Implict versus explicit learning

As we standardize education globally, we start focusing on testable subjects. As Sir Ken Robinson says, "we start training children from the neck up, and a little to one side".

Testable subjects with clear rules are called explicit. They have clear rules and a top down transmission of knowledge from teacher to student. And they are ideally suited to a classroom environment.

The result of this is that they train an area of the mind involved in explicit memory.



This is the famous iceberg analogy used to explain the difference between explicit and implicit. The explicit section of the iceberg (referring to the conscious mind) is the part we can see above water. The submerged part refers to our subconscious mind, the implicit section.

Interestingly enough, many courses that introduce this analogy such as my organizational behavior class continue to teach everything in an explicit fashion, undermining its own legitimacy as a valid course. But I digress.

The importance of this is to understand how implicit learning works. Implicit learning uses different areas of the brain and nervous system involved in creating implicit memory.

Learning occurs in a biological sense through the creation and strengthening of neural pathways called synapses. The synapses create activation-response circuits that we refer to as behavior.

This occurs whether learning is implicit or explicit. In explicit learning, we are conscious of exactly what we have learned and can easily explain it. With implicit it is much more indirect. This leads in people discounting it, or feeling like they haven't "learned anything".

Most physical movement for example relies on implicit learning. It's how even people who have impaired short term memory (such as those who've had head injuries) are able to learn certain things such as new movements, even when they have forgotten the memory of actually learning it. In sports it is often referred to as "muscle memory".

It is not just movement that is learned implicitly. Our emotional reactions are often conditioned in the same way, which is why we will sometimes act a certain way but have difficulty saying why.

Natural language is subject to this same learning, for better and worse. The "illusion as truth effect" experiment referred to in the wikipedia entry above and other research indicates we are primed towards language that is familiar. We are more likely to feel comfortable with it and believe it to be true. It is also why if we want to be happier, we should stop talking so much about our misery and talk more about our potential. And why if we want to get over racism, celebrating diversity is the last thing we should do. We should be talking about the similarities of all people, and not celebrating "racial differences".

As we become older and are run through the modern day education system, we become "educated". "Educated" in this case means to rely on the explicit functions of the mind uniquely. It carries the dogma that explicit learning is superior to implicit.

In reality, explicit learning is more applicable to certain types of learning. Implicit based learning is better for others. Many trades require extensive experience that can only be gained implicitly. Traditionally, Japanese would spend years observing masters of a trade before attempting the skill themselves. This is why we hear about ancient Sushi chefs not even doing more than making balls of rice for years before they start on sushi.

I propose that adults can still learn language this way. There are enough examples of people who have learned languages as adults to a native level for this to be a valid assumption. But as far as I know there hasn't been any major scientific studies of this.

So we get fooled by explicit learning dominated linguists and psychologists who tell us it is not possible to become like a native in a language once we get too old. Most of these people have never experienced learning another language, or have had very limited experience. Almost all of them have only tried explicit language learning methods, and then declared all language learning methods will not work.

To recognize the difference between explicit and implicit is knowledge, but to know which one is best for a situation is wisdom.

No more western and developing countries

Since I live in Thailand, I often notice comments on the "developing world" and the "third world".

Often these comments are fairly condescending, thinking life must be horrible. While it's sometimes inconvenient, it's often not as bad as people on the outside think, and in some ways better than the west.

If you have time, have a look at Hans Roslings data overview on TED.com. It's good to see a statistical over view for what can be seen in countries like Thailand if you go looking for it.

I find the point about the conception of "us" the western world and "them" the third world interesting.

In fact, most people don't use the term "third world" correctly. The term was created in the cold war era by the Americans who referred to the "first world" as the allied forces countries, the "second world" as those countries aligned with the soviet union, and the "third world" as everybody else. So when I hear somebody refer to Thailand or any other country as "third world", I immediately doubt that their opinion will be informed.

Also when we refer to development as an issue, we at least need to consider development in two broad categories, social and economic development.

As we saw in the video, many countries in the world are fast approaching equal levels of life expectancy and child mortality in the west. Life expectancy in Thailand and many other south east Asian countries is about 70, only 8-10 years behind OECD countries. And they're catching up.

Of course health measures are not the only indicators. There are other indicators, such as the Press Freedom Index, where in particular Thailand does not do too well. But in fact that rating is a result of the banning of material considered offensive to the Monarchy or to Buddhism. Otherwise the press is quite free here. So it shows the importance of contextualizing the data and the ideas we have about countries.

Economically, income levels are lower, but not on the scale we first conceived of the idea of "us" and "them".


Here we see a graph from Hans Roslings very easy to use software Gapminder. We can see in the post world war 2 period that Australia, the US and the UK are sitting comfortably with long lives and on average $10,000 or so dollars per year.

Even after adjusting for cheaper local goods (which economists call "Purchasing Power Parity" or PPP), The average Thai was only living about 42 years and earning about $800 per year.

According to the data, Thais were earning less than 10% of what westerners were and living about only half the amount of time.

So let's look at these countries today.

The western countries have gotten somewhat healthier and richer according to the stats. Now we are living about 80 years on average (up 14%) and make on average $40,000 per year (a 300% gain). Not bad.

But Thailand has done even better.

Life expectancy is up from 42 to 70, a 67% gain, and only 12.5% below that of the west. And much of this can be accounted for by high levels of AIDs in the country.

An average Thais income is about $8000 a year, adjusted for purchasing power. This is a 900% gain. And most importantly, it is only about 20% of the where the western countries are now, and is at the same level the west was post world war 2.

And, with an average 5% GDP growth per year, if social stability can be maintained, Thailand could reach western levels within a generation.

So what does this mean anyway?

It means that the concept of the "western" and the "developing" worlds is becoming obsolete and incorrect. More and more countries are getting richer and healthier and the similarities between countries are becoming greater than the differences.

Within the next few decades, most countries will see greater inequalities in their own country than outside it.

Perhaps countries one day might stop looking down on other countries, and look instead for ideas and inspiration from them.

The input vs output debate

If you get into conversations with people passionate about language acquisition, they tend to fall into one of two camps. Usually, they are an "outie" or an "innie".

That is, they either strongly believe that a learner should maximize their output, or maximize their input in order to best start learning a language.

I fall into the input camp. I believe it's important to maximize input as much as possible in the first 6 months to 1 year before the learner starts to focus on output. Without having prior experience with the language, then when it comes to production the learner has no reference to draw on to form utterances.

Often, rules just don't cut it.

I present my arguments for each of the four main components of language.

Pragmatics
This is the process of connecting language with context. In such a way something like "whatever" can have different meanings depending on the context of which it is used (such as declaring your indifference, or indicating that you want a person to shutup).

This is almost impossible to learn except by exposure to real life situations, or through TV shows and other video input. Most supporters of output place this kind of learning as a final stage. I suggest starting exposure to this kind of input from day one. Many complex sentences will not be understood at first, but simple ones can be picked up fairly quickly. For example, in 50 hours of Chinese exposure I've learned 2 ways of saying "let's go" depending on urgency and the verb "to go" which is different.

I feel that with enough exposure, this creates a link with certain phonetic patterns and situations (like identifying levels of formality by phonetics, describing an academic subject compared to describing a sport, etc).

Phonetics
The output argument generally tends towards a listen-and-practice approach. The idea being that phonetic sounds need to be practiced over and over again until the vocal chords and mouth learn to make the sounds required in the new language.

What inputters believe, and as my experience has shown, having a good level of input creates an instinct for the correct sounds of the language they are learning. It also gives them time to tune their ear to the phonetics, refining their ability to hear nuances in the sounds. This allows them to self correct in a far more efficient way than a listen-once-and-repeat method does.

Not only that, but often sadly most non-input methods tend to study phonetics in isolation, and not often how they combine together to make sentences.

The phonetics of a language involve far more than the individual consonant and vowel sounds. There is also syllabic stress (think of "REcord" and "to reCORD"), word liasons ("it's not" or "it snot"?), dropped vowels/syllables ("watchya doin?"), suprasegmental stress ("did YOU drink the milk?" or "did you DRINK the milk?"), emotional tone and formal tone, among other things.

These are all extremely involved and would be rather complex if studied in separate segments while trying to remember a rule for all of them. But they are present in natural speech, all happening at once. As such, the same input can be used many different ways to study the language from a different perspective.

Grammar
From a modern language learning perspective, this is considered the foundation of learning. It is usually the first thing you learn as it can be used to create comprehensible sentences straight away.

The problem with this is that often this can be so complex that it takes the main focus of the student away from comprehension of the language and the student starts to think of language in a mechanical fashion. Some grammar can be simple and can be practiced enough that it can become automatic. But there are some grammar forms that are context specific or difficult to explain in an explicit format. Sometimes they are classed as expressions, but the line is not always so clear. For example, "What's up with Matt?" may be considered an expression but "What is the problem with Matt?" may be considered a standard form of grammar, even though they are both interrogatives.

In addition, grammar cannot be separated from context. In the example above, "What's up?" is an informal expression inappropriate for some uses. If you learn this in a textbook it might not be clear. But with input, when this is viewed as only being used among friends or in casual situations, the person can intuit that this is an informal expression.

While learning grammar by rules can be useful, I believe it is best used to refine knowledge already present, like a native speaking child does when they go to primary school and beyond.

But even amongst native speakers, the strongest determinant of good spelling and grammar usage is how much the person reads. In other words, input.

Vocabulary
Lastly vocabulary is best learned by input when possible. A person can learn vocabulary through studying lists, through flashcards, picture cards, or through natural input.

Through viewing conversations in real life or even from TV or the like, the person has more senses engaged in which to remember vocabulary. Some people are visually focused, some auditory and some tactile. By giving the person something to look at, hear, and touch if possible it allows them to use the input method that is strongest for them. And by providing the context of the situation and supporting conversation it adds additional information (like when to use "ass" or "butt"; or "boat" or "ship").

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What is the weak point of the input argument?

For language acquisition purposes, the language needs to be as comprehensible as possible, especially at early stages. As the guy that taught me TESOL said, "don't explain, demonstrate". It is not always very easy to find input like this, and it can be hard to convince native speakers to teach like this (with methods like TPR for example).

The debate is multifaceted and there are many justifications on both sides. Ultimately though, but input and output need to be thoroughly practiced. As a language learner what you need to make sure is that in the long term you are balancing input and output. Then focus first on what seems to work best for you.

Redefining wisdom and how Vipassana creates wisdom

Vipassana cultivates wisdom. But to better understand what this means, we need to create a specific definition for wisdom.

Wisdom is often defined as the knowledge of what is "true" or "right". These are terms I find heavily loaded and highly open to interpretation. I want to offer an alternate definition.

In business, knowledge management is a new popular buzzword. Under the theory of knowledge management, they offer definitions for data, information, and knowledge:

Data is the raw facts, statistics, ratings and outcomes that can be known.

Information is the organizing of data into meaningful groups, such as databases, text collections (like this blog) and the like. It is an understanding of the relations between data.

Knowledge is the grouping and application of information to context, such as rules, procedures, skills, and the like. It is an understanding of the patterns of information and how they can be best used in a specific context.

To continue with the same line of reasoning, here is my definition for wisdom.

Wisdom is the prioritization of knowledge. It is "knowing" what skills and rules are more important than others. It is achieved through understanding patterns.

By changing what information we filter in and filter out, and how we weight that information, we become exposed to a range of patterns we would not otherwise. It is in this way we start to expand our wisdom, and focus on what is truly important for us.

This definition of wisdom is important. Modern society is very focused on the acquisition of knowledge. We are very concerned with gaining skills. But we spend little time questioning how important the skills we are learning are.

Adopting a "more of anything is better" approach is not good for us. We only have limited time and effort with which to learn skills in the world, so we should focus on what is most important.

The time spent on increasing awareness of what is important for us is an investment worth spending.

Our minds gravitate towards recognizing patterns. It is something we are all masters of, whether educated or not. And it has been the envy of the computing world since the technology was first created.

As mentioned in an earlier post, Vipassana alters our filtering and weighting. In short, it expands how much sensory input we are aware of, and changes our priorities for this information. We become aware of more patterns in life as we encounter new information and processes, and we link up similarities.

As a result of all this, we start to become aware of what moves ourselves and other people most deeply. We start to realize what is most important by what creates the most positive, deepest and long lasting effects.

If we come in touch with something that sounds wise to us, we describe it as profound, or moving. But we usually don't understand where it comes from.

It is not the result of a special mind, and every person is capable of achieving deep levels of wisdom. What is required is a willingness to confront our own assumptions, and the persistence to do so for many years.

Greater fear theory

Sometimes people need a push.

Even when we are in a life situation that's far from ideal, it can grow comfortable, and we become scared of change.

What did if for me was the death of my mother. When I was 23 she passed on, and it left me deeply questioning the purpose of my life. I imagined a list of all the things I wanted to do before I die. I used to imagine myself on my death bed reviewing my life. Up to that point, I felt I had done nothing I had wanted to do with my life.

And it scared me.

I was scared of change also. At that time I had a job that I didn't feel aligned with. But it was a monthly pay packet and I knew everyone. It was comfortable.

But the fear of that image, of having died before I had "lived" was what pushed me into my new life. Since that date in April 2004, here's what I have done with my life:

• Got out of a mortgage I had been in since 19
• Studied kinesiology, massage, myofascial release and craniosacral therapy
• Worked in a travel agency
• Spent a year traveling to North America, Europe and Asia
• Taught English
• Gained fluency in French
• Moved to Thailand and started a business degree
• Lost hair and gained wisdom

Although all the changes have made my life at times more difficult, I don't regret having done any of these things in the slightest. In fact my life is more rewarding than it has ever been. I can imagine that old man on his death bed, and already he can think back on this life with joy, satisfied and proud with what he has done.

But I might not have had this life if it wasn't for the push. Which started me thinking about what I call Greater Fear Theory.

Greater Fear Theory is the idea that to overcome great resistance to change, the fear of the status quo needs to be greater than the fear of change.

For me, the idea of living an unhappy life with a huge mass of unfulfilled dreams was much scarier to me than the fear of the uncertainty of that change in my life.

If you're unhappy with your life but are scared to change, perhaps this can be used for you. From my experience, greater fear theory needs three things:

1. Something fearful about you current situation needs to be found
2. This fear needs to be real and vivid
3. This fear needs to be immediate, or happening now

In an ideal world, we may not need to be motivated by our fears. But often the hardest part about change is breaking the old habit, and starting the new. If you're having difficulty with that, perhaps this can help you as it helped me.

Chinese language experiment: 50 hours

Well, I finally did it.

I'm at 50 hours of listening practice.

A few events have happened in the time I logged 20 hours of listening, so I best explain what those are.

1/ I started university again 4 weeks ago. Because I've been busy with other things, I've not had the time and energy to devote to listening practice that I had before.

2/ I've started learning to read Chinese independently. I am focusing on learning the meaning independent of sound, however since most Chinese TV runs Chinese subtitles at the bottom, occasionally a word pops up that I recognize and this helps with learning.

3/ I started taking a Chinese class in university. However this is not a very big impact. The class is an example of what not to do in teaching language. Most of the class is given to explanations of where to put the tongue in the mouth to make a certain sound or repeating a sound as the teacher frantically rushes between 30 students to tell us if we are making the sound correctly. In four weeks I have learned only 20 words and 4 sentences. And in those 4 weeks I estimate that I have heard Chinese spoken in class for approximately 5 minutes.

So, lets have a look at my progress.

Here you can see a cumulative graph of my comprehension, hour by hour. You can see while it was volatile before, my estimates have plateaued out at about 15%. I don't expect these estimates to be extremely accurate until I reach higher percentages, but I will track them over time in any case.


As you can see, my comprehension for news, reportages and documentaries have gone up. This is largely due to the fact that these are what I've been listening to. I haven't been watching many entertainment shows, especially as they contain a lot of singing generally, and they aren't too helpful for my purposes.

The other category that stands out is dramas, which have actually gone down. I think I overestimated my comprehension earlier, and I want to be more conservative with my estimates.

That being said, I definitely have noticed a difference in my listening skills. It doesn't take much concentration at all to hear words clearly any more. And even when I don't know what they mean (which is most of the time), I can generally hear it and recreate it later on. I'm sure my pronunciation isn't perfect, but I feel that I can self correct to a pretty decent level.

I feel that this is an important skill that is mostly taken care of. I had estimated to have a good ear after 100 hours of listening, but it has come earlier than expected. Of course this is only the base and will need refining, but what this means is that I can now put my mental effort into understanding word order and connecting words with context in the storylines.

I will keep up with the listening, albeit it a slower pace. I will report back at 100 hours.

Information dependency: a modern scourge

Sir Ken Robinson often talks about the modern school system killing creativity, and why creativity is so vital for our societies, as vital as literacy. I have some theories why.

Obviously, creativity is important for innovation and to adapt and change to different environments, but I believe it goes much deeper than that.

An important issue that I feel is not being talked about enough is how we train people to be dependent on others for information.

Information dependency is the habit of always looking to others for information. It is the habit and belief that if we can't find someone knowledgeable, we can't learn anything.

One of the biggest obstacles to a person achieving their dreams is a lack of belief in themselves.

If you think about how education methods transmit information to students, it almost always relies on the student being passive and following orders.

This trains people to be passive in life. I'm not saying that a passive method of learning is never appropriate, but there needs to be balance between a passive approach and an active one.

Self-learning is not just an idea, but is a skill that needs to be strengthened with practice. To encourage children to be curious and help them improve their ability to find out what they need teaches them so many things. It teaches them that curiosity can be good and helpful. It teaches them that if they don't like something about themselves, they can change it. And it teaches them how.

Most educational methods set the teacher up as the boss who cannot be questioned, who gives rules that cannot be deviated from. If this is all children are exposed to for 12-13 years of their life, imagine how this can lead to a passive approach in life.

This passive approach explains how people will look to someone else to "save" them or to "make things better". It leads to people complaining about things they don't like, but not look for solutions to change them. It erodes hope that we can change many things in our life and in ourselves. It can be a source of dissatisfaction with our lives. And it can hide the fact from us that life can be a wonderful laboratory to explore our life passions and a place to experience joy.

Of course education is not the only factor. But something that a child spends 12 or more years of their life in is going to have a huge impact on them. We need to look elsewhere to break these habits. But we shouldn't have to.

As Sir Ken Robinson states, we need to shift from an industrial model of education, to an agricultural model. That is, we need to focus on providing the right environment for learning without controlling too strongly the output that is created.

Because for us to measure who will be successful in life or not is extremely arrogant and prone to damaging errors. Society depends on a huge diversity of talents to thrive, and we can't predict what all those talents will be 12 years from now.