nick’s (n)-line life

This post has been written in the form of a response to a post which appeared in An American in South East Asia.

I have tried to avoid going over old points, as far as possible, and to make sure that I focus on the criticism of my post rather than going over the substantive issues (although some cross-linking was necessary, as the two are obviously linked)

yes, I know I’m an argumentative asshole but it’s all meant to be taken in the spirit of the net, I’m sure everyone will agree that by discussing our ideas and arguing in a public forum we can work to improve and refine them

I am the author of (n)-line Life, one of the blogs you criticise in your article. I accept that I was perhaps overly harsh when responding to Mr Guy. I do, however, stand by my claims that it is not appropriate to make such comments without evidence (not for reasons of “political correctnessâ€? but because it really is offensive to go around saying, “blah blah Asians can’t speak English properly blah blah” [and adding "oh by the way this might apply to caucasians too" as an afterthought doesn't make it any more alright]).

Let me just ask some questions to put this in perspective:
1 – Is there evidence for established theory?
Answer: yes
2 - Does Mr Guy’s opinion differ from any generally accepted theory?
Answer: yes
3 - Has Mr Guy given any evidence to support his claim?
Answer: no

So, given that evidence exists for the traditional thinking and no evidence exists for the idea put forward, surely this means that in order for “truth and knowledge [to] be considered sacrosanct� we should follow traditional thinking, unless and until convincing evidence is put forward to show that the new idea has at least some merits, wouldn’t that be the logical conclusion?

Also you call this a “popular delusion”, i.e. you are saying this is wrong. This hardly seems to be supporting your claims regarding the importance of knowledge, far from it as you are saying that established theory is a delusion without proof.

The criticisms, by myself and others, stem from the fact that it is not acceptable to put forward an offensive suggestion without any evidence… What sort of society would endorse the free flow of such negative ideas without need for them to be proved first? (::decides not to answer own question::). This is not political correctness (which is an ever spreading blanket of things which might possibly be upsetting to people – yes rather silly, for example “nitty grittyâ€?). We are talking about protecting the integrity of a racial group who should not have to suffer people telling them they can’t speak what may well be their first language (yes, many Asian living in the UK have English as their first language) or perhaps even worse, Asian people who have spent years and considerable effort learning English and acquired perfect pronunciation (I am telling you know it really really does happen, I know large numbers of people who this applies to!)

I will repeat the original contentious quote:

Asians will (almost) never be able to pronounce certain syllables, letters and even words with the same finesse as we Caucasians can do

It just isn’t true, I have pointed at masses of examples of it not being true, grrr…. As one of your commentators points outs:

I’m sorry but no. While different ethnic groups certainly have different physical characteristics due to genetics, linguistically we all start with a clean slate. I would normally hate to recommend this man for anything, but in this arena I would strongly suggest you refer to Noam Chomsky (a linguist after all).

Link added by Nick

Additionally, who is to say what is “proper” English. Seeing as both writers are American I could easily reverse their argument and say that they can’t speak English properly (I won’t because I don’t believe it is true). The way American’s speak English is certainly different to the way it is spoken in England, and yet it’s still properly pronounced English, well, at least I think it is. Again even today’s English in England is markadly different from that which was spoken in past centuries, and even varies widly accross the country; I for one, find a Cambodian accent easier to understand than a Liverpudlian one! Putting this in context for American readers, would you say that the Calafornian accent is the correct way to speak English, or perhaps only the Texan accent is correct? Of course not. So why should it be true in this case? Also consider Singapore where English can sometimes be people’s first language and yet they still speak with an Singaporean/Malaysia accent. Once and for all I wish we could close this argument and say that language pronunciation and accent are psychological, picked up during childhood according to sounds they hear around them (as supported by all of the articles quoted in my last piece on this topic). It is just rather like banging my head against a brick wall. I produce many good and clear examples for all of my points and then someone comes along and says “you’re wrong” without citing a single source.

Furthermore not only has no evidence been produced, but my own and Macam Macam’s response to Guy’s post were ignored. In fact I added a comment to Mr Guy’s thread linking to my article and accused of Trolling and the URL was removed. This doesn’t really seem to fit with ideas about the sanctity of knowledge, Mr Guy offered no evidence, said he was right, and then refuses to acknowledge criticisms while implying that this is accepted theory. And I have to ask LHM why it should be the commentators who need to go and find evidence that he is wrong. It’s like saying “He’s right until there is evidence to the contraryâ€?, um… let’s see… “There are aliens living amongst us, disguised as humans and we have no knowledge of their presence among usâ€?, well according to your suggestion this is true until you can disprove it, off you go and good luck with that! I repeat my earlier comments, a proponent of a new theory or idea must put forward evidence in order to gain credibility and not the other way around.

The whole Lamarckian Evolution suggestion is a non-starter. It has been widely rejected by the scientific community. Then we turn to the question of whether the muscles change over the course of a lifetime. The theory is that there is muscle memory (this article is very good indeed), so that when you play sport, use a keyboard, or speak a language your muscles simply need to be taught the combination of moves. As you get older it becomes more difficult to do this, hence it becomes harder to acquire a new language. Note: harder. It is still possible, and it is nothing to do with physiology, it is caused by the increased difficulty of learning to produce the unfamilar sounds and building new muscle memory for these sounds (I’ve often heard this jokingly used to refer to rolling spliffs). With enough time, effort, and practice new muscle memory can be built and new sounds produced in the mouth. Even if I was to accept that there was a physiological aspect, it is quite clear that, muscle work could be done to reverse it. I can only express my extreme frustration in regard to this. I know a very large number of people who have learnt English and speak with perfect English/American accents. Hundreds of these people attend the same university as myself… if this argument continues to go on like this I will be tempted to start asking people to take photos and record sound clips… perhaps a web test that gave a random sound clip and then asked you to guess which face… augh, I know I don’t have time for this, but it’s an idea.

Finally, a quick comment on what is basically Freedom of Speech. If someone wants to air controversial (and objectionable) views then that’s fine, but if he wants them to be received as serious point then he needs to put some evidence behind them and even then this doesn’t make the idea immune from criticism. What LHM really seems to be saying is “new ideas should not be criticisedâ€?, or perhaps “new ideas which I like should not be criticised” and this, in fact, somewhat undermines the original argument that knowledge is sacrosanct. How can knowledge be considered essential if we are not prepared to argue it for and against it? It is only through the careful refinement of our arguments can we hope to determine which theories are true and which are merely conjecture, the Darwinism /Lamarckian point above being a perfect example.

Phew, finished, I’m off to find myself some lunch…
Thoughts and comments anyone?