3 ms·

But it definitely lulls people into a false sense of security. The ads make it seem like the language just seeps into your brain because of 15 min on the app a

But it definitely lulls people into a false sense of security. The ads make it seem like the language just seeps into your brain because of 15 min on the app a day. When in reality you learn very little.

comfypotato 3y ago
Your viewpoint definitely agrees with the majority of commenters here, but if you read the immediately surrounding context you’ll see that there is strong opposition. The takeaway is that Duolingo has definitely made learning the basics possible where every other popular alternative has failed for many people.
- hydrok9 3y ago
  I have my own anecdotal evidence, which is that a large quantity of people use this because they really do think they can use it and only it to learn a language, and don't really grasp how much of it is just a game. But I'm not disputing that Duolingo has uses and that its helped a lot of people.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - comfypotato 3y ago
    Your “anecdotal” snark is unwelcome. What’s your purpose here? It’s been communicated that Duolingo is the only thing that works for me and others, and you continue to make time to berate the tool. It comes across that you’re a language learning snob, a gatekeeper, or both. Kindly let me enjoy myself in peace.
    - hydrok9 3y ago
      Im saying it (meaning "Duolingo's marketing") lulls a lot of people into a false sense of security, as witnessed by myself. It doesn't mean the app doesn't work for others in various ways.
      - comfypotato 3y ago
        The proposition that people think Duolingo is the only option is absurd. Duolingo is slower than other methods, and it only progresses through the basics of any language. It only covers the fundamentals of some languages. Fluency necessitates other mediums, and this is obvious to any user. Nobody thinks they’re fluent after Duolingo. Duolingo covers the hardest part, the beginning, of learning a language. If at this point you say that you have met Duolingo-ers who claim fluency (but lack it) then we circle back around to the top-level comment. It’s your word against mine, and I say there’s no way you know many people who have spent the hundreds of hours required to learn a language. 10 years of daily lessons for an English speaker just to learn Spanish. (Spanish is the only Duolingo course that holds a candle for any level of fluency.) The point is that nobody would adopt Duolingo when they needed to speak well quickly. Its target audience is people who casually want to learn a language and don’t have the motivation to use better tools. These people effectively have no other option, and shitting on the only thing that works for them makes you a gatekeeper and a snob.
        hydrok9 3y ago
        Why do you think no one would adopt Duolingo to speak well quickly? Because that's definitely not the case. I am telling you that I personally know many people (10+), who said "I saw that you can use this Duolingo app to become fluent in French/Spanish/Japanese, and all it takes is 15 minutes a day! That's perfect!" Because they saw it in the advertising. They did not look up how many years that would take, they did not grasp the fact that they are being gamified, they did not grasp the fact that they were learning in a slow and inefficient way, and they were 100% excited to learn a language quickly and painlessly entirely because of Duolingo's promises. And cost ("why would i pay hundreds of dollars for a course when Duolingo is free!"). So yeah, Duolingo's marketing definitely makes it seem like becoming fluent is "easy" if you use their app. And it isn't. That doesn't make it useless, that doesn't mean it's a waste of time if it helps you learn things about the language or move on to a different program. I am not "shitting" on anyone, I'm pointing out a pretty obvious marketing angle by Duolingo that does dupe people, and I really don't see how that's gatekeeping.

comfypotato 3y ago

Your viewpoint definitely agrees with the majority of commenters here, but if you read the immediately surrounding context you’ll see that there is strong opposition. The takeaway is that Duolingo has definitely made learning the basics possible where every other popular alternative has failed for many people.

hydrok9 3y ago
I have my own anecdotal evidence, which is that a large quantity of people use this because they really do think they can use it and only it to learn a language, and don't really grasp how much of it is just a game. But I'm not disputing that Duolingo has uses and that its helped a lot of people.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- comfypotato 3y ago
  Your “anecdotal” snark is unwelcome. What’s your purpose here? It’s been communicated that Duolingo is the only thing that works for me and others, and you continue to make time to berate the tool. It comes across that you’re a language learning snob, a gatekeeper, or both. Kindly let me enjoy myself in peace.
  - hydrok9 3y ago
    Im saying it (meaning "Duolingo's marketing") lulls a lot of people into a false sense of security, as witnessed by myself. It doesn't mean the app doesn't work for others in various ways.
    - comfypotato 3y ago
      The proposition that people think Duolingo is the only option is absurd. Duolingo is slower than other methods, and it only progresses through the basics of any language. It only covers the fundamentals of some languages. Fluency necessitates other mediums, and this is obvious to any user. Nobody thinks they’re fluent after Duolingo. Duolingo covers the hardest part, the beginning, of learning a language. If at this point you say that you have met Duolingo-ers who claim fluency (but lack it) then we circle back around to the top-level comment. It’s your word against mine, and I say there’s no way you know many people who have spent the hundreds of hours required to learn a language. 10 years of daily lessons for an English speaker just to learn Spanish. (Spanish is the only Duolingo course that holds a candle for any level of fluency.) The point is that nobody would adopt Duolingo when they needed to speak well quickly. Its target audience is people who casually want to learn a language and don’t have the motivation to use better tools. These people effectively have no other option, and shitting on the only thing that works for them makes you a gatekeeper and a snob.
      - hydrok9 3y ago
        Why do you think no one would adopt Duolingo to speak well quickly? Because that's definitely not the case. I am telling you that I personally know many people (10+), who said "I saw that you can use this Duolingo app to become fluent in French/Spanish/Japanese, and all it takes is 15 minutes a day! That's perfect!" Because they saw it in the advertising. They did not look up how many years that would take, they did not grasp the fact that they are being gamified, they did not grasp the fact that they were learning in a slow and inefficient way, and they were 100% excited to learn a language quickly and painlessly entirely because of Duolingo's promises. And cost ("why would i pay hundreds of dollars for a course when Duolingo is free!"). So yeah, Duolingo's marketing definitely makes it seem like becoming fluent is "easy" if you use their app. And it isn't. That doesn't make it useless, that doesn't mean it's a waste of time if it helps you learn things about the language or move on to a different program. I am not "shitting" on anyone, I'm pointing out a pretty obvious marketing angle by Duolingo that does dupe people, and I really don't see how that's gatekeeping.