Accents

tszirmay wrote: not knowing a language is a benefit (what I said of you) =The benefit (of learning a language) is not worth the cost for most of us (what you said) .  Is there a huge difference between these 2 statements?

Yes there is, but it doesn't really matter.

I am still interested in what you base decisions on if not cost-benefit.

tszirmay wrote: thellama73 wrote: tszirmay wrote: not knowing a language is a benefit (what I said of you) =The benefit (of learning a language) is not worth the cost for most of us (what you said) .  Is there a huge difference between these 2 statements?  Yes there is, but it doesn't really matter. I am still interested in what you base decisions on if not cost-benefit. Nice move, guv'!  Decisions should be based on sound logic but often , emotions come into play. Its what makes us human.  Impulse, urge, desire, rebelliousness, anarchy , anger, frustration, courage. You know, those strange , illogical quirks that pulse through our veins and differentiates us from purely Descartes-ian pragmatists. Do you think that the majority of prog artists listed in PA actually thought about cost/benefit when they indulged themselves in recording music that would reach such a small audience? They just went with their inner muse, regardless of the outcome. Which explains why musicians are notoriously poor money handlers.

Again, you misunderstand me. I will try to explain one more time.

A cost is anything you give up to do something. The cost of recording a prog album is that you can't simultaneously record a country album, or go to Disneyland, or build a model of the eiffel tower out of matchsticks.

A benefit is anything you value. If you get an emotional thrill from making music, that is a benefit. Do I think musicians consciously make a list of pros and cons before making music? Of course not, but they realize that making music is what they would rather be doing, so implicitly they have performed that calculation.

Money has nothing to do with it. It is not a purely logical exercise. My point was simply that most Americans don't learn a second language, because they could get more pleasure, satisfaction and use from doing something else with their limited time and energy, and that there is nothing wrong with that.

This is exactly the same reason you don't learn Cornish, even though you could if you wanted to.

 

rushfan4 wrote: tszirmay wrote: not knowing a language is a benefit (what I said of you) =The benefit (of learning a language) is not worth the cost for most of us (what you said) . Is there a huge difference between these 2 statements? I think that the difference is in the comparison factor. Forgetting the value of the almighty dollar at the moment, Person A has a fixed amount of time to either learn Spanish or learn Engineering/Accounting/Computer Science, etc... Which would Person A benefit most from, the ability to speak Spanish or the ability to perform engineering/Accounting/Computer Science skills? I think that learning the trade is most likely to provide the most benefit to Person A, unless Person A's career path actually involves learning Spanish, i.e. working as a translator or teacher. Now, if said Person A gets a degree in a trade and they are competing with Person B for a job in that trade that involves dealing with customers, vendors, co-workers who speak Spanish and Person B also knows how to speak Spanish, than in that instance Person A might need to reevaluate the benefit that they may have received by having also learned Spanish. I do think that what you call "The center of the Universe" attitude of Americans does kind of compete with the practicality of Americans trying to learn another language. The reality is that most countries do learn/teach English as a second language since it is in a sense the international language of business, and entertainment. Therefore, the need to learn another language isn't as necessary for us. Now, that being said, the reality is that most businesses are international and there are plenty of opportunities to be had for those who can speak other languages alongside other skills. Fortunately for me, to date speaking a language other than English has not been an issue for me in my job. Way back when, when I was in high school, they taught Spanish, French, and German (I suppose I am young enough or not Catholic enough that I didn't have to worry about Latin being the foreign language of choice). In my neighborhood, the more practical languages for me to learn would have been Albanian, Yugoslavian (Macedonian?) or Arabic. From a worldview, Russian, Chinese, or Japanese would probably be the languages of most value to learn.   I must say that I have nothing but admiration for your ability to speak 7 different languages.

^Children do cost-benefit analysis too. They just have a different set of priorities.

tszirmay wrote: My point is that not wanting to learn another language is a negative and not a positive worldly attitude.

You will get no arguments out of me on this point.  

tszirmay wrote: I am  56 year-old child then and yet  I still do not always make cost-benefit analysis ! Different priorities!

Edited by NotAProghead - September 25 2012 at 11:33

thellama73 wrote: NotAProghead wrote: tszirmay wrote: I am  56 year-old child then and yet  I still do not always make cost-benefit analysis ! Different priorities!    With constant cost-benefit analysis we risk to turn to robots. I give up.

Dean wrote: tszirmay wrote: not knowing a language is a benefit (what I said of you) =The benefit (of learning a language) is not worth the cost for most of us (what you said) .  Is there a huge difference between these 2 statements?  There is.   Not only that, they are not the same or equivalent either.   The first implies that if there were two individuals placed in the same situation the one who didn't know the language would have the advantage - ie there are some advantages in not knowing a language (which in some cases I'm sure there is), also, it does not take into account any of the effort required.   Rewinding back an awful long way, what you actually equated "The benefit is not worth the cost for most of us" with was "learning another language has no benefits" and those two statements are even more different and unequal because now you are actually saying there is no benefit in knowing another language, as you should now see   not knowing a language is a benefit  =/= learning another language has no benefits   So, you have presented two alternatives to Logan's The benefit is not worth the cost for most of us neither of which is correct.   The Logan's statement weighs the effort required against the gains acquired - sitting in on French lessons did not cost me any money, yet it took several hours of my time each week for five years and that is a simpistic view of the cost - I could have spent that time doing other things, things I may have enjoyed more - the benefit of me knowing really bad school-boy French is negligible - as already described - I freeze in a boulangerie and can barely read the simplest of road sign, sure I know the odd phrase and can get some idea of etymology of some English words because they are the same in French, but that's it really. If I had spent a couple of hours each week learning how to weave fruit baskets I suspect would have given me greater pleasure at the time, and a skill to use when I'm spending my final days in bide-a-while rest home.

Enough.

look at your own avatar , YOU lose. 

Edited by tszirmay - September 25 2012 at 12:19