|
On January 12 2012 09:14 Torte de Lini wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2012 09:07 Apom wrote:
This is not a win-win game. Not eveyone can be right. Either you are saying stupid stuff, either they are too stupid to understand it. Until you have decided which one it is, there is little advice we can offer.
That is, if you want any advice.
// rephrasing following above post : either nested parentheses are stupid, either I am too stupid to understand nested parentheses. Your choice. That doesn't make any sense. They are not stupid, I am just using a dialect or choice of words that are outside the norm (like this very sentence, I will say this publicly and on the spot without hindrance). The issue is is that I'm pointlessly elevating my vocabularly to compensate for a rather normal counter-argument that I have. It may be an inherent issue within myself, but it also doesn't sound my connundrum. In Social Science, you'll learn everyone is right because all situations are interpretative and explained by various theories (see youth gangs for example).
I was not sure that you were acknolewdging the issue as being on your side. Now I am. I also do that shit all the time (complicated words and nested parentheses), probably more than you since I do it with my friends too, but I can't offer much help as I have personnally decided not to do anything about it.
Regarding your last point : unfortunately, I studied mathematics, not social science. That's how I learned that not everyone in right, because I think you are wrong. Think about the implications if you were right in saying I am right.
|
United States5162 Posts
On January 12 2012 09:20 Torte de Lini wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2012 09:17 Sinensis wrote:On January 12 2012 09:14 Torte de Lini wrote:On January 12 2012 09:07 Apom wrote:
This is not a win-win game. Not eveyone can be right. Either you are saying stupid stuff, either they are too stupid to understand it. Until you have decided which one it is, there is little advice we can offer.
That is, if you want any advice.
// rephrasing following above post : either nested parentheses are stupid, either I am too stupid to understand nested parentheses. Your choice. That doesn't make any sense. They are not stupid, I am just using a dialect or choice of words that are outside the norm (like this very sentence, I will say this publicly and on the spot without hindrance). The issue is is that I'm pointlessly elevating my vocabularly to compensate for a rather normal counter-argument that I have. It may be an inherent issue within myself, but it also doesn't sound my connundrum. In Social Science, you'll learn everyone is right because all situations are interpretative and explained by various theories (see youth gangs for example). You should elevate your vocabulary to make your speech more efficient by using less words, rather than just using words because you know them. I'm thinking of recording myself so you guys can see how the fuck I sound like during the class. I sound like an obnoxious asshole everytime and I can't stand it. The teacher tried to reiterate my point and I wanted to fucking tell her no, but I slowly and minimally nodded my head knowing that if I disagreed, it'd only delay the learning and the point of the class. It was a battle worth fighting for. How would I go about cutting the fat off my sentences and using my vocabularly more keenly?
Umm...talk like you write? You're writing doesn't come off obnoxious, and doesn't have any unnecessary vocabulary. Why do you talk so much differently then you write?
|
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.
|
On January 12 2012 09:20 Torte de Lini wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2012 09:17 Sinensis wrote:On January 12 2012 09:14 Torte de Lini wrote:On January 12 2012 09:07 Apom wrote:
This is not a win-win game. Not eveyone can be right. Either you are saying stupid stuff, either they are too stupid to understand it. Until you have decided which one it is, there is little advice we can offer.
That is, if you want any advice.
// rephrasing following above post : either nested parentheses are stupid, either I am too stupid to understand nested parentheses. Your choice. That doesn't make any sense. They are not stupid, I am just using a dialect or choice of words that are outside the norm (like this very sentence, I will say this publicly and on the spot without hindrance). The issue is is that I'm pointlessly elevating my vocabularly to compensate for a rather normal counter-argument that I have. It may be an inherent issue within myself, but it also doesn't sound my connundrum. In Social Science, you'll learn everyone is right because all situations are interpretative and explained by various theories (see youth gangs for example). You should elevate your vocabulary to make your speech more efficient by using less words, rather than just using words because you know them. I'm thinking of recording myself so you guys can see how the fuck I sound like during the class. I sound like an obnoxious asshole everytime and I can't stand it. The teacher tried to reiterate my point and I wanted to fucking tell her no, but I slowly and minimally nodded my head knowing that if I disagreed, it'd only delay the learning and the point of the class. It was a battle worth fighting for. How would I go about cutting the fat off my sentences and using my vocabularly more keenly?
It seems as though you like to string many clauses together into single sentences. There are situations which could merit you doing this, but you should consider whether or not it actually contributes to the effectiveness of your writing/speaking. For example, that posted chunk of writing:
Sometimes they'll blur words together (as if they're synonyms) such as confidence (with arrogance) and associate it needlessly with aggression (instead of assertiveness) and it'll devolve from there into even more overly-drawn out stories about how someone doesn't cry when they die (and everyone in the class believes that culturally you should cry, when in reality, it's a culture belief that you grieve [her story was that she doesn't cry, but get angry, which is another form of grieving, but I didn't interject or correct for the sake of the discussion]).
VVV Could easily be
Sometimes they'll blur words together as if they're synonyms, such as confidence with arrogance, and associate it needlessly with aggression (instead of assertiveness). It'll devolve from there into even more overly-drawn out stories about how someone doesn't cry when they die. Everyone in the class believes that culturally you should cry, when in reality, it's a culture belief that you grieve. Her story was that she doesn't cry, but get angry, which is another form of grieving. I didn't interject or correct for the sake of the discussion.
Imo changing it to this doesn't detract or distract from the messages you are trying to send
|
I've had a similar issue, the way I've learned to deal with it is sort of what Sinensis said.
Words are a tool for communicating with. If the words you're using don't help you communicate then they're the wrong words to use. Being eloquent isn't about having a formidable vocabulary.
It sounds like the bigger problem you're having is that you're in a class now that attracts people who think they're smart. The problem with that is that there's a lot more people that think they're smart than people who are. Is it lame as fuck? You betcha, but its up to you to convey your ideas properly.
Be exact and clear, not colourful.
If the class isn't for you then I suggest finding something more productive to do with your time.
-------------
TL;DR
There's nothing more intelligent about dressing up your language like you do than there is about painting your car every colour of the rainbow.
|
I think it really depends on how invested into the class you are. If you really need the course cred you are just going to have to hunker through it. I used to have a friend like you in middle school, he was one of the smartest kids I knew. He knew physics and mathematics at a college and high school level (respectively). I could feel when he spoke the whole class held their breath because it would not pertain to them. Even the teacher seemed exasperated listening to him. In that kind of a situation where you are not learning anything, as my friend who knew high level math, you do not need to speak up. I feel that your teacher is setting up a terrible learning enviornment though. You need to be able to give input on the conversation when you need to, it is an integral part of learning. Maybe you might need to train yourself to speak in a more comprehensible manner.
To sum it up:
1) Do something else if you can. The class seems okay, but the teacher seems bad.
2) Talk. Important in this kind of class and learning to speak to others in life.
3) Learn to speak in a more comprehensible manner. Important for meeting new people in the job world.
|
On January 12 2012 09:23 Roe wrote:
What is the difference between psych and sociology?
The paycheck ahahahahahahah
The general viewpoint of people in comparison (Psychology -> Psycholgoist, Sociologist -> Social Worker. Both are social scieneces, so bend over in comparison to hard real sciences :B)
In all seriousness, one has a biological side to it and the other takes into consideration the social side of things and the collective and cultural view of a society as a whole while psychology is more individual based and extends outward to the society (and sometimes not vice-versa).
There is social psychology and my understanding of psychology is limited, I didn't finish the curriculum.
|
Holy fuck, so many responses.
|
On January 12 2012 09:25 Apom wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2012 09:14 Torte de Lini wrote:On January 12 2012 09:07 Apom wrote:
This is not a win-win game. Not eveyone can be right. Either you are saying stupid stuff, either they are too stupid to understand it. Until you have decided which one it is, there is little advice we can offer.
That is, if you want any advice.
// rephrasing following above post : either nested parentheses are stupid, either I am too stupid to understand nested parentheses. Your choice. That doesn't make any sense. They are not stupid, I am just using a dialect or choice of words that are outside the norm (like this very sentence, I will say this publicly and on the spot without hindrance). The issue is is that I'm pointlessly elevating my vocabularly to compensate for a rather normal counter-argument that I have. It may be an inherent issue within myself, but it also doesn't sound my connundrum. In Social Science, you'll learn everyone is right because all situations are interpretative and explained by various theories (see youth gangs for example). I was not sure that you were acknolewdging the issue as being on your side. Now I am. I also do that shit all the time (complicated words and nested parentheses), probably more than you since I do it with my friends too, but I can't offer much help as I have personnally decided not to do anything about it. Regarding your last point : unfortunately, I studied mathematics, not social science. That's how I learned that not everyone in right, because I think you are wrong. Think about the implications if you were right in saying I am right.
Social science teaches that everyone is right? I didn't think there was that much interpretation. Really only philosophy can teach something like that. Psych, at least, just studies how behaviour works. It's blind to who's right and wrong.
|
On January 12 2012 09:24 3FFA wrote:Delete your post and then re-type your post. Then do that again and again until people can easily understand it. Post like you do on TL(not the new topic posts, but the reply posts  ) and you should be victorious. I believe you could be accidentally making it into new topic posts instead of new replies. Possibly, you could be the next guy to revolutionize the world with your new way of thinking. GL. edit: Where'd all the replies come from! When I was posting there was only one o.O
You see, typing online you can refine a post or writing is so much easier. Time is unlimited (practically) in an ongoing conversation so I can't continually stop short.
Yeah, I'm no Foucault (or that other guy who completely separated word from definition, I forget his name).
|
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.
I cut out the part you should have stuck with. I'd seriously leave the Palin, Nixon, terrible people, etc. stuff at the door.
If someone wanted you to explain what I bolded, if I read you right, you could have said "...historically there have been people who use emotions to manipulate an audience for power." After that if someone wants to hear your example, pick one that isn't such an easy target...like Palin. How about Bill Mays? Maybe Tom Cruise? Bob Ross even? In case you need a woman, Mary Shelly?
|
Guess I'll be the first one to post the Einstein quotation in this thread: “If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." I mean, I know where you're coming from because I'm deeply interested in subjects like philosophy that involve enormous amounts of jargon outside the scope of familiar and ordinary language. But at the same time, I've been involved in many public speaking activities where a primary skill was the ability to break down these points for any audience.
My recommendations: use simple analogies/metaphors and try to keep your points concise and to the point. Also, make sure you explain any terminology that you're going to invoke (while trying not to be pedantic about it - just say "X, or [quick/simple definition]" usually implies...blahblah"), and try to be consistent with your terminology. Make up your own terminology, if you need to, in order to make your points shorter, consistent, and clearer. For example, in a theology class, while discussing flawed theories of a an omniscient God versus a truly omniscient God, one can differentiate a flawed idea of god as "
You also have to evaluate the reasoning behind your participation - it's easy to tell when someone's speaking just to "wear that brain badge" as you term it, just to look smart, and just that very fact often characterizes your explanation, consciously or subconsciously, as just plain douchey/using jargon for its own sake. Still, I agree with the previous post that your teacher was also a douchebag for putting you in that kind of situation instead of mediating it better and just subtlely commenting on your statement in a way that translated it to everybody else.
|
On January 12 2012 09:31 Torte de Lini wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2012 09:23 Roe wrote:
What is the difference between psych and sociology? The paycheck ahahahahahahah The general viewpoint of people in comparison (Psychology -> Psycholgoist, Sociologist -> Social Worker. Both are social scieneces, so bend over in comparison to hard real sciences :B) In all seriousness, one has a biological side to it and the other takes into consideration the social side of things and the collective and cultural view of a society as a whole while psychology is more individual based and extends outward to the society (and sometimes not vice-versa). There is social psychology and my understanding of psychology is limited, I didn't finish the curriculum.
the paycheck...lol. well if you're a psychiatrist yeah. but then you'd have the risk of being in bed with big pharma companies. next down is probably therapist. the rest i have no idea how much they make.
Would it make sense to call all of sociology "social psychology"?
|
On January 12 2012 09:25 Apom wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2012 09:14 Torte de Lini wrote:On January 12 2012 09:07 Apom wrote:
This is not a win-win game. Not eveyone can be right. Either you are saying stupid stuff, either they are too stupid to understand it. Until you have decided which one it is, there is little advice we can offer.
That is, if you want any advice.
// rephrasing following above post : either nested parentheses are stupid, either I am too stupid to understand nested parentheses. Your choice. That doesn't make any sense. They are not stupid, I am just using a dialect or choice of words that are outside the norm (like this very sentence, I will say this publicly and on the spot without hindrance). The issue is is that I'm pointlessly elevating my vocabularly to compensate for a rather normal counter-argument that I have. It may be an inherent issue within myself, but it also doesn't sound my connundrum. In Social Science, you'll learn everyone is right because all situations are interpretative and explained by various theories (see youth gangs for example). I was not sure that you were acknolewdging the issue as being on your side. Now I am. I also do that shit all the time (complicated words and nested parentheses), probably more than you since I do it with my friends too, but I can't offer much help as I have personnally decided not to do anything about it. Regarding your last point : unfortunately, I studied mathematics, not social science. That's how I learned that not everyone in right, because I think you are wrong. Think about the implications if you were right in saying I am right.
I was disagreeing of your half-ultimatum. What do you do then? Do you talk less during class or just fuck it all and do it anyways?
Yeah, social science is hard in a different way. Everything you write is correct if you can justify it, I used to love Math because there is only one answer (sorta, right?), but I could never do it.
|
On January 12 2012 09:27 Myles wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2012 09:20 Torte de Lini wrote:On January 12 2012 09:17 Sinensis wrote:On January 12 2012 09:14 Torte de Lini wrote:On January 12 2012 09:07 Apom wrote:
This is not a win-win game. Not eveyone can be right. Either you are saying stupid stuff, either they are too stupid to understand it. Until you have decided which one it is, there is little advice we can offer.
That is, if you want any advice.
// rephrasing following above post : either nested parentheses are stupid, either I am too stupid to understand nested parentheses. Your choice. That doesn't make any sense. They are not stupid, I am just using a dialect or choice of words that are outside the norm (like this very sentence, I will say this publicly and on the spot without hindrance). The issue is is that I'm pointlessly elevating my vocabularly to compensate for a rather normal counter-argument that I have. It may be an inherent issue within myself, but it also doesn't sound my connundrum. In Social Science, you'll learn everyone is right because all situations are interpretative and explained by various theories (see youth gangs for example). You should elevate your vocabulary to make your speech more efficient by using less words, rather than just using words because you know them. I'm thinking of recording myself so you guys can see how the fuck I sound like during the class. I sound like an obnoxious asshole everytime and I can't stand it. The teacher tried to reiterate my point and I wanted to fucking tell her no, but I slowly and minimally nodded my head knowing that if I disagreed, it'd only delay the learning and the point of the class. It was a battle worth fighting for. How would I go about cutting the fat off my sentences and using my vocabularly more keenly? Umm...talk like you write? You're writing doesn't come off obnoxious, and doesn't have any unnecessary vocabulary. Why do you talk so much differently then you write?
This is casual talk, I can do that
|
On January 12 2012 09:28 Torte de Lini wrote:
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.
In this particular situation, it seems like that would make a lot of sense actually, but I could also see how a spoken argument like this could end up being a ramble and it would be hard to keep it coherent, which would result in the class reaction you described? I'll just end by saying that, at least in writing, you speak coherently and make a lot of sense, and you also say that in social situations you have no problem fitting in... so maybe you just have a problem coherently expressing complicated ideas/arguments out loud? I know several people who have this problem, but after class when they explain their arguments, their logic becomes much clearer and they don't sound crazy anymore. If that's the case, just do what everyone has been suggesting and slow down, think about what you're saying and express it clearly as I'm sure you're more than capable of doing. If I'm wrong, sorry and good luck!
|
On January 12 2012 09:29 Fontong wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2012 09:20 Torte de Lini wrote:On January 12 2012 09:17 Sinensis wrote:On January 12 2012 09:14 Torte de Lini wrote:On January 12 2012 09:07 Apom wrote:
This is not a win-win game. Not eveyone can be right. Either you are saying stupid stuff, either they are too stupid to understand it. Until you have decided which one it is, there is little advice we can offer.
That is, if you want any advice.
// rephrasing following above post : either nested parentheses are stupid, either I am too stupid to understand nested parentheses. Your choice. That doesn't make any sense. They are not stupid, I am just using a dialect or choice of words that are outside the norm (like this very sentence, I will say this publicly and on the spot without hindrance). The issue is is that I'm pointlessly elevating my vocabularly to compensate for a rather normal counter-argument that I have. It may be an inherent issue within myself, but it also doesn't sound my connundrum. In Social Science, you'll learn everyone is right because all situations are interpretative and explained by various theories (see youth gangs for example). You should elevate your vocabulary to make your speech more efficient by using less words, rather than just using words because you know them. I'm thinking of recording myself so you guys can see how the fuck I sound like during the class. I sound like an obnoxious asshole everytime and I can't stand it. The teacher tried to reiterate my point and I wanted to fucking tell her no, but I slowly and minimally nodded my head knowing that if I disagreed, it'd only delay the learning and the point of the class. It was a battle worth fighting for. How would I go about cutting the fat off my sentences and using my vocabularly more keenly? It seems as though you like to string many clauses together into single sentences. There are situations which could merit you doing this, but you should consider whether or not it actually contributes to the effectiveness of your writing/speaking. For example, that posted chunk of writing: Show nested quote +Sometimes they'll blur words together (as if they're synonyms) such as confidence (with arrogance) and associate it needlessly with aggression (instead of assertiveness) and it'll devolve from there into even more overly-drawn out stories about how someone doesn't cry when they die (and everyone in the class believes that culturally you should cry, when in reality, it's a culture belief that you grieve [her story was that she doesn't cry, but get angry, which is another form of grieving, but I didn't interject or correct for the sake of the discussion]). VVV Could easily be Show nested quote +Sometimes they'll blur words together as if they're synonyms, such as confidence with arrogance, and associate it needlessly with aggression (instead of assertiveness). It'll devolve from there into even more overly-drawn out stories about how someone doesn't cry when they die. Everyone in the class believes that culturally you should cry, when in reality, it's a culture belief that you grieve. Her story was that she doesn't cry, but get angry, which is another form of grieving. I didn't interject or correct for the sake of the discussion. Imo changing it to this doesn't detract or distract from the messages you are trying to send
See, this works, but how do I do that on the spot? Is there a technique?
|
On January 12 2012 09:30 -Kaiser- wrote:
I've had a similar issue, the way I've learned to deal with it is sort of what Sinensis said.
Words are a tool for communicating with. If the words you're using don't help you communicate then they're the wrong words to use. Being eloquent isn't about having a formidable vocabulary.
It sounds like the bigger problem you're having is that you're in a class now that attracts people who think they're smart. The problem with that is that there's a lot more people that think they're smart than people who are. Is it lame as fuck? You betcha, but its up to you to convey your ideas properly.
Be exact and clear, not colourful.
If the class isn't for you then I suggest finding something more productive to do with your time.
-------------
TL;DR
There's nothing more intelligent about dressing up your language like you do than there is about painting your car every colour of the rainbow.
I love the class or rather I love emotions because they're a very difficult thing to qualify or quantitify. I just hate the more chatty people in my class because although they are contributory, they say really boring things or stupid stories or viewpoints that are more important to the subject than the overall discussion (talking about how Michelle Obama dresses as a dictation of how she presents herself and gives off which impression or emotion to the audience, but they'll talk about which clothes look like shit on her and why).
I'm both, I think I'm smart, I talk like I'm smart, but I'm just a slimmer piece of ham that cuts out the stories and just fluffs it up with other pointless associated ideas.
You're right.
On January 12 2012 09:31 BroodKingEXE wrote:
I think it really depends on how invested into the class you are. If you really need the course cred you are just going to have to hunker through it. I used to have a friend like you in middle school, he was one of the smartest kids I knew. He knew physics and mathematics at a college and high school level (respectively). I could feel when he spoke the whole class held their breath because it would not pertain to them. Even the teacher seemed exasperated listening to him. In that kind of a situation where you are not learning anything, as my friend who knew high level math, you do not need to speak up. I feel that your teacher is setting up a terrible learning enviornment though. You need to be able to give input on the conversation when you need to, it is an integral part of learning. Maybe you might need to train yourself to speak in a more comprehensible manner.
To sum it up:
1) Do something else if you can. The class seems okay, but the teacher seems bad.
2) Talk. Important in this kind of class and learning to speak to others in life.
3) Learn to speak in a more comprehensible manner. Important for meeting new people in the job world.
I need a 400-level course, this is the most interesting and best one. The one I really wanted collides with my elective course (it's a really good elective). The teacher in that other course absolutely adores me and always gives me a great grade.
I'll get a similar grade in this class, just minus the enthusiasm and there is always the option of just shutting up for two hours each class. Not the end of the world.
The teacher is fair, sorta. IT's just difficult to ask her to be fair to one odd kid in comparison to everyone else working seamlessly. It's like asking a politician to not consider the rights of a majority religion and people because another minor religion makes more sense (poor example, but I hope it makes my point more clear).
|
Precision.
Something I learned when I was writing fiction was that the correct verb is far better than any adjective. One of my favorites: slog. One verb to describe walking through a thick slush of snow or freezing mud, never quite freeing your feet from it. Another thing I learned is that you should be able to tell any entire story of any length in one sentence.
Condense words and ideas to the simplest but most precise expression you have. (As far as your writing here goes, I've never had difficulties with your thought process or vocabulary. Your blogs are rambling but... they're blogs.)
EDIT:
+ Show Spoiler +On January 12 2012 09:40 Torte de Lini wrote:
See, this works, but how do I do that on the spot? Is there a technique?
Breathing 
|
I sometimes fall into the same rut, especially when I just don't feel like I understand some teachers or what they want from me. It sounds weird to write it down this way, but I think a good way of working these classes out and in situations like this is to just talk like you are right and like you matter, even if deep down you feel like it doesn't really matter.
I had a class this last semester where I was younger than everyone else and I just felt inferior to the teacher and my classmates at first, but if you just express yourself in a way that seems confident and just go out on a limb but believe or think that what you say is right (just convince yourself even if you're completely wrong, you're still adding to the conversation). Courses like the one you were in aren't necessarily about being right or even being able to defend your points entirely logically, but you have to put yourself out there and be vulnerable. Some people will think you're a complete idiot, but they might think that anyway, and some people will like what you say, or at least they will be impressed with you because you put yourself out there.
You do have to be careful that you don't come off as intentionally walking on other peoples' toes, because you aren't, but you kind of have to be just short of over-confident. For me it's weird to write this down without saying it...but I think it's important to express yourself even if it seems like people want to disassociate themselves from you at times, especially when your grade is on the line.
Just think of classes like that as acting classes even if they are supposed to be completely serious.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
