In regards to learning, much more is involved than physical changes in the brain.

In regards to language learning, only one factor is that adults think abstractly, and tend to make the realities they encounter match the theories they already have, which come from what they have already learned. This is a behavior which can be replaced by another behavior by choice if a person can get on top of it.

So you "hear" a sound in a foreign language, but filter it to match sounds you know, making it fit into your existing matrix. You do not hear the sound - you have interpreted that sound. When you try to duplicate it, you are pronouncing what you imagine what it must sound like, because you have filterd it - you have not yet actually ever heard it.

To get past this behavior you also have to know what to listen for. One aspect of language is musical: rhythm, cadence, pause, speed, pitch variation. Who has ever tried humming the melody of a phrase or listen for it? Mostly people try to grasp individual words. Then really, really listening for that sound, and trying to duplicate it with the uninhibited intensity of a child - that is also a difficult choice. There is a host of behaviors and choices in this one aspect. These are not part of lost abilities or closed pathways.

It is very possible that the brain changes physically in a certain way when adults learn, and that its physical change is different for children. But that does not automatically determine that a late learner will have an accent? It tells us only one thing: the physical change in a brain. It also does not address the many other aspects involved in learning.

You folks know the origin of the word barbarian? It's Ancient Greek. It means the people how go ba,ba,ba which to them was anybody who spoke a different language. They were quite right. By the age of nine months we hardwire how to exclusively parse our own language - it's never the same after that.

Your formulation lacks the scientific caution of the Scientist Ullen, and has the character of the usual "pop science" drivel that gets media space.

By the way, there doesn't appear to be any relation between your concluding statement that I quote and the bit about the Greeks. And besides, in what were the Greeks right, exactly.

Here's a paper on prenatals: http://esciencenews.com/articles/2010/02/16/bilingual.babies.the.roots.bilingualism.newborns

If you want to wade through this http://dare.ubn.kun.nl/bitstream/2066/30213/1/30213_contseatt.pdf I'm sure the science will be there.

"By 6 months of age, however, infants show preferences for phonemes in their native language over those in foreign languages, and by the end of their first year no longer respond to phonetic elements peculiar to non-native languages. The ability to perceive these phonemic contrasts evidently persists for several more years, as evidenced by the fact that children can learn to speak a second language without accent and with fluent grammar until about age 7 or 8. After this age, however, performance gradually declines no matter what the extent of practice or exposure"

Neuroscience. 2nd edition.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK11007/

These damn critical periods!

I've yet to go through this thread. I'm sure the Oprah Book Club people will have some amusing "Yes You Can" stories. After a few years when all the hype dies down they'll be asking "four more years?".

Anyway lets see......

Adult Prodigies are like Dark Matter. They can't be observed. But it explains their absence and now the books balance.

According to people who read Talent Books its really easy to become an expert and there are no obstacles. Brain structures has no bearing and you can re-arrange your brain at will. The problem though is the extreme lack of physical presence of these geniuses, young or old.
"Dark Matter Prodigies © ". It makes sense.



Other than those claims are not true, even if it they were true that it an incredibly rare event. How someone can use isolated cases as examples to what is normal is beyond logic.

Since when did a one in a million, two million, three million etc become good odds?

But they get converted into Dark Energy by level 5 so they can't be observed. Just having a laugh.

Initial progress is one thing but that doesn't guarantee unlimited progress. I don't know what level 4 equates to. I'm talking about the level where people buy your cd and you're playing those Chopin Etude at Carnegie etc and winning competitions and the attention isn't from "novelty" from "quick initial progress for your age", an accident (car crash/lightning) that re-wired your brain etc.


Yes. But it doesn't make the late-starters happy though. For you it will.

Brain structure is a factor too. A musician's brain has a profile...

http://www.jneurosci.org/cgi/content/full/jneuro;23/27/9240

Going even further.....notice this..

"Although some of these multiregional differences could be attributable to innate predisposition....

Gottfried Schlaug and Ellen Winner are working on this at the moment.

"I would bet anything that the most gifted children, the ones with the most potential in music start out with brains that are structurally different.

Ellen Winner. My Brilliant Brian (Documentary about pianist Marc Yu) He played at Carnegie with Lang Lang this year (or last year).

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1955232874558919934#


Anyway the last people I remember to be gifted were let downs. Angry Girl and Philospher.

There is one hall-of-fame golfer that took the game up at age 21 and played at a very high level: Larry Nelson.

http://www.thegoal.com/players/golf/nelson_larry/nelson_larry.html

Speaking of which...Golf is the ultimate "adult beginner" sport.