frequently caught my
             | attention: when I first met someone, they'd always said
             | "I'm from _country A_ "... except people from US. They
             | introduced by mentioning their cities instead.
             | 
             | I always wondered why is that so? Do they assume people
             | around the world know their geography? Do they don't learn
             | at least a little about other countries at school?
             | 
             | And on monolingualism: granted, English is currently the de
             | facto international language, so the economic incentive for
             | them to learn a second language might be lower. But don't
             | they generally feel curious about other cultures, reading
             | foreign original works, or simply getting a grasp on how
             | other languages express ideas?
        
               | yamtaddle wrote:
               | I think when we travel abroad, we're aware everyone can
               | tell we're Americans without our having to say so :-)
               | 
               | > I always wondered why is that so? Do they assume people
               | around the world know their geography? Do they don't
               | learn at least a little about other countries at school?
               | 
               | It's habit. It's how we talk to one another about where
               | we're from--major city, or nearest major city. Aside from
               | a few states where people like to lead with that (mostly
               | Texas and California--meanwhile, if someone says "New
               | York", they probably mean the city; there's a little
               | easy-to-miss comic jab about this in the show Archer,
               | where Archer a couple times corrects someone who says
               | "New York City" with "you can just say New York", as the
               | latter usage reads "higher" in a social-class sense).
               | It's a consequence of our largely-homogenous culture
               | being spread over such a huge land area, I think.
               | 
               | Recall, again, that we generally have _way less
               | experience_ talking to people who live in other
               | countries, on account of how very far we have to travel
               | to encounter many such people--and even then it 's mainly
               | Canadians, who can and do sometimes pass for American
               | pretty well (we're much worse at passing as Canadian) and
               | Mexicans, those being _the only two_ countries that share
               | a land border with us. 99.9% of the time when we 're
               | telling someone where we're from, it's someone who _is_
               | familiar with US geography.
               | 
               | Besides, "American" doesn't narrow things down very much.
               | It'd be like someone from Germany leading with "Europe"
               | when describing where they're from. Right, I guessed that
               | already--but _where_? Germany? Austria? Switzerland?
               | Belgium? Our nationality is far less specific,
               | geographically, than those in Europe.
               | 
               | > But don't they generally feel curious about other
               | cultures, reading foreign original works, or simply
               | getting a grasp on how other languages express ideas?
               | 
               | Sure, but it's a _big_ commitment to both learn a
               | language and keep up that skill, and it mostly has to be
               | maintained kind-of  "artificially", for Americans.
               | Conversational skills and accent in particular can be
               | very difficult to maintain.
               | 
               | Americans remain strong _aspirational_ speakers of second
               | languages, it should be noted--Spanish and sometimes a
               | few other languages (French is common, Chinese
               | increasingly so, others like German or Italian sometimes)
               | are taught, to some degree, to nearly all our kids, but
               | it 's hard to even _find good teachers_ because there 's
               | just no culture in which to keep up those skills, so a
               | lot of the time those classes are taught by people who
               | aren't good speakers (let alone native) themselves. The
               | kids, for their part, promptly forget everything except a
               | phrase or two, since they never use the language outside
               | class, and even the ones who _try_ to go farther find it
               | both practically difficult and, lacking much extrinsic
               | motivation or a kind of _natural_ need, discouraging.
               | 
               | > reading foreign original works
               | 
               | I mean... very little reading happens these days, period,
               | aside from trash-tier online reading, romance novels, and
               | self-help books. At least in America. We're far removed
               | from a time when "author" could practically be counted a
               | blue-collar profession, there was so much demand for
               | fiction. Among the same groups of people in which reading
               | remains semi-common, you're likely to find folks trying
               | desperately to hold onto their grasp of one or more major
               | literary foreign languages (and mostly failing at it).
               | 
               | [EDIT] Actually, now that I think about it, you may also
               | be seeing some class bias--Americans who can travel
               | abroad are more likely to have at least some of their
               | culture and norms influenced by the set of people who
               | think in cities (if not more specific!) _everywhere_
               | --they don't visit France, they visit Nice, they don't
               | visit Italy, they visit Milan, they don't have a modest
               | apartment in America or even New York (City) but
               | _Manhattan_ , and so on.
        
               | myth2018 wrote:
               | > I think when we travel abroad, we're aware everyone can
               | tell we're Americans without our having to say so :-)
               | 
               | Why? And how you do that? I believe it's not from the
               | looks, right? I met a guy in Berlin who was from New
               | York. When I first saw him I even thought he was
               | Brazilian, because his hair and skin color were exactly
               | like mine.
               | 
               | > It's habit. It's how we talk to one another about where
               | we're from--major city, or nearest major city
               | 
               | I believe this is everybody's habit, as long as they are
               | in their own country.
               | 
               | I live in a large country too, and we don't have a lot of
               | contact with people from neighboring countries (so the
               | fact we share borders with many countries is irrelevant),
               | but I don't know, when I go abroad something just
               | switches in my mind, it feel just too obvious that I'm
               | talking to people with perspectives other than what I
               | find in my own country. And I notice the same behavior in
               | people from other nations too. That's why this habit from
               | US nationals calls my attention.
               | 
               | > Besides, "American" doesn't narrow things down very
               | much. It'd be like someone from Germany leading with
               | "Europe" when describing where they're from. Right, I
               | guessed that already--but where? Germany? Austria?
               | Switzerland? Belgium? Our nationality is far less
               | specific, geographically, than those in Europe.
               | 
               | "American" really don't narrow things down to the city
               | level. Not even to the country level. But this is what I
               | find strange: why would you narrow things down to people
               | who are not aware of your geography? When you visit
               | another state and introduce yourself, would it make sense
               | to tell them your street name, number and apartment
               | instead of your state or city, to narrow things down?
        
               | yamtaddle wrote:
               | > Why?
               | 
               | Mostly because of Europeans constantly telling us that we
               | stick out like a sore thumb, when traveling--it seems to
               | feature in most every discussion of Americans and
               | international travel. It makes some of us really self-
               | conscious about not "seeming American" abroad, which I
               | guess maybe we do semi-successfully if you're in-fact
               | having trouble picking us out, more often than not. Hell,
               | what is leading with a city when asked "where are you
               | from" if not _exactly_ one of those boorish (they always
               | are boorish, aren 't they--that's why some of us are
               | self-conscious about it) tells? This current exchange is
               | about, exactly, one of these things!
               | 
               | > "American" really don't narrow things down to the city
               | level. Not even to the country level. But this is what I
               | find strange: why would you narrow things down to people
               | who are not aware of your geography? When you visit
               | another state and introduce yourself, would it make sense
               | to tell them your street name, number and apartment
               | instead of your state or city, to narrow things down?
               | 
               | This is not a great application of _reductio_.
               | 
               | > I live in a large country too, and we don't have a lot
               | of contact with people from neighboring countries (so the
               | fact we share borders with many countries is irrelevant),
               | but I don't know, when I go abroad something just
               | switches in my mind, it feel just too obvious that I'm
               | talking to people with perspectives other than what I
               | find in my own country. And I notice the same behavior in
               | people from other nations too. That's why this habit from
               | US nationals calls my attention.
               | 
               | The US is _really_ isolated. An American who travels
               | outside the US, Canada (where the people largely _are_
               | semi-familiar with our geography, on account of most of
               | them living very close to the US and the strong media
               | ties between the two countries) and (maybe) Mexico more
               | than a countable-on-one-hand number of times _in their
               | whole lives_ is a major outlier. A very high proportion
               | of our population never, ever does. Mexico might manage
               | to counter our cultural isolation a bit, but it 's
               | regarded as unsafe, so travel there outside of well-
               | tended resorts isn't common (see e.g. Wikipedia's list of
               | global military conflicts for _why_ we might have that
               | perception--yes, yes, I know, our own drug war policies
               | probably contribute, et c., but the _why_ hardly matters
               | for someone who 's just trying to plan a family vacation)
               | 
               | Reasons Americans rarely travel abroad include:
               | 
               | 1) Long flights are necessary to reach almost anywhere
               | else. 6+ hours (best likely case) on a plane is really
               | unpleasant, bordering on impossible for people with
               | health issues (this will matter in another point).
               | 
               | 2) Most Americans don't get much time off in a year, and
               | often struggle to take even what they have as a large
               | block of time. Short trips overseas suck (see: point 1
               | about how long the flights are)
               | 
               | 3) We _do_ have time off in retirement, for those of us
               | who manage to retire--but by then, the difficulty of long
               | flights is much-amplified (see point #1 re: health) for
               | many.
               | 
               | 4) The cost of flights makes such travel _way_ more
               | expensive than a road trip--and we 're not short of
               | interesting places to drive (especially natural
               | attractions). It becomes hard to justify several hundred
               | dollars per person for a flight when you still have a
               | list of dozens of great places in the US you've yet to
               | visit... so, travel abroad competes with some very-good,
               | cheaper alternatives.
               | 
               | The result is you see basically two types of American
               | abroad: seasoned, usually pretty-rich travelers (if not
               | committed ex-pats), and people for whom this is one of
               | maybe two or three trips beyond North America they'll
               | _ever_ take. Those latter aren 't likely to develop much
               | in the way of overseas-travel habits. And, see my edit on
               | the prior comment for why some of those richer travelers
               | might tend to lead with a city--it's a class-cultural
               | thing, they also tend to name cities when talking about
               | other countries (they don't even go to "the Alps", or
               | Switzerland, it's always somewhere more specific like
               | "St. Moritz"; the same set don't go to Colorado, like the
               | rest of us would tend to say in the US when visiting
               | Colorado, they go to _Vale_ or whatever)
        
             | fluoridation wrote:
             | >it's hard as fuck to keep up a second language when you
             | can travel 1,000 miles and the locals are all still
             | speaking English (at least, mostly)
             | 
             | Nonsense. I live in Latin America and English is a second
             | language for me. I'm not sure if there are even any land
             | routes I could take to reach an English-speaking country,
             | as I believe the Colombian jungle interrupts the road.
             | Learning a language is about four things: listening,
             | speaking, reading, and writing. With the Internet you can
             | do three of those four things right from home. Hell, I've
             | been learning English for 24 years and for the first 20 I
             | had maybe one or two conversations with native speakers.
             | 
             | The question is not how far you need to travel to speak to
             | a native, but whether there's anything in that language
             | that interests you. Language after all is just a tool to
             | move ideas between people's brains. If there's not then
             | yeah, you would have no reason to learn a language. And I'm
             | sorry to say that does make you provincial. Please don't
             | take it the wrong way; I don't mean it as an insult, just
             | as a statement of fact. You were born into your culture and
             | you're satisfied with ignoring everything else. You've
             | never thought "oh, I wish I could read this, but it's not
             | in English" or "I love this book/show/movie/etc.; I wish I
             | could experience it as a native would", or at least not to
             | the point that it inspired you to learn.
        
               | yamtaddle wrote:
               | English is a bit of a special case, being the modern
               | _lingua franca_ (LOL), having _two_ top-tier media
               | producing countries behind it (plus several smaller but
               | not-insignificant ones), and representing an incredible
               | proportion of the world 's wealth and economic power.
               | It's telling that a lot of successful creators of
               | foreign-language film, in particular, end up switching to
               | English--it's where the money is, which brings a lot of
               | other benefits to speakers of the language (native or
               | otherwise).
               | 
               | I remember at one point, when I was a still trying to
               | keep up my French, I spent a fair amount of time trying
               | to track down some equivalent to what Friends has been
               | (so I gather, anyway) for English-language learners--
               | every option seemed much worse (far shorter, lower
               | quality--which, Friends isn't even _that_ high a bar) and
               | even those were nearly impossible to get ahold of,
               | because the rights holders just didn 't care about
               | foreign markets (since no-one who can speak English well
               | is going to care much about a mediocre French sitcom,
               | unless they're like me and trying to learn the language).
               | Music's a little easier, but hell, even there half the
               | time they sing in English. Maybe it's improved since
               | about a decade ago, but at the time, there was just
               | _nothing_.
               | 
               | Meanwhile there are _dozens_ of shows with many, many
               | episodes that could help provide daily exposure to
               | colloquial, conversational English, that are relatively
               | easy to come by (just don 't pick The Wire--even
               | Americans have trouble with that, between the authentic
               | Baltimore accents and slang and the pervasive cop-talk).
               | 
               | I actually think another language that's got a huge
               | advantage here, for foreign learners, is Japanese. It was
               | hard not to be envious of the Japanese resources and
               | media readily available, even back in the '00s (let alone
               | now), compared with even a language as important and
               | heavily-studied as French. Which is really surprising and
               | impressive when you consider that Japanese is probably
               | the most insular of the major world languages--one might
               | expect French, German, and Spanish, at least, to do at
               | least as well on that front, given that they're read and
               | spoken widely on multiple continents by far more people
               | than live in Japan, but no. I think it's in part because
               | they've been able to resist the shift to preferring
               | English media that other countries have experienced--you
               | look at French TV schedules and there's a _lot_ of
               | translated English media on there, for instance, while I
               | don 't think the same is so broadly true in Japan, with
               | the result that they have a stronger domestic media
               | market than many other states.
        
               | fluoridation wrote:
               | >I remember at one point, when I was a still trying to
               | keep up my French, I spent a fair amount of time trying
               | to track down some equivalent to what Friends has been
               | [...]
               | 
               | Like I said, language is a _tool_. I have to wonder why
               | you were learning French if you had no use for it. Can
               | you imagine, say, picking a computer before you know if
               | it will be able to run the software you need?
               | 
               | That said, you don't have to limit yourself to
               | professional productions. I'm sure there are French-
               | speaking YouTubers or streamers out there nowadays.
               | That's even better exposure than high-budget productions
               | because you'll hear a variety of local accents. And
               | again, oral is only part of the story. You can get a lot
               | of grammar practice by talking to people on forums and
               | such.
               | 
               | >I actually think another language that's got a huge
               | advantage here, for foreign learners, is Japanese. [...]
               | 
               | Japanese is actually my next language, and I've been
               | half-seriously considering Korean because some of the
               | artists I've been following lately happen to be Korean.
               | Right now it's probably the best time in history to learn
               | either of the two.
               | 
               | I don't think it's accurate to say that the Japanese have
               | been "able to resist" English-language media. Like you
               | said, Japanese culture is insular; xenophobic, to put it
               | bluntly. It's a combination of Japan being hesitant to
               | embrace culturally foreign media and thus producing more
               | locally, and western cultures being more willing to
               | embrace foreign things.
        
               | yamtaddle wrote:
               | > I don't think it's accurate to say that the Japanese
               | have been "able to resist" English-language media. Like
               | you said, Japanese culture is insular; xenophobic, to put
               | it bluntly. It's a combination of Japan being hesitant to
               | embrace culturally foreign media and thus producing more
               | locally, and western cultures being more willing to
               | embrace foreign things.
               | 
               | Right, that's... _how_ they 've been able to resist it.
               | Even the French, probably the most infamously-jealous and
               | protective of their culture and language in Europe (and
               | against whom accusations of xenophobia are leveled pretty
               | regularly!), haven't been anywhere near as successful,
               | because they don't take it nearly as far as the Japanese.
               | For all its other downsides, a strong culture of
               | xenophobia seems to be the only way to resist this aspect
               | of globalization--even top-down heavy-handed laws don't
               | work, historically speaking, even before the Internet. A
               | genuine (if somewhat _cultivated_ ) culture of
               | reflexively dismissing the foreign seems to work, and not
               | much else.
               | 
               | I do agree that Youtube has probably closed the gap
               | somewhat, though that became a usefully-well-populated
               | resource long after I gave up. Even with dedicated
               | _instructional_ material on Youtube, it 's goddamn hard
               | to maintain motivation when all the media you genuinely
               | want to read/watch are "high" art and come with
               | language/complexity barriers to match (Proust, Racine,
               | Moliere, Renoir, Godard, et c.), with little material to
               | provide the sugary-sweet, approachable appeal of
               | sprawling, crappy anime series, or American sitcoms. Best
               | the French language has for that is comic books, and even
               | that's got nowhere near the volume and selection of, say,
               | manga.
               | 
               | About the only media I still consume in French is the
               | occasional French news article, just because their slant
               | on things or selection of what to cover is sometimes
               | interesting--no coincidence that the ability to stumble
               | through reading a French news article is currently where
               | my French tops out, much reduced from where it once was.
        
               | fluoridation wrote:
               | >For all its other downsides, a strong culture of
               | xenophobia seems to be the only way to resist this aspect
               | of globalization--even top-down heavy-handed laws don't
               | work, historically speaking, even before the Internet. A
               | genuine (if somewhat cultivated) culture of reflexively
               | dismissing the foreign seems to work, and not much else.
               | 
               | I don't think it's a good thing overall, though. They get
               | to maintain a very strong national identity, but when
               | they do end up interacting with people from other places
               | they appear disconnected. For example, if you've ever
               | tried to interoperate with Japanese software, it's like
               | going back to the '90s. They just do their own thing over
               | there.
        
               | yamtaddle wrote:
               | Yeah, I'm not saying it's "the right thing to do", but it
               | does seem to be the only approach that _works_ if you
               | really want to keep the allure of English-language money
               | and the vast wave of English-language media from being a
               | huge influence on your country 's media.
               | 
               | > For example, if you've ever tried to interoperate with
               | Japanese software, it's like going back to the '90s.
               | 
               | Hey, I thought you wrote that it _wasn 't_ a good thing!
               | ;-)
        
           | HPsquared wrote:
           | I think most people who say that probably consider it "not
           | economically viable". That is, their assessment is that the
           | expected reward doesn't justify the expected investment.
        
           | retrac wrote:
           | Some do think that. Often an impression formed from no
           | obvious progress after a few weeks.
        
         | billfruit wrote:
         | Perhaps learning to play a musical instrument is also like
         | that.
        
           | flycaliguy wrote:
           | When my kids were born everybody warned me that the time
           | would fly, they would be teenagers before I know it.
           | 
           | That's why I bought a banjo. If these year are going to fly
           | by then I might as well insert 10 years of banjo practice
           | into the blur. I might be bad now, but by the time my kid is
           | 12 I'll be 10 years in.
        
           | criddell wrote:
           | I feel that. I bought a guitar in 1996 and took a community
           | college introduction to guitar class, then took private
           | lessons from a teacher for a couple of years, then signed up
           | for lessons at a Suzuki school for a year, then took weekly
           | lessons from a teacher at a Guitar Center store for a few
           | months. In between I've bought books and apps and followed
           | online lessons. Right now I'm working through a rhythm
           | fundamentals class from Justin Guitar. I have almost no sense
           | of rhythm.
           | 
           | I have a guitar at home and one at work so I'm often picking
           | it up and messing around when I need a break from work.
           | 
           | I still don't know a single song from start to finish (other
           | than nursery rhyme songs that are just a few bars long). I'm
           | pretty close though on Nirvana's _About a Girl_.
           | 
           | I'm also essentially tone deaf but my kids, on the other
           | hand, both have perfect pitch somehow. They can hear a
           | microwave beep and tell you it's a b-flat the same way I can
           | say a car is red. I am going to see an audiologist soon
           | because I'm wondering if the crazy squealing I hear non-stop
           | is related to my difficulties.
        
             | cloverich wrote:
             | One nice thing about getting over the hump in guitar is,
             | once you can manage a few shapes (barre chords in
             | particular), you can play thousands of new songs without
             | having to learn any additional technical skills.
        
               | criddell wrote:
               | I'm okay at barre chords. I can barre the Emajor, Eminor,
               | Amajor, and Aminor shapes and move them around decently.
               | Power chords as well. I know lots of major, minor, and
               | 7th chords on open strings.
               | 
               | It's hard for me to describe, but I can do one thing at a
               | time pretty well. I can tap my foot to a metronome. I can
               | strum muted strings (so it's just a percussive sound) in
               | time to a metronome. But I struggle with tapping my foot
               | and strumming in time to a metronome even when all I'm
               | doing with my fretting hand is muting the strings.
               | 
               | I can play parts of some songs and some riffs but if I
               | try to play it along with the original track, I lose the
               | rhythm after a bar or two. I don't seem to be able to
               | extend that length. I end up strumming with the rhythm of
               | the lyrics (syllables) rather than the drum beat.
               | 
               | Right now, I'm mostly working on trying to establish some
               | sense of rhythm. The Justin Sandercoe's course on this is
               | probably the best resource I've found. He has some
               | exercises that are almost meditative.
        
               | filoleg wrote:
               | > But I struggle with tapping my foot and strumming in
               | time to a metronome
               | 
               | Why would you both tap your foot and use a metronome at
               | the same time while playing a piece? I play piano, not a
               | guitar, but foot tapping is usually for when you don't
               | have a metronome.
               | 
               | Sure, tapping and using a metronome at the same time is
               | good, if you are trying to get your foot tapping to be
               | more consistent. But actually practicing a music piece
               | and using a metronome+tapping your foot feels weird, I
               | cannot do it well either. For me, it is either tapping
               | foot or using a metronome.
        
         | zeroonetwothree wrote:
         | There are intensive language programs in which you can learn
         | basic fluency in about 2-3 months. But you would be spending
         | 40+ hours/week in this case.
        
         | hutzlibu wrote:
         | "but I have many times talked with people who hope to learn
         | French to fluency in six months, and people who are convinced
         | they could never learn it no matter what."
         | 
         | It is a question of intensity. If all you do is speaking french
         | and learning grammar and are surrounded by french people, you
         | could reach some level of fluency in 6 months. But not while
         | learning it on the side (unless you are very talented).
        
         | tetha wrote:
         | I've also been wondering if this isn't similar to the boiling
         | frog idea, just on its head.
         | 
         | Practically speaking, I don't think I made huge, noticeable
         | progress in my guitar skills over the last 4-5 days, at least I
         | couldn't really point out anything that has been a huge jump.
         | And in fact, many if not most weeks are like that. And focusing
         | on this part tends to be a bad idea.
         | 
         | On the other hand, 4 months ago, after I got my guitar adjusted
         | and fixed, I was just a mediocre bass player with some object
         | with way too many, way too tiny, way too sharp strings. Just 1
         | or 2 weeks ago, something in my head suddenly went "Jo, this
         | actually sounds like a slow and terrible version of the rythm
         | section that song you're working on covering at the moment".
         | And these are the more important insights to look at.
         | 
         | And sure, I'm also starting to realize how long the road might
         | be to good, own original songs, but at the same time, the
         | progress over some 2-3 years plus half a year on the guitar is
         | a lot, looking at it over a longer time.
         | 
         | This is also something healthy we do at work every 6 - 12
         | months too. Stop wondering about the daily grind of incidents
         | and service requests and smaller scale improvements for a
         | moment and consider where we were a year ago.
        
       | deepsun wrote:
       | Sounds like author just promotes their YouTube channel.
        
       | [deleted]
        
       | Thespian2 wrote:
       | If this is a continuous function, that implies there is some time
       | horizon between short-term and long-term where our ability
       | estimates are spot-on.
       | 
       | Finding that precise time horizon is an exercise left for the
       | reader.
        
       | Hard_Space wrote:
       | I have a number of personal development projects that I consider
       | critical for my existence. One is to learn the language of the
       | country I'm in; another is to go to the gym 3-4 times a week (75%
       | of my sessions are currently with a trainer, because I'm new to
       | it, started about three months ago).
       | 
       | And a recent 'wear away the stone' project was to earn X$ per
       | month writing about AI, which took five years, beginning from
       | some very humble pay checks.
       | 
       | But these are not 'vanity' projects: the latter was obviously
       | pivotal to my survival, as I'm not independently wealthy, and had
       | no job when I migrated; my motivation for the gym is that I have
       | suffered from depression for forty years, and pushing myself
       | physically and engaging with my body is the most effective
       | treatment (albeit found late in life) I have ever come across to
       | massively alleviate this (hence looking better, muscles, etc. is
       | just collateral benefit); and the need to speak the language of
       | my adopted country is obvious.
       | 
       | Sure, there are other things I have persisted in and improved in
       | because they massively accord with my interests and enthusiasm,
       | but those three projects are my demonstration to myself that
       | persistence, while not a magic bullet (some people are never
       | going to make it in Hollywood, for instance), is as near to a
       | magic bullet for personal transformation as most of us are ever
       | likely to have access to.
       | 
       | The gym is the one that fascinates me most at the moment; I look
       | around me, as a relative newcomer, and wonder at the motivation
       | behind the incredible bodies you see there. Are they all
       | sprouting out from some deep psychological need? Even if it's
       | 'just' vanity, it would have to qualify as pathological - as my
       | own reason for being there is.
       | 
       | So I am interested in people who will go through these kind of
       | pain and boredom barriers for less intense reasons, if indeed
       | they exist.
        
         | ovulator wrote:
         | When I first started hitting the gym, it was because of a
         | horrible break up. So there was a psychological need (I found
         | it better than any therapist I was trying at the time). But
         | then, it just became habit. I went today because I went
         | yesterday. Nothing more to it. Then covid hit, and that habit
         | broke. I've been getting back into it, but in fits and starts
         | because I've lacked that initial push.
        
           | anthomtb wrote:
           | I would say this is a difference between a short-term habit
           | (going to the gym) and a long-term goal (being fit). Habits
           | can be long term of course, but likely to fade if they don't
           | resolve around some long term goal.
           | 
           | If your goal is fitness and the gym isn't interesting, you
           | will find some other way to obtain fitness. Maybe martial
           | arts, maybe a physical team sport, maybe an individual sport.
           | Then at some point you'll plateau at your sport, or the
           | offseason hits, or you need more strength or endurance, and
           | there's your reason to get back in the gym. Rinse and repeat
           | for as long as you want to stay fit.
        
             | borroka wrote:
             | Side note, but most people who say they don't like lifting
             | weights have never lifted weights "properly" (most personal
             | trainers are not good teachers of either technique or
             | intensity; it is a profession with a low barrier to entry)
             | and have never seen the visible effects of lifting weights
             | on their bodies.
             | 
             | It's hard to say "I don't like lifting weights" when people
             | start complimenting your body and looking at your biceps,
             | pecs, glutes, etc.
        
       | alexyz12 wrote:
       | this is why I don't like school. It squeezes everything you need
       | to know into a semester and you feel dumb for not understanding
       | it right away. At least I do. But if you just had a little more
       | time it would be totally fine.
        
       | aerhardt wrote:
       | I don't always code as much as I'd like to in my job, and
       | following some advice here, I've started coding an hour every
       | morning, first thing in the morning, since Jan 1st. I've only
       | missed one day, which reminds me of my own falibility, but the
       | habit has otherwise been transformative and liberating.
       | 
       | I'll be writing a post about it once I hit the two or three-month
       | mark for a little bit more of street cred when talking about the
       | experience, but if anyone's interested I can give you a few
       | preview points here.
        
         | shredprez wrote:
         | I'll bite: what do you think?
        
           | aerhardt wrote:
           | Things that have helped in sticking to it thus far:
           | 
           | - I do it before work, right after my normal wake-up routine
           | (get dressed, meditate, coffee). No excuses on this one. Been
           | waking up 30min / 1 hour earlier.
           | 
           | - It has to be programming. Can't be reading books, watching
           | videos, anything that's consumption and not creation.
           | Naturally, reading my own code and reflecting on design count
           | as production.
           | 
           | - On the latter, while reflection may be about 80% of coding,
           | I'm trying to cultivate a working style where I write more
           | instinctively and faster, and edit later.
           | 
           | - It cannot be HTML or CSS. I enjoy front-end work but it's
           | not what I'm looking to improve.
           | 
           | - Likewise, for the moment, and as much as I love these
           | activities, initial architecture and project planning don't
           | count. I've found free time for that elsewhere thus far.
           | 
           | - If I don't have a project (work or hobby) that's
           | interesting, immediately resort to Leetcode, Advent of Code,
           | or anything and everything that gets me coding.
           | 
           | - Python is helping. I like many languages, but I know I can
           | pick Python up at any time without too much ceremony. Good
           | standard lib (including testing), good ecosystem, easy
           | syntax, decent type system. Occasional hiccups with
           | dependency and environment management make me want to throw
           | the computer out of the window, but the positives far
           | outweigh this, and such is programming.
           | 
           | - Kept a simple to-do file at the root of the project with an
           | ordered product backlog. Keeping it more or less groomed has
           | helped me jump immediately back into the action every
           | morning.
           | 
           | - Liberal use of ChatGPT and Copilot. They're far from
           | perfect and I see them derail often, but they've helped
           | somewhat to keep motivation high by removing some of the
           | grunt work.
        
       | frogulis wrote:
       | Why does my mouse say "Visitor" when I hover over the text?
        
         | dgb23 wrote:
         | It's basically a div that is positioned next to your cursor
         | when you move it. It's also slightly buggy because it doesn't
         | recognize whether the cursor is actually moving across the
         | view-port or not. No idea why they did that.
        
         | LorenzA wrote:
         | looks like a "fun" thing there are a couple other states that
         | change the image that gets displayed.
         | 
         | Clicking up top on the dark mode to get "night own" or type the
         | Konami Code to get Konami the other 2 cases seem to be disabled
        
         | p44v9n wrote:
         | Ah! Just a silly Easter Egg, I coded up this website when Figma
         | was brand new. Figma is a UI design tool that allows for
         | collaborative designing -- you can see where people are in the
         | same file with a similar cursor label.
         | 
         | It changes based on a few things (e.g. dark mode) + I wanted it
         | to change when you entered a password (for my design portfolio)
         | too but realised it was too complex.
        
           | frogulis wrote:
           | Hmm funny thing, if it had been opt-in (maybe by finding and
           | clicking a semi-hidden button) I probably would've been
           | intrigued and searched for all the variations. Just a
           | thought.
        
           | jasmer wrote:
           | That's not an 'easter egg' that's someone licking your ear,
           | one of most subtley annoying things I've ever seen on a web
           | site. Like an alarm clock in the locked closet you cannot
           | open to turn off the alarm.
        
           | avgcorrection wrote:
           | Too easter egg; didn't read.
        
         | okal wrote:
         | I keep getting so irritated by the cursor, that my brain
         | completely refuses to process the contents of the page. So
         | irritated, in fact, that I forgot I could switch to Reader
         | Mode. I really wish they'd provided a way to disable it.
        
           | p44v9n wrote:
           | This is my site -- thanks for the feedback!
        
             | RheingoldRiver wrote:
             | Yeah, please disable the custom cursor. IME custom cursors
             | are something that site _designers_ tend to like, and think
             | are pretty cool, and site _visitors_ end up loathing. The
             | cursor is your interface to the UI and as such isn 't
             | exactly a *part* of the UI - it's your way of saying "hey
             | I'm here, I can do things," etc. So for a UI to take hold
             | of it and change it is extremely jarring.
             | 
             | (Video games often do change your cursor of course, and
             | part of that is because they're indeed trying to be
             | immersive, and you're here for that experience. But such is
             | not the case on a website.)
        
             | okal wrote:
             | Happy to help!
        
       | 1bent wrote:
       | This feels adjacent to something I've done for a long time: I
       | will do a task of moderate complexity by hand, typing several
       | commands as needed, until I've done it enough to get a feel for
       | how it varies, and only then start automating it.
        
         | ctur wrote:
         | My general flow is "do it, teach it, automate it" where the
         | middle step is explaining it to someone else who then also does
         | it then (hopefully) helps, or at least consults, on the
         | automation. This way you can iterate a bit before codifying it
         | and help flush out any bad ideas or assumptions.
        
       | js8 wrote:
       | I also claim that people overestimate the effort needed but
       | underestimate the time needed. Perhaps we mostly do not take
       | learning (and efficiency that comes with it) into account. Longer
       | real projects are more an S-curve than straight line where time =
       | effort.
        
         | SunghoYahng wrote:
         | Then my hypothesis is that if someone actually puts as much
         | effort into the goal as they estimate, they will achieve it in
         | as little time as they estimate.
        
           | shanebellone wrote:
           | I agree with this. I'd venture a guess that we overly value
           | our time which translates to overestimating the impact of
           | applying that time. However, we also underestimate the true
           | scope of longer timeframes.
        
           | mberger wrote:
           | I wonder if it's because of the decline in neuroplasticity as
           | we age. We take a week to learn a new video game and expect
           | that peace to continue when we get older. It can be a hit to
           | the ego that it may take a little longer, that we aren't
           | quite as 'smart' as we thought.
        
             | Jensson wrote:
             | Biggest effect is that your standards get higher. As a kid
             | learning a game just meant learning to play it at a kids
             | low skill level. Kids till spend years to get good. But as
             | an adult who has played a lot of games you have gotten
             | pretty good at many of them, then when you play a new game
             | getting to that level again will take a lot of effort and
             | time.
             | 
             | For example, you see the world records in factorio aren't
             | held by kids. Kids has better reflexes which is crucial for
             | some games, but their ability to learn isn't much higher
             | than a young adults.
        
             | user_7832 wrote:
             | While possible, I am not so sure of that. I am in my
             | early/mid 20s (so hopefully no major cognitive decline!)
             | but I still find things taking longer than expected. Part
             | of it may be the work I'm doing today is tougher in some
             | ways. I also have adhd though so that may also affect this.
        
           | marcosdumay wrote:
           | Probably not. There are efficiency loses when you make things
           | too much dense in time. Our brains just do not like a lot of
           | focus for long times.
        
         | p44v9n wrote:
         | 100% this
        
         | coyotespike wrote:
         | I like this way of framing it. It's encouraging in that if you
         | imagine how long something might take to get good at, it'll
         | feel hard, but on a daily basis sitting down to practice every
         | day isn't so hard.
        
       | thenerdhead wrote:
       | I think there's a point where the opposite is true in your life
       | too. Especially when you've past the "productivity is bullshit"
       | phase. Parkinson's law tends to be more true for people who want
       | to be more efficient than productive.
        
         | quenix wrote:
         | What is the "productivity is bullshit phase"?
        
           | thenerdhead wrote:
           | That productivity hacks are temporal at best and you can be
           | plenty efficient by just focusing on one thing at a time.
           | That you can get more done in a day than most people get done
           | in a week or month this way. That productivity gurus are not
           | the people to look for answers from, but rather yourself.
           | 
           | That overestimating your short term is limiting given people
           | have wonder years through their personal development where
           | they get more done in a single year than a decade. Etc. That
           | people like the author might be doing too much and could
           | benefit from doing less making them more efficient in both
           | the short and long term.
        
             | TeMPOraL wrote:
             | I'm confused. Which paragraph is the incorrect take, and
             | which the correct one?
        
               | thenerdhead wrote:
               | There is no correct take because it changes with time
               | over one's personal development.
               | 
               | If you're getting more done with the limited time you
               | have each day, you are in the productivity camp.
               | 
               | If you're getting more done with less time each day, you
               | are in the efficiency camp.
               | 
               | If you're getting the right things done with less time
               | each day, you're in the effectiveness camp.
               | 
               | I am just pointing out that this author talks about all
               | the stuff(productivity) they accomplished in a short
               | period of time to then talk about overestimating their
               | ability?
               | 
               | If anything they are underestimating it. Imagine what
               | they could do if they did one thing fully(efficiency) and
               | not a handful of things partially? That's the
               | productivity trap in my opinion.
               | 
               | Take it one step further, if they knew the one thing they
               | were doing is the right thing to be doing(i.e. YouTube),
               | they would be especially effective.
        
               | Jensson wrote:
               | It takes a lot of work to figure out the right thing to
               | do, so you need to spend all those hours. If you don't
               | then you just go into the stagnation phase of your life
               | where you stop growing because you stop putting in
               | efforts on things you aren't sure are needed.
        
       | avgcorrection wrote:
       | I can't speak to my own accomplishments, but: I am not quite as
       | often impressed by what some people manage to do in a couple of
       | weekends, but I am more often impressed by the things that they
       | do in a matter of months or years.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2023-02-13 23:01 UTC)