Yes, if they choose to use mnemonics and radicals
yes
Ganbare
There are plenty of people who have done it faster using that method.
You seem to be firm that I can’t say what role wanikani played in my own learning experience, so theres nothing I can say to convince you. No point in arguing.
Ok. So that’s the method that worked for them. That’s good. Surely not for everyone but good overall.
I’m quite skeptical when it comes to proposing “optimized” study methods as they tend to come from a intermediate to advanced individual who have largely forgotten what it’s like as a beginner.
I think the better mindset is: try to find a method that works for you and stick with it. Looking for an optimized method results into this endless tweaking and switching (i.e. studying about study methods) instead of… really studying.
You seem not impressed by the gains that you’ve made. Idk if that’s the Japanese influence that you got (you know, downplaying one’s self) but anyways, congratulations.
Sure. If you go back in this thread (or in the video) I don’t say no one should use wanikani. I actually say the opposite. Some people need the structure that wanikani provides. e.g.
The structure is a sacrifice for speed, however. So people who need the structure should make that sacrifice. The people who don’t need that structure need to ask themselves how fast they want to go and if its worth it. Like you said, the alternative is a tall order and isn’t as cozy, but I’ve seen plenty of people do it.
See my description on wanikani 
I think the problem lies in the fact that theres endless methods that “work for you”. Because when we really say “work for you” we just mean “that you’re willing to do”. The point of optimizations is it gives you a standard. Of all the methods you’re willing to do, the one closest to what people with experience (preferably who have reached your goal) say is the optimal one is the one you should do. Thats how beginners should handle it, imo. It gives you the best shot at getting to where you want to go in a timely manner.
I guess its been so gradual its hard to feel impressed in my level, but I am very happy at my dedication. Not to mention that I’m going for as high of a level as possible, so I tend to be more focused on what I lack.
Regardless, I appreciate the kind words and wish you the best of luck on your journey as well. Hopefully things have been going smooth for you after leaving wk.
I have also always been of this opinion. A lot of people give sage advice about “doing what works for you”, but they take it to an extreme and try to downplay any type of optimization.
I believe there are study methods that are universally beneficial to a majority of learners. And spontaneous composition is the one technique I would advocate over any other. If you use the bits of vocabulary and grammar you come across to build thousands of your own sentences, you’ll learn the language. Probably more efficiently than any other method. But that’s my opinion, and I’m just some guy.
Im probably setting myself up to be stuck in an hour long “input vs output” debate, but imo in terms of “efficiency” it just depends on your goals. If you do not care about speaking/writing and only want to listen/read, spending most of your time practicing to speak will not be the most efficient. Same thing the other way around.
Isn’t the goal comprehension over all else? You want to understand, and (if you are wanting to interact with others) you want to be understood.
But my sentence building methodology was centered around writing more than speaking.
Sounds like the same people who think optimization == cramming and no-life studying 
But if you go fast youll forget all the material!
Agreed. By that time you’ve known most of the common Kanji and their accompanying radicals and can transition into making your own Kanji deck.
The question is, who sets the standard? Most that set such standards are outliers, those who are like you, above average and have surpassed N1 in a span of two years. It’s too much to expect an average student with varying factors like time, resources, and willpower to meet the same standard.
Kind of elitist to say that you’ve got to reach X goal in Y time otherwise it’s not in a timely manner. And I thought studying language is about persistence, not a race.
Thank you. Looking back, I’m glad that I quit WK because I have more time to read and is free to choose when to do my reviews. Since quitting I’ve finished a 20 volume manga series spanning the whole of Japanese history (surprisingly, it included the 2020 pandemic) and is currently getting my ass kicked by this book because I was too reliant on Kanji. In 2 days time including today I will finish it and start reading volume 2.
Perhaps my usage of “standard” was poor here, but I mean it gives you an idea of what optimized study looks like. Getting as close to that as you are willing to without sacrificing your enjoyment is what I think people should aim for.
The reality is, certain things will get you to your goals faster. I could have manually looked up everything using a paper dictionary or manually made physical flashcards. If I did, I would have progressed slower.
For people wanting to achieve a high level in reading, like this thread was intended for, language learning is not just about persistence. to reach certain goals in the timeframe one desires, a certain level of haste and attention to optimization is required. I know its not the wishy washy comfort words that everyone wants to hear, but I think its the reality. If you want to get to my level in say…5 years…your time, effort, and method are going to decide if thats possible or not. Same for 10 years. Same for 20 years. Unless you’re saying that its not ok for people to have timeframes they want to achieve a goal in, then this all very much is a race. Its a race against time. I want my listening up to a certain level by next year. I have 4 months left. Its a race against time to achieve that.
Persistence is the prerequisite to get results. Your method, time put in, and effort are what determine the results you get out.
Without denying that such people exist, this seems utterly alien to me.
Wanting to learn a language for any reason other than to communicate (bidirectionally) blows my mind. I can understand emphasizing one direction over another for a while, but one direction only and forever seems bizarre (to me).
It’s also undeniable that abilities in either direction improve with practice in the other. It’s how our brains are wired.
Sir yes sir! (￣^￣ )ゞ Respect.
Truly, people are just different like that. I mean, I wouldn’t say I’m so far as to have absolute zero interest in communicating, but it’s a 90/10 split at best. I just really like art, in a variety of forms, and particularly a lot that originated in Japan. I think I’ll get an extra layer of understanding, enjoyment, and fulfillment by experiencing said art in its original form, plus all the stuff that never gets translated. And the culture is fascinating too! You pick up on endless extra facets of culture this way.
I don’t mean to devalue communication, just trying to explain how the former is totally enough for me, and at some point (perhaps literal years from now even) when I work on the other skills because I’m far enough and I might as well round things out, that’s just the cherry on the top. If I could only have reading/listening comprehension without the communication, I’d still do it. Plus, the internet is obviously invaluable for this, but living where I do in the rural midwest, it takes pretty significant effort to go out and find people who speak a language other than English in general, doubly so for Japanese, heh.
I can see the desire for this. Most people realistically won’t be using Japanese on any type of regular basis, nor want to. They just want to enjoy native materials. But you’re right that it’s not an either/or.
Any engagement in either input or output is going to improve competency in the other. You don’t learn Japanese TO read and watch TV in Japanese. You learn Japanese BY reading and watching TV in Japanese.
At the end of the day, communication is sentences. You see/hear sentences and respond with your own. It only makes sense that if you want to improve your reading, you write. If you want to improve your listening, you speak. And vice versa. Input and output and not separate things and shouldn’t be viewed as such, and that’s the 2nd thing I would advocate for awareness on. Language is bidirectional by design and necessity.
What’s funny is I started out only wanting to learn reading/listening comprehension so that I can enjoy media, but right now, I’m in the middle of composing a tweet in Japanese, and also had to think about how I wanted to word a message in Japanese for the bio on a twitter account that was likely going to attract attention from both Japanese and English speakers.
I think it’s unlikely I’ll find opportunities to speak Japanese, but it’s looking increasingly likely that I’ll have at least some interactions with Japanese speakers over twitter, which is a direct consequence of my (originally one-sided) media interest. I feel like once you get in deep enough, you never know the direction that things will take with your language study 
.
For me, it’s not that I don’t ever want to be able to speak - planning to go on a vacation in Japan if they ever bother opening their borders again and I want to be able to express myself at least a little bit - but my current ratio of input vs output is probably no less than 500/1.
I don’t use social media much, I have no plans of being in Japan for a prolonged time, I won’t have a need to use it professionally, I’m not sure I’ve ever even seen someone fluent in Japanese in real life. On the other hand I love anime and I love books, and I’d like to be able to consume them both effortlessly in Japanese.
That all might change in the future, but as for my current motivation, right now I have no interest in expressing myself in Japanese 
Would like to point out that from what I know on the subject, this is very much a guess and there is no conclusive studies on the most effective ratio for reaching fluency in either comprehension, production or a mix of both :b
My own experience with learning languages is that extensive time spent producing did not help me much with getting better at comprehension. While input helps me get better at producing and output also does help me get better at comprehension, simply focusing on input has always been more effective for me in increasing my comprehension.
I suppose, if you’re categorizing sentence building exercises as “output”, and not as just another method of study. The purpose of sentence building isn’t to produce; that’s just an outcome of the act.
The purpose of sentence building is to foster the dynamic generation of collocations that enable communication. The immediate ability to convert thought into communication without translation happens through a subconscious process in which collocations are processed based on intuitively known rules. Sentence building trains this subconscious process. But I again offer as a disclaimer: these are just the opinions of some guy 
But now you’re just saying that if you want to get better at expressing yourself in Japanese, you should train by expressing yourself in Japanese, no? I absolutely agree, but that statement is very different from this:
Same as I believe that the most efficient approach for improving your speaking is to actually speak, I think that if you want to improve your reading you should read and if you want to improve your listening, you should listen.
They all affect each other, but the fastest way of getting there is just doing the thing you want to get good at :b
For the record, this is indeed a bad approach. I once tried learning kanji with what was essentially a paper SRS – different boxes of flashcards, and if you get a card right it goes into the next box back, and if you get it wrong it goes to the box at the front. It was massively impractical
What is the difference, chemically and electrically in the brain, between a thought composed into a message, and a message understood?
That isn’t a rhetorical question. I’m not a neuroscientist myself, but if we have any here, I’d be much obliged to hear your explanations on the electrochemical differences between language composition and language comprehension. The answer is embedded in field-specific terminology that makes it impractical for the average person to research (without a significant time investment). My initial research seems to indicate the processes may be identical, and if so that would seem to support my previously stated opinion that input and output are not separate.