For as long as formal language education systems have existed, people have been studying why some of us learn faster than others.
The general assumption was that some of us possessed inherent traits that 'made' us good at language. Another assupmtion was that children were better at learning language than adults. The Language acquisition device theory and the critical period hypothesis were created to explain these beliefs.
The theories state our ability to acquire language to a native level is limited beyond a certain age. And that this limitation is physiological and unchangeable.
However there are people who can learn languages to a native level, even when learned late in life. Some people are fluent in over 50. But according to these theories they should be impossible. Continuing the assumption that language ability is a phsyiological trait, these people were studied for differences from 'normal' people.
The studies showed some commonalities, such as an enlarged Broca's region, and below average visuospatial abilities. And so linguists said that this is what enables them to do what they do. Most language education designers listened to them.
While I don't discount the physical differences, to me measuring the brain of an accomplished learner and saying thats why they are an accomplished learner is like saying the biggest guy in the gym can lift heavy weights because he has big muscles.
It confuses causation with correlation.
Obviously, we know that the guy got big by lifting weights, and his muscles are a result of his lifting heavy, not the other way around.
So why can't the brain be the same?
Previously, we assumed that the brain couldn't regenerate or change once we became adults. We now know that the brain has this ability. It's called neuroplasticity. But we still don't know how much it can really change.
Part of the problem is that most psychology is only studied on people who are mentally unfit, or at best average. There is little study on mental athletes. As a result we know little about what a brain at its peak is capable of (I will talk about positive psychology in a later post).
This science often gets used to show what we are not capable of. But for the reason above it currently is really bad and saying what we can be good at.
There are certain physical and mental limitations, of course. But does that mean I shouldn't exercise unless I can become an Olympic athlete?
Language education systems are based on this assumption that is at least in part being proven false.
So, rather than saying to yourself "I'm not good at languages", ask yourself: "Is the problem my brain, or the methods I use?"
