Hacker News Reader

Comment by GuiA | Hacker News Reader

Since many comments in this thread converge towards language pronunciation:

When people are learning how to draw, they typically have to learn how to "unsee". To quote Betty Edwards:

students beginning in art generally do not really see what is in front of their eyes — that is, they do not perceive in the way required for drawing. They take note of what's there, and quickly translate the perception into words and symbols mainly based on the symbol system developed throughout childhood and on what they know about the perceived object.

Learning how to pronounce sounds in a new language is the same. A lot of people will pronounce foreign words with how their brain thinks it should sound, using their native language as a baseline. The trick is to try to get rid of any phonetic preconception you might have, and pronounce sounds as you hear them from native speakers. It takes practice, but it's a learnable skill.

(Which is why romanization of Asian languages, for instance, is a trap for new learners: if you're learning Japanese, the latin alphabet should have no place whatsoever in your learning. It's a tempting, but false path)

For drawing like for speaking, kids are naturally good at this. (except while language acquisition happens naturally for kids, deliberate drawing practice rarely does)

View on HN

The romanisation part is ridiculous, but pops up all the time.

English and French spelling is as far removed from each other as anything. Anybody learning a foreign language will have to come to terms with the fact that the letters work slightly-to-moderately different for each language, whether those are European or Asian languages. Danish and Swedish are practically dialects of each other, but the spelling and pronunciation are miles apart. Trying to read one with the usage of the other will sound as stilted as any transliteration of any "non-alphabet" language.

Alphabet is the only official way to type out pronunciation of mainland Chinese, so trying to avoid the alphabet for Chinese is basically impossible.

Vietnamese, like several other Asian languages is Alphabet with diatrics, so again, you have to use Alphabet. There is nothing magical about Asian languages that gets contaminated by the Alphabet.

As for Japanese, the kana alphabet can be transcribed to Alphabet without information loss, so it is in no way a poor substitute. You also have to learn romanisations in order to type on a keyboard.

The bottom line is, you have to learn new sounds when learning a new language and you have to learn new spelling. shi in Japanese or Chinese are quite close to English, at least compared to how close ta is to the English pronunciation of "shi", so the alphabet acts as a nice mnemonic structure for learners.

The way i understood the GP is that Japanese has the benefit of having its own writing system so you won't get so easily lured into mapping sounds to back your own (assumedly latin script based) language. Use that as an opportunity and avoid the Latin alphabet altogether.

When learning French you don't have that opportunity so you're going to keep having to remind yourself that not a single character in a French word sounds like what it does on your native language.

I've seen this in action when learning Finnish, a long time ago, in a class full of expats. Most Germans had serious trouble with the ä, which sounds entirely different in Finnish than in German. They would consistently pronounce it like in German, which made them sound ridiculous. The rest of the class, whose native language alphabet didn't contain the ä, got their pronunciation much closer to the real thing. I can only imagine how powerful this is if not a single character, but the entire script, is different from your native language.

I'm not sure about Finnish but learning German and Czech as an English native the "uncanny valley" of familiar consonants (and familiar vowels with funky headgear) was only a stumbling block for the first few weeks or so in my experience.

Every now and then I'll mess up when reading out loud a "c" ("ts" in Czech) if I'm not paying attention, or writing "ch" instead of "č" - but that's pretty rare.

It's not the letters that mess me up, but the "false friends" - words that look similar to some in English and that can be a pretty big deal. I'm gonna write something in weird pseudo-code, because I can't express it cleanly in English.

    German.ja == English.yes
    Czech.já == English.me

So if you learned both Czech/German as a second language you can have moments of "wait, wtf!?" here and there. Also:

    English.my == Czech.[moje,můj]*
    Czech.my == English.we

More? Why not:

    English.no == Czech.ne
    English.yes == Czech.ano (shortened to "no")

So a Czech person agreeing to go for a beer with you might say "no" meaning "yes". There's some other good ones in Czech actually - the word "poluce" looks like "pollution" but actually means "emission of semen in sleep".

If it sounds like I'm complaining then I'm not - I love all this weirdness :)

* = actually reflection and cases make this more complicated still - could also be mého/mému/mém/mým/své/svého/svému/svém/svým depending on context

Other half is Hungarian, she often uses "Not" in place of "No", "Did you make it to the school on time?" "Not".

Turns out that in Hungarian No/Not == Nem so when she translates it in her head she uses No/Not interchangeably and it's flip a coin on what comes out, I find it endearingly cute, "Did you remember the milk?" "Not!".

I still confuse her with "aye" as an affirmative yes (I'm from Yorkshire in England and we still use aye and to a lesser extent 'nay' as an emphatic no).

Obviously the solution is to use 'Yarp' and 'Narp' as replacements for English 'yes' and 'not'.

"Pollution" was used in English for the same purpose as the "poluce" you discovered in Czech:

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/pollution

"Recorded since the 1340s, as "discharge of semen other than during sex", later, "desecration, defilement" (1382), from Late Latin pollutio ‎(“defilement”)"

Wow, I never thought to look up etymology of the word in English. Thanks!

>Alphabet is the only official way to type out pronunciation of mainland Chinese, so trying to avoid the alphabet for Chinese is basically impossible.

Chinese schoolchildren learn Pinyin before they learn Hanzi. Romanisation is only a problem if you're under the false assumption that these letters mean what you think they mean. It isn't hard to internalise the idea that j, x and q represent completely alien sounds that you must learn to recognise and reproduce.

> As for Japanese, the kana alphabet can be transcribed to Alphabet without information loss

Not quite true in reverse - lead and read, for example, would have the same kana but are different in english. That said, yeah I totally agree, there is nothing wrong with using the alphabet if you are mindful that there is a different phonetic 'mapping.'

> English and French spelling is as far removed from each other as anything.

English integrated many words from other languages, incl French -- due to migration, conquests etc. English people had the tendency to retain the original spelling but to pronounce the foreign words english. It is interesting to compare this to Spanish where, in many cases, foreign words are spelled differently but most often the original pronunciation is approximately retained.

> A lot of people will pronounce foreign words with how their brain thinks it should sound, using their native language as a baseline. The trick is to try to get rid of any phonetic preconception you might have, and pronounce sounds as you hear them from native speakers. It takes practice, but it's a learnable skill.

There's actually a trick that, for me at least, makes this a lot easier. If I learn to speak English with a heavy accent of someone with a different native language, it will then be easier to transition into speaking that other language. It almost separates learning a new language from learning to pronounce that language.

The key is that it's a lot easier for me to hear and practice the sounds of a new language when I can hear the differences between my pronunciation and correct pronunciation and it's most easy to hear those differences in my native language. With enough practice on the accent, the rhythms, tongue positioning and overall mouth habits that the speaker I'm aping hasn't yet learned to drop become second nature such that when I transition over to speaking that other language, I already have correct habits.

As an English speaker, it's so easy to find YouTube clips of people who barely speak English to copy that I can learn to do a pretty convincing accent in an afternoon at this point, though it took take me a couple of days the first few times I tried it.

> (Which is why romanization of Asian languages, for instance, is a trap for new learners: if you're learning Japanese, the latin alphabet should have no place whatsoever in your learning. It's a tempting, but false path)

I don't really believe this. Spanish, French, English, and Swahili are all written in the same alphabet, but have wildly different pronunciations. There's nothing magical about using Roman letters (and I have a chip on my shoulder about this after studying Japanese because, while converting Japanese to a romanized system has actual sound arguments against it, "it would sound like English" is trotted out constantly even though it's nonsense).

I'll use Thai as an example because I speak/read/write Thai, but the following is also true for most other languages...

If you were raised speaking english, then the roman letters of the english alphabet have distinct pronounciations/sounds to you. They make these sounds in your head when you read them. Someone born in mexico will have a different alphabet, and heck even australians and British people have different sounds for their letters than Americans. Heck even Americans from different regions have different sounds.

The point is that Thai people make different noises when they speak. They do not have an "z" sound. Frankly, none of their sounds match up exactly to any of our sounds. When you spell thai words using the english alphabet, you will then tend to read the word back as you have written it, in English, and thus incorrectly. Thai letters have Thai sounds, so you should learn this second alphabet and then you can read thai words by making the correct thai sounds.

If a language has an official transliteration system, such as pinyin for Chinese, then it may possibly work, but you are still essentially learning a second alphabet, merely one with the same shaped letters. For languages like Thai though, there is no official transliteration, and making your own and using it consistently would be more difficult than simply learning the Thai alphabet, and infact would more or less require learning the Thai alphabet.

For an extreme example, consider that African language that has the clicky sounds. How would you even begin to remember how a word sounds if you were storing it in your brain as text after transliterating it into the English alphabet? "Click clack click clack" is not the correct pronunciation.

Edit: I re-read your comment and see that you speak Japanese. You are using roman-looking letters, but you are surely being very careful to read the letters using Japanese sounds. Given that an alphabet is a set of letters that represent phonemes, are you really using the English alphabet or have you created a second, phonetic Japanese alphabet that happens to have identical shapes?

But we don't make people ignore Latin alphabet when switching from English to German, Spanish, etc.

Why would this predisposition of seeing alphabet as connected to own sounds be worse with languages that don't use it natively?

If anything, English speakers have it easy - most English language has very loose connection between letters and sounds, i.e. most letters can be pronounced in wildly different ways depending on word or context. As such, English speakers should be used to constantly re-interpreting what a letter sequence sounds like - unlike those of us with phonetic language background, who are frankly constantly irked by English in this way ;)

Hey now, English was phonetic when we codified our spelling 500 years ago.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Vowel_Shift

English spelling wasn't really fully codified 500 years ago.

Japanese romanization is fairly standardized. Even if it weren't, creating in your mind a new alphabet for a new language using characters you already know isn't that much work compared to learning a new alphabet, and it's a good place to start learning a new language. Just don't use the crutch for too long and you'll be fine.

I read and write Japanese in the same insanely complicated and only partially phonetic script as everyone else does (what choice do you have?) but that's not my point. French "R" and English "R" are totally different sounds, right? And in Spanish the same letter represents still a different sound, right? So how can anyone with a straight face claim that if you started writing Japanese with Roman letters everyone would develop an English accent? The claim is ridiculous on its face.

Having learned Japanese as a native French speaker, I can guarantee you that it's true.

When French people learn English, they often fall into the trap of pronouncing it in a French way: the way they read it instead of how they hear it. There are many elements in the accent of French speakers in English that come from this.

If you use romanisation of a language like Japanese, you expose yourself to the same problem instead of learning directly with the original script. In addition, the most common romanisation of Japanese is designed to be readable by European language speakers (Hepburn) rather than just using the roman alphabet in a logical, direct application of the native script (Kunrei).

Having learned Japanese as a native English speaker, I disagree.

> When French people learn English, they often fall into the trap of pronouncing it in a French way: the way they read it instead of how they hear it.

People learning any foreign language often "fall into the trap" of pronouncing it using phonemes and intonation that are more appropriate for their native languages and I sat through enough reading aloud sessions in college to assure you that somebody reading in the native script can still speak in an awful accent.

I'd also point out that my experience of taking a few semesters of Japanese was that it's pronunciation is very phonetical, at least compared to actual romance languages, which lends itself well to romanized representation. I actually found it easier than a course I started that purported to teach us to read French, but had no emphasis on the spoken language. I had no idea how the words were supposed to sound as I tried to read it, so I really struggled to read it. I dropped the course because the idea of learning a language without speaking it seemed stupid to me.

I would like to hear your arguments against romanization if you feel up for it.

Polish is a great example of this. It looks like someone just mashed on the keyboard. There is a Polish mma fighter named Joanna Jedrzejczyk and no one has any clue how to say her last name.

私の考えは君と異なります。

I disagree entirely. ローマ字 is a terrible trap for beginners and it does affect their pronunciation. It is why so many people struggle with the Japanese "r" and つ. It is why people pronounce "せんぱい" incorrectly. Do you see it romanized as "senpai" or "sempai"? Both of those differ greatly for beginners. It is why they learn 言う incorrectly. It is always romanized "iu" though it is pronounced "yuu" and unless you are told or are listening to how natives say it, you will learn it wrong.

Should ようこ be romanized as "yoko", "youko", or "yōko"? Would you read any of these differently from one another? The answer should be "yes" because よこ is not equivalent to ようこ but in some romanizations you will see them be equivalent.

It's a big wake up call when you visit Japan and realize you're completely illiterate outside of English signs (if you are in 京都 or 東京). If you did not study Kana you will not be able to read anything. My first recommendation for learners is to learn Kana and completely abandon romanizations entirely.

E: Speaking of 東京. Is it romanized "Tokyo" or "Toukyou"? Which of these do you think most people, including learners, see it as? Can you see how they end up pronouncing it incorrectly because of how it is romanized?

I don't think it's easier to learn that せんぱい is pronounced with an [m] sound than it is to learn that "senpai" is pronounced with an [m] sound. Beginners can be just as surprised by the different pronunciations of ん as they are by "n". The real difficulty is in internalizing the alien, regular phonological rules of Japanese. Likewise, people struggle with the Japanese "r" because it isn't a natural sound for them. Having the romanized spelling around just makes it easier to blame.

Long and short vowels must obviously be distinguished. I think either yōko or yooko are fine. Either Tōkyō or Tookyoo will let a beginner pronounce the word correctly. Some prefer youko and it works fine in almost all cases too, but perhaps there's no real value in clinging to the accidental way with which hiragana happens to represent long vowels; it isn't inherent to the language. Besides, there's a small added benefit in disambiguating real [ou] pronunciations like omou.

Your point about visiting Japan is well-put. There's no arguing with the fact that anyone who wishes to understand Japanese should learn kana and kanji. But I think that there's a real value in putting emphasis on the spoken language first, and a well-developed minority tradition of teaching Japanese like this in a serious manner, not as a crutch. E.g. Eleanor Jorden's JSL textbook follows this principle, as do a number of other textbooks and guides.

"To get started in learning to read modern Japanese along the correct lines, it is essential that first of all you have some knowledge of the modern spoken language. This is so important that it is well to emphasize it strongly from the beginning - contrary to what you may think, you undoubtedly will not make the best progress in learning to read Japanese by starting in your study of the language directly with reading and writing in the Japanese script. Some previous work with spoken Japanese is essential, and the better your grasp of the patterns and the forms of the spoken language, the faster and surer will be your progress with the reading materials in this book" (Roy Andrew Miller, _A Japanese Reader_).

This is more eloquent than I was. I'd also add that my original argument was not about whether it's practical not to learn to write Japanese but about whether there is some intrinsic linguistic reason they couldn't adapt a romanized spelling reform if the will were there (I think it's totally clear there isn't)

Fair enough. I suppose the problem is less "being able to say some phrases in Japanese" and more with "actually understanding Japanese grammar". Perhaps a better example would have been trying to explain the topic particle 「は」. Try to explain how it is written "ha" but spoken "wa" without referencing the Kana. For learners who study Kana there is some slight confusion why it is read "wa" but they're able to quickly pick up on the distinction between "used in a word" and "used as a particle". They might read it as "ha" a few times but I've never experience someone showing difficulty with it. You can't even explain the concept in a meaningful way without kana.

But that is not currently the case in the most popular romanization method (Hepburn). 日本式 is the "better way" for learners but Hepburn is used for foreigners and learners because of how prevalent it is.

The two largest grammar guides that I see shared in /r/learnjapanese, and on the internet in general, are imabi.net and Tae Kim's Guide to Learning Japanese. Both of which advocate studying Kana and abandoning ローマ字 ASAP. The first result for "learning japanese" is Tae Kim's guide and on one of the very first lessons it even opens with this comic [0].

I take the quote you quoted more as "Don't try to learn Japanese grammar by reading a Japanese grammar book" and less as "Don't try to learn Japanese grammar in English but explaining the fundamentals using Kana." It talks about all reading being in Kana/Kanji rather than just the important bits.

[0] http://i.imgur.com/A5vxfio.png

> Try to explain how it is written "ha" but spoken "wa" without referencing the Kana.

Unless your object is to learn writing, specifically, why is it important? It's like learning homophonous spellings in English -- it has no bearing whatever on the spoken language.

Tae Kim has put together a nice site but he's an amateur without much knowledge of linguistics.

「日本語が知っています」と「日本語が話せます」が違います。

I actually think this is because our opinions differ. I'm running under the assumption that "learning Japanese" involves all aspects, spoken and written. You're running under the assumption that "learning Japanese" involves only being able to speak the language.

You're correct. If someone's only goal is to learn to speak a language - then they don't need the writing system and can use romanizations with little issue. However, when (not if) they decide to learn the writing system they're shooting themselves in the foot and doing themselves a disservice. They may not decide to learn the written form for an entire decade, but if they ever live in a country where they need to use the language on a daily basis - the country isn't going to change all their signs to romanizations of the language just so they can find their way around town.

> I actually think this is because our opinions differ. I'm running under the assumption that "learning Japanese" involves all aspects, spoken and written. You're running under the assumption that "learning Japanese" involves only being able to speak the language.

You've rather misconstrued what I'm saying. I object, specifically, to the idea that the writing system determines pronunciation. It's also less than clear (it is contentious among educators, at any rate) that learning the writing system first is the best way to learn Japanese -- although, hey it worked for me.

If you want to argue that you have to learn the writing system that Japanese people use to read and write Japanese and hope to have people understand you, well, of course that's true, but it's so blindingly obvious I don't know why you feel the need to argue about it.

> the country isn't going to change all their signs to romanizations of the language just so they can find their way around town.

Probably a bad example since you have to go pretty damn far afield before the signs aren't all also in the Roman alphabet.

Also, nobody says "x-go ga sittemasu" to mean "I know such-and-such a language."

> It is why so many people struggle with the Japanese "r" and つ.

No it isn't. It's because those sounds do not appear in the same positions in English. These arguments are both tired and completely ignorant.

>, and pronounce sounds as you hear them from native speakers. It takes practice, but it's a learnable skill.

This sounds plausible and I want it to be true but I have doubts that every phoneme of every world language can be discriminated by adults after the early-childhood language acquisition. (The so-called "critical period."[1]).

I think a fascinating example even within one language such as English is the "pin" vs "pen" pronunciation.[2]

And plenty of other 2nd-language learning examples such as English speakers missing the delicate "zh" sound in French "bonjour" and always pronouncing it with the hard "j" -- or trying to pronounce the Vietnamese "Nguyen" as "when" or "win". There's a (tonal) phoneme in Vietnamese that's nonexistent in English so it's very possible English listeners can't even hear it as a new distinct sound they have to replicate. The "when" or "win" is the closest approximation they will ever hear and because of that, they will always sound non-native.

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_period#Second_languag...

[2]https://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/14y6tc/til_m...

It's really funny:

"In Alabama, both are pronounced "pee-uhn." People made fun of me when I first moved here for pronouncing pen as "pehn" and pin as, well "pin."

hawklawson: "Can I borrow a pehn?"

people: "Hahaha you need a 'pun'? Say it agin..."

And, to this day, when I'm scheduling appointments for patients over the phone...

hawklawson: "I have an opening for tehn o'clock."

people: "Huh? Whee-uhn j'you say?"

hawklawson: "I have an opening for tee-uhn a'clawk."

people: "Alrighty then put 'er down."

Source: I can turn my southern accent on and off."

And living for more than a decade in the country that simply can't produce some sounds of my mother's tongue, I catch myself having more problems voicing them. I know the difference but it's somehow harder, without the environment and the context. Somehow the tongue becomes almost numb to move like before.

Also from the South. When we hosted foreign exchange students growing up, the hardest thing for them to hear was "can" versus "can't". Since the "t" is silent, it really is just a subtle nuance in the way the "n" is pronounced, with drastically different results if misheard or misunderstood.

> I have doubts that every phoneme of every world language can be discriminated by adults after the early-childhood language acquisition

Based on my own experience of emigrating to a country using a different language than my native tongue, I think it can be done over time, but my understanding is that we use a different part of the brain for languages learned late in life.

Wikipedia has very good resources on the International Phonetic Alphabet: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Phonetic_Alphabe...

But the question is why you would want to do that? No human can speak all the world's languages, or realistically more than a few languages. This article is about a woman who is performing only in English.

It is certainly true that non-native speakers can learn a language quite well, after years of immersion and studied effort. Personally I don't think it's impossible for language learners to achieve native-level competence; I just think the number of people who achieve higher levels of competence decreases exponentially.

>This sounds plausible and I want it to be true but I have doubts that every phoneme of every world language can be discriminated by adults after the early-childhood language acquisition.

It's almost trivial if you're trained to listen rather than decode. Opera singers can achieve perfect pronunciation of languages they don't comprehend at all, through the use of IPA. The words are absolutely meaningless to them, they're just very precisely recreating a certain set of sounds. Their musical listening skills transfer directly into pronunciation.

If you can learn to sing Sygyt as an adult, I think you can cope with a couple of tricky phonemes in a foreign language.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4_14pb2i6Sc

Like OP, I think that the comparison with visual art is very apt. Most people see on a functional level, identifying objects rather than seeing their literal forms. As a result, they tend to draw the abstract idea of a thing rather than the literal appearance of a thing. Learning to draw involves unlearning that windows are rectangular, that chairs have legs of equal length, that a soccer ball is spherical.

If we're primed to pay attention to one thing, it vastly diminishes our ability to recognise other things:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ubNF9QNEQLA

I feel the need to point out that IPA is insufficiently granular to truly capture the pronunciation of all the world's languages. It's basically a discrete approximation of what is an infinite, continuous space. I'm sure, though, that it can be very useful for opera singers and as an IPA fan I'm glad to see it get a mention :-)

I agree with the idea but disagree about the romanisation part. There are many reasons why people should start with romanised versions first. The main reason is that one should concentrate on the language first and on complex writing later, otherwise there is too much information to process. The other reason is that any useful actual writing in those languages will be done in the romanised alphabet (i.e.: on a computer). The barrier of unlearning the pronunciation of different characters is no larger when learning Chinese pinyin while being english, than learning Slovak pronunciations of Latin letters while being French.

With Japanese learners at least, you can tell with a great deal of accuracy whether someone used a romanization crutch or native script from the get-go based on how bad their accent is (anecdotal, but observation over many students). I'm don't know if this holds true of Chinese, though.

Hiragana and katakana are pretty easy to learn, so if someone doesn't learn them quickly, it might be evidence they aren't working hard or efficiently to learn the language or aren't really ambitious. Chinese characters are a different story. I studied Chinese intensively for a year, and now I know almost know Chinese. I blame my failure partly on being forced to learn the characters from the beginning. The characters took 90% of my study time.

A similar comparison would be learning Bopomofo and using that when knowledge of the characters fails.

Is that because learning the kana helps? Or because being willing to learn to kana upfront is correlated with being willing to put effort into learning pronunciation?

Probably both. I think kana helps you process the words as sequences of "syllables" instead of characters. At least it did for me. I suppose that English speakers would get even more benefits because English pronunciation is often very far from how a word is written and sometimes doesn't make much sense.

I agree with you completely and I even developed an open -source writing system called Eskéndereyya [1] to help learners of Arabic in reading and pronunciation and to prepare them to make the jump to the Arabic script very confidently because I noticed that some beginners are put off by the notion of learning a completely new script just to read and write few sentences and when taking into account how usually Arabic is communicated in writing without diacritics, it becomes very frustrating for them to get any immediate return for their efforts to learn the language.

[1]: https://github.com/samihasan/eskendereyya

agree 100%. And can't recommend her (Betty Edwards') book enough. http://drawright.com/

I think this likely also works for perfect pitch - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t3Cb1qwCUvI.

Neuroplasticity is very different for kids, but there are probably techniques that can enable learning like this with adults - just takes longer.

Betty Edward's book is horrendously misleading to a serious artist. Her book rewards the user with false sense of skill - learn to draw what you see and not what you know. This is easy to do and she has garnered a tremendous support. Any serious artist who is seeking to truly learn how to draw must go through the fundamentals of construction and being able to draw the same thing from a different viewpoint/angle. Try that with Betty's book where one learns how to draw from a reference without understanding the structure. The reader gets to produce nice looking results, but they will miserably fail when asked to draw the same exact subject from a different angle. This indicates lack of fundamental understanding of how to transform 3D objects/scenes into 2D plane. One has to learn how to internalize the object and its structure before putting it down on paper. Betty's book also is riddled with pseudoscience and baseless claims of how the human brain works.

I agree the books claims about the brain are mostly nonsense, but it does teach you to draw what you see, instead of what you think you see. I think that is a great first step in learning how to draw, feels very satisfying and gets results quickly

I think that is the problem - learning what you see is flawed and shouldn't be the first step. If you look at Vilppu's drawing manual, or take the Fundamentals of Drawing class at Watts Atelier, and countless credible university courses, what you'll find is opposite of "learning what you see". I can understand that drawing a cube, cone, cylinder is very boring but so is learning chords or music theory in practicing Guitar.

That said, if one doesn't want to take drawing seriously and just want to have fun (See conflicting Amazon reviews on Betty's book), Betty's book perhaps is entertaining. I just have a problem with its popularity and will probably lead people into delusion that somehow they have managed to conquer the drawing. Drawing is hard.

I also lose respect for authors that despite of knowing nothing about the field or making any attempts to study/understand, they have the audacity to publish their own version of "how the brain works". It bothers me.

Indeed. And just as most people can't see things accurately, not can they sense what's going on inside their mouths. AFAICT each accent has a signature pattern of muscle tension and positioning of jaw, pharynx, etc.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com