Norsk Experiment makes no sense

(to the Antimoon webmaster who is learning Norwegian):

I have read your Norsk Experiment website. Let me first bring your attention to the following paragraph that you wrote:
(http://www.antimoon.com/norsk/decision/reason3.htm)

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
I have a website for learners of English.
On this website, together with a friend, I write about my experience with learning English.
As I learned English for many years, I developed some learning methods.
I've been thinking a lot about how to learn a foreign language.
My theories and my speculations are based on my experience.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

First of all, you write very little about your experience with learning English. And the same goes for your friend Tomasz Szynalski. Antimoon should not be described as a website where you two write about your experience with learning English. This is a misleading description. A misdescription, in fact.

Second, you write that you developed some learning methods, as you learned English for many years. Well, perhaps. But I could not find an exposition of "your learning methods", which you supposedly developed. You write that you speculated a lot and you mention "your theories". Well, perhaps you have something interesting to share, but then why didn't you share it? Where are your theories and speculations presented?

You should do Norsk Experiment like this:
(1) present your theories and speculations
(2) discuss how you plan to test your theories
(3) design experiments that are meant to test them
(4) conduct those experiments and not something else
(5) write reports about the experiments

As Norsk Experiment is now, it makes no sense. You are not learning Norwegian with the methods that you developed in high school. You are learning in a weird way and describing it. Perhaps that is interesting in itself, but it is not the idea that you present. You present the idea that you are testing the Antimoon methods.

Your dedicated reader,

Michal Ryszard Wojcik,
webmaster at http://www.antimoon.com, a website for English learners.
My name is pronounced: (MEE how RISH uhrd VOY chick).

To Michal Ryszard Wojcik:

> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
> I have a website for learners of English.
> On this website, together with a friend, I write about my experience with learning English.
> As I learned English for many years, I developed some learning methods.
> I speculated very much about the art of learning a foreign language.
> My theories and my speculations are based on my experience.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
> First of all, you write very little about your experience with learning English.
> And the same goes for your friend Tomasz Szynalski.
> (I am sending a copy of this message to him.)
> Antimoon should not be described as a website where you two write about
> your experience with learning English.
> This is a misleading description. A misdescription, in fact.

Do you think that somebody thinks like that? Or maybe you have received such e-mails?
Well, I don't share this opinion but people are strange (e.g. they vote for Lepper) and can formulate very strange opinions. Sometimes they expect "miraculous methods" - practical tips "how to learn perfect English in 2 months" and they are disppointed that Antimoon tells them to work hard.

> You should do Norsk Experiment like this:
> (1) present your theories and speculations
> (2) discuss how you plan to test your theories
> (3) design experiments that are meant to test them
> (4) conduct those experiments and not something else
> (5) write reports about the experiments

It reminds me of my tomorrow's test in methods of organization and management. It sounds exactly like "a cycle of well-organized action" which is a basis of all that humans do in an organized manner.

However, I think that such a cycle can sometimes kill creativity, invention and especially motivation and pleasure from learning. I don't think it would be more useful for learners to read very formalized reports on your learning. I think that the general rules/theories that you describe are better from the point of view of someone who wants to try to apply them in their own process of learning because everyone is different and everyone has to design their own methods of learning. If someone expects a detailed description of how to learn it means that they believe in the aforementioned "miraculous methods" and you can never satisfy such people because they will never be satisfied with their own results!

Ergo, I don't think that Michal Ryszard Wojcik (the one who wrote the criticizing e-mail) is right.

(It's about http://www.antimoon.com/norsk)

I am describing how I am learning Norwegian now, and I haven't even described how I learned English in high school. And my high school English adventure is more important for Antimoon readers than my present weird project.

I am learning Norwegian NON SERIOUSLY. If I wanted to quickly master Norwegian, I would learn two hours every day, use SuperMemo intensively, and simply copy my English learning process. But I have no real-life reasons for learning Norwegian, so I am not motivated to learn in the effective way that I have employed in high school. Hence, whatever I do, however I learn, it has no meaning for Antimoon readers, who want to learn English as a real thing in their lives.

There are Kids and Adults. Kids can devote very much time to learning English because they are kids, they have free time, etc.

Adults cannot spend so much time on English. For Adults there does not exist my effective way from high school. For Adults my NON-SERIOUS Norsk Experiment is more relevant.

So Norsk Experiment is a new quality to Antimoon. Antimoon started out as "sharing our high-school experience". Norsk Experiment is pioneering a new way: how to learn effectively when you're an Adult.

You're using a SPECIAL MEANING of "adult". Many adults have plenty of time.
Your meaning of Adult is "person who has little time".

<<<<<<<
You're using a SPECIAL MEANING of "adult". Many adults have plenty of time. Your meaning of Adult is "person who has little time".
>>>>>>>

Yes.