Page 1 of 1

Scared to wild

Posted: 17 Jun 2016 01:11
by Rami
Can anyone tell me how the got over SP and how you went through it? Ive tried to WILD, but when im about to try I stop myself because I don't wanna experience SP

Re: Scared to wild

Posted: 17 Jun 2016 18:46
by Knife
I only have few experience with trying to WILD, but I'd say to not let your fears control you. Remember, IF you would get SP, it's only scary for a short time. I mean, you might experience the scariest thing ever but it doesn't last forever. Such an experience might even affect you positivly in the end.

I had the same fear a long time ago, but while I only hadf 1 succesful WILD attempt and no signs of SP, I put the fear aside. Experiencing SP is actually on my bucketlist. Face your biggest fears and be FREE!! :!: :!: :mrgreen:

Re: Scared to wild

Posted: 17 Jun 2016 22:28
by Summerlander
Knife is right about fear. Just remember to stay calm and don't panick when and if you happen to reach SP. The same goes for people who manage to lucid dream for the first time and find it scary. The dream world cannot harm you because it is happening in your mind. 8-)

Re: Scared to wild

Posted: 19 Jun 2016 14:04
by Unicorn2000
It is normal to be afraid of SP. But just remember it's just for a short amount of time (for me, it lasts only 5-10s before I start lucid dreaming). It is also an experience you must try in your life. It was actually cool for me to get through it.
You will only feel your body itching, just relax as you don't need to freak out. I didn't even notice I couldn't move since it was so funny.

Re: The Marriage Between Language and Instinct

Posted: 21 Jun 2016 00:52
by Summerlander
Knife wrote:Isn't that because children learn from observation? If they grow up hearing everyone talking don't they automatically learn some of those rules?


They certainly learn from their parents and culture still plays a role. But there are certain things that they pick up on without having been told. They'll inadvertently detect a linguistic pattern and apply it without being told by parents that such rule is part of the language. This is actually universal in all languages.

Of course, this innate propensity for assumption can also lead to errors, such as saying 'catched' instead of 'caught'. But there is an inner expectation for rules, an instinctive readiness to absorb a linguistic structure useful for communication.

When adults attempt to learn a second language, they require more attention and be more analytical---not so much instinct anymore. That's why people learn second languages quicker by socialising with native speakers than in the classroom where the context requires you to regard the rules in detail.

Knife wrote:Let's say an indonesian kid is born in London, the mother dies while giving birth but the kid is perfectly healthy and is transferred to foster parents. Will the kid have trouble applying the "second verb at the beginning"-rule? Will he have trouble with language because he has indonesian instinct instead of english instinct?


LOL! :-D

No! You've misunderstood. There is no such thing as Indonesian instinct or English instinct. What I'm talking about is more universal and an innate instinct to quickly adapt to the language they are first exposed to.

In the case you provided, the mother is Indonesian but the kid will become fully English linguistically because he is subsequently reared by an English foster family. The same would be true if an American kid was raised in Japan---he or she would be Japanese.

Knife wrote:If the kid picks up the rules of the language isn't it still being taught in some way?


Not exactly. Codebreakers during WWII were listening in on their enemies and learning about their strategies, but they were certainly not talk by the enemy. This is analogous to those instances where parents have not taught their children the rules but these have figured them out instead. ;-)

Knife wrote:Nature vs nurture y'all

(Or did I miscomprehend your post because of my dutch instinct? :shock: :mrgreen: )


I would say 'versus'. I'd say nature and nurture combining their influences. Even English speakers can break their rules over an innate understanding that regards a manner of speaking comprehensible nonetheless. For instance, the queen of England would regard the double or even tripple negatives in Ebonics---such as, 'Don't nobody go nowhere!'---as incorrect English, but such manner of speaking is agreed upon by the French and is still understood on a cosmopolitan level. 8-)

Re: The Marriage Between Language and Instinct

Posted: 21 Jun 2016 21:39
by Knife
Summerlander wrote:
Knife wrote:Isn't that because children learn from observation? If they grow up hearing everyone talking don't they automatically learn some of those rules?


They certainly learn from their parents and culture still plays a role. But there are certain things that they pick up on without having been told. They'll inadvertently detect a linguistic pattern and apply it without being told by parents that such rule is part of the language. This is actually universal in all languages.

Of course, this innate propensity for assumption can also lead to errors, such as saying 'catched' instead of 'caught'. But there is an inner expectation for rules, an instinctive readiness to absorb a linguistic structure useful for communication.

When adults attempt to learn a second language, they require more attention and be more analytical---not so much instinct anymore. That's why people learn second languages quicker by socialising with native speakers than in the classroom where the context requires you to regard the rules in detail.

Knife wrote:Let's say an indonesian kid is born in London, the mother dies while giving birth but the kid is perfectly healthy and is transferred to foster parents. Will the kid have trouble applying the "second verb at the beginning"-rule? Will he have trouble with language because he has indonesian instinct instead of english instinct?


LOL! :-D

No! You've misunderstood. There is no such thing as Indonesian instinct or English instinct. What I'm talking about is more universal and an innate instinct to quickly adapt to the language they are first exposed to.

In the case you provided, the mother is Indonesian but the kid will become fully English linguistically because he is subsequently reared by an English foster family. The same would be true if an American kid was raised in Japan---he or she would be Japanese.

Knife wrote:If the kid picks up the rules of the language isn't it still being taught in some way?


Not exactly. Codebreakers during WWII were listening in on their enemies and learning about their strategies, but they were certainly not talk by the enemy. This is analogous to those instances where parents have not taught their children the rules but these have figured them out instead. ;-)

Knife wrote:Nature vs nurture y'all

(Or did I miscomprehend your post because of my dutch instinct? :shock: :mrgreen: )


I would say 'versus'. I'd say nature and nurture combining their influences. Even English speakers can break their rules over an innate understanding that regards a manner of speaking comprehensible nonetheless. For instance, the queen of England would regard the double or even tripple negatives in Ebonics---such as, 'Don't nobody go nowhere!'---as incorrect English, but such manner of speaking is agreed upon by the French and is still understood on a cosmopolitan level. 8-)



Heey Summerlander you lost a post of yours? :mrgreen:

Re: Scared to wild

Posted: 21 Jun 2016 21:55
by Summerlander
What?! :shock:

What the fuck is my post doing here? :lol:

Re: Scared to wild

Posted: 22 Jun 2016 21:11
by Knife
LMAO :lol:

Re: Scared to wild

Posted: 22 Jun 2016 21:19
by Rami
Summerlander wrote:What?! :shock:

What the fuck is my post doing here? :lol:

Lol, I got so cunfused right there. :D

Re: Scared to wild

Posted: 23 Jun 2016 13:31
by Summerlander
Sorry, Rami! I didn't mean to hijack your thread! :-D