|
On January 12 2012 09:36 Sinensis wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2012 09:28 Torte de Lini wrote: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?
The Palin, Nixon are realistic examples to further cement my point. It saves the time of an inquiry and shows I have a realistic down-to-earth point of view of my idea, no?
Your reiteration is too short for me and blunt. They're not manipulating the people because that would assume the people of power are inherently evil (when they're not, just acknowledging and gaining popularity towards people of their own kind).
|
Torte,
In that scenario I would try to simplify my point in order for everyone to understand the concept I was trying to convey.
By using the same structure and words they'll just get lost in space. I like to use very abstract thoughts when I write fiction and non-fiction too. It comes down to every little detail. If you find the course unappealing switch. It only takes me a few seminars to figure out whether or not I'm going to get anything out of the class. Whether it be the professors, the material or structure.
I'm intrigued as to the actual discussion and what you said.
Ah so you are talking about the influence of emotion can lead to power.
Propaganda and campaigning 101. To gain influence you need to connect to your people. Aye, aye sir.
|
Maybe Orwell has some advice for you
1. Never use a metaphor, simile, or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print.
2. Never use a long word where a short one will do.
3. If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out.
4. Never use the passive where you can use the active.
5. Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word, or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent.
6. Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous.”
|
On January 12 2012 09:37 LlamaNamedOsama wrote:
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” -Albert Einstein. 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/simply 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 consistent and clearer.
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.
First to quote Einstein, third to say a similar position :B Sorry~
If I was to do an oral presentation and it was just me monologuing for an hour (ezpz), somehow, I would speak down-to-Earth and promptly without a problem and with ease (I feel). I feel differently during an oral because I'm in a position where I can't be interupted and can elaborate on something as much as I want for as long as I want.
Hm... is this a clue to my problem?
I think everyone wants to talk to talk. They speak because of their confidence and pride, but at the same time, want to have a lengthy discussion. It's a desire to portray yourself, but also to have your viewpoint agreed with.
|
On January 12 2012 09:28 Torte de Lini wrote:
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.
Well the good thing is, i don't think it's big words.
bad thing is, with the example in given.
You just seem to lack sublety. that was a simple generic opinion that can be right or wrong but was probably relevant to the class and was her participation.
and....you threw a railroad at her
Again i don't know what the class is like, if it's fierce Lion vs tiger blazing debates. or if it's regular i'm in school half ass i'm participating without being a douchebag debates.
That you kinda threw the railroad at this situation person with a hint of current event jackass 
and that doesn't seem bad, you're just more passionate, if that the case.
it's not bad but just don't expect too much out of people
your class is not an internet forum debate that never ends.
share your ideas, halt your aggression, understand subtlety.
you're essentially the one kid in my physics class, who read ahead of the class, knew the topic of the day, but came to class to argue (discuss read correct with later known terms) with the teacher, delaying lecture.
of course yours is a discussion course and not a lecture. you expect too much, but nothing is wrong with you.
|
On January 12 2012 09:37 Roe wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2012 09:31 Torte de Lini wrote: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"?
No, sociology has some anthropological tendencies too, especially with cultural anthropology. To call sociology social psychology is to make things more internal than sometimes external.
|
So many replies T____T I've never gotten so many before! I must reply to them all!
|
Well, I took the time to read the blog, so I suppose I can attempt to give some advice. However, usually anytime I respond to these kinds of blogs sincerely, it usually just ends up with me just redirecting someone to simpler forms of logic, so please don't take any of this post as condecending.
So, basically in short, you are a fluent and articulate person, and the people around you in said enviroment either aren't or choose not to be as so.
From there, you have to decide what your goals are, what is interfereing with said goals, and if there is a compromise.
First of all, what is your immeadiate goal?
- Is it to learn something in the class? If so, does that require your personal articulated insight? You have already stated your unwillingness to apporach a conversation in a different manner, and also that you like to contest ideas to better understand them, rather than to simply try and be satisfied with the information that is given.
Compromise: What, Why, and Worth.
- There is no right or wrong here, but you took this class, so you should decide if it's content is still valuable to you if you cannot reach a compromise with your approach to what is being learned and your approach to class contribution. If you can reach a compromise, then how? Well, you can limit yourself to words of laymans context, only going deeper if the conversation requires. If you seek the approval of your peers and teacher, that requires a much different type of compromise, one where you will ironically compromise yourself to conform to a milder conversation tone. Regardless, i find in one vs group scenarios, the party with the olive branch is usually the one, and you have to decide if compromising any part of your approach/self is worth anything you may want to get from the class.
So, again in short, are you interested in the content of this class, social and/or educational or neither. If so, are you willing to compromise? If not, was there a problem to begin with?
Hope any of that helps.
|
torte, serious question, have you ever taken magic mushrooms or similar?
|
On January 12 2012 09:39 KleineGeist wrote:Show nested quote +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!
Yeah, it makes sense. Sorta. But it's said very fast and I apparently have a bit of a lisp and I'm nervous also. So it's fast, technical and difficult to pick up. I might have to just talk slower and use some connecting body language too.
I think I will do that, thanks! I am going to try and go in and be a part of the conversation instead of battling it opposedly.
|
On January 12 2012 09:51 Torte de Lini wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2012 09:37 LlamaNamedOsama wrote:
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” -Albert Einstein. 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/simply 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 consistent and clearer.
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. First to quote Einstein, third to say a similar position :B Sorry~ If I was to do an oral presentation and it was just me monologuing for an hour (ezpz), somehow, I would speak down-to-Earth and promptly without a problem and with ease (I feel). I feel differently during an oral because I'm in a position where I can't be interupted and can elaborate on something as much as I want for as long as I want. Hm... is this a clue to my problem? I think everyone wants to talk to talk. They speak because of their confidence and pride, but at the same time, want to have a lengthy discussion. It's a desire to portray yourself, but also to have your viewpoint agreed with.
Sign of insecurity? I wouldn't necessarily say that.
Yes, in those type of lectures the debate can get out of hand quickly when people have conviction/disapproval.
If anyone tries to interject on me. I ask them if I could finish my thought before they speak.
|
On January 12 2012 09:44 RedJustice wrote: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 
You got an example about verbs and less description? I am 100% the opposite and describe the verb extensively haha!
Breathing, ha :B
|
Your teacher seems like a bitch for not being supportive at all.
As far as your rhetoric goes: there's nothing inherently wrong with using big words... just don't become a teacher.
On January 12 2012 08:55 Torte de Lini wrote:
Songs have no relation to the issue, I just wanted to post some good songs.
Any blog post with Billy Joel is fantastic 
|
On January 12 2012 09:46 Hikko wrote:
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.
I don't think I have the fear of being wrong, I have the fear of not being completely understood and in turn, intimidating or others or being disinterested in what I have to say (since it hardly makes sense to them due to overuse of wrong words and not the content of the argument).
|
On January 12 2012 09:49 StarStruck wrote:
Torte,
In that scenario I would try to simplify my point in order for everyone to understand the concept I was trying to convey.
By using the same structure and words they'll just get lost in space. I like to use very abstract thoughts when I write fiction and non-fiction too. It comes down to every little detail. If you find the course unappealing switch. It only takes me a few seminars to figure out whether or not I'm going to get anything out of the class. Whether it be the professors, the material or structure.
I'm intrigued as to the actual discussion and what you said.
Ah so you are talking about the influence of emotion can lead to power.
Propaganda and campaigning 101. To gain influence you need to connect to your people. Aye, aye sir.
Emotional intelligence is a very interesting concept :B No one's talked about emotion and power yet, they still think there's a contrast and thus a gender division and type-casting. I disagree, but I have a theory in my own head and it's sort of intricate :B!
I'll see if I can record the conversation for next class on my phone, should be interesting for everyone and maybe it'll be more clear that I'm in the wrong (though I think we can deduce this).
We'll see, next class is Friday. Dunno if I record well on my phone).
On January 12 2012 09:54 turdburgler wrote:
torte, serious question, have you ever taken magic mushrooms or similar?
No, I don't partake in drugs of alcoholic drinks. Not my fancy except for very sweet wine.
On January 12 2012 10:01 StarStruck wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2012 09:57 Torte de Lini wrote:On January 12 2012 09:44 RedJustice wrote: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 You got an example about verbs and less description? I am 100% the opposite and describe the verb extensively haha! Breathing, ha :B Then you are over confuddling your message. Keep it for your papers and don't be such a show off. No worries. I'm a bit of a show off myself.
Except you get no feedback on your papers. It's just shitted on and then a grade pops up.
|
On January 12 2012 09:57 Torte de Lini wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2012 09:44 RedJustice wrote: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 You got an example about verbs and less description? I am 100% the opposite and describe the verb extensively haha! Breathing, ha :B
Then you are over confuddling your message. Keep it for your papers and don't be such a show off. No worries. I'm a bit of a show off myself.
If you want to have a brainy conversation. Have it with me or someone else. :D
|
If the teacher asked you to stop talking, I wouldn't guarentee that she will treat you fairly when it's time to get a grade. So if you can switch to a new class or teacher I would consider it.
As far as talking, maybe you go on for too long rather than using too many big words. Try just saying 10-20 words to capture your disagreement, then letting other people talk, then chiming in again after 5-10 other people have talked, again with only a 10-20 word point. The sad fact is that most people don't listen to what other people are saying, they are just waiting for thier turn to talk. If you take this away from them, they will resent you.
Listening > talking in 90% of situations. If you don't say much and what you say is right, people will think you are intelligent. Think about politicians, they all use sound bites to convice other people how great/right they are.
|
A river of words washes away the meaning.
Look at your description of the problem: fear of being misunderstood, intimidating, or boring. Your current solution is to talk yourself blue in the face with jargon, explanatory clauses, and side notes.
As far as practical advice goes, you need to practice; especially if you have a lisp and talk quickly. Talk to yourself in the mirror, and make an effort to speak clearly. Pick anything-- a paper your just read or a topic you're interested in, and try to explain it to an imaginary person in a minute or less. You will feel dumb talking to a mirror, but it makes you more conscious of how you are speaking. Over time you will develop better habits.
|
On January 12 2012 09:48 Torte de Lini wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2012 09:36 Sinensis wrote:On January 12 2012 09:28 Torte de Lini wrote: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? The Palin, Nixon are realistic examples to further cement my point. It saves the time of an inquiry and shows I have a realistic down-to-earth point of view of my idea, no? Your reiteration is too short for me and blunt. They're not manipulating the people because that would assume the people of power are inherently evil (when they're not, just acknowledging and gaining popularity towards people of their own kind).
I'll put mine side by side with yours:
I disagree and feel that power and emotionality are associated with one another. Historically there have been people who use emotions to manipulate an audience for power. Bob Ross and Fred Rogers for example use soft speech and body language to communicate gentle emotions to their audiences. The joy this demeanor brings to their fans has earned both men celebrity status worldwide even after their deaths.
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.
Mine is a little happier and doesn't hurt anyone's feelings in case they're a Palin fan (they exist). Also no one gets lost in confusing punctuation like many of these ((())())() and long sentences.
|
On January 12 2012 09:51 Viciousvx wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2012 09:28 Torte de Lini wrote:
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. Well the good thing is, i don't think it's big words. bad thing is, with the example in given. You just seem to lack sublety. that was a simple generic opinion that can be right or wrong but was probably relevant to the class and was her participation. and....you threw a railroad at her Again i don't know what the class is like, if it's fierce Lion vs tiger blazing debates. or if it's regular i'm in school half ass i'm participating without being a douchebag debates. That you kinda threw the railroad at this situation person with a hint of current event jackass and that doesn't seem bad, you're just more passionate, if that the case. it's not bad but just don't expect too much out of people your class is not an internet forum debate that never ends. share your ideas, halt your aggression, understand subtlety. you're essentially the one kid in my physics class, who read ahead of the class, knew the topic of the day, but came to class to argue (discuss read correct with later known terms) with the teacher, delaying lecture. of course yours is a discussion course and not a lecture. you expect too much, but nothing is wrong with you.
Yeah, I am excessive. I said that I think. It's half-ass school with storytime about people's lives. It's sociology, social sciences.
I wish my class was an internet forum debate minus google and wikipedia. That'd be heavenly to be frank!
And yes, I am that kid. I read the material. You're suppose to BEFORE the class, not after. Just seems counterproductive too though D:
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
