diff --git a/voussoir.net/writing/are_children_better_at_languages/are_children_better_at_languages.md b/voussoir.net/writing/are_children_better_at_languages/are_children_better_at_languages.md index e39081c..a51adb6 100644 --- a/voussoir.net/writing/are_children_better_at_languages/are_children_better_at_languages.md +++ b/voussoir.net/writing/are_children_better_at_languages/are_children_better_at_languages.md @@ -11,7 +11,7 @@ Are children better at learning languages? People who learn a new language as a teenager or adult know that it's a very long and difficult process. There comes a time in every language learner's life where they wonder why learning their native language as a child seems to have been comparatively very easy. -There is a popular notion^[ww](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_word) that the reason we can learn our native language so well is because childrens' brains are more *plastic* -- pliable, moldable, teachable. While I'm not opposed to believing that children have *some* level of biological advantage, I think this argument is overblown and serves to be a conversation-stopper more than anything else. +There is a popular notion^([ww](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_word)) that the reason we can learn our native language so well is because childrens' brains are more *plastic* -- pliable, moldable, teachable. While I'm not opposed to believing that children have *some* level of biological advantage, I think this argument is overblown and serves to be a conversation-stopper more than anything else. I am not a linguist nor a neuroscientist nor a psychologist. I didn't read any studies before writing this article and don't have any sources to cite. Sorry. The purpose of this article is [not to definitively answer the question](/writing/counter_counter_thoughts) but to exercise critical thinking in the face of Claims From The Internet. I want to come up with actionable takeaways instead of just rolling over. I am a layman on this topic and so are you [footnote_link]. Even if I had read some neuroscience journal papers, I've heard too much about the flakiness and irreproducibility of psychological studies that I wouldn't actually feel any more confident. I would probably just cite what sounds right to me and ignore the rest. Purists will be annoyed that I can admit this and continue writing anyway. Such is the nature of understanding topics beyond my own expertise.