为什么英语总是学不好？（1）无谓地寻求捷径

Why Can't We Ever Learn English Well? (1) Looking for Shortcuts in Vain

> By Li Xiaolai · 2009-06-14 · [Original (web archive)](https://web.archive.org/web/20111113133404/http://www.lixiaolai.com/archives/6791.html) (Chinese)
> Our translation from the Chinese original.

People like to seek shortcuts in doing anything. In any field, *shortcuts really do exist*. If we need to get from point A to point B, with enough information we can always find the best route; and in terms of speed, choosing different means of transport of course makes a difference in time spent. And there always seem to be so-called "knacks" for doing anything; once you master those knacks, things really do get done well and fast. I remember that when I was little I learned from my mother to cut bread with a knife heated beforehand—that way the bread doesn't crumble, and no crumbs stick to the blade. Over many years, I don't know how many friends, on seeing me cut bread this way, have looked inexplicably astonished, widening a pair of eyes that said, "How come I never knew that!"

However, shortcuts don't exist everywhere, and some things really have no knack. This is especially so in the field of learning. Learning is not an instantaneous thing, nor something that can be sorted out in a day or two; learning is a long process—long to the point that it can easily be divided into several stages. However, every meaningful process has a common characteristic—some stages simply cannot be skipped. It's just like human childbirth: from conception to delivery it's roughly ten months; there's no shortcut, no knack; whether or not the mother is clever and nimble, under normal circumstances pregnancy is ten months. On the long road of learning, occasionally there really are shortcuts, but because shortcuts don't exist everywhere, the people who seek shortcuts at every moment will suffer heavy losses. The obvious one is that they are in effect wasting time at every moment—because when no shortcut exists (in the great majority of cases) they still insist on looking for one; and because of this they may very well never reach the crossroads where a real shortcut exists (in a very small number of cases).

Actually, there's a tendency toward short-sightedness in our human genes—short-sightedness isn't any one person's flaw, but a flaw common to humankind. Dr. Geoffrey Miller (杰弗瑞●米勒; [Geoffrey Miller](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geoffrey_Miller_%28evolutionary_psychologist%29)), professor at the University of New Mexico, [describes it clearly and concisely](http://www.lixiaolai.com/archives/6764.html):

> Evolution is short-sighted. It cannot have long-term plans the way the management of a pharmaceutical company does (pharmaceutical companies usually spend ten-plus or even dozens of years continuously investing huge sums to develop a drug, and only after quite a long time can they earn huge profits). No species has any way to raise venture capital the way a pharmaceutical company does…… Every species must have a "surplus" (in the biological sense) in every generation of its evolution, or else it faces extinction……
> [Translator's note: quoted by the author: Geoffrey Miller's description, rendered here from Li Xiaolai's Chinese; not Li Xiaolai's words.]

Because of short-sightedness we often run into embarrassment, and, likewise because of short-sightedness, we insist on waiting until the embarrassment reaches a certain degree before we suddenly see the light. In the midst of seeing the light we face a practical problem—[there isn't enough time](http://www.lixiaolai.com/archives/421.html)—and so, without care, we take even more absurd actions ([almost everyone who vainly seeks quick results is like this](http://www.lixiaolai.com/archives/168.html)), until one day we are destined to experience even greater embarrassment, and so shallowness, restlessness, being easily fooled and cheated and so on become unavoidable personality traits. Think about it carefully and you'll find that even much of the time, when people sigh that "[in the jianghu, one is not one's own master](http://www.lixiaolai.com/archives/6283.html)," it is actually also caused by the short-sightedness in human nature that genes have destined.

Fighting against one's nature is not very easy, and few people succeed. But after all some people—even if only a minority—can do it. How do they do it? Basically two kinds of people can do it. The luckiest are the kind of whom it's said "fools have fools' luck," like Guo Jing (郭靖) in Jin Yong's novels—[lucky enough that they always meet benefactors](http://www.lixiaolai.com/archives/6592.html); and because they are simple-minded and obedient, without noticing they've already gone a long, long way down the road, and all the "primitive accumulation" forms naturally. The other kind relies on cultivating their own mind—which is what I call "[using the mind to gain liberation](http://www.lixiaolai.com/archives/464.html)."

I personally firmly believe in the "ten-thousand-hour principle"—doing anything requires accumulating ten thousand hours of experience to have expert-level ability. This isn't because I've read [Malcolm Gladwell's Outlier](http://www.lixiaolai.com/archives/2012.html) [Translator's note: so in the original; the book is Outliers]; in fact Gladwell is only citing [results scholars found long ago](http://www.lixiaolai.com/archives/1455.html):

> The research results of [Bryan & Harter](http://www.lixiaolai.com/archives/1455.html#bh) (1899), [Bloom](http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/034531509X/) (1985), [Hayes](http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0805803092) (1989) and [Simmon & Chase](http://www.lixiaolai.com/archives/1455.html#sc) (1973) [Translator's note: so spelled in the original; Simon & Chase is meant] show that in any field alike, it takes about ***ten years*** to possibly acquire professional-level skill, whether in chess, composing, painting, playing the piano, swimming, playing ball, or research in neuropsychology or topology. There simply is no shortcut in this matter. Even Mozart, when as a genius he published his first classic piece, had already been studying for 13 years (his talent showed at the age of 4); before the Beatles' "overnight fame" with Sgt. Peppers in 1967, they had already been performing in bars in Liverpool and Hamburg for as long as 10 years…… Samuel Johnson (萨谬·约翰逊; [Samuel Jahnson](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Johnson) [Translator's note: so spelled in the original link text], 1709-1784) thought ten years was not enough—it takes a lifetime. And Geoffrey Chaucer (杰弗雷·乔叟; [Geoffrey Chaucer](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geoffrey_Chaucer), 1343-1400) once complained, "life is short, the sea of learning is boundless"[[1](#footnote_0_6791 "“the life so short, the craft so long to lerne.”")]. Actually, Chaucer may also have said this out of a kindred feeling with the ancient Greek divine physician Hippocrates ([Hippocrates](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippocrates), c. 400BC). Hippocrates [Translator's note: the original writes 希波克拉, dropping the last syllable of the name 希波克拉底; Hippocrates is meant] once said, "Life is short, the sea of learning is boundless, opportunity is hard to seize, trying is perilous, judging is harder still."[[2](#footnote_1_6791 "Ars longa, vita brevis, occasio praeceps, experimentum periculosum, iudicium difficile; translated from Latin into English this passage is ”Life is short, [the] craft long, opportunity fleeting, experiment treacherous, judgment difficult.”")]

In a certain sense, Gladwell has already lowered the requirement: ***ten thousand hours***. Taking learning English as an example: studying three hours a day, you accumulate roughly a thousand hours over a year (not ruling out pausing for some days), so in total you need about ten years. If it's five hours a day, with even fewer days off each year, then five years is enough. If you start a bit earlier, for example [reading original English books](http://www.lixiaolai.com/archives/5087.html) every day from the first year of senior high (actually also learning English in class), then by around the third year of university you will basically have completed an astonishing accumulation that others can't hope to match.

In fact, I don't think Gladwell had no basis for changing "ten years" into "ten thousand hours." In a certain sense, the progress of technology and the development of society have indeed made learning easier than in the past. If Marco Polo lived today, not riding a camel but taking a plane, with a laptop in hand that can connect to the internet at any time, equipped with all kinds of electronic dictionaries, then I guess Marco Polo could not only learn foreign languages (including Chinese) faster, but also learn more kinds of languages. (Of course, our classmate Marco Polo might also become "internet-addicted"[[3](#footnote_2_6791 "This is an almost uniquely Chinese 'word'……")], or get hooked on video games, and then not bother to travel the world……) Only twenty years ago, learning a foreign language was still an exceptionally hard thing; but today we have electronic dictionaries we can carry with us, [search engines](http://www.lixiaolai.com/archives/992.html) that can find anything, an all-encompassing, constantly updated [Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org), endless dazzling American TV series, [audiobooks](http://www.douban.com/doulist/243468/) you can never finish downloading or listening to, chat rooms you can log into at any time for a particular region of an English-speaking country……

And most people don't need to learn English to the level of a "world-class expert"; in fact, they only need to reach a good enough level (no need for "the best," just "*good enough*"). In this case, never mind ten years—perhaps you don't even need ten thousand hours; quite possibly, all told, ***three years of unremitting persistence is enough***. For modern people, whose average life expectancy keeps increasing, three years really isn't too long—only, our genes often make it hard for us to persist even for three months, even though, generally speaking, whatever you do, once you've persisted past three months it's hard to give up……

Three years. Keep this term firmly in mind. It will keep you from arrogance and impatience; it will make those temptations (such as textbooks and training courses that tout "quick results" and "techniques") lose all appeal in front of you; it will [make time your friend](http://www.lixiaolai.com/archives/464.html), keeping you company all the way. When you reach the end and look back into the distance, three years is very short. But at the starting point, three years seems very long. At the starting point you have only one way: use your mind to understand the *real length* of three years. And then go calmly and do the work. There's nothing to learning English; one sentence is enough: "[Read diligently](http://www.lixiaolai.com/archives/250.html), [read aloud diligently](http://www.lixiaolai.com/archives/5150.html), diligently [consult dictionaries](http://www.lixiaolai.com/archives/933.html) and [grammar books](http://www.lixiaolai.com/archives/263.html)."

---

Footnotes:

1. "the life so short, the craft so long to lerne." [[↩](#identifier_0_6791)]
2. Ars longa, vita brevis, occasio praeceps, experimentum periculosum, iudicium difficile; translated from Latin into English this passage is "Life is short, [the] craft long, opportunity fleeting, experiment treacherous, judgment difficult." [[↩](#identifier_1_6791)]
3. This is an almost uniquely Chinese "word"…… [[↩](#identifier_2_6791)]

Copyright: © LookMinds. Our own edited text and translation, not a substitute for the original; rights in the original belong to the author and the platform. Please see the original link.