|
I felt this way in basically all Soc/Crim/Pol/Psy/Fem classes. The problem is that they attract the dumbest/laziest students (even if you are smart). You will really have to take the next level of education to see if people get smarter, but the issue with these degrees is they don't really weed out the dummies. Free marks for everyone, everyone passes... etc. Very hard to do badly in these subjects at the undergraduate level.
I don't mind intelligent discussion, questions, etc, but the people talking need to be competent and that simply doesn't exist in this situation. In some 3rd year psych classes (the last year of undergrad psych, although I'm not a psych major myself) I heard some really dumb things, so it really doesn't matter what year you're in for these degrees. One small comfort is knowing that the average to get to the next level of psych education is 90% +, so all of those dummies will be stuck with an undergrad psych degree. When you think about that number, it really expresses how much they don't want the typical psych student (and I'm not gonna lie, I have an even lower opinion of typical Soc students).
+ Show Spoiler +Sorry, but I have to admit I only skimmed your post and some responses.
|
On January 13 2012 12:47 Chef wrote:I felt this way in basically all Soc/Crim/Pol/Psy/Fem classes. The problem is that they attract the dumbest/laziest students (even if you are smart). You will really have to take the next level of education to see if people get smarter, but the issue with these degrees is they don't really weed out the dummies. Free marks for everyone, everyone passes... etc. Very hard to do badly in these subjects at the undergraduate level. I don't mind intelligent discussion, questions, etc, but the people talking need to be competent and that simply doesn't exist in this situation. In some 3rd year psych classes (the last year of undergrad psych, although I'm not a psych major myself) I heard some really dumb things, so it really doesn't matter what year you're in for these degrees. One small comfort is knowing that the average to get to the next level of psych education is 90% +, so all of those dummies will be stuck with an undergrad psych degree. When you think about that number, it really expresses how much they don't want the typical psych student (and I'm not gonna lie, I have an even lower opinion of typical Soc students). + Show Spoiler +Sorry, but I have to admit I only skimmed your post and some responses.
Some days I wish I could write a book off of your posts. So much truth.
|
On January 12 2012 09:28 Torte de Lini wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2012 09:21 KleineGeist wrote:
Would you give a few specific examples? As in, brief context behind and then your argument from your psychology example or another situation? I'm confused as to what you mean by "different," and slightly skeptical because in most situations where someone brings up a point and everyone reacts to it in the manner you describe, it's usually because it's a non sequitur or completely stupid. You do write intelligently and you seem to appraise situations very well, so I'm confused because it seems you would appraise your own situation well, too... so please, example? I'm trying to think of an example, but I don't feel I'm doing an accurate job of it. Let me try. Someone will say that they think powers and rational thought go together and that emotions is irrational and associated with women. I'll correct them and tell them: "I disagree and feel that power and emotionality are associated with one another through the approach of legitimate power such as charismatic leaders (Sarah Palin, Nixon, etc.) and that despite them being terrible people, they gained a legitimate form of power (of influence or other forms) by not only recognizing emotions that a collective society feels on general issues, but can also use those emotions to sway people in their favor. All in one sentence.
First of all, please go out and join a debating society ... now! It's fantastic way to help you take complex concepts and nuances, and phrase them in an effective, understandable and convincing way.
Ok let's dig into this: You've got a really good counter-example (one I wouldn't of been able to come up with on the fly) but it gets lost.
I disagree, they aren't so separate power and emotionality are associated with one another through the approach of[!!] legitimate power... For example, some charismatic leaders (such as Sarah Palin, Nixon, etc.) use rational thought to recognize and use (people's) emotions, thus gaining to gain legitimate form of power (of influence or other forms) power (over them). Just by emotional judgement people would not support them, but through the leader's understanding and rational thinking, they can curry favour/sway people in their favor.
Now you've got a whole 'nother scentence free to expand on whatever you want! I'd pick questioning the validity of this "legitimate-power"-gaining-mechanism if this is how people should gain power (is it right),
or,
"sometimes it's most rational to to refer to our emotional judgments (yay utilitarianism fails, galore).[u c wat I did thar?]... : both are very important (hurr durrr 'I dare do only what becomes a man, who does more....' ). FOURTUNATELY people are not simply computational machines (calculators) or a random jumble of emotions (a horoscope page), everyone's got some mix of both" which then leads to asking if 'rational thinking being able to triumph over emotion' is what makes us the superior spices on the planet', in that case where's the need for emotion etc.)
Verily, the subject matter of my advice has likely utterly undershot the degree of sophistication of the philosophical debate of your delectable institution's instructional establishments, however I beseech you to employ a dimishingly thorough vocabulary in the future.
Even when I'm not this tired I need double takes to get that.
In terms of subject matter and philosophy, your class is certainly way outta my league, but take my advice and use simpler/shorter/fewer less words. You'll get more ideas across in less space on an internet forum at least, though you'll loose clarification on nuances making it easier for people to pick at holes in what you've said. Heck, that's better than not being understood/engaged with at all!
EDIT: I apologize for throwing around philosophy, when it should probably be psychology...
|
On January 13 2012 12:47 Chef wrote:I felt this way in basically all Soc/Crim/Pol/Psy/Fem classes. The problem is that they attract the dumbest/laziest students (even if you are smart). You will really have to take the next level of education to see if people get smarter, but the issue with these degrees is they don't really weed out the dummies. Free marks for everyone, everyone passes... etc. Very hard to do badly in these subjects at the undergraduate level. I don't mind intelligent discussion, questions, etc, but the people talking need to be competent and that simply doesn't exist in this situation. In some 3rd year psych classes (the last year of undergrad psych, although I'm not a psych major myself) I heard some really dumb things, so it really doesn't matter what year you're in for these degrees. One small comfort is knowing that the average to get to the next level of psych education is 90% +, so all of those dummies will be stuck with an undergrad psych degree. When you think about that number, it really expresses how much they don't want the typical psych student (and I'm not gonna lie, I have an even lower opinion of typical Soc students). + Show Spoiler +Sorry, but I have to admit I only skimmed your post and some responses.
Keep skimming haha. Sociology has already been put down by myself and others and I clarified I was "smart" within the major, not outside. It's already been established that I said Sociology has a lot of leftover students who just want any old degree.
The viewpoint isn't also that I see everyone as dumb, but rather than my arguments aren't being understood because of the poor use of words and choices.
Really should be a disclaimer.
|
I'm curious how you go about solving this. When you do, let Gretorp know as well. Thanks.
On a more serious note, I'm not sure the problem is that you're smart. The problem is
1) You are unwilling to rearrange your ideas to helpfully communicate. You analyze things pretty thoroughly but you speak and write down your analysis in a stream-of-consciousness way. I never particularly appreciated Ulysses, and it's probably not the right way to approach being understandable.
You can break it down through structure. Short paragraphs, short sentences. Paragraphs start with thesis, end with conclusion, the middle is supporting arguments. Take a look at the sentences you write. Remove passive voice. Analyze every clause and ask yourself "What do these words mean and why are they there?" Sometimes you use a lot of words to establish a nuance. and too often you need to simply construct Subject-Verb-Object sentences. Simple example from above post (It isn't really that bad, compared to that White Rabbit sentence up top, but I'll just nitpick a bit to make my example).
It's already been established that I said What's wrong with "I've already said"?
2) You mentioned that the problem gets worse when you are under pressure. You might want to just get more practice in public speaking. Join your local Toastmasters club or something.
|
Do us a favor and switch to engineering or hard sciences from what you are doing now. IMHO your type of intelligence is more effective there AND you will learn to structure your argumentsi and keep them concise.
|
On January 13 2012 22:39 jacen wrote:
Do us a favor and switch to engineering or hard sciences from what you are doing now. IMHO your type of intelligence is more effective there AND you will learn to structure your argumentsi and keep them concise.
I think that the most rigorous field in this domain is philosophy, especially because it's not a hard science (well, not a science at all) and you have to sharpen and define very accurately your arguments yourself...
|
Come on Pastamancer! Don't leave us hanging! What happened today?!? Also, mind responding to my post on page 11? :3
-You may not want to continue this topic but we all want to learn the ending to the Pastamancer's Educational Crime Fighting Spree!
|
lol maybe sociology is just full of jargon but why don't you just try to make your language easier to understand
|
I've come to learn that 1. I'm not smart in my field, everyone's just retarded (well, it is Sociology)
and 2. Even if I speak slower, use questions to open the discussion wider and ensure my point is made with clear and concise explanations under a docile and inquisitve tone: the teacher still misinterprets (so she wasn't being snide when she says "can anyone translate", she literally does not understand) my arguments and the conversatil still dies because no one has anything to say (until she moves on to another aspect, to which I say my piece and it repeats).
You already know my example 3FFA, you p.med me >_>. A good example was that there was this girl that was talking about Stereotypes with in Disney movies (we saw this terrible anti-Disney documentary that was just horseshit of cherry-picking and overzealous parents or researchers that felt outdated Disney movies portrayed their minorities poorly and bla bla bla. There is a lot of truth to what they say, but they also advocate that movies such as Pochahantas should not be watched because it distorts the accuracy of a controversial history of a nation [and it does, but the children are fucking 7 to 9 years old for starters].
Long-story short, she said: "I don't think stereotypes are bad, I mean; there are no Italians in any Disney movie besides Lady & The Tramp where Luigi serves them spaghetti, has a mustache and has a stereotyped accent. I'm Italian and in my family, it's true that my grand-mother would feed you until you burst. It's a good way to identify Italians"
Like wtf, who the fuck advocates for stereotypes especially in movies on impressionable children? How can you say such a thing and the teacher fucking let's it go. She doesn't make a face, she doesn't disagree or give an opposing view. Thankfully another student argued against it saying that not all Italians are like that (a usual answer) bla bla bla [sorry, I quoted the Italian girl because her argument was easy to remember, not the one who argued against it however].
I raised my hand and said, exactly, casually with certitude: "I disagree. I feel that stereotypes should not be a way to identify minorities of other ethnic groups. I also feel that stereotypes within movies give a secluded notion of another race's culture (race is an improper term technically I believe, but I doubt they'd have corrected me). It gives the impression that if a child with an Italian background did not relate to the protrayal of an Italian within the movie, they might feel alienated by their own culture or people's history."
It's a mouthful, I guess. Seems easy to comprehend and I made sure to space my periods and brake between statements to allow ingestion. Teacher moved on :/
I'm going to the real discussion class now. Turns out I have this teacher in two of my classes, so I'm fucked either way. She misinterprets my argumetns a lot (I said that the documentary was ironic because it talked about gender separation within Disney films [princesses/women need saving and men are strong and courageous], but that when topics about children came up, all the interviewees were women. Anything about race portrayal came from, what would appear as (due to books always in the background), men and their arguments.
Somehow she understood that as the documentary displaying criticisms about women's portrayals in Disney films and not about men [which is similar, but not what I said]. I curiously asked the other students if that was what I said and half of them gave a sort of comedic smirk and shook their head as if saying: "Ha, no, not even close."
Ugh, this is my 300-level course, so non-major students sometimes take this course, but I mean... come on.
Ignore the errors, I'm typing this fast.
|
On January 14 2012 05:13 blankspace wrote:
lol maybe sociology is just full of jargon but why don't you just try to make your language easier to understand
It's really fucking not. The jargon is practically self-explanatory, even so. The class is for Sociology major students, you have to have taken 2 years of actual Sociology courses to take this level course (I'm on my second year, so I'm slightly ahead of the curve due to summer school).
|
On January 14 2012 05:19 Torte de Lini wrote:
I raised my hand and said, exactly, casually with certitude: "I disagree. I feel that stereotypes should not be a way to identify minorities of other ethnic groups. I also feel that stereotypes within movies give a secluded notion of another race's culture (race is an improper term technically I believe, but I doubt they'd have corrected me). It gives the impression that if a child with an Italian background did not relate to the protrayal of an Italian within the movie, they might feel alienated by their own culture or people's history."
I still had to read that twice in order to understand what you just said and even now I'm not so sure. But maybe I'm dumb. =X
Are you suggesting that the hypothetical Italian child would feel alienated or that others would think the Italian child would feel alienated because of what is shown onscreen?
|
Lol... That reaction from the class gives me the idea that you should consider bringing this up with your guidance counselor/principle/etc. Maybe ask your Principle/Guidance Counselor to sit in on the class and watch it go on and what happens? I usually go to them, ask them to not bring up with the teacher(at least, nothing other than that they have to sit and watch the class) until they sit on the class and watch what happens, taking notes, etc.
This should then show exactly whats going on. However, this brings up another question, does your Guidance Counselor feel the same about your speech?
edit: And yes, this type of situation where a teacher and I SERIOUSLY can NOT click has happened to me before. I acted accordingly by bringing it up with those that can fire her/ get her fired/ move me to another class. 
|
On January 14 2012 05:29 babylon wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2012 05:19 Torte de Lini wrote:
I raised my hand and said, exactly, casually with certitude: "I disagree. I feel that stereotypes should not be a way to identify minorities of other ethnic groups. I also feel that stereotypes within movies give a secluded notion of another race's culture (race is an improper term technically I believe, but I doubt they'd have corrected me). It gives the impression that if a child with an Italian background did not relate to the protrayal of an Italian within the movie, they might feel alienated by their own culture or people's history." I still had to read that twice in order to understand what you just said and even now I'm not so sure. But maybe I'm dumb. =X Are you suggesting that the hypothetical Italian child would feel alienated or that others would think the Italian child would feel alienated because of what is shown onscreen?
I'm suggesting this, I'll give you an example.
- Child sees Luigi, cartoon that portrays how Italians act when they're older (similar to how girls see princesses as slim and with long beautiful hair and think "I should look like that when I'm older)
- Child notices that people around him are not at all like Luigi and even himself doesn't have any traits like Luigi (stupid idea, but for instance Luigi serves Spaghetti and child has never had spaghetti before).
- Child grows up with the idea that he should act like Luigi or he won't be like the other general population of Italians
- Child grows up and sees he's not an Italian because he is nothing like what he saw as a child. Feels "anomie" or an alienation of his culture, may lead (for example) to depression or some shit
It doesn't happen to all and the counter to that argument is ezzzzzzzzzzzzz
Is it more clear?
|
On January 14 2012 05:30 3FFA wrote:Lol... That reaction from the class gives me the idea that you should consider bringing this up with your guidance counselor/principle/etc. Maybe ask your Principle/Guidance Counselor to sit in on the class and watch it go on and what happens? I usually go to them, ask them to not bring up with the teacher(at least, nothing other than that they have to sit and watch the class) until they sit on the class and watch what happens, taking notes, etc. This should then show exactly whats going on. However, this brings up another question, does your Guidance Counselor feel the same about your speech? edit: And yes, this type of situation where a teacher and I SERIOUSLY can NOT click has happened to me before. I acted accordingly by bringing it up with those that can fire her/ get her fired/ move me to another class.
There are guidance counselors in Uni? Do thye really come in class?
|
Man your course really sucks dude, whether its the teacher or the students, man it just sucks. Whenever a topic came up that people felt strongly about in my class we would have debates popping up and going wild, imo its a great way to learn and use your knowledge. An instructor that discourages that is awful.
|
On January 14 2012 05:36 Torte de Lini wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2012 05:30 3FFA wrote:Lol... That reaction from the class gives me the idea that you should consider bringing this up with your guidance counselor/principle/etc. Maybe ask your Principle/Guidance Counselor to sit in on the class and watch it go on and what happens? I usually go to them, ask them to not bring up with the teacher(at least, nothing other than that they have to sit and watch the class) until they sit on the class and watch what happens, taking notes, etc. This should then show exactly whats going on. However, this brings up another question, does your Guidance Counselor feel the same about your speech? edit: And yes, this type of situation where a teacher and I SERIOUSLY can NOT click has happened to me before. I acted accordingly by bringing it up with those that can fire her/ get her fired/ move me to another class. There are guidance counselors in Uni? Do thye really come in class?
Some do have guidance counselors (my older brother had one in his Uni). Either way, ask the principle or something. In my HS I'm currently in, the district requires that the principles/vice principles of the schools observe each class throughout the year. Some of them wait till the last month or 2 of school however.
|
uh yeah you realize that even if something sounds perfectly clear to you in your head, people might need some time to process what you say. Especially if you speak a mouthful at once. It's not like you're writing an academic paper when speaking in class.
I can understand your paragraph while reading it, but I can also definitely understand how your peers might not have enough attention span to process that mouthful or want to.
As an example, as a math major I have to come up with proofs and solutions to problems, and sometimes they take quite a while to think of. Once I've come up with a proof, it seems so clear and obvious to me when I'm explaining it. However, for those listening for the first time, it's not because they aren't already familiar with my thought process. And vice-versa when I listen to other people or my professors lecture on tricky topics.
Although the girl you quoted sounds dumb, so part of it could be that you're with a lot of idiots.
Also, it's useful to give concrete examples first. For example, you could've given the example of the italian child first and then generalize, rather than put it at the end when people have already stopped paying attention.
|
On January 14 2012 05:35 Torte de Lini wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2012 05:29 babylon wrote:On January 14 2012 05:19 Torte de Lini wrote:
I raised my hand and said, exactly, casually with certitude: "I disagree. I feel that stereotypes should not be a way to identify minorities of other ethnic groups. I also feel that stereotypes within movies give a secluded notion of another race's culture (race is an improper term technically I believe, but I doubt they'd have corrected me). It gives the impression that if a child with an Italian background did not relate to the protrayal of an Italian within the movie, they might feel alienated by their own culture or people's history." I still had to read that twice in order to understand what you just said and even now I'm not so sure. But maybe I'm dumb. =X Are you suggesting that the hypothetical Italian child would feel alienated or that others would think the Italian child would feel alienated because of what is shown onscreen? I'm suggesting this, I'll give you an example. - Child sees Luigi, cartoon that portrays how Italians act when they're older (similar to how girls see princesses as slim and with long beautiful hair and think "I should look like that when I'm older)
- Child notices that people around him are not at all like Luigi and even himself doesn't have any traits like Luigi (stupid idea, but for instance Luigi serves Spaghetti and child has never had spaghetti before).
- Child grows up with the idea that he should act like Luigi or he won't be like the other general population of Italians
- Child grows up and sees he's not an Italian because he is nothing like what he saw as a child. Feels "anomie" or an alienation of his culture, may lead (for example) to depression or some shit
It doesn't happen to all and the counter to that argument is ezzzzzzzzzzzzz Is it more clear?
H'okay, let's try this again, then.
Try: "Going with what [X] said" -- with X being your other classmate who disagreed -- "don't you feel that an Italian kid, watching this film, may feel alienated if he hasn't observed any of this behavior before in anyone he knows? The film may be portraying, 'This is an Italian,' but the kid may get the mistaken impression of, 'This is what an Italian should be like,' instead, which may lead to all sorts of emotional problems later on if he grows up and feels like he's not acting as a proper Italian man should. Basically, the kid may confuse description with prescription." <------ ???
|
On January 14 2012 05:42 Snuggles wrote:
Man your course really sucks dude, whether its the teacher or the students, man it just sucks. Whenever a topic came up that people felt strongly about in my class we would have debates popping up and going wild, imo its a great way to learn and use your knowledge. An instructor that discourages that is awful.
yeah, it sucks. I think she wants discussion, but under forms she can control or at least not divert into larger views or ideologies.
I mean it was me and some other girl who viewed that Disney, although have some bad inherent traits as a major media corporation, should not have their films used as unsupervised educational entertainment. She said (and I agreed) that Disney should be used to strengthen and promote morals already taught by parents and schools (so the story would be an elaborate and meaningful example for the child). But in the end, movies are entertainment and it's called "Family Fun" for a reason and not to be accurate portrayals of race's or history (but they should not intentionally have some borderline stereotypical or racy things within their older films (the fucking 40s and 50s. They change ideals of women in their movies in the 80s and 90s)).
Damn teacher made a face like: "mmm not so sure about that..."
It's ironic because at the start of the class (10:15 in the morning) she was a nervous tick, twirling the chalk between her fingers, asking simple questions like: "Are you guys, the students, political? [yes]" and she got no answer, not a peep. She got a bit more irritable as the time went on until she put on the documentary.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
