No pictures, it's too cold outside I'm in a rut, I've come home discouraged, bothered and annoyed with myself. In a sense, I am anti-social outside of social occasions. I only realize that now; in light-hearted situations, I am completely acceptable, tolerant at least. I have an acting class and on the way back, I was invited to sit with a fellow classmate and her girl friends on the bus where we discussed civilly and intelligently; the theories of why women consider jobs such as stripping, prostitution, etc. We talked about our favourite movies, who the hell Kate Moss was, etc. Everything and nothing, the in-between of what the institution demands of us, what our social circle desires from us and that small window of conversation where we talk to pass the time and to gain, absorb someone's other perspective (and not needing to contrast it with the textbook or the recent theory you've memorized).
When I come out of those social contexts, I feel great, I feel like I am still connected to this world. Connected to the people my age, their interests, issues and values and can at least relate or not alienate them by my point of view. It sounds like an insecure perspective, but I disagree.
I just came out of my 400-level course of Sociology. This is suppose to be the top of the courses in Sociology: a specialized study about Sociology and Emotions. The class has no real structure besides reading various texts (that few read for some odd reason) and then it's just endless structure with the teacher being the moderator.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_XgQhMPeEQ
The issue is, the conversation is all rudimentary, it feels all poorly articulated and thought out. They usually resolve and revolve around anecdotal and personal stories to depict or validate a theory the teacher proposes. 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]).
What I'm getting to is that this was the first class I thought I'd contribute and make an impression. I felt like I knew a lot, at least more than some others [especially that guy everyone likes or at least gets a good feeling listening to but really don't have a direction or point]. The first time I participated in the conversation, the teacher's auto-response was: "Can anyone translate that?". Silence loomed over the entire classroom. "Can you repeat that?" I obliged, repeated it with the same structure and choice of words. "She gave the same off-guard look she gave last time." A reaction I was familiar with from my previous years in CEGEP (a pre-college sort of thing) where I give an intelligble jumble of Word Salad. Essentially words that are larger than they don't really need to be. I've serve this same meal for years in all my papers, views, etc. The comments are the same: "Brilliant writer, sometimes hard to read". My papers were always the White Rabbit of Wonderland, obscurely running away from the actual point as if I need to say everything that needed to be said in order for you to get my point of view and yet to deny its validity is to question your own understanding of material as if you trust my judgement of the subject (an illusion of how I word paragraphs and thesis?).
I feel like I'm the wrong kind of smart, what I say always clashes with everyone and kills conversations, destroys the line of thought and just reverses the whole orientation of the disucssion or the point the professor was hoping would be deduced. It was fine in CEGEP because no one gave a shit about the courses and the teachers starved for any sort of positive contribution.
Here? Everyone is eager to wear their brain-badge, their years of funded schooling and personal experiences they feel they've accumulated as an adult and experienced person. Life's barely started, but these institutions always instill the view that we know more than we should at our age, at least for me sometimes. The next few times I talked, it was always in disagreements and no one challenged it. Not because I was right but because no one knew what the hell I was saying, though it had some sense, with what they could grasp. It's not because I'm smarter or better than them, it's because I just don't think like them, I'm not one of them and I'm not pedaling the same rotation they are. Some would think this uniqueness is great, interesting, special, but in reality it creates friction, halts the pace and ultimately makes everyone uncomfortable, intimidated that what they might say is going to be challenged and cannot be conceded (whenever I talk, I can't help but only talk when I can properly disagree).
If someone inquired for more detail and gave me a blackboard, I'm pretty sure I could elaborate on my idea even wider and I guess that's a positive point. But now I'm in the dilemma of what do I do? Do I say tell them to go fuck themselves and crash the class of any reasonable discussion (at least attempt to, not with the malicious intent to do so, but only because I want to talk to. Ultimately, I want to give my point of view and learn from others who disagree, but it never occurs. Perhaps it's my own arrogance [a front of my insecurity or unsureness of the actual material] or perhaps its something I never considered). Do I stop talking and just let the class flow (I did the first two classes and it was delightful for everyone else. I was just bored and disinterested because I disagreed with so much) or do I drop out and perhaps consider another class?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQ6MqxKHmTQ
If this is noteworthy, I talked to the teacher after to see if she had any detestation towards me. I inquired if there was a way for me to participate in the class without talking openly during the class. I suggested essays and she cut me off and said that I didn't have to talk in class. She said it quickly and disdainly. I apologized for what I felt I sometimes killed the conversations (there were many short bursts of silences after I said my piece) and she interrupted again to ensure I didn't have to talk, it wasn't sympathetic either, just plainly and the intonation was doward rather than inquisitvely upward. My expected response from her was that she'd assure me that what I was doing was contributory or at least not as deterrent as I imagined, but she didn't seem very inclined to hear me speak up (my English teacher[s] in the 10-11th-12th grade did the same and told me to just keep my head down).
So that's essentially my situation. There's no short version that I'm willing to detail. At least the female on my right has grown a bit more kinder towards me.
Edit: things that have been deduced thus far: 1. You're not smart if no one can understand you. You're are only as smart as you can explain it (and have it understood).
2. Speaking up only to disagree + fancy words makes you look like a douchebag. Somehow that didn't click for me...
3. Breathe.
4. The longer it is, the harder it is to fully grasp as a whole concept or argument.
5. talk slower, elaborate, more cheery and less words + concession.
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]).
I'm just saying, most people don't have the attention span to finish that sentence, even if you were to speak it to them. Try distilling your thoughts and agreeing with everything in any way you can think of. People will probably like what you have to say because you're really not bad at talking/writing.
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.
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).
hmm I was expecting you to say you were insane.... LIKE ME :D . But really most of my classes are the same I say something that makes since to me (such as "Vancouver is 1 minute ahead of Victoria so if it's 12:00 here its 12:01 there) but nobody else understands.
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.
I can't tell if you agree or disagree with me... but if you disagree I'll be sad because I was trying to be positive. ?
I think the responsibility lies on the smarter person to make themselves understood. Its easier to talk down/slower to someone than to expect them to have to learn new words to understand you. Usually you can make your same point with smaller words and still have a meaningful discussion.
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]).
I'm just saying, most people don't have the attention span to finish that sentence, even if you were to speak it to them. Try distilling your thoughts and agreeing with everything in any way you can think of. People will probably like what you have to say because you're really not bad at talking/writing.
I can't think of any possible way of agreeing with them. At least not in a timely fashion before the conversation jumps off to another point. It's probably the hardest thing to do unless the person is thinking simiarly to me (and some people make points I would make, just not recently unfortunately).
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 can't think of any possible way of agreeing with them. At least not in a timely fashion before the conversation jumps off to another point. It's probably the hardest thing to do unless the person is thinking simiarly to me (and some people make points I would make, just not recently unfortunately).
You don't have to actually agree with them, it's just a great way to make people who feel like they're social wizard-savants like what you say.
Final piece of advice... pretend TL mods/users are watching you talk and will rip you a new one if you mess up.
On January 12 2012 09:16 Alisera wrote: I think the responsibility lies on the smarter person to make themselves understood. Its easier to talk down/slower to someone than to expect them to have to learn new words to understand you. Usually you can make your same point with smaller words and still have a meaningful discussion.
Good songs!
Yeah, this is right and I agree. You're not smart if you can't explain it in a way that others understand. You only validate my topic title even more (but in a new dimension, thank you!).
I'm thinking of spending more time explaining my viewpoint rather than just leaving them dryly to figure it out on their own. I think perhaps I approach the conversation just to counter instead of coming in as a part of the circulation (and not to get my slice from the pie).
In the case of your teacher if it really went the way you described it, then she can go fuck herself.
Like I have a similar problem not that I think I'm the wrong kind of smart but just that I find I process information differently than most people so I tend to interpret things differently or when I talk/write I tend to ramble on forgetting the point I'm trying to make. I don't think its wrong to think differently from most people but if you realize that what you say kills conversations I just learned to keep it to myself or go with the flow unless I really feel the need to share my thoughts even though I know I'll probably fail to make my point clearly.
Also if you know that you tend to be wordy and rambly just when you write try to make a conscious effort to communicate in ordinary prose and remind yourself often what the point you are trying to make is.
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?
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?
TO be Honest you just Sound Like: 1) You're a Douchebag 2) You Think like a douchebag or you enter conversations with bias that you assume other people are less intelligent, or wrong, or you have a superior opinion.
If you speak and you use big words, and your message insinuates "i have the right position/opinion and it is unbending" its not that you're smart(er). it really is that people don't understand you, your thoughts and your words are incoherent.
Yes its a sentence, and it sounds like a dragon casting fucking magic. but if someone is speaking to you, having a conversation in that manner, other people have to assume that person is retarded or slight uncomfortable.
I would Suggest Articulation. Speak like you would if you were talking to yourself in your head, rather than if you were trying to impress someone. Use expressive terms, such as I feel like, in my opinions, but I think rather than condescending or elevated patterns of speaking.
Or Everyone else could be of Sub par intelligence and out to get you. P.s don't drop out of a 400 class because you feel smarter than them, for gods sake
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
On January 12 2012 09:18 Ilikestarcraft wrote: In the case of your teacher if it really went the way you described it, then she can go fuck herself.
Like I have a similar problem not that I think I'm the wrong kind of smart but just that I find I process information differently than most people so I tend to interpret things differently or when I talk/write I tend to ramble on forgetting the point I'm trying to make. I don't think its wrong to think differently from most people but if you realize that what you say kills conversations I just learned to keep it to myself unless I really feel the need to share my thoughts even though I know I'll probably fail to make my point clearly.
Also if you know that you tend to be wordy and rambly just when you write try to make a conscious effort to communicate in ordinary prose and remind yourself often what the point you are trying to make is.
You have to consider I'm bias, I try not to be, but there is a very likely bias. I honestly want to knock her skull open, but she does care for the welfare of the class and doesn't want to deter me from talking (she let me talk 5 times out of the whole conversation and tried to keep the ball rolling without dismissing me. So she did try).
The issue is, I hated high-school because everything was in French, so I couldn't ever talk (I can't express myself clearly and intelligently as I can in English), so I never got to participate in class.
Then in CEGEP, I talked a lot, but no one ever debated with me so the class was always just rambles. I didn't feel any interaction or exchange of intelligent thoughts. I didn't learn anything from anyone in my class.
Then it just hardens from there and in these two years of Uni, there were never any discussions except for this final sociology class and thus the issue arises.
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.
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.
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.
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 09:21 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 09:23 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 09:07 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 09:07 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 09:28 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 09:07 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]).
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).
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.)
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.
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).
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.
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 09:23 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.
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?
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 09:37 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.)
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).
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 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.)
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.)
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.
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 09:21 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.
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:
On January 12 2012 09:53 Vansetsu wrote: 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.
My immediate goal: offer a new perspective 2. get an active debate with contrasting viewpoints.
I dont want to compromise because it completely goes against my understanding of a worthy discussion. The entire discipline is like this (meaning all classes act like this as far as my own have [in the 300-level]), so I'm not expecting differently from courses that disinterest me even more.
I like the content, not the drive of the discussion or how I enter the class.
When participating in class discussions, normally my contribution tends to silence the class for an awkward moment, but I don't claim to be smart like your over-9000 some shit like that class. I'm just a high school kid who gets average grades.
On the odd chance of a debate coming up, more often than not I am prepared with all my arguements (well, its all actually heat of the moment), but sometimes I'll say something that I think is brilliant, get a counter-question and I have no answer.
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).
Dude, breathe. Breathe. Breathe. Breathe. GOD. DAMN. FUCKING. BREAAAAAAAATH!!!!
In other words: punctuation shall make everything better.
Also, see if there are ways for you to study what the teacher wants you to learn before the actual lesson. For example, my teachers put their power points they use in their lesson plans on a site where we can log in, download them, and open them. Using them however we please. I often will take advantage of this and get hw done/ become the one kid that actually knows where the teacher is going with this and help the class move along. I'm generally considered an "over achiever" because I do this (As in, my fellow students actually gave me the nick name "over achiever"). It allows me to show that I am smart as I will also put my own viewpoint on things I disagree with, but knowing where the teacher is going with this, I will be able to keep the class moving as well and connect it to the conversation. It even allows me to have enough extra time to prepare for conversations before-hand and find any flaws in what I would've said.
I actually type stuff up on TL in pms to myself and will continually delete and retype it up. Sometimes when I don't have that time to type stuff up on TL I will literally imagine myself typing it out in my head. Then I change stuff around and boom. I got myself something to say.
edit: WTF 4 pages?!?!?!? It was 2 when I started this... FML. (and torti's too lol) edit2: lol I'm next to get quoted.
On January 12 2012 10:02 Hypertension wrote: 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.
She didn't ask me to stop talking. She said I could stop talking or that I didn't have to talk to get the participation points that I'd still get my 10% participation if I was present anyways. I offered an alternative of writing small essays for her on questions discussed in class (how would you approach feelings was today's question) and she was quick to cut that suggestion off and just say that I didn't have to talk.
I want to contribute and say my thoughts, I never get to (hence these long blogs haha), but I don't want to be an asshole smarty shithead.
Too fucking true. I'm surprised you guys all read this blog (or my previous ones), goddamn! TL grows the best minority populations!
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 09:44 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.)
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.
That's not necessarily true if you have a good reportire with your professors. I got along well with several of mine when I was in University and built good relationships with them outside of class.
We've had pretty good discussions.
Not from the prof your talking about though. Doesn't sound like they want anything to do with you. Not just you either.
Grades say a lot too and you can always schedule an appointment during their office hours if you want to go over something for more feedback. This doesn't mean you will get the answers you want though.
On January 12 2012 10:06 RedJustice wrote: 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.
I've already done this for years. My father made me do this for 6 years. I had to read a motivational paper that depicted me as XYZ great descriptions and I had to read it passionately with enthusiasm.
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.
There's no punctuation when you talk and I feel mine hits the vocab. words of the curriculum than yours (legitimate power, charismatic leader). You wouldn't know which words those are, but I see your point. I feel like when I talk, it's a pinball machine to say all the legitimate vocab words of my curriculum too.
You might just be dealing with idiots who can't conceptualize abstract arguments. It sounds like you want to debate people who simply cannot grasp what you're talking about because it doesn't fit into one of their prerecorded arguments.
Take the T.S. Elliot route: If you're legitimately more intelligent then anyone in the whole damn room then do something so amazing that you can't be ignored.
People who don't want to understand won't. Until an anvil of fucking awesome cracks into their cookie cutter points of view, of course.
On January 12 2012 10:14 Thaniri wrote: I'm in high school, but perhaps I could relate.
When participating in class discussions, normally my contribution tends to silence the class for an awkward moment, but I don't claim to be smart like your over-9000 some shit like that class. I'm just a high school kid who gets average grades.
On the odd chance of a debate coming up, more often than not I am prepared with all my arguements (well, its all actually heat of the moment), but sometimes I'll say something that I think is brilliant, get a counter-question and I have no answer.
I get average grades too :B Had to redo a few grades as well (fuck you French schools!). I wish I got to debate in high-school ): I really feel this is a build-up of never being able to be expressive during my other years of school too sometimes.
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:
why are you even taking sociology? why not drop and become a writer, he says romantically
The discussion of intelligence, the way we express it, how much of it do we really have, is a pretty touchy subject (retfan)- but I assume that people in this thread all understand that and that we're all making a conscious effort not to make anyone upset because of a misunderstanding. All good intentions here. Either way, you're doing a great job at articulating yourself so I get that this is an honest problem.
What immediately came to mind after I finished reading your OP was "Why doesn't he simply express himself in a way so that everyone can understand?" What if the question isn't "Am I the wrong kind of smart?" and the real question is why aren't you smart enough to know that you need to express yourself differently to have better feedback from your audience. I gave it some more thought and from what I'm reading in this thread it seems like this is just the way you want to talk in a discussion that requires full exercise of intelligence. From what I can see in you example, and from the type of school you're going to- it's just not going to fly man.
Most people aren't going to take-in what you're saying very well, personally if I was sitting in the same classroom I would be shaking my head and thinking "Did he really need to waste my time regurgitating that long ass string of words?", the person next to me could be saying "Who does this guy think he is?", misunderstanding you when this is just how you want to express yourself. Smart people are a minority, and they are praised for their intelligence by the majority. So if only a handful of your colleagues fully understands and appreciates your way of expressing your thoughts than this puts you into the minority, and this is a bad minority.
I mean I see at least 1 person that does what you do to varying degrees each semester. Some do it and get away with it, some don't and a genuinely smart person speaks up to further their point significantly in half the time. Obviously you can see now that I don't like people who add too much vocabulary into their speech, but at the same time I'm making a conscious effort to understand that this is just how some people, like you Torti, just want to express themselves. In the end all I can say is, you're never going to be widely accepted with this way of talking, no matter what the setting is, unless of course you've somehow landed a sweet seat for lunch with a bunch of scholars with published work.
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).
Dude, breathe. Breathe. Breathe. Breathe. GOD. DAMN. FUCKING. BREAAAAAAAATH!!!!
In other words: punctuation shall make everything better.
Also, see if there are ways for you to study what the teacher wants you to learn before the actual lesson. For example, my teachers put their power points they use in their lesson plans on a site where we can log in, download them, and open them. Using them however we please. I often will take advantage of this and get hw done/ become the one kid that actually knows where the teacher is going with this and help the class move along. I'm generally considered an "over achiever" because I do this (As in, my fellow students actually gave me the nick name "over achiever"). It allows me to show that I am smart as I will also put my own viewpoint on things I disagree with, but knowing where the teacher is going with this, I will be able to keep the class moving as well and connect it to the conversation. It even allows me to have enough extra time to prepare for conversations before-hand and find any flaws in what I would've said.
I actually type stuff up on TL in pms to myself and will continually delete and retype it up. Sometimes when I don't have that time to type stuff up on TL I will literally imagine myself typing it out in my head. Then I change stuff around and boom. I got myself something to say.
edit: WTF 4 pages?!?!?!? It was 2 when I started this... FML. (and torti's too lol)
Yeah, I used to love commas. Now, I tend to avoid them I believe (or overuse them to skip on periods). I really think I should go in and be completely mellow. I went in this class with Michael Jackson because I wanted to be intergrative with the class rather than cynical. It all devolved the same way in the end ):
No powerpoints. Just the book and read it. Nobody read this week's article so we're reading it again. I already read it however, so... I'm bored and lost ):
I already do that in my classes, teacher hates it as far as I know. They hate it when you're ahead of them and bursting their train~
You'd think they like you being prepared and ready to learn or contribute QQ
omg I know @_@ TL is amazing with replies, we should all take a class together. University of TL!
Being truly intelligent is knowing that knowing the right answer doesn't always translate to the desired result, especially when working within a framework of established order and respect.
There are probably some strippers that are smarter than the President.
I'd rather be President than be a stripper who's correct on every issue.
On January 12 2012 10:09 kirdie wrote: Do some courses in logic, this should help you stay on the point and formulate meaningful sentence transitions.
Which classes would that be? I want to take a minor in informative writing :B
Does your school offer "Introduction to Logic" in the Philosophy department? Some English classes teach these sorts of things, too.
As far as communication and writing, you should always aim for concision. "Word Salad" can get you by but you won't actually acquire any skill at writing. You've probably read Orwell's "Politics and the English Language" somewhere along the line, but in case you haven't, here it is: http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/orwell46.htm
Orwell shares several sentence forms and grammatical quirks that should be avoided.
On January 12 2012 10:09 kirdie wrote: Do some courses in logic, this should help you stay on the point and formulate meaningful sentence transitions.
Which classes would that be? I want to take a minor in informative writing :B
Does your school offer "Introduction to Logic" in the Philosophy department? Some English classes teach these sorts of things, too.
As far as communication and writing, you should always aim for concision. "Word Salad" can get you by but you won't actually acquire any skill at writing. You've probably read Orwell's "Politics and the English Language" somewhere along the line, but in case you haven't, here it is: http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/orwell46.htm
Orwell shares several sentence forms and grammatical quirks that should be avoided.
Every university in Canada had it as a compulsory while I was there. ._.
You had to take it in your first year. Quebec has a different system when it comes to education.
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:
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.)
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.
That's not necessarily true if you have a good reportire with your professors. I got along well with several of mine when I was in University and built good relationships with them outside of class.
We've had pretty good discussions.
Not from the prof your talking about though. Doesn't sound like they want anything to do with you. Not just you either.
Grades say a lot too and you can always schedule an appointment during their office hours if you want to go over something for more feedback. This doesn't mean you will get the answers you want though.
I have a lot of professors as friends, just nothing beyond the school (usually when I leave a school, I leave everyone there. It helps that I don't have Facebook lol).
Yeah, I guess. My grades are average B-C+. Not amazing, I should actually be more active outside of the class.
On January 12 2012 10:20 EternaLLegacy wrote: You might just be dealing with idiots who can't conceptualize abstract arguments. It sounds like you want to debate people who simply cannot grasp what you're talking about because it doesn't fit into one of their prerecorded arguments.
Perhaps, I actually enjoy that first line a lot, would have never articulated it that way. Even if they are idiots, it keeps the class light-hearted and keeps the discussion going. Putting in a snippety wise-ass is just aggravating and disruptive in the end, right or wrong.
On January 12 2012 10:21 ShatterZer0 wrote: Take the T.S. Elliot route: If you're legitimately more intelligent then anyone in the whole damn room then do something so amazing that you can't be ignored.
People who don't want to understand won't. Until an anvil of fucking awesome cracks into their cookie cutter points of view, of course.
To not be ignored doesn't necessarily mean the attention is good. No one ignored me here, but the attention was something that made me uncomfortable for all the wrong reasons ):
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:
why are you even taking sociology? why not drop and become a writer, he says romantically
Torte pondered upon this, reflective. Should I become a writer, the only arguments I would have would be with myself. That in itself is romantic and shows pretentious hardships a liberal arts major student of writing would exaggerate to the point of glorizing it beyond recognition.
But alas, I reconsidered and thought of how hard it would be financially and how saying you are -ologist is a lot fancier than saying you're an unaccomplished writer.
He furrowed his brows and moved on to his next reply, unhappy of disappointing Roe and his good suggestion.
Alright, sorry about the delay. I was too busy celebrating the New Year. I hope you're still checking in on this account.
Anyway, I think I have a bit of a unique perspective. I've seen MIT admissions from the perspective of the applicant, a student, a teacher, and now as an alumnus conducting interviews of prospective students. The fact that you mentioned MIT specifically really made me feel like I should take the time to produce a good response!
I wanted to start by writing out standard admissions advice (e.g. no one thing like SAT scores will keep you from being admitted, etc.). While all that is true, the problem you're dealing with is so much bigger than that. The problem you're coming up against is one I've seen so many of my fellow students encounter. If I could set up a wavy-fade flashback, I'd show you my freshman year.
I moved into one of the dorms at MIT thinking I was hot shit. I had, after all, just gotten into MIT. And beyond that, I had tested out of the freshman calculus and physics classes, meaning that I was able to start math "a year" ahead in differential equations and start with the advanced version of the physics 2 class we have. Registration went by easy enough and I was pleased with my decisions.
Term rolled in and I was getting crushed. I wasn't the greatest student in high school, and whenever I got poor grades I would explain them away by saying I just didn't care or I was too busy or too unmotivated or (more often than not) just cared about something else. It didn't help that I had good test performance which fed my ego and let me think I was smarter than everyone else, just relatively unmotivated. I had grossly underestimated MIT, and was left feeling so dumb.
I had the fortune of living next to a bright guy, R. R. was an advanced student, to say the least. He was a sophomore, but was already taking the most advanced graduate math classes. He came into MIT and tested out of calculus, multivariable calculus, differential equations, linear algebra, real analysis (notoriously the most difficult math class at MIT), and a slew of other math courses. And to top it all off, he was attractive, engaging, sociable, and generally had no faults that would make him mortal.
I suffered through half a semester of differential equations before my pride let me go to R. for help. And sure enough, he took my textbook for a night to review the material (he couldn't remember it all from third grade), and then he walked me through my difficulties and coached me. I ended up pulling a B+ at the end of a semester and avoiding that train wreck. The thing is, nothing he taught me involved raw brainpower. The more I learned the more I realized that the bulk of his intelligence and his performance just came from study and practice, and that the had amassed a large artillery of intellectual and mathematical tools that he had learned and trained to call upon. He showed me some of those tools, but what I really ended up learning was how to go about finding, building, and refining my own set of cognitive tools. I admired R., and I looked up to him, and while I doubt I will ever compete with his genius, I recognize that it's because of a relative lack of my conviction and an excess of his, not some accident of genetics.
It's easy to trick ourselves into thinking that "being smart" is what determines our performance. In so many ways, it's the easiest possible explanation because it demands so little of us and immediately explains away our failings. You are facing this tension without recognizing it. You are blaming your intelligence in the first two paragraphs but you undermine yourself by saying you received good grades you didn't deserve. You recognize your lack of motivation as a factor in your lack of extracurricular activities but not in your SAT scores (fun fact: the variable that correlates most strongly to SAT performance is hours of studying for the SATs). Your very last statement could just as well apply to your entire post:
But none of this has to do with my intelligence; I'm just rambling.
You got A's because you studied or because the classes were easy. You got a B probably because you were so used to understanding things that you didn't know how to deal with something that didn't come so easily. I'm guessing that early on you built the cognitive and intellectual tools to rapidly acquire and process new information, but that you've relied on those tools so much you never really developed a good set of tools for what to do when those failed. This is what happened to me, but I didn't figure it out until after I got crushed by my first semester of college. I need to ask you, has anyone ever taken the time to teach you how to study? And separately, have you learned how to study on your own in the absence of a teacher or curriculum? These are the most valuable tools you can acquire because they are the tools you will use to develop more powerful and more insightful tools. It only snowballs from there until you become like R.
MIT has an almost 97% graduation rate. That means that most of the people who get in, get through. Do you know what separates the 3% that didn't from the rest that do? I do. I've seen it so many times, and it almost happened to me. Very few people get through four years of MIT with such piss-poor performance that they don't graduate. In fact, I can't think of a single one off the top of my head. People fail to graduate from MIT because they come in, encounter problems that are harder than anything they've had to do before, and not knowing how to look for help or how to go about wrestling those problems, burn out. The students that are successful look at that challenge, wrestle with feelings of inadequacy and stupidity, and begin to take steps hiking that mountain, knowing that bruised pride is a small price to pay for getting to see the view from the top. They ask for help, they acknowledge their inadequacies. They don't blame their lack of intelligence, they blame their lack of motivation. I was lucky that I had someone to show me how to look for that motivation, and I'm hoping that I can be that person for you in some small capacity over the Internet. I was able to recover from my freshman year and go on to be very successful in my studies, even serving as a TA for my fellow students. When I was a senior, I would sit down with the freshmen in my dorm and show them the same things that had been shown to me, and I would watch them struggle with the same feelings, and overcome them. By the time I graduated MIT, I had become the person I looked up to when I first got in.
You're so young, way too young to be worried about not being smart enough. Until you're so old you start going senile, you have the opportunity to make yourself "smarter." And I put that in quotes because "smart" is really just a way of saying "has invested so much time and sweat that you make it look effortless." You feel like you are burnt out or that you are on the verge of burning out, but in reality you are on the verge of deciding whether or not you will burn out. It's scary to acknowledge that it's a decision because it puts the onus on you to to do something about it, but it's empowering because it means there is something you can do about it.
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.
One thing to remember is that as a spoken sentence becomes longer and more complex, it is more difficult to parse and understand. Simplifying the sentence will help.
This is a discussion, correct? If so, another thing you could do is to phrase your example as a question. Your reply could then be, "But what about people like Sarah Palin or Nixon that gained power by recognizing and using people's emotions in their favor?" At the very least, the question makes your point and spurs further discussion.
If you have the free time, checking out a book on rhetoric can help shape what you want to say to get better results. It also helps enforce the opinion that you expressed as some aspects try to use people's emotions and desires to influence opinion.
On January 12 2012 10:26 StarStruck wrote: You went to the wrong school.
I've been very fortunate to go to great schools.
Well, considering you went to a French school (Montreal yahoooo!) and you didn't have as many opportunities. Give yourself more opportunities.
That's the reason I like to think that I'm a pretty darn good public speaker.
I went to the school the law obliged me to go ):
I hate that. A lot of folks wanted to go to my junior high school but couldn't because they didn't have enough seats and there were a number of other schools that were closer to them. We're talking about a few blocks. I can say the same thing about my high school as well.
-_-
There were only a few exceptions believe it or not! ;o
I guess those people got lucky, but hell. They made things fun!
That Simpsons episode of Waverly Hills comes to mind, hm!
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).
Dude, breathe. Breathe. Breathe. Breathe. GOD. DAMN. FUCKING. BREAAAAAAAATH!!!!
In other words: punctuation shall make everything better.
Also, see if there are ways for you to study what the teacher wants you to learn before the actual lesson. For example, my teachers put their power points they use in their lesson plans on a site where we can log in, download them, and open them. Using them however we please. I often will take advantage of this and get hw done/ become the one kid that actually knows where the teacher is going with this and help the class move along. I'm generally considered an "over achiever" because I do this (As in, my fellow students actually gave me the nick name "over achiever"). It allows me to show that I am smart as I will also put my own viewpoint on things I disagree with, but knowing where the teacher is going with this, I will be able to keep the class moving as well and connect it to the conversation. It even allows me to have enough extra time to prepare for conversations before-hand and find any flaws in what I would've said.
I actually type stuff up on TL in pms to myself and will continually delete and retype it up. Sometimes when I don't have that time to type stuff up on TL I will literally imagine myself typing it out in my head. Then I change stuff around and boom. I got myself something to say.
edit: WTF 4 pages?!?!?!? It was 2 when I started this... FML. (and torti's too lol)
Yeah, I used to love commas. Now, I tend to avoid them I believe (or overuse them to skip on periods). I really think I should go in and be completely mellow. I went in this class with Michael Jackson because I wanted to be intergrative with the class rather than cynical. It all devolved the same way in the end ):
No powerpoints. Just the book and read it. Nobody read this week's article so we're reading it again. I already read it however, so... I'm bored and lost ):
I already do that in my classes, teacher hates it as far as I know. They hate it when you're ahead of them and bursting their train~
You'd think they like you being prepared and ready to learn or contribute QQ
omg I know @_@ TL is amazing with replies, we should all take a class together. University of TL!
Dear Pastamancer,
You overuse commas. I meant PERIODS. Use them. They are so useful. Also, I'm taking classes in HS in the United States public schools. They encourage that type of thinking so I feel very sorry for you right now . They go "Very good 3FFA!" or "Wow! You're on fire!" I mean it, they really do that(but with my real name instead of 3FFA ).
Go online and read some other stuff related to that article? Honestly, I can't understand a teacher that won't encourage students to go beyond the boundaries of just "sit and listen, just sit and listen". I've never dealt with that before. Whenever I did try that, I got the worst grades. It baffles me as to how your teacher keeps her job since she is obviously giving you the idea that to succeed in life you can't be proactive. I would hate your teacher.
Also, Torte, you could be a Professor on fastest ways to reply to other's messages@ the University of TL. :D edit: 5?!!? And we're soon to go onto 6?!?!?! What....
On January 12 2012 10:26 Snuggles wrote: I'll be blunt with what I think of it.
The discussion of intelligence, the way we express it, how much of it do we really have, is a pretty touchy subject (retfan)- but I assume that people in this thread all understand that and that we're all making a conscious effort not to make anyone upset because of a misunderstanding. All good intentions here. Either way, you're doing a great job at articulating yourself so I get that this is an honest problem.
What immediately came to mind after I finished reading your OP was "Why doesn't he simply express himself in a way so that everyone can understand?" What if the question isn't "Am I the wrong kind of smart?" and the real question is why aren't you smart enough to know that you need to express yourself differently to have better feedback from your audience. I gave it some more thought and from what I'm reading in this thread it seems like this is just the way you want to talk in a discussion that requires full exercise of intelligence. From what I can see in you example, and from the type of school you're going to- it's just not going to fly man.
Most people aren't going to take-in what you're saying very well, personally if I was sitting in the same classroom I would be shaking my head and thinking "Did he really need to waste my time regurgitating that long ass string of words?", the person next to me could be saying "Who does this guy think he is?", misunderstanding you when this is just how you want to express yourself. Smart people are a minority, and they are praised for their intelligence by the majority. So if only a handful of your colleagues fully understands and appreciates your way of expressing your thoughts than this puts you into the minority, and this is a bad minority.
I mean I see at least 1 person that does what you do to varying degrees each semester. Some do it and get away with it, some don't and a genuinely smart person speaks up to further their point significantly in half the time. Obviously you can see now that I don't like people who add too much vocabulary into their speech, but at the same time I'm making a conscious effort to understand that this is just how some people, like you Torti, just want to express themselves. In the end all I can say is, you're never going to be widely accepted with this way of talking, no matter what the setting is, unless of course you've somehow landed a sweet seat for lunch with a bunch of scholars with published work.
"Why doesn't he simply express himself in a way so that everyone can understand?" It's not possible. It's harder for me to simplify it than to make it even more complex or add to it. When I'm on the spot and feel the need to portray what I want to argue or think, it comes out in a literary mass that makes sense if written, but becomes too much to an average listener. It's not higher quality, it's the wrong quality of text at the wrong quantitiy.
Everything you're saying in P1 and P2 are right and I'm pretty sure that's what they're thinking (justifiably). They have every right to be, but it's not an intentioned or effort-full attempt to express more than I want, it's just how I want it to be said or how I would say it if asked plainly in a paper.
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:
why are you even taking sociology? why not drop and become a writer, he says romantically
Torte pondered upon this, reflective. Should I become a writer, the only arguments I would have would be with myself. That in itself is romantic and shows pretentious hardships a liberal arts major student of writing would exaggerate to the point of glorizing it beyond recognition.
But alas, I reconsidered and thought of how hard it would be financially and how saying you are -ologist is a lot fancier than saying you're an unaccomplished writer.
He furrowed his brows and moved on to his next reply, unhappy of disappointing Roe and his good suggestion.
What the HECK was that!??
anyways...if you've never taken a phil course, you might need just the intro type stuff. but they should offer something like "symbolic logic" which is at the 2nd and higher levels. it's pretty simple but challenging, and fun in a logic-y way. The reason I fell in love with it is for its similarity to math. You deduce things, they're perfectly right. They're always right, they must be right. You can also take Practical Reasoning.
On January 12 2012 10:26 StarStruck wrote: You went to the wrong school.
I've been very fortunate to go to great schools.
Well, considering you went to a French school (Montreal yahoooo!) and you didn't have as many opportunities. Give yourself more opportunities.
That's the reason I like to think that I'm a pretty darn good public speaker.
I went to the school the law obliged me to go ):
I hate that. A lot of folks wanted to go to my junior high school but couldn't because they didn't have enough seats and there were a number of other schools that were closer to them. We're talking about a few blocks. I can say the same thing about my high school as well.
-_-
There were only a few exceptions believe it or not! ;o
I guess those people got lucky, but hell. They made things fun!
That Simpsons episode of Waverly Hills comes to mind, hm!
It's more of a law that obliges immigrants to go to a French school so that the province can maintain the continuity of their language :B
I learned a-lot from my older brother, who is a rhetorician. His vocabulary is immense, but he rarely seeks a means to use it. The best means of communication is always a succinct one. If an explanation is lengthy and full of "A+" vocabulary, it should be out of necessity. Most of the time, this isn't the situation. Most of the time, points can be made succinctly if there is a definite conclusion at the end of the argument/conversation. For example, one analogy can explain what would take many paragraphs to convey. If I am trying to explain something to you -- is it better to use one sentence or three pages if the end result is the same? It sounds to me like you have issues with the decisiveness of your own opinions. It's always nice to find ways to straddle the line and never state a point, leaving you a victor in your own mind. Conversely, you never actually conveyed anything of value.
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.
One thing to remember is that as a spoken sentence becomes longer and more complex, it is more difficult to parse and understand. Simplifying the sentence will help.
This is a discussion, correct? If so, another thing you could do is to phrase your example as a question. Your reply could then be, "But what about people like Sarah Palin or Nixon that gained power by recognizing and using people's emotions in their favor?" At the very least, the question makes your point and spurs further discussion.
If you have the free time, checking out a book on rhetoric can help shape what you want to say to get better results. It also helps enforce the opinion that you expressed as some aspects try to use people's emotions and desires to influence opinion.
Yes, 100% agreed. The longer it is, the harder it is to fully grasp as a whole concept or argument.
Do you have a specific title for a book like that? And that question trick is good, instead of cutting the discussion short, you pass the beach ball around! I like it! It might seem like a challenge to others though :B
On January 12 2012 10:20 EternaLLegacy wrote: You might just be dealing with idiots who can't conceptualize abstract arguments. It sounds like you want to debate people who simply cannot grasp what you're talking about because it doesn't fit into one of their prerecorded arguments.
Perhaps, I actually enjoy that first line a lot, would have never articulated it that way. Even if they are idiots, it keeps the class light-hearted and keeps the discussion going. Putting in a snippety wise-ass is just aggravating and disruptive in the end, right or wrong.
I just had a miserable experience in a philosophy class, where I was the only one who actually knew how to debate and discuss ideas using logic. The rest of the class tried talking about what they "felt" was the right answer, not how to logically deduce it. Naturally, after watching their arguments get torn apart without hesitation, they became extremely intimidated and just shut up completely for the rest of the semester. It made the class extremely boring because it was me explaining things 50% of the time or more, even though I wasn't even the TA. Go figure.
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.
One thing to remember is that as a spoken sentence becomes longer and more complex, it is more difficult to parse and understand. Simplifying the sentence will help.
This is a discussion, correct? If so, another thing you could do is to phrase your example as a question. Your reply could then be, "But what about people like Sarah Palin or Nixon that gained power by recognizing and using people's emotions in their favor?" At the very least, the question makes your point and spurs further discussion.
If you have the free time, checking out a book on rhetoric can help shape what you want to say to get better results. It also helps enforce the opinion that you expressed as some aspects try to use people's emotions and desires to influence opinion.
When you pose it as a question to the rest it does help and they will embrace it more.
What does it come down to? Simplifying once again.
I dunno why this blog is so interesting to me...probably because my classes all hated me too.
I like how you said you tried to go in like Michael Jackson and it fail, that's hilarious. On a similar note, yeah, maybe try going in like Bob Ross or Mister Rogers... seriously everyone adores Mister Rogers you can't go wrong. :D
On January 12 2012 10:46 Sinensis wrote: I dunno why this blog is so interesting to me...probably because my classes all hated me too.
I like how you said you tried to go in like Michael Jackson and it fail, that's hilarious. On a similar note, yeah, maybe try going in like Bob Ross or Mister Rogers... seriously everyone adores Mister Rogers you can't go wrong. :D
It's language man. The power of words. Especially emotionally charged words.
Develop a sense of humor and use it. (I assume you already have one)
I'm not saying become a comedian, but add "wit" to your controversy and you will become much easier for others to swallow/pay attention to. Look at the role of social and political comedians from court jesters to modern day stewart/colbert. They are very critical of what should be obvious to everyone, but sometimes it just takes someone to point it out for others to see it.
People pay much more attention to the comedian than the editorial writer. They both are doing the same thing. Just in different ways. The sad thing is you would think that you would get some kind of back lash (other than seclusion/social outcast) but sadly nothing you say hits any nerves. Your classmates probably don't want to actually care about anything at all and your ideas (although maybe hard to understand) challenge this.
The important thing is not that you stay socially acceptable, or that you are okay with being an intelligent caring social outcast, but rather that you challenge others to think and hopefully eventually participate.
Someday when you are getting a bit more upset with how the class is going. Go for it. Upset the balance of the teacher being the measuring stick. Make points and challenges that your classmates simply cannot ignore. Become interesting to your peers. Don't just raise your hand, and then talk from your seat. When you are speaking it IS your classroom. You ARE paying for it. Stand-up and refuse to stop being the center of attention until a class-mate has something worthwhile to say. Ask them clear questions. Don't leave open ended questions. Then give them the floor. Create a discussion/forum that you wish would happen. Your goal isn't to participate in it yourself, but rather to feed it fuel and keep it on track so that others can experience and possibly grow into it. Just be the better person if the teacher tries to stand you up. Demand and deserve respect.
The goal isn't to be T.S. Elliot and blow the socks off everyone. The goal is to move the standard. From conventional "schooling" where the teacher/grade/culture is the standard, to the students themselves without yourself becoming the new standard.
On January 12 2012 10:26 Snuggles wrote: I'll be blunt with what I think of it.
The discussion of intelligence, the way we express it, how much of it do we really have, is a pretty touchy subject (retfan)- but I assume that people in this thread all understand that and that we're all making a conscious effort not to make anyone upset because of a misunderstanding. All good intentions here. Either way, you're doing a great job at articulating yourself so I get that this is an honest problem.
What immediately came to mind after I finished reading your OP was "Why doesn't he simply express himself in a way so that everyone can understand?" What if the question isn't "Am I the wrong kind of smart?" and the real question is why aren't you smart enough to know that you need to express yourself differently to have better feedback from your audience. I gave it some more thought and from what I'm reading in this thread it seems like this is just the way you want to talk in a discussion that requires full exercise of intelligence. From what I can see in you example, and from the type of school you're going to- it's just not going to fly man.
Most people aren't going to take-in what you're saying very well, personally if I was sitting in the same classroom I would be shaking my head and thinking "Did he really need to waste my time regurgitating that long ass string of words?", the person next to me could be saying "Who does this guy think he is?", misunderstanding you when this is just how you want to express yourself. Smart people are a minority, and they are praised for their intelligence by the majority. So if only a handful of your colleagues fully understands and appreciates your way of expressing your thoughts than this puts you into the minority, and this is a bad minority.
I mean I see at least 1 person that does what you do to varying degrees each semester. Some do it and get away with it, some don't and a genuinely smart person speaks up to further their point significantly in half the time. Obviously you can see now that I don't like people who add too much vocabulary into their speech, but at the same time I'm making a conscious effort to understand that this is just how some people, like you Torti, just want to express themselves. In the end all I can say is, you're never going to be widely accepted with this way of talking, no matter what the setting is, unless of course you've somehow landed a sweet seat for lunch with a bunch of scholars with published work.
"Why doesn't he simply express himself in a way so that everyone can understand?" It's not possible. It's harder for me to simplify it than to make it even more complex or add to it. When I'm on the spot and feel the need to portray what I want to argue or think, it comes out in a literary mass that makes sense if written, but becomes too much to an average listener. It's not higher quality, it's the wrong quality of text at the wrong quantitiy.
Everything you're saying in P1 and P2 are right and I'm pretty sure that's what they're thinking (justifiably). They have every right to be, but it's not an intentioned or effort-full attempt to express more than I want, it's just how I want it to be said or how I would say it if asked plainly in a paper.
I really want to record the next time I go!
It's because your attitude towards your intelligence is general is over-inflated, as the long post I copied points out.
There are enough perfect SAT scoring students to fill the top universities in the US every year.
There are perfect scoring students on every graduate school test yearly.
There are people who graduate undergrad at 17 with perfect grades.
Anyone can be smart or intelligent and know it. Relying on that like a crutch is what some people would call "taking yourself too seriously."
Be succint. Communicate your points in the best manner. Intelligence means nothing if you can't communicate your point to a mass audience.
Basically you just need to sit back and realize that you're not hot shit. You may claim you don't think you are, but if you're finding yourself in these situations like you posted about, it's because of the aforementioned issues with self-identity and inflation of ego.
I trust you don't need to ask why I have such experience in this realm
On January 12 2012 10:26 StarStruck wrote: You went to the wrong school.
I've been very fortunate to go to great schools.
Well, considering you went to a French school (Montreal yahoooo!) and you didn't have as many opportunities. Give yourself more opportunities.
That's the reason I like to think that I'm a pretty darn good public speaker.
I went to the school the law obliged me to go ):
I hate that. A lot of folks wanted to go to my junior high school but couldn't because they didn't have enough seats and there were a number of other schools that were closer to them. We're talking about a few blocks. I can say the same thing about my high school as well.
-_-
There were only a few exceptions believe it or not! ;o
I guess those people got lucky, but hell. They made things fun!
That Simpsons episode of Waverly Hills comes to mind, hm!
It's more of a law that obliges immigrants to go to a French school so that the province can maintain the continuity of their language :B
I was thinking more along the lines of residential barriers, but that is a very valid point too.
On January 12 2012 10:36 natebreen wrote: This is fitting:
Alright, sorry about the delay. I was too busy celebrating the New Year. I hope you're still checking in on this account.
Anyway, I think I have a bit of a unique perspective. I've seen MIT admissions from the perspective of the applicant, a student, a teacher, and now as an alumnus conducting interviews of prospective students. The fact that you mentioned MIT specifically really made me feel like I should take the time to produce a good response!
I wanted to start by writing out standard admissions advice (e.g. no one thing like SAT scores will keep you from being admitted, etc.). While all that is true, the problem you're dealing with is so much bigger than that. The problem you're coming up against is one I've seen so many of my fellow students encounter. If I could set up a wavy-fade flashback, I'd show you my freshman year.
I moved into one of the dorms at MIT thinking I was hot shit. I had, after all, just gotten into MIT. And beyond that, I had tested out of the freshman calculus and physics classes, meaning that I was able to start math "a year" ahead in differential equations and start with the advanced version of the physics 2 class we have. Registration went by easy enough and I was pleased with my decisions.
Term rolled in and I was getting crushed. I wasn't the greatest student in high school, and whenever I got poor grades I would explain them away by saying I just didn't care or I was too busy or too unmotivated or (more often than not) just cared about something else. It didn't help that I had good test performance which fed my ego and let me think I was smarter than everyone else, just relatively unmotivated. I had grossly underestimated MIT, and was left feeling so dumb.
I had the fortune of living next to a bright guy, R. R. was an advanced student, to say the least. He was a sophomore, but was already taking the most advanced graduate math classes. He came into MIT and tested out of calculus, multivariable calculus, differential equations, linear algebra, real analysis (notoriously the most difficult math class at MIT), and a slew of other math courses. And to top it all off, he was attractive, engaging, sociable, and generally had no faults that would make him mortal.
I suffered through half a semester of differential equations before my pride let me go to R. for help. And sure enough, he took my textbook for a night to review the material (he couldn't remember it all from third grade), and then he walked me through my difficulties and coached me. I ended up pulling a B+ at the end of a semester and avoiding that train wreck. The thing is, nothing he taught me involved raw brainpower. The more I learned the more I realized that the bulk of his intelligence and his performance just came from study and practice, and that the had amassed a large artillery of intellectual and mathematical tools that he had learned and trained to call upon. He showed me some of those tools, but what I really ended up learning was how to go about finding, building, and refining my own set of cognitive tools. I admired R., and I looked up to him, and while I doubt I will ever compete with his genius, I recognize that it's because of a relative lack of my conviction and an excess of his, not some accident of genetics.
It's easy to trick ourselves into thinking that "being smart" is what determines our performance. In so many ways, it's the easiest possible explanation because it demands so little of us and immediately explains away our failings. You are facing this tension without recognizing it. You are blaming your intelligence in the first two paragraphs but you undermine yourself by saying you received good grades you didn't deserve. You recognize your lack of motivation as a factor in your lack of extracurricular activities but not in your SAT scores (fun fact: the variable that correlates most strongly to SAT performance is hours of studying for the SATs). Your very last statement could just as well apply to your entire post:
But none of this has to do with my intelligence; I'm just rambling.
You got A's because you studied or because the classes were easy. You got a B probably because you were so used to understanding things that you didn't know how to deal with something that didn't come so easily. I'm guessing that early on you built the cognitive and intellectual tools to rapidly acquire and process new information, but that you've relied on those tools so much you never really developed a good set of tools for what to do when those failed. This is what happened to me, but I didn't figure it out until after I got crushed by my first semester of college. I need to ask you, has anyone ever taken the time to teach you how to study? And separately, have you learned how to study on your own in the absence of a teacher or curriculum? These are the most valuable tools you can acquire because they are the tools you will use to develop more powerful and more insightful tools. It only snowballs from there until you become like R.
MIT has an almost 97% graduation rate. That means that most of the people who get in, get through. Do you know what separates the 3% that didn't from the rest that do? I do. I've seen it so many times, and it almost happened to me. Very few people get through four years of MIT with such piss-poor performance that they don't graduate. In fact, I can't think of a single one off the top of my head. People fail to graduate from MIT because they come in, encounter problems that are harder than anything they've had to do before, and not knowing how to look for help or how to go about wrestling those problems, burn out. The students that are successful look at that challenge, wrestle with feelings of inadequacy and stupidity, and begin to take steps hiking that mountain, knowing that bruised pride is a small price to pay for getting to see the view from the top. They ask for help, they acknowledge their inadequacies. They don't blame their lack of intelligence, they blame their lack of motivation. I was lucky that I had someone to show me how to look for that motivation, and I'm hoping that I can be that person for you in some small capacity over the Internet. I was able to recover from my freshman year and go on to be very successful in my studies, even serving as a TA for my fellow students. When I was a senior, I would sit down with the freshmen in my dorm and show them the same things that had been shown to me, and I would watch them struggle with the same feelings, and overcome them. By the time I graduated MIT, I had become the person I looked up to when I first got in.
You're so young, way too young to be worried about not being smart enough. Until you're so old you start going senile, you have the opportunity to make yourself "smarter." And I put that in quotes because "smart" is really just a way of saying "has invested so much time and sweat that you make it look effortless." You feel like you are burnt out or that you are on the verge of burning out, but in reality you are on the verge of deciding whether or not you will burn out. It's scary to acknowledge that it's a decision because it puts the onus on you to to do something about it, but it's empowering because it means there is something you can do about it.
So do it.
Okay, let's boogie to this
Where did I mention MIT and this Canada, no SAT or standarized testing whatsoever :B
"Term rolled in and I was getting crushed. I wasn't the greatest student in high school, and whenever I got poor grades I would explain them away by saying I just didn't care or I was too busy or too unmotivated or (more often than not) just cared about something else. It didn't help that I had good test performance which fed my ego and let me think I was smarter than everyone else, just relatively unmotivated. I had grossly underestimated MIT, and was left feeling so dumb."
This is high-school for me. I used to say these things and I still do.
You got a B probably because you were so used to understanding things that you didn't know how to deal with something that didn't come so easily. I'm guessing that early on you built the cognitive and intellectual tools to rapidly acquire and process new information, but that you've relied on those tools so much you never really developed a good set of tools for what to do when those failed. This is what happened to me, but I didn't figure it out until after I got crushed by my first semester of college. I need to ask you, has anyone ever taken the time to teach you how to study? And separately, have you learned how to study on your own in the absence of a teacher or curriculum? These are the most valuable tools you can acquire because they are the tools you will use to develop more powerful and more insightful tools. It only snowballs from there until you become like R.
This isn't really relative to my issue, but I'll answer it. I have been using the same tools as I've been using since CEGEP. Sociology has almost no full testing, two exams, non-culmulative and 40% is the paper which is aced everytime by reinventing scenarios or issues and tangibly attaching them to real issues (Corporations is the easiest aspect of this world to write 10,000 words on). I learned how to study in high-school when I had to hurdle over the language barriers to process information in a language I didn't fully grasp (1 year to French and then I was moving up in the grades/years). Unlike Math and hard sciences, sociology is a lot easier to study because it involves a sociological imagination where things are logically and rationally understood and various answers are correct so long as you hit the right points and justify it confidently. The essays are the same, except longer. I'm no accelerated pro, but I finished the entire Sociology curriculum in two years (this is my last semester of Sociology and then I just do either a minor or elective courses for a year/a semester + summer).
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).
Dude, breathe. Breathe. Breathe. Breathe. GOD. DAMN. FUCKING. BREAAAAAAAATH!!!!
In other words: punctuation shall make everything better.
Also, see if there are ways for you to study what the teacher wants you to learn before the actual lesson. For example, my teachers put their power points they use in their lesson plans on a site where we can log in, download them, and open them. Using them however we please. I often will take advantage of this and get hw done/ become the one kid that actually knows where the teacher is going with this and help the class move along. I'm generally considered an "over achiever" because I do this (As in, my fellow students actually gave me the nick name "over achiever"). It allows me to show that I am smart as I will also put my own viewpoint on things I disagree with, but knowing where the teacher is going with this, I will be able to keep the class moving as well and connect it to the conversation. It even allows me to have enough extra time to prepare for conversations before-hand and find any flaws in what I would've said.
I actually type stuff up on TL in pms to myself and will continually delete and retype it up. Sometimes when I don't have that time to type stuff up on TL I will literally imagine myself typing it out in my head. Then I change stuff around and boom. I got myself something to say.
edit: WTF 4 pages?!?!?!? It was 2 when I started this... FML. (and torti's too lol)
Yeah, I used to love commas. Now, I tend to avoid them I believe (or overuse them to skip on periods). I really think I should go in and be completely mellow. I went in this class with Michael Jackson because I wanted to be intergrative with the class rather than cynical. It all devolved the same way in the end ):
No powerpoints. Just the book and read it. Nobody read this week's article so we're reading it again. I already read it however, so... I'm bored and lost ):
I already do that in my classes, teacher hates it as far as I know. They hate it when you're ahead of them and bursting their train~
You'd think they like you being prepared and ready to learn or contribute QQ
omg I know @_@ TL is amazing with replies, we should all take a class together. University of TL!
Dear Pastamancer,
You overuse commas. I meant PERIODS. Use them. They are so useful. Also, I'm taking classes in HS in the United States public schools. They encourage that type of thinking so I feel very sorry for you right now . They go "Very good 3FFA!" or "Wow! You're on fire!" I mean it, they really do that(but with my real name instead of 3FFA ).
Go online and read some other stuff related to that article? Honestly, I can't understand a teacher that won't encourage students to go beyond the boundaries of just "sit and listen, just sit and listen". I've never dealt with that before. Whenever I did try that, I got the worst grades. It baffles me as to how your teacher keeps her job since she is obviously giving you the idea that to succeed in life you can't be proactive. I would hate your teacher.
Also, Torte, you could be a Professor on fastest ways to reply to other's messages@ the University of TL. :D edit: 5?!!? And we're soon to go onto 6?!?!?! What....
rofl Pastamancer.
Yeah, I guess I do love commas :D! Most teachers want contribution, it's usually the wrong kind though (always some asshole on his laptop correcting dates or some shit, so annoying).
On January 12 2012 10:46 Sinensis wrote: I dunno why this blog is so interesting to me...probably because my classes all hated me too.
I like how you said you tried to go in like Michael Jackson and it fail, that's hilarious. On a similar note, yeah, maybe try going in like Bob Ross or Mister Rogers... seriously everyone adores Mister Rogers you can't go wrong. :D
Haha, what did you do?
I try to play upbeat music to keep me attentive during class, but I always resolve to Jazz T___T
On January 12 2012 10:49 HungrySC2 wrote: Develop a sense of humor and use it. (I assume you already have one)
I'm not saying become a comedian, but add "wit" to your controversy and you will become much easier for others to swallow/pay attention to. Look at the role of social and political comedians from court jesters to modern day stewart/colbert. They are very critical of what should be obvious to everyone, but sometimes it just takes someone to point it out for others to see it.
People pay much more attention to the comedian than the editorial writer. They both are doing the same thing. Just in different ways. The sad thing is you would think that you would get some kind of back lash (other than seclusion/social outcast) but sadly nothing you say hits any nerves. Your classmates probably don't want to actually care about anything at all and your ideas (although maybe hard to understand) challenge this.
The important thing is not that you stay socially acceptable, or that you are okay with being an intelligent caring social outcast, but rather that you challenge others to think and hopefully eventually participate.
Someday when you are getting a bit more upset with how the class is going. Go for it. Upset the balance of the teacher being the measuring stick. Make points and challenges that your classmates simply cannot ignore. Become interesting to your peers. Don't just raise your hand, and then talk from your seat. When you are speaking it IS your classroom. You ARE paying for it. Stand-up and refuse to stop being the center of attention until a class-mate has something worthwhile to say. Ask them clear questions. Don't leave open ended questions. Then give them the floor. Create a discussion/forum that you wish would happen. Your goal isn't to participate in it yourself, but rather to feed it fuel and keep it on track so that others can experience and possibly grow into it. Just be the better person if the teacher tries to stand you up. Demand and deserve respect.
The goal isn't to be T.S. Elliot and blow the socks off everyone. The goal is to move the standard. From conventional "schooling" where the teacher/grade/culture is the standard, to the students themselves without yourself becoming the new standard.
I have a humor :D! In Acting class, it's fun. We had to play a game where we had to touch body parts with our partners. We got back to knee to her butt and I thought it was the front of the knee and she corrected me. I asked if we should just skip dinner and get right down to boogeying.
A giggle and we switched partners, sweet :B
Are you suggesting I go in as Jon Stewart and add satire to prove my point? Wont that have the issue of backfiring? Hm... I feel your second suggestion might be a bit overzealous, I don't want to be disruptive nor deter from the class's main point though :x
On January 12 2012 10:26 Snuggles wrote: I'll be blunt with what I think of it.
The discussion of intelligence, the way we express it, how much of it do we really have, is a pretty touchy subject (retfan)- but I assume that people in this thread all understand that and that we're all making a conscious effort not to make anyone upset because of a misunderstanding. All good intentions here. Either way, you're doing a great job at articulating yourself so I get that this is an honest problem.
What immediately came to mind after I finished reading your OP was "Why doesn't he simply express himself in a way so that everyone can understand?" What if the question isn't "Am I the wrong kind of smart?" and the real question is why aren't you smart enough to know that you need to express yourself differently to have better feedback from your audience. I gave it some more thought and from what I'm reading in this thread it seems like this is just the way you want to talk in a discussion that requires full exercise of intelligence. From what I can see in you example, and from the type of school you're going to- it's just not going to fly man.
Most people aren't going to take-in what you're saying very well, personally if I was sitting in the same classroom I would be shaking my head and thinking "Did he really need to waste my time regurgitating that long ass string of words?", the person next to me could be saying "Who does this guy think he is?", misunderstanding you when this is just how you want to express yourself. Smart people are a minority, and they are praised for their intelligence by the majority. So if only a handful of your colleagues fully understands and appreciates your way of expressing your thoughts than this puts you into the minority, and this is a bad minority.
I mean I see at least 1 person that does what you do to varying degrees each semester. Some do it and get away with it, some don't and a genuinely smart person speaks up to further their point significantly in half the time. Obviously you can see now that I don't like people who add too much vocabulary into their speech, but at the same time I'm making a conscious effort to understand that this is just how some people, like you Torti, just want to express themselves. In the end all I can say is, you're never going to be widely accepted with this way of talking, no matter what the setting is, unless of course you've somehow landed a sweet seat for lunch with a bunch of scholars with published work.
"Why doesn't he simply express himself in a way so that everyone can understand?" It's not possible. It's harder for me to simplify it than to make it even more complex or add to it. When I'm on the spot and feel the need to portray what I want to argue or think, it comes out in a literary mass that makes sense if written, but becomes too much to an average listener. It's not higher quality, it's the wrong quality of text at the wrong quantitiy.
Everything you're saying in P1 and P2 are right and I'm pretty sure that's what they're thinking (justifiably). They have every right to be, but it's not an intentioned or effort-full attempt to express more than I want, it's just how I want it to be said or how I would say it if asked plainly in a paper.
I really want to record the next time I go!
It's because your attitude towards your intelligence is general is over-inflated, as the long post I copied points out.
There are enough perfect SAT scoring students to fill the top universities in the US every year.
There are perfect scoring students on every graduate school test yearly.
There are people who graduate undergrad at 17 with perfect grades.
Anyone can be smart or intelligent and know it. Relying on that like a crutch is what some people would call "taking yourself too seriously."
Be succint. Communicate your points in the best manner. Intelligence means nothing if you can't communicate your point to a mass audience.
Basically you just need to sit back and realize that you're not hot shit. You may claim you don't think you are, but if you're finding yourself in these situations like you posted about, it's because of the aforementioned issues with self-identity and inflation of ego.
I trust you don't need to ask why I have such experience in this realm
I think you're misassociating dilligence to understand learned material and general intelligence.
Somehwere in this blog, I think I hit a checkpoint :x
Wow, I got through all those replies @___@ Thanks for the advice guys, I definitely know what I am going to do on Friday!
On January 12 2012 10:26 Snuggles wrote: I'll be blunt with what I think of it.
The discussion of intelligence, the way we express it, how much of it do we really have, is a pretty touchy subject (retfan)- but I assume that people in this thread all understand that and that we're all making a conscious effort not to make anyone upset because of a misunderstanding. All good intentions here. Either way, you're doing a great job at articulating yourself so I get that this is an honest problem.
What immediately came to mind after I finished reading your OP was "Why doesn't he simply express himself in a way so that everyone can understand?" What if the question isn't "Am I the wrong kind of smart?" and the real question is why aren't you smart enough to know that you need to express yourself differently to have better feedback from your audience. I gave it some more thought and from what I'm reading in this thread it seems like this is just the way you want to talk in a discussion that requires full exercise of intelligence. From what I can see in you example, and from the type of school you're going to- it's just not going to fly man.
Most people aren't going to take-in what you're saying very well, personally if I was sitting in the same classroom I would be shaking my head and thinking "Did he really need to waste my time regurgitating that long ass string of words?", the person next to me could be saying "Who does this guy think he is?", misunderstanding you when this is just how you want to express yourself. Smart people are a minority, and they are praised for their intelligence by the majority. So if only a handful of your colleagues fully understands and appreciates your way of expressing your thoughts than this puts you into the minority, and this is a bad minority.
I mean I see at least 1 person that does what you do to varying degrees each semester. Some do it and get away with it, some don't and a genuinely smart person speaks up to further their point significantly in half the time. Obviously you can see now that I don't like people who add too much vocabulary into their speech, but at the same time I'm making a conscious effort to understand that this is just how some people, like you Torti, just want to express themselves. In the end all I can say is, you're never going to be widely accepted with this way of talking, no matter what the setting is, unless of course you've somehow landed a sweet seat for lunch with a bunch of scholars with published work.
"Why doesn't he simply express himself in a way so that everyone can understand?" It's not possible. It's harder for me to simplify it than to make it even more complex or add to it. When I'm on the spot and feel the need to portray what I want to argue or think, it comes out in a literary mass that makes sense if written, but becomes too much to an average listener. It's not higher quality, it's the wrong quality of text at the wrong quantitiy.
Everything you're saying in P1 and P2 are right and I'm pretty sure that's what they're thinking (justifiably). They have every right to be, but it's not an intentioned or effort-full attempt to express more than I want, it's just how I want it to be said or how I would say it if asked plainly in a paper.
I really want to record the next time I go!
It's because your attitude towards your intelligence is general is over-inflated, as the long post I copied points out.
There are enough perfect SAT scoring students to fill the top universities in the US every year.
There are perfect scoring students on every graduate school test yearly.
There are people who graduate undergrad at 17 with perfect grades.
Anyone can be smart or intelligent and know it. Relying on that like a crutch is what some people would call "taking yourself too seriously."
Be succint. Communicate your points in the best manner. Intelligence means nothing if you can't communicate your point to a mass audience.
Basically you just need to sit back and realize that you're not hot shit. You may claim you don't think you are, but if you're finding yourself in these situations like you posted about, it's because of the aforementioned issues with self-identity and inflation of ego.
I trust you don't need to ask why I have such experience in this realm
Regardless of grades we all have weaknesses. I don't know about you, but I like to consider myself a smart dumbass.
On January 12 2012 11:02 Torte de Lini wrote: Wow, I got through all those replies @___@ Thanks for the advice guys, I definitely know what I am going to do on Friday!
On January 12 2012 10:26 Snuggles wrote: I'll be blunt with what I think of it.
The discussion of intelligence, the way we express it, how much of it do we really have, is a pretty touchy subject (retfan)- but I assume that people in this thread all understand that and that we're all making a conscious effort not to make anyone upset because of a misunderstanding. All good intentions here. Either way, you're doing a great job at articulating yourself so I get that this is an honest problem.
What immediately came to mind after I finished reading your OP was "Why doesn't he simply express himself in a way so that everyone can understand?" What if the question isn't "Am I the wrong kind of smart?" and the real question is why aren't you smart enough to know that you need to express yourself differently to have better feedback from your audience. I gave it some more thought and from what I'm reading in this thread it seems like this is just the way you want to talk in a discussion that requires full exercise of intelligence. From what I can see in you example, and from the type of school you're going to- it's just not going to fly man.
Most people aren't going to take-in what you're saying very well, personally if I was sitting in the same classroom I would be shaking my head and thinking "Did he really need to waste my time regurgitating that long ass string of words?", the person next to me could be saying "Who does this guy think he is?", misunderstanding you when this is just how you want to express yourself. Smart people are a minority, and they are praised for their intelligence by the majority. So if only a handful of your colleagues fully understands and appreciates your way of expressing your thoughts than this puts you into the minority, and this is a bad minority.
I mean I see at least 1 person that does what you do to varying degrees each semester. Some do it and get away with it, some don't and a genuinely smart person speaks up to further their point significantly in half the time. Obviously you can see now that I don't like people who add too much vocabulary into their speech, but at the same time I'm making a conscious effort to understand that this is just how some people, like you Torti, just want to express themselves. In the end all I can say is, you're never going to be widely accepted with this way of talking, no matter what the setting is, unless of course you've somehow landed a sweet seat for lunch with a bunch of scholars with published work.
"Why doesn't he simply express himself in a way so that everyone can understand?" It's not possible. It's harder for me to simplify it than to make it even more complex or add to it. When I'm on the spot and feel the need to portray what I want to argue or think, it comes out in a literary mass that makes sense if written, but becomes too much to an average listener. It's not higher quality, it's the wrong quality of text at the wrong quantitiy.
Everything you're saying in P1 and P2 are right and I'm pretty sure that's what they're thinking (justifiably). They have every right to be, but it's not an intentioned or effort-full attempt to express more than I want, it's just how I want it to be said or how I would say it if asked plainly in a paper.
I really want to record the next time I go!
It's because your attitude towards your intelligence is general is over-inflated, as the long post I copied points out.
There are enough perfect SAT scoring students to fill the top universities in the US every year.
There are perfect scoring students on every graduate school test yearly.
There are people who graduate undergrad at 17 with perfect grades.
Anyone can be smart or intelligent and know it. Relying on that like a crutch is what some people would call "taking yourself too seriously."
Be succint. Communicate your points in the best manner. Intelligence means nothing if you can't communicate your point to a mass audience.
Basically you just need to sit back and realize that you're not hot shit. You may claim you don't think you are, but if you're finding yourself in these situations like you posted about, it's because of the aforementioned issues with self-identity and inflation of ego.
I trust you don't need to ask why I have such experience in this realm
I think you're misassociating dilligence to understand learned material and general intelligence.
Torti just say "You sir have misunderstood my post". Maybe the way you're trying to express yourself is too thorough, I don't think it's good to hold people's hands so that they will understand every single point in your thoughts to the comma. It's possible to express your yourself in a more simple manner AND have the amount of information you want to put out, you just need to work on it.
On January 12 2012 10:26 Snuggles wrote: I'll be blunt with what I think of it.
The discussion of intelligence, the way we express it, how much of it do we really have, is a pretty touchy subject (retfan)- but I assume that people in this thread all understand that and that we're all making a conscious effort not to make anyone upset because of a misunderstanding. All good intentions here. Either way, you're doing a great job at articulating yourself so I get that this is an honest problem.
What immediately came to mind after I finished reading your OP was "Why doesn't he simply express himself in a way so that everyone can understand?" What if the question isn't "Am I the wrong kind of smart?" and the real question is why aren't you smart enough to know that you need to express yourself differently to have better feedback from your audience. I gave it some more thought and from what I'm reading in this thread it seems like this is just the way you want to talk in a discussion that requires full exercise of intelligence. From what I can see in you example, and from the type of school you're going to- it's just not going to fly man.
Most people aren't going to take-in what you're saying very well, personally if I was sitting in the same classroom I would be shaking my head and thinking "Did he really need to waste my time regurgitating that long ass string of words?", the person next to me could be saying "Who does this guy think he is?", misunderstanding you when this is just how you want to express yourself. Smart people are a minority, and they are praised for their intelligence by the majority. So if only a handful of your colleagues fully understands and appreciates your way of expressing your thoughts than this puts you into the minority, and this is a bad minority.
I mean I see at least 1 person that does what you do to varying degrees each semester. Some do it and get away with it, some don't and a genuinely smart person speaks up to further their point significantly in half the time. Obviously you can see now that I don't like people who add too much vocabulary into their speech, but at the same time I'm making a conscious effort to understand that this is just how some people, like you Torti, just want to express themselves. In the end all I can say is, you're never going to be widely accepted with this way of talking, no matter what the setting is, unless of course you've somehow landed a sweet seat for lunch with a bunch of scholars with published work.
"Why doesn't he simply express himself in a way so that everyone can understand?" It's not possible. It's harder for me to simplify it than to make it even more complex or add to it. When I'm on the spot and feel the need to portray what I want to argue or think, it comes out in a literary mass that makes sense if written, but becomes too much to an average listener. It's not higher quality, it's the wrong quality of text at the wrong quantitiy.
Everything you're saying in P1 and P2 are right and I'm pretty sure that's what they're thinking (justifiably). They have every right to be, but it's not an intentioned or effort-full attempt to express more than I want, it's just how I want it to be said or how I would say it if asked plainly in a paper.
I really want to record the next time I go!
It's because your attitude towards your intelligence is general is over-inflated, as the long post I copied points out.
There are enough perfect SAT scoring students to fill the top universities in the US every year.
There are perfect scoring students on every graduate school test yearly.
There are people who graduate undergrad at 17 with perfect grades.
Anyone can be smart or intelligent and know it. Relying on that like a crutch is what some people would call "taking yourself too seriously."
Be succint. Communicate your points in the best manner. Intelligence means nothing if you can't communicate your point to a mass audience.
Basically you just need to sit back and realize that you're not hot shit. You may claim you don't think you are, but if you're finding yourself in these situations like you posted about, it's because of the aforementioned issues with self-identity and inflation of ego.
I trust you don't need to ask why I have such experience in this realm
I think you're misassociating dilligence to understand learned material and general intelligence.
Somehwere in this blog, I think I hit a checkpoint :x
Wow, I got through all those replies @___@ Thanks for the advice guys, I definitely know what I am going to do on Friday!
What exactly? Tell us so we can correct you if you are thinking incorrectly.
On January 12 2012 10:26 Snuggles wrote: I'll be blunt with what I think of it.
The discussion of intelligence, the way we express it, how much of it do we really have, is a pretty touchy subject (retfan)- but I assume that people in this thread all understand that and that we're all making a conscious effort not to make anyone upset because of a misunderstanding. All good intentions here. Either way, you're doing a great job at articulating yourself so I get that this is an honest problem.
What immediately came to mind after I finished reading your OP was "Why doesn't he simply express himself in a way so that everyone can understand?" What if the question isn't "Am I the wrong kind of smart?" and the real question is why aren't you smart enough to know that you need to express yourself differently to have better feedback from your audience. I gave it some more thought and from what I'm reading in this thread it seems like this is just the way you want to talk in a discussion that requires full exercise of intelligence. From what I can see in you example, and from the type of school you're going to- it's just not going to fly man.
Most people aren't going to take-in what you're saying very well, personally if I was sitting in the same classroom I would be shaking my head and thinking "Did he really need to waste my time regurgitating that long ass string of words?", the person next to me could be saying "Who does this guy think he is?", misunderstanding you when this is just how you want to express yourself. Smart people are a minority, and they are praised for their intelligence by the majority. So if only a handful of your colleagues fully understands and appreciates your way of expressing your thoughts than this puts you into the minority, and this is a bad minority.
I mean I see at least 1 person that does what you do to varying degrees each semester. Some do it and get away with it, some don't and a genuinely smart person speaks up to further their point significantly in half the time. Obviously you can see now that I don't like people who add too much vocabulary into their speech, but at the same time I'm making a conscious effort to understand that this is just how some people, like you Torti, just want to express themselves. In the end all I can say is, you're never going to be widely accepted with this way of talking, no matter what the setting is, unless of course you've somehow landed a sweet seat for lunch with a bunch of scholars with published work.
"Why doesn't he simply express himself in a way so that everyone can understand?" It's not possible. It's harder for me to simplify it than to make it even more complex or add to it. When I'm on the spot and feel the need to portray what I want to argue or think, it comes out in a literary mass that makes sense if written, but becomes too much to an average listener. It's not higher quality, it's the wrong quality of text at the wrong quantitiy.
Everything you're saying in P1 and P2 are right and I'm pretty sure that's what they're thinking (justifiably). They have every right to be, but it's not an intentioned or effort-full attempt to express more than I want, it's just how I want it to be said or how I would say it if asked plainly in a paper.
I really want to record the next time I go!
It's because your attitude towards your intelligence is general is over-inflated, as the long post I copied points out.
There are enough perfect SAT scoring students to fill the top universities in the US every year.
There are perfect scoring students on every graduate school test yearly.
There are people who graduate undergrad at 17 with perfect grades.
Anyone can be smart or intelligent and know it. Relying on that like a crutch is what some people would call "taking yourself too seriously."
Be succint. Communicate your points in the best manner. Intelligence means nothing if you can't communicate your point to a mass audience.
Basically you just need to sit back and realize that you're not hot shit. You may claim you don't think you are, but if you're finding yourself in these situations like you posted about, it's because of the aforementioned issues with self-identity and inflation of ego.
I trust you don't need to ask why I have such experience in this realm
I think you're misassociating dilligence to understand learned material and general intelligence.
Torti just say "You sir have misunderstood my post". Maybe the way you're trying to express yourself is too thorough, I don't think it's good to hold people's hands so that they will understand every single point in your thoughts to the comma. It's possible to express your yourself in a more simple manner, you just need to work on it.
I'm trying to hit two birds with one stone.
You say: "You misunderstood my post" He, I assure you, is going to ask: "How so?" The original skips that whole thing.
On January 12 2012 10:26 Snuggles wrote: I'll be blunt with what I think of it.
The discussion of intelligence, the way we express it, how much of it do we really have, is a pretty touchy subject (retfan)- but I assume that people in this thread all understand that and that we're all making a conscious effort not to make anyone upset because of a misunderstanding. All good intentions here. Either way, you're doing a great job at articulating yourself so I get that this is an honest problem.
What immediately came to mind after I finished reading your OP was "Why doesn't he simply express himself in a way so that everyone can understand?" What if the question isn't "Am I the wrong kind of smart?" and the real question is why aren't you smart enough to know that you need to express yourself differently to have better feedback from your audience. I gave it some more thought and from what I'm reading in this thread it seems like this is just the way you want to talk in a discussion that requires full exercise of intelligence. From what I can see in you example, and from the type of school you're going to- it's just not going to fly man.
Most people aren't going to take-in what you're saying very well, personally if I was sitting in the same classroom I would be shaking my head and thinking "Did he really need to waste my time regurgitating that long ass string of words?", the person next to me could be saying "Who does this guy think he is?", misunderstanding you when this is just how you want to express yourself. Smart people are a minority, and they are praised for their intelligence by the majority. So if only a handful of your colleagues fully understands and appreciates your way of expressing your thoughts than this puts you into the minority, and this is a bad minority.
I mean I see at least 1 person that does what you do to varying degrees each semester. Some do it and get away with it, some don't and a genuinely smart person speaks up to further their point significantly in half the time. Obviously you can see now that I don't like people who add too much vocabulary into their speech, but at the same time I'm making a conscious effort to understand that this is just how some people, like you Torti, just want to express themselves. In the end all I can say is, you're never going to be widely accepted with this way of talking, no matter what the setting is, unless of course you've somehow landed a sweet seat for lunch with a bunch of scholars with published work.
"Why doesn't he simply express himself in a way so that everyone can understand?" It's not possible. It's harder for me to simplify it than to make it even more complex or add to it. When I'm on the spot and feel the need to portray what I want to argue or think, it comes out in a literary mass that makes sense if written, but becomes too much to an average listener. It's not higher quality, it's the wrong quality of text at the wrong quantitiy.
Everything you're saying in P1 and P2 are right and I'm pretty sure that's what they're thinking (justifiably). They have every right to be, but it's not an intentioned or effort-full attempt to express more than I want, it's just how I want it to be said or how I would say it if asked plainly in a paper.
I really want to record the next time I go!
It's because your attitude towards your intelligence is general is over-inflated, as the long post I copied points out.
There are enough perfect SAT scoring students to fill the top universities in the US every year.
There are perfect scoring students on every graduate school test yearly.
There are people who graduate undergrad at 17 with perfect grades.
Anyone can be smart or intelligent and know it. Relying on that like a crutch is what some people would call "taking yourself too seriously."
Be succint. Communicate your points in the best manner. Intelligence means nothing if you can't communicate your point to a mass audience.
Basically you just need to sit back and realize that you're not hot shit. You may claim you don't think you are, but if you're finding yourself in these situations like you posted about, it's because of the aforementioned issues with self-identity and inflation of ego.
I trust you don't need to ask why I have such experience in this realm
Regardless of grades we all have weaknesses. I don't know about you, but I like to consider myself a smart dumbass.
On January 12 2012 11:02 Torte de Lini wrote: Wow, I got through all those replies @___@ Thanks for the advice guys, I definitely know what I am going to do on Friday!
Wine and dine.
Street Fighter IV: Arcade Edition. Then recording + talk slower, elaborate, more cheery and less words + concession.
On January 12 2012 10:26 Snuggles wrote: I'll be blunt with what I think of it.
The discussion of intelligence, the way we express it, how much of it do we really have, is a pretty touchy subject (retfan)- but I assume that people in this thread all understand that and that we're all making a conscious effort not to make anyone upset because of a misunderstanding. All good intentions here. Either way, you're doing a great job at articulating yourself so I get that this is an honest problem.
What immediately came to mind after I finished reading your OP was "Why doesn't he simply express himself in a way so that everyone can understand?" What if the question isn't "Am I the wrong kind of smart?" and the real question is why aren't you smart enough to know that you need to express yourself differently to have better feedback from your audience. I gave it some more thought and from what I'm reading in this thread it seems like this is just the way you want to talk in a discussion that requires full exercise of intelligence. From what I can see in you example, and from the type of school you're going to- it's just not going to fly man.
Most people aren't going to take-in what you're saying very well, personally if I was sitting in the same classroom I would be shaking my head and thinking "Did he really need to waste my time regurgitating that long ass string of words?", the person next to me could be saying "Who does this guy think he is?", misunderstanding you when this is just how you want to express yourself. Smart people are a minority, and they are praised for their intelligence by the majority. So if only a handful of your colleagues fully understands and appreciates your way of expressing your thoughts than this puts you into the minority, and this is a bad minority.
I mean I see at least 1 person that does what you do to varying degrees each semester. Some do it and get away with it, some don't and a genuinely smart person speaks up to further their point significantly in half the time. Obviously you can see now that I don't like people who add too much vocabulary into their speech, but at the same time I'm making a conscious effort to understand that this is just how some people, like you Torti, just want to express themselves. In the end all I can say is, you're never going to be widely accepted with this way of talking, no matter what the setting is, unless of course you've somehow landed a sweet seat for lunch with a bunch of scholars with published work.
"Why doesn't he simply express himself in a way so that everyone can understand?" It's not possible. It's harder for me to simplify it than to make it even more complex or add to it. When I'm on the spot and feel the need to portray what I want to argue or think, it comes out in a literary mass that makes sense if written, but becomes too much to an average listener. It's not higher quality, it's the wrong quality of text at the wrong quantitiy.
Everything you're saying in P1 and P2 are right and I'm pretty sure that's what they're thinking (justifiably). They have every right to be, but it's not an intentioned or effort-full attempt to express more than I want, it's just how I want it to be said or how I would say it if asked plainly in a paper.
I really want to record the next time I go!
It's because your attitude towards your intelligence is general is over-inflated, as the long post I copied points out.
There are enough perfect SAT scoring students to fill the top universities in the US every year.
There are perfect scoring students on every graduate school test yearly.
There are people who graduate undergrad at 17 with perfect grades.
Anyone can be smart or intelligent and know it. Relying on that like a crutch is what some people would call "taking yourself too seriously."
Be succint. Communicate your points in the best manner. Intelligence means nothing if you can't communicate your point to a mass audience.
Basically you just need to sit back and realize that you're not hot shit. You may claim you don't think you are, but if you're finding yourself in these situations like you posted about, it's because of the aforementioned issues with self-identity and inflation of ego.
I trust you don't need to ask why I have such experience in this realm
I think you're misassociating dilligence to understand learned material and general intelligence.
Somehwere in this blog, I think I hit a checkpoint :x
Wow, I got through all those replies @___@ Thanks for the advice guys, I definitely know what I am going to do on Friday!
What exactly? Tell us so we can correct you if you are thinking incorrectly.
see above :D Oh and I am definitely going into class with Billy Joel, soo goodddddd
I don't think it is a matter of vocabulary. You should only ever purposely curb your vocabulary if you are speaking to an audience where English (or whichever language is in question) is either not the primary language of your audience, or if your audience is very young and still not very proficient at it.
That is not to say you have the green light to use massive words everywhere for no reason, but as long as you are using your vocabulary comfortably and suitably, in order to 'dumb it down' alot of depth and nuance will inevitably be lost. Remember that most of these words exist for a reason, they possess meaning and nuance beyond what can be reasonably expressed with simpler words.
From your examples I only see appropriate use of a good vocabulary, rather than the excessively imaginative vernacular some people use solely to compensate for poorly thought out ideas. At a college level class in, what I assume, is a primarily English speaking region, I can see no reason why you should need to simplify your vocabulary for your audience.
What you should instead concentrate on, is as people have suggested, shortening your sentences. That is not to say you neccessarily need to say less, only that you need to use more, shorter sentences to say the same things. This should also apply to how you speak. A run-on sentence is a pain to read and often you lose the main stream of thought before you even finish reading the sentence, but someone speaking run-on sentences at you can be almost unintelligible.
Try using the same vocabulary you use now, but restricting yourself to shorter, more succint statements. Remember to pause appropriately at the end of each clause and sentence. I have a hard time believing that college students would have difficulty understanding the actual words that you use, I think it is far more likely that you are simply throwing too many ideas at them before they have had the time to register and assimilate what you have said.
On January 12 2012 10:26 Snuggles wrote: I'll be blunt with what I think of it.
The discussion of intelligence, the way we express it, how much of it do we really have, is a pretty touchy subject (retfan)- but I assume that people in this thread all understand that and that we're all making a conscious effort not to make anyone upset because of a misunderstanding. All good intentions here. Either way, you're doing a great job at articulating yourself so I get that this is an honest problem.
What immediately came to mind after I finished reading your OP was "Why doesn't he simply express himself in a way so that everyone can understand?" What if the question isn't "Am I the wrong kind of smart?" and the real question is why aren't you smart enough to know that you need to express yourself differently to have better feedback from your audience. I gave it some more thought and from what I'm reading in this thread it seems like this is just the way you want to talk in a discussion that requires full exercise of intelligence. From what I can see in you example, and from the type of school you're going to- it's just not going to fly man.
Most people aren't going to take-in what you're saying very well, personally if I was sitting in the same classroom I would be shaking my head and thinking "Did he really need to waste my time regurgitating that long ass string of words?", the person next to me could be saying "Who does this guy think he is?", misunderstanding you when this is just how you want to express yourself. Smart people are a minority, and they are praised for their intelligence by the majority. So if only a handful of your colleagues fully understands and appreciates your way of expressing your thoughts than this puts you into the minority, and this is a bad minority.
I mean I see at least 1 person that does what you do to varying degrees each semester. Some do it and get away with it, some don't and a genuinely smart person speaks up to further their point significantly in half the time. Obviously you can see now that I don't like people who add too much vocabulary into their speech, but at the same time I'm making a conscious effort to understand that this is just how some people, like you Torti, just want to express themselves. In the end all I can say is, you're never going to be widely accepted with this way of talking, no matter what the setting is, unless of course you've somehow landed a sweet seat for lunch with a bunch of scholars with published work.
"Why doesn't he simply express himself in a way so that everyone can understand?" It's not possible. It's harder for me to simplify it than to make it even more complex or add to it. When I'm on the spot and feel the need to portray what I want to argue or think, it comes out in a literary mass that makes sense if written, but becomes too much to an average listener. It's not higher quality, it's the wrong quality of text at the wrong quantitiy.
Everything you're saying in P1 and P2 are right and I'm pretty sure that's what they're thinking (justifiably). They have every right to be, but it's not an intentioned or effort-full attempt to express more than I want, it's just how I want it to be said or how I would say it if asked plainly in a paper.
I really want to record the next time I go!
It's because your attitude towards your intelligence is general is over-inflated, as the long post I copied points out.
There are enough perfect SAT scoring students to fill the top universities in the US every year.
There are perfect scoring students on every graduate school test yearly.
There are people who graduate undergrad at 17 with perfect grades.
Anyone can be smart or intelligent and know it. Relying on that like a crutch is what some people would call "taking yourself too seriously."
Be succint. Communicate your points in the best manner. Intelligence means nothing if you can't communicate your point to a mass audience.
Basically you just need to sit back and realize that you're not hot shit. You may claim you don't think you are, but if you're finding yourself in these situations like you posted about, it's because of the aforementioned issues with self-identity and inflation of ego.
I trust you don't need to ask why I have such experience in this realm
I think you're misassociating dilligence to understand learned material and general intelligence.
Torti just say "You sir have misunderstood my post". Maybe the way you're trying to express yourself is too thorough, I don't think it's good to hold people's hands so that they will understand every single point in your thoughts to the comma. It's possible to express your yourself in a more simple manner, you just need to work on it.
I'm trying to hit two birds with one stone.
You say: "You misunderstood my post" He, I assure you, is going to ask: "How so?" The original skips that whole thing.
How about "You misunderstood my post, you're confusing book smarts and general intelligence"? I mean it's the same length, but rewritten so it's easier to swallow.
Torte I didn't write that hence why I said it seems fitting.
It's a copy paste from another discussion I read.
The point is that often you find yourself questioning why things are the way they are, or why situations arise.
Often it's not always ego centric. Sometimes you are indeed at fault.
Your "wrong kind of smart" is really just you refusing to communicate with people, and rather you're trying to communicate at them because you view yourself as intelligent, or even moreso.
On January 12 2012 10:20 EternaLLegacy wrote: You might just be dealing with idiots who can't conceptualize abstract arguments. It sounds like you want to debate people who simply cannot grasp what you're talking about because it doesn't fit into one of their prerecorded arguments.
Perhaps, I actually enjoy that first line a lot, would have never articulated it that way. Even if they are idiots, it keeps the class light-hearted and keeps the discussion going. Putting in a snippety wise-ass is just aggravating and disruptive in the end, right or wrong.
I just had a miserable experience in a philosophy class, where I was the only one who actually knew how to debate and discuss ideas using logic. The rest of the class tried talking about what they "felt" was the right answer, not how to logically deduce it. Naturally, after watching their arguments get torn apart without hesitation, they became extremely intimidated and just shut up completely for the rest of the semester. It made the class extremely boring because it was me explaining things 50% of the time or more, even though I wasn't even the TA. Go figure.
I'm going through something similar in one of my classes this quarter. It's really awful. During my college career so far I've rarely experienced an intelligent (and well articulated) debate. They're so much fun. : /
This blog and its comments are incredibly interesting. Love it! I'm all for U of TL.
Torte: You know I love your writing, but you need to stop comma splicing. It's probably the only thing you do that bothers me. It's okay; I used to love commas too!
This blog makes me wonder how you sound IRL compared to your writing. My assumption would be that you sound similar, but are probably a lot more wordy. You need to stream!
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.
One thing to remember is that as a spoken sentence becomes longer and more complex, it is more difficult to parse and understand. Simplifying the sentence will help.
This is a discussion, correct? If so, another thing you could do is to phrase your example as a question. Your reply could then be, "But what about people like Sarah Palin or Nixon that gained power by recognizing and using people's emotions in their favor?" At the very least, the question makes your point and spurs further discussion.
If you have the free time, checking out a book on rhetoric can help shape what you want to say to get better results. It also helps enforce the opinion that you expressed as some aspects try to use people's emotions and desires to influence opinion.
Yes, 100% agreed. The longer it is, the harder it is to fully grasp as a whole concept or argument.
Do you have a specific title for a book like that? And that question trick is good, instead of cutting the discussion short, you pass the beach ball around! I like it! It might seem like a challenge to others though :B
I see that your question spurred another response from me. I believe the book I read was "Thank You for Arguing," which dealt a lot with rhetoric terms and ideas using discussions and debates in real-life situations. I'm not sure how directly it will apply to this situation, but I found that it has changed how I phrase some of my comments/questions/requests.
On January 12 2012 11:09 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote: I don't think it is a matter of vocabulary. You should only ever purposely curb your vocabulary if you are speaking to an audience where English (or whichever language is in question) is either not the primary language of your audience, or if your audience is very young and still not very proficient at it.
That is not to say you have the green light to use massive words everywhere for no reason, but as long as you are using your vocabulary comfortably and suitably, in order to 'dumb it down' alot of depth and nuance will inevitably be lost. Remember that most of these words exist for a reason, they possess meaning and nuance beyond what can be reasonably expressed with simpler words.
From your examples I only see appropriate use of a good vocabulary, rather than the excessively imaginative vernacular some people use solely to compensate for poorly thought out ideas. At a college level class in, what I assume, is a primarily English speaking region, I can see no reason why you should need to simplify your vocabulary for your audience.
What you should instead concentrate on, is as people have suggested, shortening your sentences. That is not to say you neccessarily need to say less, only that you need to use more, shorter sentences to say the same things. This should also apply to how you speak. A run-on sentence is a pain to read and often you lose the main stream of thought before you even finish reading the sentence, but someone speaking run-on sentences at you can be almost unintelligible.
Try using the same vocabulary you use now, but restricting yourself to shorter, more succint statements. Remember to pause appropriately at the end of each clause and sentence. I have a hard time believing that college students would have a hard time understanding the actual words that you use, I think it is far more likely that you are simply throwing too many ideas at them before they have had the time to register and acknowledge what you have said.
I think it's not really the vocabulary in itself, but it's a string of larger words (larger than speaking typically, not exactly Dickens here). in a somewhat faster pace makes it all hard to take it all in (And then refute it on top of that). It's not a skill, but a hindrance to the conversation and slows the whole conversation down entirely.
I like using big words and complex sentences with multiple appendages and some attempts at what resembles humour. Then I took a Philosophy of Economics class and got stumped by even bigger words and the fine lines between similar but different concepts. It was enlightening.
But yeah, find others to discuss "properly" with you and "dumb" it down a little for your classmates, try to only use big words when they are also used in the class material.
On January 12 2012 10:46 Sinensis wrote: I dunno why this blog is so interesting to me...probably because my classes all hated me too.
I like how you said you tried to go in like Michael Jackson and it fail, that's hilarious. On a similar note, yeah, maybe try going in like Bob Ross or Mister Rogers... seriously everyone adores Mister Rogers you can't go wrong. :D
Haha, what did you do?
I try to play upbeat music to keep me attentive during class, but I always resolve to Jazz T___T
I dropped out my final semester and haven't gone back. So maybe my advice isn't the best, but it at least makes sense to me and hopefully isn't making anyone unhappy; that's all that really counts.
On January 12 2012 10:20 EternaLLegacy wrote: You might just be dealing with idiots who can't conceptualize abstract arguments. It sounds like you want to debate people who simply cannot grasp what you're talking about because it doesn't fit into one of their prerecorded arguments.
Perhaps, I actually enjoy that first line a lot, would have never articulated it that way. Even if they are idiots, it keeps the class light-hearted and keeps the discussion going. Putting in a snippety wise-ass is just aggravating and disruptive in the end, right or wrong.
I just had a miserable experience in a philosophy class, where I was the only one who actually knew how to debate and discuss ideas using logic. The rest of the class tried talking about what they "felt" was the right answer, not how to logically deduce it. Naturally, after watching their arguments get torn apart without hesitation, they became extremely intimidated and just shut up completely for the rest of the semester. It made the class extremely boring because it was me explaining things 50% of the time or more, even though I wasn't even the TA. Go figure.
I'm going through something similar in one of my classes this quarter. It's really awful. During my college career so far I've rarely experienced an intelligent (and well articulated) debate. They're so much fun. : /
This blog and its comments are incredibly interesting. Love it! I'm all for U of TL.
Torte: You know I love your writing, but you need to stop comma splicing. It's probably the only thing you do that bothers me. It's okay; I used to love commas too!
This blog makes me wonder how you sound IRL compared to your writing. My assumption would be that you sound similar, but are probably a lot more wordy. You need to stream!
On January 12 2012 11:14 natebreen wrote: Torte I didn't write that hence why I said it seems fitting.
It's a copy paste from another discussion I read.
The point is that often you find yourself questioning why things are the way they are, or why situations arise.
Often it's not always ego centric. Sometimes you are indeed at fault.
Your "wrong kind of smart" is really just you refusing to communicate with people, and rather you're trying to communicate at them because you view yourself as intelligent, or even moreso.
It seemed odd and out of place :B
I agree that I may be over-bearingly arrogant in educated conversations nonetheless.
On January 12 2012 10:26 Snuggles wrote: I'll be blunt with what I think of it.
The discussion of intelligence, the way we express it, how much of it do we really have, is a pretty touchy subject (retfan)- but I assume that people in this thread all understand that and that we're all making a conscious effort not to make anyone upset because of a misunderstanding. All good intentions here. Either way, you're doing a great job at articulating yourself so I get that this is an honest problem.
What immediately came to mind after I finished reading your OP was "Why doesn't he simply express himself in a way so that everyone can understand?" What if the question isn't "Am I the wrong kind of smart?" and the real question is why aren't you smart enough to know that you need to express yourself differently to have better feedback from your audience. I gave it some more thought and from what I'm reading in this thread it seems like this is just the way you want to talk in a discussion that requires full exercise of intelligence. From what I can see in you example, and from the type of school you're going to- it's just not going to fly man.
Most people aren't going to take-in what you're saying very well, personally if I was sitting in the same classroom I would be shaking my head and thinking "Did he really need to waste my time regurgitating that long ass string of words?", the person next to me could be saying "Who does this guy think he is?", misunderstanding you when this is just how you want to express yourself. Smart people are a minority, and they are praised for their intelligence by the majority. So if only a handful of your colleagues fully understands and appreciates your way of expressing your thoughts than this puts you into the minority, and this is a bad minority.
I mean I see at least 1 person that does what you do to varying degrees each semester. Some do it and get away with it, some don't and a genuinely smart person speaks up to further their point significantly in half the time. Obviously you can see now that I don't like people who add too much vocabulary into their speech, but at the same time I'm making a conscious effort to understand that this is just how some people, like you Torti, just want to express themselves. In the end all I can say is, you're never going to be widely accepted with this way of talking, no matter what the setting is, unless of course you've somehow landed a sweet seat for lunch with a bunch of scholars with published work.
"Why doesn't he simply express himself in a way so that everyone can understand?" It's not possible. It's harder for me to simplify it than to make it even more complex or add to it. When I'm on the spot and feel the need to portray what I want to argue or think, it comes out in a literary mass that makes sense if written, but becomes too much to an average listener. It's not higher quality, it's the wrong quality of text at the wrong quantitiy.
Everything you're saying in P1 and P2 are right and I'm pretty sure that's what they're thinking (justifiably). They have every right to be, but it's not an intentioned or effort-full attempt to express more than I want, it's just how I want it to be said or how I would say it if asked plainly in a paper.
I really want to record the next time I go!
It's because your attitude towards your intelligence is general is over-inflated, as the long post I copied points out.
There are enough perfect SAT scoring students to fill the top universities in the US every year.
There are perfect scoring students on every graduate school test yearly.
There are people who graduate undergrad at 17 with perfect grades.
Anyone can be smart or intelligent and know it. Relying on that like a crutch is what some people would call "taking yourself too seriously."
Be succint. Communicate your points in the best manner. Intelligence means nothing if you can't communicate your point to a mass audience.
Basically you just need to sit back and realize that you're not hot shit. You may claim you don't think you are, but if you're finding yourself in these situations like you posted about, it's because of the aforementioned issues with self-identity and inflation of ego.
I trust you don't need to ask why I have such experience in this realm
I think you're misassociating dilligence to understand learned material and general intelligence.
Torti just say "You sir have misunderstood my post". Maybe the way you're trying to express yourself is too thorough, I don't think it's good to hold people's hands so that they will understand every single point in your thoughts to the comma. It's possible to express your yourself in a more simple manner, you just need to work on it.
I'm trying to hit two birds with one stone.
You say: "You misunderstood my post" He, I assure you, is going to ask: "How so?" The original skips that whole thing.
How about "You misunderstood my post, you're confusing book smarts and general intelligence"? I mean it's the same length, but rewritten so it's easier to swallow.
Yes, that sounds way better and so down-to-Earth :X
On January 12 2012 11:16 PetRockSteve wrote: I see that your questioned spurred another response from me. I believe the book I read was "Thank You for Arguing," which dealt a lot with rhetoric terms and ideas using discussions and debates in real-life situations. I'm not sure how directly it will apply to this situation, but I found that it has changed how I phrase some of my comments/questions/requests.
On January 12 2012 11:18 Mobius_1 wrote: I like using big words and complex sentences with multiple appendages and some attempts at what resembles humour. Then I took a Philosophy of Economics class and got stumped by even bigger words and the fine lines between similar but different concepts. It was enlightening.
But yeah, find others to discuss "properly" with you and "dumb" it down a little for your classmates, try to only use big words when they are also used in the class material.
On January 12 2012 10:26 Snuggles wrote: I'll be blunt with what I think of it.
The discussion of intelligence, the way we express it, how much of it do we really have, is a pretty touchy subject (retfan)- but I assume that people in this thread all understand that and that we're all making a conscious effort not to make anyone upset because of a misunderstanding. All good intentions here. Either way, you're doing a great job at articulating yourself so I get that this is an honest problem.
What immediately came to mind after I finished reading your OP was "Why doesn't he simply express himself in a way so that everyone can understand?" What if the question isn't "Am I the wrong kind of smart?" and the real question is why aren't you smart enough to know that you need to express yourself differently to have better feedback from your audience. I gave it some more thought and from what I'm reading in this thread it seems like this is just the way you want to talk in a discussion that requires full exercise of intelligence. From what I can see in you example, and from the type of school you're going to- it's just not going to fly man.
Most people aren't going to take-in what you're saying very well, personally if I was sitting in the same classroom I would be shaking my head and thinking "Did he really need to waste my time regurgitating that long ass string of words?", the person next to me could be saying "Who does this guy think he is?", misunderstanding you when this is just how you want to express yourself. Smart people are a minority, and they are praised for their intelligence by the majority. So if only a handful of your colleagues fully understands and appreciates your way of expressing your thoughts than this puts you into the minority, and this is a bad minority.
I mean I see at least 1 person that does what you do to varying degrees each semester. Some do it and get away with it, some don't and a genuinely smart person speaks up to further their point significantly in half the time. Obviously you can see now that I don't like people who add too much vocabulary into their speech, but at the same time I'm making a conscious effort to understand that this is just how some people, like you Torti, just want to express themselves. In the end all I can say is, you're never going to be widely accepted with this way of talking, no matter what the setting is, unless of course you've somehow landed a sweet seat for lunch with a bunch of scholars with published work.
"Why doesn't he simply express himself in a way so that everyone can understand?" It's not possible. It's harder for me to simplify it than to make it even more complex or add to it. When I'm on the spot and feel the need to portray what I want to argue or think, it comes out in a literary mass that makes sense if written, but becomes too much to an average listener. It's not higher quality, it's the wrong quality of text at the wrong quantitiy.
Everything you're saying in P1 and P2 are right and I'm pretty sure that's what they're thinking (justifiably). They have every right to be, but it's not an intentioned or effort-full attempt to express more than I want, it's just how I want it to be said or how I would say it if asked plainly in a paper.
I really want to record the next time I go!
It's because your attitude towards your intelligence is general is over-inflated, as the long post I copied points out.
There are enough perfect SAT scoring students to fill the top universities in the US every year.
There are perfect scoring students on every graduate school test yearly.
There are people who graduate undergrad at 17 with perfect grades.
Anyone can be smart or intelligent and know it. Relying on that like a crutch is what some people would call "taking yourself too seriously."
Be succint. Communicate your points in the best manner. Intelligence means nothing if you can't communicate your point to a mass audience.
Basically you just need to sit back and realize that you're not hot shit. You may claim you don't think you are, but if you're finding yourself in these situations like you posted about, it's because of the aforementioned issues with self-identity and inflation of ego.
I trust you don't need to ask why I have such experience in this realm
I think you're misassociating dilligence to understand learned material and general intelligence.
Torti just say "You sir have misunderstood my post". Maybe the way you're trying to express yourself is too thorough, I don't think it's good to hold people's hands so that they will understand every single point in your thoughts to the comma. It's possible to express your yourself in a more simple manner, you just need to work on it.
I'm trying to hit two birds with one stone.
You say: "You misunderstood my post" He, I assure you, is going to ask: "How so?" The original skips that whole thing.
How about "You misunderstood my post, you're confusing book smarts and general intelligence"? I mean it's the same length, but rewritten so it's easier to swallow.
Yes, that sounds way better and so down-to-Earth :X
On January 12 2012 10:20 EternaLLegacy wrote: You might just be dealing with idiots who can't conceptualize abstract arguments. It sounds like you want to debate people who simply cannot grasp what you're talking about because it doesn't fit into one of their prerecorded arguments.
Perhaps, I actually enjoy that first line a lot, would have never articulated it that way. Even if they are idiots, it keeps the class light-hearted and keeps the discussion going. Putting in a snippety wise-ass is just aggravating and disruptive in the end, right or wrong.
I just had a miserable experience in a philosophy class, where I was the only one who actually knew how to debate and discuss ideas using logic. The rest of the class tried talking about what they "felt" was the right answer, not how to logically deduce it. Naturally, after watching their arguments get torn apart without hesitation, they became extremely intimidated and just shut up completely for the rest of the semester. It made the class extremely boring because it was me explaining things 50% of the time or more, even though I wasn't even the TA. Go figure.
I'm going through something similar in one of my classes this quarter. It's really awful. During my college career so far I've rarely experienced an intelligent (and well articulated) debate. They're so much fun. : /
This blog and its comments are incredibly interesting. Love it! I'm all for U of TL.
Torte: You know I love your writing, but you need to stop comma splicing. It's probably the only thing you do that bothers me. It's okay; I used to love commas too!
This blog makes me wonder how you sound IRL compared to your writing. My assumption would be that you sound similar, but are probably a lot more wordy. You need to stream!
Yeah, I know what you mean. It kinda sucks and just makes me wonder where you can go to really get into conversations ):
U of TL!
commas are cool, the curl at the bottom below the words. It's so rebellious :B I sound nothing like I write, I find at least. Very wordy, short-breathed ):
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.
One thing to remember is that as a spoken sentence becomes longer and more complex, it is more difficult to parse and understand. Simplifying the sentence will help.
This is a discussion, correct? If so, another thing you could do is to phrase your example as a question. Your reply could then be, "But what about people like Sarah Palin or Nixon that gained power by recognizing and using people's emotions in their favor?" At the very least, the question makes your point and spurs further discussion.
If you have the free time, checking out a book on rhetoric can help shape what you want to say to get better results. It also helps enforce the opinion that you expressed as some aspects try to use people's emotions and desires to influence opinion.
Yes, 100% agreed. The longer it is, the harder it is to fully grasp as a whole concept or argument.
Do you have a specific title for a book like that? And that question trick is good, instead of cutting the discussion short, you pass the beach ball around! I like it! It might seem like a challenge to others though :B
I see that your question spurred another response from me. I believe the book I read was "Thank You for Arguing," which dealt a lot with rhetoric terms and ideas using discussions and debates in real-life situations. I'm not sure how directly it will apply to this situation, but I found that it has changed how I phrase some of my comments/questions/requests.
I'm writing it down now, thanks! Will definitely read! (I just finished a book about Narcissism!)
On January 12 2012 11:18 Mobius_1 wrote: I like using big words and complex sentences with multiple appendages and some attempts at what resembles humour. Then I took a Philosophy of Economics class and got stumped by even bigger words and the fine lines between similar but different concepts. It was enlightening.
But yeah, find others to discuss "properly" with you and "dumb" it down a little for your classmates, try to only use big words when they are also used in the class material.
Also, start a word of the day blog. :D
Word of the day blog? How would I do that? Philosophy of Economics, what is that about?
On January 12 2012 10:46 Sinensis wrote: I dunno why this blog is so interesting to me...probably because my classes all hated me too.
I like how you said you tried to go in like Michael Jackson and it fail, that's hilarious. On a similar note, yeah, maybe try going in like Bob Ross or Mister Rogers... seriously everyone adores Mister Rogers you can't go wrong. :D
Haha, what did you do?
I try to play upbeat music to keep me attentive during class, but I always resolve to Jazz T___T
I dropped out my final semester and haven't gone back. So maybe my advice isn't the best, but it at least makes sense to me and hopefully isn't making anyone unhappy; that's all that really counts.
You should finish it up Brian Griffin of the good years.
On January 12 2012 10:20 EternaLLegacy wrote: You might just be dealing with idiots who can't conceptualize abstract arguments. It sounds like you want to debate people who simply cannot grasp what you're talking about because it doesn't fit into one of their prerecorded arguments.
Perhaps, I actually enjoy that first line a lot, would have never articulated it that way. Even if they are idiots, it keeps the class light-hearted and keeps the discussion going. Putting in a snippety wise-ass is just aggravating and disruptive in the end, right or wrong.
I just had a miserable experience in a philosophy class, where I was the only one who actually knew how to debate and discuss ideas using logic. The rest of the class tried talking about what they "felt" was the right answer, not how to logically deduce it. Naturally, after watching their arguments get torn apart without hesitation, they became extremely intimidated and just shut up completely for the rest of the semester. It made the class extremely boring because it was me explaining things 50% of the time or more, even though I wasn't even the TA. Go figure.
I'm going through something similar in one of my classes this quarter. It's really awful. During my college career so far I've rarely experienced an intelligent (and well articulated) debate. They're so much fun. : /
This blog and its comments are incredibly interesting. Love it! I'm all for U of TL.
Torte: You know I love your writing, but you need to stop comma splicing. It's probably the only thing you do that bothers me. It's okay; I used to love commas too!
This blog makes me wonder how you sound IRL compared to your writing. My assumption would be that you sound similar, but are probably a lot more wordy. You need to stream!
Yeah, I know what you mean. It kinda sucks and just makes me wonder where you can go to really get into conversations ):
U of TL!
commas are cool, the curl at the bottom below the words. It's so rebellious :B I sound nothing like I write, I find at least. Very wordy, short-breathed ):
I do stream fyi, I used to at least.
I use a lot of punctuation when I write too. Unlike you, I sound like I type.
Nothing like a sociology class to boost your ego. Are you smart, or is everyone around you a muttering idiot? Philosophy, here we come.
We're the Rugrats of University. Better than the newborn Anthropologists, not quite as elite as the Psychologists.
Dear Pastamancer,
So toddlers are in your University? This explains everything! Why didn't you just start there? Man, you had me wondering what was going on in your school, now I understand everything. You need to stop stealing things from the teacher for once. Yes, stealing IS actually a bad thing! Also, don't speak when teacher is speaking! Manners are indeed important. NO EATING DURING CLASS UNLESS TEACHA SAYS SO! If you do, you will not end up a happy rugrat. GL HF DS KA GG DD :D. Also, what does :B mean?
edit: Also, consider testing your phone now before you try it in-class.
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.
One thing to remember is that as a spoken sentence becomes longer and more complex, it is more difficult to parse and understand. Simplifying the sentence will help.
This is a discussion, correct? If so, another thing you could do is to phrase your example as a question. Your reply could then be, "But what about people like Sarah Palin or Nixon that gained power by recognizing and using people's emotions in their favor?" At the very least, the question makes your point and spurs further discussion.
If you have the free time, checking out a book on rhetoric can help shape what you want to say to get better results. It also helps enforce the opinion that you expressed as some aspects try to use people's emotions and desires to influence opinion.
Yes, 100% agreed. The longer it is, the harder it is to fully grasp as a whole concept or argument.
Do you have a specific title for a book like that? And that question trick is good, instead of cutting the discussion short, you pass the beach ball around! I like it! It might seem like a challenge to others though :B
I see that your question spurred another response from me. I believe the book I read was "Thank You for Arguing," which dealt a lot with rhetoric terms and ideas using discussions and debates in real-life situations. I'm not sure how directly it will apply to this situation, but I found that it has changed how I phrase some of my comments/questions/requests.
I'm writing it down now, thanks! Will definitely read! (I just finished a book about Narcissism!)
On January 12 2012 11:18 Mobius_1 wrote: I like using big words and complex sentences with multiple appendages and some attempts at what resembles humour. Then I took a Philosophy of Economics class and got stumped by even bigger words and the fine lines between similar but different concepts. It was enlightening.
But yeah, find others to discuss "properly" with you and "dumb" it down a little for your classmates, try to only use big words when they are also used in the class material.
Also, start a word of the day blog. :D
Word of the day blog? How would I do that? Philosophy of Economics, what is that about?
On January 12 2012 10:46 Sinensis wrote: I dunno why this blog is so interesting to me...probably because my classes all hated me too.
I like how you said you tried to go in like Michael Jackson and it fail, that's hilarious. On a similar note, yeah, maybe try going in like Bob Ross or Mister Rogers... seriously everyone adores Mister Rogers you can't go wrong. :D
Haha, what did you do?
I try to play upbeat music to keep me attentive during class, but I always resolve to Jazz T___T
I dropped out my final semester and haven't gone back. So maybe my advice isn't the best, but it at least makes sense to me and hopefully isn't making anyone unhappy; that's all that really counts.
You should finish it up Brian Griffin of the good years.
How would you do a WOTD blog? Doesn't that kind of explain itself? A new word blog every day! It even has its own acronym now...
You seem like a tryhard, no offense. Truly intelligent people are just intelligent...everyone either knows it or can sense it. Making a blog post like this just seems to reinforce your feeling of intellectual superiority, but you're attempting to rationalize it by not putting them down. In reality it feels almost like you're calling them the "wrong kind of smart".
My advice is just get over yourself, relax and learn to enjoy people. Most people aren't going to be judgmental of you, so do them the same kind service. Laugh at a fart joke. You're not the second coming of Einstein.
"she cut me off and said that I didn't have to talk in class. She said it quickly and disdainly. I apologized for what I felt I sometimes killed the conversations (there were many short bursts of silences after I said my piece) and she interrupted again to ensure I didn't have to talk, it wasn't sympathetic either, just plainly and the intonation was doward rather than inquisitvely upward."
On January 12 2012 09:18 Torte de Lini wrote: I'm thinking of spending more time explaining my viewpoint rather than just leaving them dryly to figure it out on their own.
Do you realize how condescending this sounds? If you have trouble making friends...this might be part of the reason why. Consider spending more time trying to be more socially intelligent.
On January 12 2012 11:50 sam!zdat wrote: "she cut me off and said that I didn't have to talk in class. She said it quickly and disdainly. I apologized for what I felt I sometimes killed the conversations (there were many short bursts of silences after I said my piece) and she interrupted again to ensure I didn't have to talk, it wasn't sympathetic either, just plainly and the intonation was doward rather than inquisitvely upward."
Teacher should be fired.
No, because she wasn't condescending but reassuring the idea that I don't need to talk if I dont want to (or felt I was killing the conversation).
On January 12 2012 09:18 Torte de Lini wrote: I'm thinking of spending more time explaining my viewpoint rather than just leaving them dryly to figure it out on their own.
Do you realize how condescending this sounds? If you have trouble making friends...this might be part of the reason why. Consider spending more time trying to be more socially intelligent.
I don't have trouble making friends O_O And it doesn't sound condescending at all, it sounds like I'm considerate and taking into account that I have a poor way of making properly-worded arguments and should elaborate further.
If you mean leaving them dryly to figure it out on their own, then I'm not sure how you mean. I said my argument, I expect them to figure how to interpret the statement and refute it.
I've banned South from my blog because I felt his approach was overly-aggressive for a point he was trying to make (but made assumptions that weren't accurate or incited ideas that weren't fit).
Communicating solely with anthropologists, sociologists and psychologists tends to turn you into a hillbilly. Make some friends in the math/sciences/engineering departments. Hopefully that will show you that you're not such hot shit after all.
(I want more psychologist friends, they're so hot :'( Screw engineering)
E: That is a hazard of any occupation and is one of the ugly truths of this world. I feel that if people knew how narrow sighted and out of touch with reality they became in their little close knit circles of friends, they'd be nicer to everyone.
On January 12 2012 11:18 Mobius_1 wrote: I like using big words and complex sentences with multiple appendages and some attempts at what resembles humour. Then I took a Philosophy of Economics class and got stumped by even bigger words and the fine lines between similar but different concepts. It was enlightening.
But yeah, find others to discuss "properly" with you and "dumb" it down a little for your classmates, try to only use big words when they are also used in the class material.
Also, start a word of the day blog. :D
Word of the day blog? How would I do that? Philosophy of Economics, what is that about?
So a big word or obscure word or just one that sounds funny. They do (well, now it's did. TT) it on a podcast I listen to (SarcasticGamer Brown) and it's often quite funny and they'd use it in all the wrong (and also right) ways http://nutella.sarcasticgamer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=28116 includes a few of them and more weird words that are making me lol.
Philosophy of Economics was about what should be the purpose of Econs (and other social sciences), whether it is an ends, a means to an end, how it should be conducted, what caveats are there, and examining some of the basic assumptions used throughout the subject and their real-world validity. Quite a lot of deep discussions and was very intriguing subject.
On January 12 2012 12:03 serge wrote: Communicating solely with anthropologists, sociologists and psychologists tends to turn you into a hillbilly. Make some friends in the math/sciences/engineering departments. Hopefully that will show you that you're not such hot shit after all.
(I want more psychologist friends, they're so hot :'( Screw engineering)
All the babes are in Psychology. There are a lot of computer science majors too, they're pretty cool too.
Most Math/Science and Engineering people are pretty quiet, they don't have to show off anything because they're in some tough shit pft :B
Well, why do you believe you must leave them to "figure it out on their own?" Are the other students less intelligent than you? They might be. Your statement sounded a bit pretentious, but that's okay. You may be actually be smarter than them. There really isn't anything wrong with that. The only problem is how you're being perceived by others.
On January 12 2012 12:04 Mobius_1 wrote: Philosophy of Economics was about what should be the purpose of Econs (and other social sciences), whether it is an ends, a means to an end, how it should be conducted, what caveats are there, and examining some of the basic assumptions used throughout the subject and their real-world validity. Quite a lot of deep discussions and was very intriguing subject.
Basically all the things economists never ever think about.
I'd really be interested to hear how you come across in a spoken argument as through my studies and work over the past 2.5 years I've done a ton of discussion, albeit within electronic engineering. It sounds fascinating being intelligent yet not being able to put your points across to your peers. After reading your prose, god help you if you have to write a research paper for publication with strict formatting and page requirements.
On January 12 2012 12:07 Porcelain wrote: Well, why do you believe you must leave them to "figure it out on their own?" Are the other students less intelligent than you? They might be. Your statement sounded a bit pretentious, but that's okay. You may be actually be smarter than them. There really isn't anything wrong with that. The only problem is how you're being perceived by others.
I'm not smarter than them (if I felt so assured I was, why would I feel so conflicted and 2. why would I even bother speaking up knowing my own intelligence is above their's?). It does pretentious, I meant in the sense that instead of elaborating, I would just say what I felt was an accurate argument and leave them to figure out how to counter it. When I disagree or argue, I find my point of view to be right, thus it is up to them to show me where there are faults.
On January 12 2012 12:04 Mobius_1 wrote: Philosophy of Economics was about what should be the purpose of Econs (and other social sciences), whether it is an ends, a means to an end, how it should be conducted, what caveats are there, and examining some of the basic assumptions used throughout the subject and their real-world validity. Quite a lot of deep discussions and was very intriguing subject.
Basically all the things economists never ever think about.
Ha! Foucault and Marx would disagree!
On January 12 2012 12:09 NeoSlicerZ wrote: I'd really be interested to hear how you come across in a spoken argument as through my studies and work over the past 2.5 years I've done a ton of discussion, albeit within electronic engineering. It sounds fascinating being intelligent yet not being able to put your points across to your peers. After reading your prose, god help you if you have to write a research paper for publication with strict formatting and page requirements.
You want a sample of my writing? As someone said before, you're not smart if you can't show others why. :B
On January 12 2012 12:09 NeoSlicerZ wrote: After reading your prose, god help you if you have to write a research paper for publication with strict formatting and page requirements.
On January 12 2012 11:26 Torte de Lini wrote: I like using big words and complex sentences with multiple appendages and some attempts at what resembles humour. Then I took a Philosophy of Economics class and got stumped by even bigger words and the fine lines between similar but different concepts. It was enlightening.
But yeah, find others to discuss "properly" with you and "dumb" it down a little for your classmates, try to only use big words when they are also used in the class material.
Also, start a word of the day blog. :D
Word of the day blog? How would I do that? Philosophy of Economics, what is that about?
Let's get this gasconade blog started considering we're all here.
Hm, 7 good pages of discussion then ill-intended people. Good run :3.
I don't think it's fair to judge someone who writes something personally and reflect that on their professional or educational writing work. It's a bit obnoxious and rude.
On January 12 2012 12:16 Torte de Lini wrote: Hm, 7 good pages of discussion then ill-intended people. Good run :3.
I don't think it's fair to judge someone who writes something personally and reflect that on their professional or educational writing work. It's a bit obnoxious and rude.
But how can a drama blog be enjoyed without drama? If you decide to post on the internet, might as well grow thicker carapace to good and bad humored trolling.
---
I've realized today that the TL blog section is extremely bearable and fun, unlike the rest of the boards, BW section excluded. I'm going to make a blog post about some of the atrocious posters that infest the other boards, not unlike sc2 zerg, in the future.
On January 12 2012 12:11 Torte de Lini wrote: Ha! Foucault and Marx would disagree!
Oh no. I'm a Marxist actually (i.e. I study literature, and my theoretical affiliation is with the Marxist tradition). Marx and Foucault are both theorists, not economists in the relevant sense.
edit: I suppose you could say that they are both philosophers of economics. Marx a little more than Foucault; I'm not aware that Foucault really dealt with economics so much as discourse, although I'll admit I'm not that familiar with Foucault outside of the The History of Sexuality and stuff like the panopticon, etc...
On January 12 2012 12:16 Torte de Lini wrote: Hm, 7 good pages of discussion then ill-intended people. Good run :3.
I don't think it's fair to judge someone who writes something personally and reflect that on their professional or educational writing work. It's a bit obnoxious and rude.
But how can a drama blog be enjoyed without drama? If you decide to post on the internet, might as well grow thicker carapace to good and bad humored trolling.
---
I've realized today that the TL blog section is extremely bearable and fun, unlike the rest of the boards, BW section excluded. I'm going to make a blog post about some of the atrocious posters that infest the other boards, not unlike sc2 zerg, in the future.
I don't accept any kind of trolling unfortunately.
On January 12 2012 12:04 Mobius_1 wrote: Philosophy of Economics was about what should be the purpose of Econs (and other social sciences), whether it is an ends, a means to an end, how it should be conducted, what caveats are there, and examining some of the basic assumptions used throughout the subject and their real-world validity. Quite a lot of deep discussions and was very intriguing subject.
Basically all the things economists never ever think about.
Rofl, touche. Yes, it's a facet that flies right over most economists' and particularly economics students' heads as they are so engrossed in trying to model and predict with a table of various data and a multivar regression running in Matlab.
But you'd be surprised at some of the readings, Milton Friedman and Amartya Sen (Yes, he plays Zerg), among other less recognisable names, have written some interesting perspectives in the field.
That said, some of the economist profession has been a little twisted by finance and governments into nothing more than a prediction machine rather than one to observe and improve the human condition through whatever means are available to economists (an awful lot, it seems, from what I've been studying )
On January 12 2012 12:11 Torte de Lini wrote: Ha! Foucault and Marx would disagree!
Oh no. I'm a Marxist actually (i.e. I study literature, and my theoretical affiliation is with the Marxist tradition). Marx and Foucault are both theorists, not economists in the relevant sense.
I think Foucault talks about economy or market (consumer empowerment? no?) Marxist isn't an economist?
On January 12 2012 12:11 Torte de Lini wrote: You want a sample of my writing? As someone said before, you're not smart if you can't show others why. :B
I'd be the first person to admit my own paper writing is pretty bad , my expertise is based in engineering and my lack of writing skill is compensated for by internal peer reviews. I'm definitely guilty of thinking "this is obvious, why don't people understand this" but it's remarkable how hard it can be to put across your points to other people even if they have at least as good a background as you. The reason I mentioned your prose with regards to papers is because it really struck me that you could have condensed a lot of what you said, at least in my opinion since I love brevity to the point of sacrificing some accuracy. I dislike having to be verbose to put my point across.
However with regards your problem in the OP, you shouldn't restrict your vocabulary. I do wonder though if people that are listening to you have to stop and think about some of the words you use, which could cause a break of sorts in the delivery of your argument.
On January 12 2012 12:11 Torte de Lini wrote: You want a sample of my writing? As someone said before, you're not smart if you can't show others why. :B
I'd be the first person to admit my own paper writing is pretty bad , my expertise is based in engineering and my lack of writing skill is compensated for by internal peer reviews. I'm definitely guilty of thinking "this is obvious, why don't people understand this" but it's remarkable how hard it can be to put across your points to other people even if they have at least as good a background as you. The reason I mentioned your prose with regards to papers is because it really struck me that you could have condensed a lot of what you said, at least in my opinion since I love brevity to the point of sacrificing some accuracy. I dislike having to be verbose to put my point across.
However with regards your problem in the OP, you shouldn't restrict your vocabulary. I do wonder though if people that are listening to you have to stop and think about some of the words you use, which could cause a break of sorts in the delivery of your argument.
Yes, exactly. I'm not saying that what I'm arguing is too elite for them, I'm saying that the words I may use are just wrong ones where they spend more time digesting the words than the actual argument (so in essence, the quality of the argument is the same if I used simpler terms, but I always end up inflating it to stupid proportions).
My writing is okay, professional writing at least. I still do a lot of run-on sentences and fail to connect points a lot.
On January 12 2012 12:16 Torte de Lini wrote: Hm, 7 good pages of discussion then ill-intended people. Good run :3.
I don't think it's fair to judge someone who writes something personally and reflect that on their professional or educational writing work. It's a bit obnoxious and rude.
Hm, fair enough, I'll leave your blog. It seemed to me that your writing style carried over. My apologies if this is not the case and I apologise again for the presumption.
On January 12 2012 12:11 Torte de Lini wrote: Ha! Foucault and Marx would disagree!
Oh no. I'm a Marxist actually (i.e. I study literature, and my theoretical affiliation is with the Marxist tradition). Marx and Foucault are both theorists, not economists in the relevant sense.
I think Foucault talks about economy or market (consumer empowerment? no?) Marxist isn't an economist?
No, Marx isn't an economist, he is more of a philosopher of history and a theorist than anything else (although he wears many hats at different points and I'm not really an expert on Marx himself - my interest is more in the twentieth century tradition).
In the case of Foucault he is more interested in the social effects of the commodity form, which puts him in the realm of theory, and not economics.
Economists use statistical models and game theory to attempt to predict the functioning of an ideal market.
On January 12 2012 12:11 Torte de Lini wrote: Ha! Foucault and Marx would disagree!
Oh no. I'm a Marxist actually (i.e. I study literature, and my theoretical affiliation is with the Marxist tradition). Marx and Foucault are both theorists, not economists in the relevant sense.
I think Foucault talks about economy or market (consumer empowerment? no?) Marxist isn't an economist?
No, Marx isn't an economist, he is more of a philosopher of history and a theorist than anything else (although he wears many hats at different points and I'm not really an expert on Marx himself - my interest is more in the twentieth century tradition).
In the case of Foucault he is more interested in the social effects of the commodity form, which puts him in the realm of theory, and not economics.
Economists use statistical models and game theory to attempt to predict the functioning of an ideal market.
Thanks for the clarification! How come wikipedia lists him as an economist? Misinterpretation or broader definition for them?
I guess they're using just a more loose definition than how I would term it. He's an "economist" in the sense that he wrote some things about economies, I guess :D
Why are you in sociology? A smart person like you should be in some kind of engineering where they can actually help people and do something useful. Or a science (I wouldn't call sociology or political science really science). If you were in a major with intelligent people you wouldn't have to deal with this.
On January 12 2012 12:39 jrkirby wrote: Why are you in sociology? A smart person like you should be in some kind of engineering where they can actually help people and do something useful. Or a science (I wouldn't call sociology or political science really science). If you were in a major with intelligent people you wouldn't have to deal with this.
Huh? I'm smart in Sociology (as ironic as that sounds).
It's broad and wikipedia is still a terrible source. When I was doing all my studies (jr high to university level we were told never to cite it). Not to say I don't use it because I do frequently, but only as a reference point in certain cases.
All walks of life talk about economics.
On January 12 2012 12:39 jrkirby wrote: Why are you in sociology? A smart person like you should be in some kind of engineering where they can actually help people and do something useful. Or a science (I wouldn't call sociology or political science really science). If you were in a major with intelligent people you wouldn't have to deal with this.
On January 12 2012 12:39 jrkirby wrote: Why are you in sociology? A smart person like you should be in some kind of engineering where they can actually help people and do something useful. Or a science (I wouldn't call sociology or political science really science). If you were in a major with intelligent people you wouldn't have to deal with this.
The curse of the social sciences is that there is such an abundance of drivel and drivelmongers. Doesn't mean the field itself is illegitimate; it's just because students tend to default to those fields if they feel numbers are icky and mediocre students gravitate towards the social sciences and literature.
On January 12 2012 12:39 jrkirby wrote: Why are you in sociology? A smart person like you should be in some kind of engineering where they can actually help people and do something useful. Or a science (I wouldn't call sociology or political science really science). If you were in a major with intelligent people you wouldn't have to deal with this.
The curse of the special sciences is that there is such an abundance of drivel and drivelmongers. Doesn't mean the field itself is illegitimate; it's just because students tend to default to those fields if they feel numbers are icky and mediocre students gravitate towards the special sciences and literature.
Pretty much. I wanted to do Psychology, but I didn't enjoy the biology side of it and there are some personal issues that obliged me to pick a discipline and being unable to change (when I'm 24, I will be able to. It's a long story).
and yes, Sociology takes a lot of dump of students. Just people who don't overall care or are coasting on it just to say they have a degree.
You probably shouldn't mind my over-opinionated self-worth motivated derogatory comments towards large groups of people with a slightly differing value system and educational goals.
TC:DR (too complicated, didn't read): I was just making myself feel better by dissing sociology majors.
On January 12 2012 12:50 jrkirby wrote: Well, whatever floats your boat.
You probably shouldn't mind my over-opinionated self-worth motivated derogatory comments towards large groups of people with a slightly differing value system and educational goals.
TC:DR (too complicated, didn't read): I was just making myself feel better by dissing sociology majors.
Dude don't apologize, it's pretty much a point of academic honor to diss every field that isn't yours as being easy and pointless.
On January 12 2012 12:50 jrkirby wrote: Well, whatever floats your boat.
You probably shouldn't mind my over-opinionated self-worth motivated derogatory comments towards large groups of people with a slightly differing value system and educational goals.
TC:DR (too complicated, didn't read): I was just making myself feel better by dissing sociology majors.
Wow, this turned from awesome prothread that seemed impossible for someone to troll and be fed into 3 page feeding of the troll. I was hoping to come back to more awesome replies. Instead I get a ton of 1-3 liners . GL Pastamancer!
I find I have a similar problem. Not really sure if it's like yours though.
How well you articulate yourself has no bearing on what your thought process is. There's a bunch of factors I'll get to in a moment, but if someone can really convey their thoughts well, verbally or written, then no matter what their ideas are, stupid or brilliant, anyone will be able to understand. There would never be this issue that they don't follow you. It's your fault.
If you can't articulate yourself well, but you have perfectly reasonable thought processes, it's a huge coin flip on whether that person has a similar method of reasoning as you, and pasted your arguments in a way that he or she reached the same conclusion.
If you can't articulate yourself well, and you think you have a "different" thought process than people, then it's an absolute blank whenever you try to explain something.
But how you convey your thoughts is never consistent.
Conviction. Did you take this stance and argue because it's truly something you care about and believe in, or are you just arguing for the sake of arguing?
Self-Interest Do you truly care about, or knew this topic, or did you simply learn about the topic with very little interest, and try to write from there?
Comfort Are you communicating with an unknown audience, or a group of friends you're comfortable talking to?
People who can articulate their thoughts well have no problems in any case, but people who can't will realize that tthe more personal situations make it easier to express themselves..
There's more, but I don't remember. These were things I realized after spending 9 years with my English tutor before I realized things like this were pointless. Anecdotal, but I averaged 65s on papers for her, until I got to write something I actually cared about, and 90, which really confused her. I'm shit at conveying ideas, but I don't try.
The most harmful way to think is to go, "what if I'm special and everyone else is crazy." Confront your problems, deduce their cause(s), and fix them. Deciding it's someone else's fault should always be a last resort.
You can write fifty chalkboards to explain your reasoning, or you can realize it's probably your explanations that are bad, and because your logic isn't super straightforward and logical, that no one understands what you try to explain.
On January 12 2012 13:18 3FFA wrote: Wow, this turned from awesome prothread that seemed impossible for someone to troll and be fed into 3 page feeding of the troll. I was hoping to come back to more awesome replies. Instead I get a ton of 1-3 liners . GL Pastamancer!
It's still awesome. Don't let one debbie downer ruin it for you!
Blisse there are many more factors than that and even the most articulate people can falter in communication chiefly personal relationships as there is always a ton of shit going through people's heads not to mention body language.
On January 12 2012 13:32 Plexa wrote: I wondered how this thread was 10 pages long. Then I saw that torte was responsible for 4 of those pages. (And starstruck 1.2 pages)
We have dialogues going on in the blog forums bro. Join in!
On January 12 2012 13:18 3FFA wrote: Wow, this turned from awesome prothread that seemed impossible for someone to troll and be fed into 3 page feeding of the troll. I was hoping to come back to more awesome replies. Instead I get a ton of 1-3 liners . GL Pastamancer!
It's still awesome. Don't let one debbie downer ruin it for you!
Blisse there are many more factors than that and even the most articulate people can falter in communication chiefly personal relationships as there is always a ton of shit going through people's heads not to mention body language.
If you're deeply affected by a personal issues, it should be immediately clear to you that's the problem. And I feel like Torte believes this is recurring, so unless it was something that will scar him for the rest of his life, I don't think so.
Body language doesn't destroy your argument. If you can present an argument amazingly, it really doesn't matter what kind of body language you put out, unless the body language is completely distracting (for example, running on top of student's desks).
And I already stated that there are more factors, but those are the most immediately relevant or stood out to me from what I read and remember of his blog.
There's a huge bunch of shit going through everyone's head, always, but that doesn't stop people from doing well, does it? Rise above the challenge.
When you come off as uneasy when you are trying to make your point and your audience is unresponsive they will become uneasy as well. This goes back to conviction.
Notice how someone starts yelling another person will start yelling over them. Lunch room effect. Same thing applies to those who are emotionally attached to the topic as you pointed out.
Confident, comfortable body language goes a long way man.
When you cannot put everything in place in your head as you are speaking. A lot of mumbo jumbo comes out.
On January 12 2012 13:32 Plexa wrote: I wondered how this thread was 10 pages long. Then I saw that torte was responsible for 4 of those pages. (And starstruck 1.2 pages)
And now people will quote you and reply to you because you are an admin and special and replying makes them feel special and this thread will be 20 pages.
Original Message From South: Seems reasonable. Guy calling you a douchebag is somehow "well formulated"; my points somehow weren't. I mean how many published papers do you have that contribute to anything worthwhile? 0. I could see it if you were an up-and-comer in the scientific community or the next literary genius...but you're not. So why are you wasting your (assumed, based on your posts/ability to have enough time to have 20000 posts on an internet forum) youth when you could be enjoying the best years of your life? Obviously I struck a chord or you'd be a little more open to a spirited debate. If you were so intelligent, why would you avoid discourse? I think you'd welcome it.
Communications point is to convey a message or feeling to another individual. By speaking in a "language" they don't understand you're defeating the purpose of the discussion as a whole unless the point isn't to convey a message, in which case you're just wasting each other's time. Though it may be hard for you to dumb yourself down, it's going to be necessary if you want to participate.
I wouldn't waste your time in the class if you don't plan to participate unless you're only there for a credit and not personal satisfaction.
Who cares if i know how to solve world hunger if i'm in a room full of brazilians and only speak taiwanese??
On January 12 2012 14:48 Tizer542 wrote: Communications point is to convey a message or feeling to another individual. By speaking in a "language" they don't understand you're defeating the purpose of the discussion as a whole unless the point isn't to convey a message, in which case you're just wasting each other's time. Though it may be hard for you to dumb yourself down, it's going to be necessary if you want to participate.
I wouldn't waste your time in the class if you don't plan to participate unless you're only there for a credit and not personal satisfaction.
Who cares if i know how to solve world hunger if i'm in a room full of brazilians and only speak taiwanese??
Yah, I already figured that out thanks to everyone. I think I should add an update to the main post :B
If you're speaking up only when you disagree and then throw big words around, it'll seem as if you're only speaking to show off your knowledge and to undermine your prof and your classmates. This will generally make you seem like a pretentious asshole, especially if your classmates can't figure out wtf you're talking about, because then it's like you're not even making an attempt at a dialogue but just want to hear yourself jabber.
There are two direct solutions to this: (1) simplify your speech or (2) don't talk in class -- or rather, only talk when asked to. An indirect solution would be to socialize with your classmates before class to let them know you're a nice guy who's not just sitting around trying to act smart for the sake of ... well, appearing smart, I suppose.
EDIT: Reading your post brought this immediately to mind:
Not saying you're anything like this, but ... you see what I mean? Also, Robert Fagles is pretty awesome, ngl. :B
On January 12 2012 09:50 Roe wrote: 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.”
To add to this, read Harold Evans' Essential English for Journalists, Editors and Writers. LINK
It describes how to communicate clearly and precisely, with a lot of good examples. He was the former editor of the Sunday Times and Times, so knows what he's talking about.
All I can contribute is to recommend fluffing up on effective social communication. I'd never really cared or bothered 'till I realized how lacking I was, in my own encounters.
Read books on 'being an effective communicator' , the only one I've read so far is "How to talk to Anyone" by Leil Lowdnes, and though it's mainly big-cat business oriented, it's still good. [tpb is your fraieund, get moar on teh cheapuuuu]
The thought of being a 'professional communicator' or a 'communication counselor' never really dawned on me as important or significant enough for a career 'till my older brother summed up his Business School applications by describing himself as one (he does the press releases for ~the~ company, English/Chinese). I realized effective, higher-order communication is just so essential between humans, and we take it for granted, but most of us REALLY aren't that good communicators. So I recommend we both get better (:
A far more overarching point I've got though today's blog section was: fundamental distance from and dissatisfaction with your current life situation. 'Failing at becoming a pro CS player' and the regret that entailed, or 'I've failed big time and can't get a job, halp?', again being quite unhappy with how he ~passed~ his college life, and now you, with the anecdote on the bus and feeling that sort of engagement isn't truly satisfying. Fuck, I'm a college student, I've got exams in 5 days and I haven't started revising, I've procrastinated this whole week. Now it's certainly not as bad as other people's situations, but I'd much rather have this sort of identity crisis sooner rather than later, cause the recovery process is really empowering.
The only thing I can propose is reach out and search, find something you DO find fulfilling and truly worth your time, and get friends who you can relate to about that. I'm still in the process, but I feel that's got to be a good way to be driven and passionate about what you're doing. The worrying thing is if/when you realize that vocation doesn't coincide with your life's current tract.
Shoutout to StarStruck for his good and though-provoking posting, u too Torte, good EffOrt.
i agree with what rek said about simple language and big words. hemmingway believed in that basic concept, and he was drunk all the time and owned. outside of books (and even then) no one likes long winded speech, even if it is elegant words
English speaking students share this tendancy to think university is ancient greece lyceum. Just sit, write and listen and stfu in class. That's basics. You'll be giving speeches when people pay you to do so. Not the other way around.
On January 13 2012 00:05 Boonbag wrote: English speaking students share this tendancy to think university is ancient greece lyceum. Just sit, write and listen and stfu in class. That's basics. You'll be giving speeches when people pay you to do so. Not the other way around.
Just because it's a different system than you're used to doesn't mean it's as dumb and pointless as you're implying. If all university is about is listening to your profs jabber on about their subjects and then parroting what they say back at them in your papers, then we may as well just make university an extension of high school. Many of the world's top schools (e.g. in the USA, top research universities and especially liberal arts colleges) use this sort of Socratic method in the classroom even in subjects like mathematics to encourage discussion amongst the students -- and guess where many of the professors of such institutions come from? Yeah, from other top research universities and liberal arts colleges. It's not just about teaching students to be sponges, though that's part of it; it's also about training another generation of scholars to think for themselves.
Of course, you have an issue when one side doesn't want to talk -- which is the case here -- or if your prof handles the class badly and just lets anyone speak, but otherwise, it works decently well if your classmates are doing their readings.
On January 13 2012 00:05 Boonbag wrote: English speaking students share this tendancy to think university is ancient greece lyceum. Just sit, write and listen and stfu in class. That's basics. You'll be giving speeches when people pay you to do so. Not the other way around.
Just because it's a different system than you're used to doesn't mean it's as dumb and pointless as you're implying. If all university is about is listening to your profs jabber on about their subjects and then parroting what they say back at them in your papers, then we may as well just make university an extension of high school. Many of the world's top schools (e.g. in the USA, top research universities and especially liberal arts colleges) use this sort of Socratic method in the classroom even in subjects like mathematics to encourage discussion amongst the students -- and guess where many of the professors of such institutions come from? Yeah, from other top research universities and liberal arts colleges. It's not just about teaching students to be sponges, though that's part of it; it's also about training another generation of scholars to think for themselves.
Of course, you have an issue when one side doesn't want to talk -- which is the case here -- or if your prof handles the class badly and just lets anyone speak, but otherwise, it works decently well if your classmates are doing their readings.
That's exactly what I'm talking about. You pick a method that works out at a very high degree of studying / research, mostly when debating theorics and think it's a good idea to apply it all over. Dialectic isn't a teaching method, it's a methodology to explore a given topic. Besides that, what you're talking about isn't even dialectic. It's english pedagogy you're talking about, wich I think produces retarded students. Every country on the planet in any system is able to produce brilliant scholars however.
edit : dialectic was taught in ancient greece, but wasn't a mean to educate one, but a debate technique. As far as we know, students in greece weren't allowed to even speak while class was going on and not even allowed to speak about what they studied outside the lyceum.
On January 13 2012 00:05 Boonbag wrote: English speaking students share this tendancy to think university is ancient greece lyceum. Just sit, write and listen and stfu in class. That's basics. You'll be giving speeches when people pay you to do so. Not the other way around.
That's actually not the class at all. P.S: This is a French and English-speaking province.
On January 12 2012 20:58 bITt.mAN wrote: All I can contribute is to recommend fluffing up on effective social communication. I'd never really cared or bothered 'till I realized how lacking I was, in my own encounters.
Read books on 'being an effective communicator' , the only one I've read so far is "How to talk to Anyone" by Leil Lowdnes, and though it's mainly big-cat business oriented, it's still good. [tpb is your fraieund, get moar on teh cheapuuuu]
The thought of being a 'professional communicator' or a 'communication counselor' never really dawned on me as important or significant enough for a career 'till my older brother summed up his Business School applications by describing himself as one (he does the press releases for ~the~ company, English/Chinese). I realized effective, higher-order communication is just so essential between humans, and we take it for granted, but most of us REALLY aren't that good communicators. So I recommend we both get better (:
A far more overarching point I've got though today's blog section was: fundamental distance from and dissatisfaction with your current life situation. 'Failing at becoming a pro CS player' and the regret that entailed, or 'I've failed big time and can't get a job, halp?', again being quite unhappy with how he ~passed~ his college life, and now you, with the anecdote on the bus and feeling that sort of engagement isn't truly satisfying. Fuck, I'm a college student, I've got exams in 5 days and I haven't started revising, I've procrastinated this whole week. Now it's certainly not as bad as other people's situations, but I'd much rather have this sort of identity crisis sooner rather than later, cause the recovery process is really empowering.
The only thing I can propose is reach out and search, find something you DO find fulfilling and truly worth your time, and get friends who you can relate to about that. I'm still in the process, but I feel that's got to be a good way to be driven and passionate about what you're doing. The worrying thing is if/when you realize that vocation doesn't coincide with your life's current tract.
Shoutout to StarStruck for his good and though-provoking posting, u too Torte, good EffOrt.
That's really interesting, I'm going to look into that. How did your brother get into a job like that? In small groups (like 5, not 15) and where we are just discussing, I do fine and I actually sound a lot better. But maybe when the pressure is on and I feel squeezed, I elevate my choice of words to compensate for my lack of confidence in my actual arguments.
On January 13 2012 00:05 Boonbag wrote: English speaking students share this tendancy to think university is ancient greece lyceum. Just sit, write and listen and stfu in class. That's basics. You'll be giving speeches when people pay you to do so. Not the other way around.
Just because it's a different system than you're used to doesn't mean it's as dumb and pointless as you're implying. If all university is about is listening to your profs jabber on about their subjects and then parroting what they say back at them in your papers, then we may as well just make university an extension of high school. Many of the world's top schools (e.g. in the USA, top research universities and especially liberal arts colleges) use this sort of Socratic method in the classroom even in subjects like mathematics to encourage discussion amongst the students -- and guess where many of the professors of such institutions come from? Yeah, from other top research universities and liberal arts colleges. It's not just about teaching students to be sponges, though that's part of it; it's also about training another generation of scholars to think for themselves.
Of course, you have an issue when one side doesn't want to talk -- which is the case here -- or if your prof handles the class badly and just lets anyone speak, but otherwise, it works decently well if your classmates are doing their readings.
That's exactly what I'm talking about. You pick a method that works out at a very high degree of studying / research, mostly when debating theorics and think it's a good idea to apply it all over. Dialectic isn't a teaching method, it's a methodology to explore a given topic. Besides that, what you're talking about isn't even dialectic. It's english pedagogy you're talking about, wich I think produces retarded students. Every country on the planet in any system is able to produce brilliant scholars however.
edit : dialectic was taught in ancient greece, but wasn't a mean to educate one, but a debate technique. As far as we know, students in greece weren't allowed to even speak while class was going on and not even allowed to speak about what they studied outside the lyceum.
Then it's a difference of opinion. You think university is meant to educate students. I don't; that's what all the schooling before university is for. IMO, university is about active learning where you can take advantage of your environment and in particular your academic peers, their experiences, and their knowledge and use that to enrich your own understanding (or lack thereof) of the subject material. Otherwise why go to university? We can find all we need in the library, go to trade school, get a job, and get on with our lives. I mean, do you really think that debate can't impart valuable skills/lessons onto students? So long as the moderator does his/her job (i.e. corrects anything that may be wrong and keeps the discussion on track, makes sure that all topics that are supposed to be covered are covered within the available amount of time), then how could encouraging classroom debate possibly be negative?
On January 13 2012 02:45 Boonbag wrote: That's exactly what I'm talking about. You pick a method that works out at a very high degree of studying / research, mostly when debating theorics and think it's a good idea to apply it all over. Dialectic isn't a teaching method, it's a methodology to explore a given topic. Besides that, what you're talking about isn't even dialectic. It's english pedagogy you're talking about, wich I think produces retarded students. Every country on the planet in any system is able to produce brilliant scholars however.
I went to a very highly regarded undergraduate college where almost every class was based around the conference model. The system has its own problems but overall I feel it's very superior to the "sit listen and stfu" or whatever it was you were proposing as the ideal.
That being said, Torte, it sounds like you are an underclassman (?) and you aren't in a class with other majors. In this case, there's no point in using big words because neither you nor the other students knows what the words really mean or how to use them. The jargon words exist for a reason (contrary to what some previous posters have asserted, you CANT simplify all ideas into easy language. Jargon words are what experts use to talk to each other because it takes longer to express it simply).
Don't use big words as a defense mechanism, use them when you can't use other words. Make an effort to speak more slowly. Ask questions. State smaller points each time you open your mouth.
Everyone in my class are Sociology majors, this is a specialized subject class. The jargon [if I was using any, which I'm not, well I am, but it's in words everyone knows and understands (legitimate power and violence, etc.)] should be understood. Especially since the terms are from since CEGEP.
Anyways, it's not the issue. The issue is is that I'm overusing needlessly larger words (not large or big or fancy, just larger than a typical discussion) to convey a point that is fine as an argument, but lost to the crowds because its so stupidly convoluted.
On January 13 2012 03:53 Torte de Lini wrote: Everyone in my class are Sociology majors, this is a specialized subject class. The jargon [if I was using any, which I'm not, well I am, but it's in words everyone knows and understands (legitimate power and violence, etc.)] should be understood. Especially since the terms are from since CEGEP.
Anyways, it's not the issue. The issue is is that I'm overusing needlessly larger words (not large or big or fancy, just larger than a typical discussion) to convey a point that is fine as an argument, but lost to the crowds because its so stupidly convoluted.
Hahaha, thinking about it, I don't know which is worse: your situation or my situation. I can't speak well at all; even when I'm just speaking casually with people, I lose track of what I'm saying halfway through and need to stop to think about what to say next, because I actually cannot think while I'm talking. I just babble and repeat myself. ^^;
I imagine your situation is more frustrating. For me, I just feel like a completely idiot.
On January 13 2012 03:53 Torte de Lini wrote: Everyone in my class are Sociology majors, this is a specialized subject class. The jargon [if I was using any, which I'm not, well I am, but it's in words everyone knows and understands (legitimate power and violence, etc.)] should be understood. Especially since the terms are from since CEGEP.
Anyways, it's not the issue. The issue is is that I'm overusing needlessly larger words (not large or big or fancy, just larger than a typical discussion) to convey a point that is fine as an argument, but lost to the crowds because its so stupidly convoluted.
Hahaha, thinking about it, I don't know which is worse: your situation or my situation. I can't speak well at all; even when I'm just speaking casually with people, I lose track of what I'm saying halfway through and need to stop to think about what to say next, because I actually cannot think while I'm talking. I just babble and repeat myself. ^^;
I imagine your situation is more frustrating. For me, I just feel like a completely idiot.
Yours because it's easier to go up than down I feel. I'm going to my next class soon. I'm going to try with this class to speak a bit more coherently (if we're talking at all, but this is more of a take-notes class).
I imagine your situation is more frustrating. For me, I just feel like a completely idiot
It's frustrating and discouraging because I want to be a part of the conversation without always objecting (yet, I never agree with what they say because I view it as bad)
Holy 11 pages of responses! I guess I'll keep my response short then.
Basically tehnicaly and acedemic intelligence are very separate things from emotional intelligence. Often referred to as EQ, it really refers to the ability to sense social situations and evalutate people's attitudes are respond accordingly. It's a skill that often times people who are more technical do not possess. It's a skill like any other and can be improved through practice.
I actually have quite the opposite problem from you, I'm great at public speaking and arguing an issue in front of an entire class (no doubt several years of University student government really helped me practice these skills) but find myself having problems in one on one situations. Probably because for the most part I don't really care about most people's lives or ignorant opinions on things, and most of the my interests are completely different from most people. Having to fake interest always feels like bashing my head against a wall.
In conclusion, being social is overrated. Rather spend the time playing my copy of DA: Origins that just came from Amazon
Toast you should never fake interests. Sounds like you're trying too hard to find acceptance in those one-on-one interactions. Wrong peers to connect with outside of work and your studies. Look for others with similar interests. Really isn't hard to find those people on campus considering there are shitloads of clubs and extra-curricular activities going on all the time.
There's a lot of politics in University; however, you got to find ways of keeping yourself honest.
Wow so many responses to this blog, I read everything lol. The thread started to go a little downhill after page 7. Did you get what you wanted Torti? I like the summary of the good advice you put up on the updated OP. Did my advice help at all? =D
This reminds me of a funny quote I read in a funny book a while ago:
"Between what I think What I want to say What I think I said What I say What you want to hear What your hear And what you understand There are ten (? I counted seven) possibilities that we might have difficulties communicating. But let's try anyway!"
I had a classmate who is kind of like you, Torte. It was very hard to judge his ideas, simply because he was... so damn slow and so damn unclear! We would talk about a certain subject in class, then he would raise his hand, and then... he would simply start to think out loud. I never knew if he had an idea of what he was saying, or if he was really just thinking and rambling at the same time. It would go kind of like this: "I think that the question lies... in the essence of what the author thought as his... I mean... he had the will to send a strong... he had a strong will and... according to Bachelard's works on dreams and water, could this be an aquatic dream sent to the viewer as... as the sense of contigency contained in here is flushed away by the stream of his thoughts..." And he'd go on and on and on and even though you could perceive in the distance an interesting point coming, it simply came too slow, and you would eventually stop listening because, well, I listen to people talking, not to people thinking! Another thing he'd do regularly, is that he would let his mind wander in places the debate had left earlier, or things no one really wanted to discuss at the moment, not completely off-topic but still as if he had just heard what we were talking about and didn't listen to the course of the conversation.
Ideas have no to little value, what counts in the eyes of everyone are actions. Expressing your ideas is far more important than simply having them in your head, because only their confrontation with the world make them grow! But I see that this point has been brought forward earlier.
Edit: oh and also you're taking this way too seriously, it is likely that your pride makes you aggressive and blind to the other's points.
2. Speaking up only to disagree + fancy words makes you look like a douchebag. Somehow that didn't click for me...
After reading that you edited the OP I went back and looked at it for the 2nd time after all these 11 pages. kept going from my last post and reading on lol.
So, the reason that it comes out making you look like a douchebag is that well.... heres an example.
Imagine that you are in 6th grade. Your English teacher introduces to you your first couple of big words and says that they are used by adults. That they are basically longer, more official sounding, versions of the tiny words you learned in grade school. Ok, that sounds easy enough. But then the unthinkable happened....
The one kid you don't know very well at all raises his hand. Little did you know that when your teacher called on him he would ruin your experience in the 6th grade forever. He asks "What is your reasoning for this redundant introduction to single words throughout the educational school year, is it that you consider your objective as a teacher to unnaturally insist on causing melancholy through the entirety of this community that is forced to come to this educational institute and learn things they themselves would never dream of asking to learn?"
Then you end up with the exact same reaction described in the post this was originally mentioned as well as the reaction the kid(you) gets. If you are unlucky, the teacher will try to encourage this. If you are lucky, then the teacher will probably try to set you on the right foot and tell you that at school in front of other kids just learning this now it is not the right time to use advanced words. In papers, yes. But in front of other kids that can't understand it you end up adding nothing to the discussion but "can anyone translate that "
On January 13 2012 00:05 Boonbag wrote: English speaking students share this tendancy to think university is ancient greece lyceum. Just sit, write and listen and stfu in class. That's basics. You'll be giving speeches when people pay you to do so. Not the other way around.
A lot of classes have participation and discussion as part of the grade.
On January 13 2012 00:05 Boonbag wrote: English speaking students share this tendancy to think university is ancient greece lyceum. Just sit, write and listen and stfu in class. That's basics. You'll be giving speeches when people pay you to do so. Not the other way around.
A lot of classes have participation and discussion as part of the grade.
As I understand he's getting at being Sophmores, sophos moros , philosophical fools. College students who think they're the intellectual shizz, worthy of consultation and worship, when they're just caught up in eachother's haughty drabble.
I for one can't stand people who come off as taking themselves too seriously; unnecessarily expensive words and clothes do help form that image. Communication communication Torte (I'm surprised this hasn't been raised more). One thing I find that helps is getting the idea you want to communicate, and really working through it[in yo noggin!], getting all the reasoning behind it laid out and DOWN. Then, once you've drafted a few versions and cut away at everything but the core ideas, you can express it in a concise and comprehensible manner. Fuck I'm tired but I'll still dig through to find an example of your dear misunderstood statements and how to dissect them so that other people can understand.
Come on guys, give him a break. There IS a chance that this guy may be so unbelievably smart that no one understands what he says. you know, one of those misunderstood geniuses that we heard so much about.
If I were a betting man, I wouldn't bet on it though
On January 12 2012 08:54 Torte de Lini wrote: The issue is, the conversation is all rudimentary, it feels all poorly articulated and thought out. They usually resolve and revolve around anecdotal and personal stories to depict or validate a theory the teacher proposes. 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]).
Regardless of how you express your arguments, that sounds like a bad class lacking in rigour. Individual anecdotes don't validate theories, and blurring words just throws the discussion out the window in favour of rhetoric.
You may enjoy analytic philosophy courses more—not because it's obtuse, but because it's essential to state definitions and arguments precisely.
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).
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).
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).
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.
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...
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.
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 05:19 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
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 05:30 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 05:19 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.
On January 14 2012 05:47 blankspace wrote: 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.
No, there's a huge difference. I would usually acknowledge this like before today, but in Math, there is a logic, but it's a step by step process and is heavily complicated at times (or not obvious).
In Sociology, everything is logical, rational and connected. There are steps, but they read like any other sentence or rational thought.
You're right about examples first I think, or they need to fit seamlessly. Good idea and that girl isn't dumb, she's just like everyone else. We talked about the addictions of video-games (for some reason, people love to generalize fucking video-games) and they were saying how they don't like gore and thus don't like video-games and feel it can be a dangerous addiction. I'd be fine with that if their arguments weren't purely ANECDOTAL. Purely: "oh I saw my brother throw his controller once when playing Call of Duty."
This is the 300-level course though, a lot of non-Soci students I assume. Facebook too, such an easy subject for them to banter dumb things.
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." <------ ???
That's good, but I don't know how I could formulate something so much better written in my head before speaking. It's nothing like how I talk.
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." <------ ???
That's good, but I don't know how I could formulate something so much better written in my head before speaking. It's nothing like how I talk.
It's kind of interesting because after reading the OP I can understand why you have this problem, or why others have to endure it. I'm not sure if it's really a changeable thing, some people just some across poorly more often than not. Also you're not a unique snowflake, so maybe watching fight club a few more times would help.
Also don't ever talk how you write, no one talks or even thinks how they write. I think there is a direct proportion of douchebaggery in the ratio of talkingness to writingness
TDL I think i know what the problem is, they can't see your post count when you're talking in class t.t
in all seriousness, it's important to remember to curb your discussion to who ever you're talking to: know your audience. If you're defending a thesis it's ok to go full out on your vocabulary, maybe you need to just tone it down for the class. Or you can just keep speaking really intelligently and hopefully the level of the class will rise to meet you, I've had it happen before so it's not impossible.
On January 14 2012 06:40 Endymion wrote: TDL I think i know what the problem is, they can't see your post count when you're talking in class t.t
I fully agree. This is indeed the problem. Maybe TL should make a new shirt that costs a bit more than the others for the option to have your current post count printed on the shirt.
Ooh, two writers posting here! yay! Good idea about knowing your audience, I feel maybe I'm trying too hard to impress than to show, in content, a good impression of my ideas.
So uh... nothing happened today in terms of progression. I started recording, but we never fucking talked about anything informative or concrete. We just talked about emotions that happened during the day. One of the girls fucking cried for God's sake. I felt it was an overreaction, but I couldn't imagine being in her shoes to understand the problem + context of her past experiences. :/
You could still post it if it doesn't take much trouble to do so. If it does, don't bother. If it doesn't then we can learn exactly how your class behaves and create our own perspective rather than going by your possibly biased perspective.
On January 14 2012 07:48 Torte de Lini wrote: Good idea about knowing your audience, I feel maybe I'm trying too hard to impress.
Yes, that's what we spoke about before.
Those Disney documentaries are so overused in Universities. If a parent still shows the classic Disney films to their children they have to take some responsibility in enlightening their kids. It's easy to point fingers and society is always changing.
There are several viewpoints on this matter. I don't want to dive into it at this time.
On January 14 2012 06:39 Divinek wrote: It's kind of interesting because after reading the OP I can understand why you have this problem, or why others have to endure it. I'm not sure if it's really a changeable thing, some people just some across poorly more often than not. Also you're not a unique snowflake, so maybe watching fight club a few more times would help.
Also don't ever talk how you write, no one talks or even thinks how they write. I think there is a direct proportion of douchebaggery in the ratio of talkingness to writingness
I wouldn't say that. That's why we have formal and informal writing.
The information is kind of private and she was fucking crying man. To be honest, they didn't say anything typically dumb. They said usual university say with their own bias perspectives, I didn't even talk rofl
On January 14 2012 07:48 Torte de Lini wrote: Ooh, two writers posting here! yay! Good idea about knowing your audience, I feel maybe I'm trying too hard to impress than to show, in content, a good impression of my ideas.
So uh... nothing happened today in terms of progression. I started recording, but we never fucking talked about anything informative or concrete. We just talked about emotions that happened during the day. One of the girls fucking cried for God's sake. I felt it was an overreaction, but I couldn't imagine being in her shoes to understand the problem + context of her past experiences. :/
On the subject of knowing your audience, I don't know how relevant this is but I live reasonably near Glasgow in Scotland. Not to put too fine a point on it, I am of high school age and, while tales of Glasgow have been greatly exaggerated, you are still likely to invite a fair amount of abuse if you don't talk/act in the expected way. Think Lord of the Flies with more tracksuit bottoms and less murder.
When I was 7, I moved up from the south of England. I doubt it's easy for non-native English speakers to tell the difference between Glaswegian and southern English, but for a native speaker there's a pretty fucking huge difference. Again, not to put too fine a point on it, but I sounded very different. For at least 5 years I endured a shitton of abuse just for speaking in a different dialect.
Teachers will come out with all sorts of platitudes, but most of them are utter bollocks, in my fairly lengthy experience. Anyway, where I'm going with this is that if you want to change accent/voice enough, it is possible. Not fun, but possible. Currently, I can switch fairly easily between a fair interpretation of a Scottish accent and a passable southern English accent. The words also change with the accent - I wouldn't come out with this paragraph here in a Scottish accent.
Find what works for your audience, and how best to translate your ideas to them, and speak to them in their "language". They don't have to listen to you, and they probably won't put effort into deciphering "different" things which come out of your mouth. You have to find a way to speak to them so they don't have to decipher what you say.
On January 14 2012 07:48 Torte de Lini wrote: Ooh, two writers posting here! yay! Good idea about knowing your audience, I feel maybe I'm trying too hard to impress than to show, in content, a good impression of my ideas.
So uh... nothing happened today in terms of progression. I started recording, but we never fucking talked about anything informative or concrete. We just talked about emotions that happened during the day. One of the girls fucking cried for God's sake. I felt it was an overreaction, but I couldn't imagine being in her shoes to understand the problem + context of her past experiences. :/
haha, I think I would just start laughing if that happened in one of my classes... or at least give her a very serious "THE FUCK?!?!" look
On January 14 2012 07:48 Torte de Lini wrote: Good idea about knowing your audience, I feel maybe I'm trying too hard to impress.
Yes, that's what we spoke about before.
Those Disney documentaries are so overused in Universities. If a parent still shows the classic Disney films to their children they have to take some responsibility in enlightening their kids. It's easy to point fingers and society is always changing.
There are several viewpoints on this matter. I don't want to dive into it at this time.
On January 14 2012 06:39 Divinek wrote: It's kind of interesting because after reading the OP I can understand why you have this problem, or why others have to endure it. I'm not sure if it's really a changeable thing, some people just some across poorly more often than not. Also you're not a unique snowflake, so maybe watching fight club a few more times would help.
Also don't ever talk how you write, no one talks or even thinks how they write. I think there is a direct proportion of douchebaggery in the ratio of talkingness to writingness
I wouldn't say that. That's why we have formal and informal writing.
Forums are pretty informal. ;/
yeah I agree, i have had a lot of girls tell me that I talk exactly like I type and text.. As for formal papers, I usually just churn out 1st drafts in minutes and get As, so I don't think it's that disconnected from how I think/speak
third edit ~ uh oh, hopefully i'm not a douchebag by divinek's standards if I talk like I write t.t
I feel your pain man just on opposite ends of the spectrum. Your to thorough and well thought out for people to follow. I just spew idiocy out of my mouth with out thinking. I keep quiet in class as well. Just remember it might not be easy being to smart but it ain't easy being stupid either. In the end college is all about the pussy so at least the lady is warming up to you.
I feel like a teacher shouldn't restrict you like that. I have a class where it's mostly discussion. There are several people in the class who are eager to assert their views loudly and sometimes it's quite verbose and it's obvious they're really quite intelligent. The teacher does a good job taking the information in, no matter how convoluted it might be, and processing it as well as sharing the information to the others who probably had no idea what he was saying. Your teacher just seems like a bizznatch; she doesn't encourage you but put you down. But then again, I wasn't there to really consider the matter from different perspectives.
Because while you might consider what you said to be articulate and simple matter, others might not share the same view as you. For myself, I always feel a tinge of annoyance about the one person who vomits a dictionary of obscurity when the same matter could have been conveyed with a few words because of its simplicity. I feel like words should add flavour and uniquity, not bog down conversation. This is one quote that I thought of when I read your blog upon this matter: 'brevity is the soul of wit'. Not that you should adhere to that saying all the time, but it's just something to consider. If you have received criticism about this, judging from your papers, perhaps you should hesitate and see if you can convey your point with more clarity. After all, the purpose of your papers is to reach a general audience. What use is a great paper or a great idea you have to say if people just tone you out. An intuitive writer or speaker will conform their material to adapt to the audience. Even if it means 'dumbing it down'. It may seem galling, but hey it's at least better than killed thoughts.
On January 14 2012 07:48 Torte de Lini wrote: Ooh, two writers posting here! yay! Good idea about knowing your audience, I feel maybe I'm trying too hard to impress than to show, in content, a good impression of my ideas.
So uh... nothing happened today in terms of progression. I started recording, but we never fucking talked about anything informative or concrete. We just talked about emotions that happened during the day. One of the girls fucking cried for God's sake. I felt it was an overreaction, but I couldn't imagine being in her shoes to understand the problem + context of her past experiences. :/
haha, I think I would just start laughing if that happened in one of my classes... or at least give her a very serious "THE FUCK?!?!" look
On January 14 2012 07:48 Torte de Lini wrote: Good idea about knowing your audience, I feel maybe I'm trying too hard to impress.
Yes, that's what we spoke about before.
Those Disney documentaries are so overused in Universities. If a parent still shows the classic Disney films to their children they have to take some responsibility in enlightening their kids. It's easy to point fingers and society is always changing.
There are several viewpoints on this matter. I don't want to dive into it at this time.
On January 14 2012 06:39 Divinek wrote: It's kind of interesting because after reading the OP I can understand why you have this problem, or why others have to endure it. I'm not sure if it's really a changeable thing, some people just some across poorly more often than not. Also you're not a unique snowflake, so maybe watching fight club a few more times would help.
Also don't ever talk how you write, no one talks or even thinks how they write. I think there is a direct proportion of douchebaggery in the ratio of talkingness to writingness
I wouldn't say that. That's why we have formal and informal writing.
Forums are pretty informal. ;/
yeah I agree, i have had a lot of girls tell me that I talk exactly like I type and text.. As for formal papers, I usually just churn out 1st drafts in minutes and get As, so I don't think it's that disconnected from how I think/speak
third edit ~ uh oh, hopefully i'm not a douchebag by divinek's standards if I talk like I write t.t
You just might be! And I was implying formal writing obv, which is very different from normal text which should be pretty close to how you talk (hopefully). Man I can churn out papers in negative time and get S+! I always find it pretty easy to switch between formal writing and talking to the common plebs of society
this is suppose to be the top of the courses in Sociology: a specialized study about Sociology and Emotions. The class has no real structure besides reading various texts (that few read for some odd reason) and then it's just endless structure with the teacher being the moderator.
It may be a little off topic right now, but all I ever learnt in sociology class is that I have the right to be arrogant since I'm going to be a doctor and my patients are most likely middle or lower class. I am, however, forbidden to fall ill, for if I do, I will climb down the ladder of prestige and wealth and end up as an antisocial poor lower class bitch because I can't work as a doctor any more...
Wait. What? The hell with it. Don't let a frustrated sociology dude tell you you're "the wrong kind of smart" because they don't have the brains to actually live what they teach. I like your smartness
EPT
. They go "Very good 3FFA!" or "Wow! You're on fire!" I mean it, they really do that(but with my real name instead of 3FFA 
"
