https://mangolanguages.

com/resources-articles/must-know-language-learning-myths-and-misconceptions/

- grammar is always an integral part in language acquisition

implicit learning explicit learning

learning subliminally, singing a song – studying traditionally – memorising using tools
pronunciation – instinctual feel like flashcards
Communication unfettered by rules Navigate through nuanced parts of a language
Requirement of a unique skill set

Declarative memory Procedural memory

Facts + rules + grammars + vocab Automatic (learning subliminally again)
Language aptitude myth: some people have a higher capacity to learn a new language really well because of their ability
to recognize patterns, tell different sounds apart, and/or easily memorize words and grammar.

However, having high aptitude does not guarantee that someone will learn another language more easily. Many other
important factors come into play in language learning, such as motivation, time spent learning, and knowledge of other
languages.

- Children > adults at learning language:

Presumption: an immersive environment (motivation + input)  native-like command of the language

>< a classroom environment (common in adults)

Child: 4 years – 1st language, 5-7 years – 2nd language

- great memory is the key >< optimise your memory – language get stored in the best way

+ spaced repetition

+ retrieval practice (deducing what you learn from ur own memory – improve recall + retention)

https://bigthink.com/questions/is-religion-helping-or-hurting-us/

Believers and non-believers alike agree on at least one thing: religion has had a tremendous influence on the history of
humanity. But they generally disagree on everything else. Has religion been a net benefit or a net cost to society? Are
believers healthier and happier than non-believers? Can religion and science get along, or are they forever at odds?
What truths, if any, can we learn from religion? Does God even exist? These questions have been debated for years,
some for millennia.

a book called God’s Brain in which we were I think able to suggest, if not demonstrate that religion is really made by the
brain.

Large scales societies – unable to care for eo – gods exist – codify + steer morality – one direction  nuh uh

Belief systems have flourished because they have facilitated the interests of the creatures involved.

 faithful believers – fitter – religion – adaptive evolution – massive survival advantages – supernatural elements

“When you’re religious you have fewer lifestyle risk factors. The mere ability to perceive causality, reason, benevolence -
that’s wonderfully protective and there are health benefits to it. Rates of depression are much higher among atheists…
Go figure.” (believers >< atheists)

“People have endlessly speculated about the evolution of religiosity, and at least in terms of westernized religions it
makes perfect sense why they’ve evolved: Because they’re wonderful mechanisms for reducing stress.”
It is suggested that one of the things that religions do is provide brain soothing and they soothe the brain the way a spa
does a massage or exercise or going for a walk in the park, which is not that expensive, destructive or difficult. All you
have to do is show up Sunday morning.

Religions give people an important sense of community. (people of all ages – church)

But we cannot build societies on conflicting ideologies that are at war with each other. In the past it has led to situations
where the ideology solved the problems by killing the unbelievers or the religions did the same thing, and we all agree
this is not what we want to have.

So eternal life wasn’t a kind of life that happens when you die. Eternal life was understood to be a certain quality of life
that you’re experiencing right now where you’re in the right relationship with the earth, with the environment, with
each other, and with yourself. That was considered eternal life. – Rob Bell, author.

A cognitive psychologist named Justin Barrett asked them about how they think about God. What he discovered is that
almost every single person, when forced to start talking about God, violated core theological principles of God being:
omnipresent and omniscient. The more they talked about God, the more it sounded like they were describing some
person that they met on the street. This goes to a fundamental aspect of the way that we think about the divine,
whether we are ourselves believers or not. And that is that, unconsciously, we can’t help but imagine God as essentially
a divine version of ourselves.

When we conceive of God we unconsciously, innately, impose upon God our personality, our own virtues, our own vices,
our own strengths, our own weaknesses. We project upon God our own biases and bigotries. We implant in God human
characteristics, human personality, and human desires all along with superhuman powers. And so, as a result, what we
do—again, whether we’re aware of it or not—is we divinize ourselves.

The entire history of human spirituality can be viewed as one long, intimately linked and remarkably cohesive narrative in
which human beings increasingly humanize the divine. Until, of course, in the person of Jesus, God becomes a human
being.

 Christianity is the most successful religion in the world - it scratches an unconscious itch that we all have. Our brains
work in such a way that we are compelled to conceive of God in human terms. It’s an impulse that we’re born with, it
goes back deep in our human evolution. What Christianity says is: God is not just humanlike, God is a human being.

 appealing notion - difficult to conceive of something like God. Imagine the most perfect person. Perfectly good.
Perfectly compassionate. Perfectly sinless. That’s God. That’s a pretty easy thing to imagine.

https://bigthink.com/the-past/climate-change-catastrophe-reshape-religion/

We presently hear a great deal about global climate change and the disasters it threatens in the future. Within a few
decades, large sections of the human race, chiefly in nations of the global South, will regularly be suffering widespread
hunger and acute water shortages, as dramatic environmental changes threaten the survival of state mechanisms in
many nations. Together, these changes will drive mass migrations, and create refugee crises on a dreadful scale.

https://www.cnbc.com/2023/12/20/mark-cuban-using-this-jargon-word-makes-you-sound-stupid.html

Using overly-complicated words to sound intelligent has the opposite effect: It makes you sound less intelligent and can
also muddle your message, studies show.

“We use jargon when we’re feeling insecure, to try to help us feel like we have a higher status,” Adam Galinsky, a
Columbia Business School professor of leadership and ethics, wrote in an August article for the school’s website.

That creates an effect where using overly complicated terms, where simpler ones would easily suffice, gives off the
impression that you’re insecure about your intelligence and trying to overcompensate. Instead, you’re better off speaking
plainly and concisely, according to experts.
“People who have higher status are more concerned with articulating themselves and communicating effectively,”
Galinsky wrote. In other words: It’s the most effective way to get your point across, and it’s more likely to impress than
overreaching with jargon.

https://bigthink.com/series/great-question/is-marriage-dying/

And so there was this complementarity to that traditional view of marriage, which of course was founded on a very deep
inequality between men and women. That was a driving force - the women's movement, including people, like Gloria
Steinem, saying the point is to make marriage into a choice rather than a necessity and to actually free women from the
economic bondage of marriage.

That's a world that's very difficult to fathom now; where both men and women are entering the labor market, they're
becoming economically successful, and they're establishing themselves. In some ways, you do all that first, then you
marry. And so, marriage has become more like the capstone. Increasingly, marriage is a signal of everything that has led
up to the ceremony, rather than the beginning of a journey. It's as much the end of a journey to a position where people
feel they can get married now.

the model of marriage that was founded on economic dependency of women on men, is completely obsolete.

You see a big class gap opening up: fewer working-class and lower-income Americans opting into the institution.

https://bigthink.com/series/the-big-think-interview/male-inequality/

Boys and men are falling behind. This might seem surprising to some people — and maybe ridiculous to others —
considering that discussions on gender disparities tend to focus on the structural challenges faced by girls and women,
not boys and men.

But long-term data reveal a clear and alarming trend: In recent decades, American men have been faring increasingly
worse in many areas of life, including education, workforce participation, skill acquisition, wages, and fatherhood.

One of the problems that we face is what I call in the book a 'dad deficit.' And that can be seen in various ways: So one in
four fathers don't live with their children. If parents split up, they're much more likely to lose contact with their fathers
than with their mothers- and so one in three children, if their parents split up, don't see their father at al lafter a few
years post the separation.

And so then what happens is that male disadvantage can become intergenerational because if the fathers are struggling,
and therefore not really involved in their kids' lives, then the boys are the ones who suffer most, who will then go on to
struggle themselves in education, and in the labor market.