|
On January 12 2012 10:17 StarStruck wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2012 10:01 Torte de Lini wrote:On January 12 2012 09:49 StarStruck wrote:
Torte,
In that scenario I would try to simplify my point in order for everyone to understand the concept I was trying to convey.
By using the same structure and words they'll just get lost in space. I like to use very abstract thoughts when I write fiction and non-fiction too. It comes down to every little detail. If you find the course unappealing switch. It only takes me a few seminars to figure out whether or not I'm going to get anything out of the class. Whether it be the professors, the material or structure.
I'm intrigued as to the actual discussion and what you said.
Ah so you are talking about the influence of emotion can lead to power.
Propaganda and campaigning 101. To gain influence you need to connect to your people. Aye, aye sir. Emotional intelligence is a very interesting concept :B No one's talked about emotion and power yet, they still think there's a contrast and thus a gender division and type-casting. I disagree, but I have a theory in my own head and it's sort of intricate :B! I'll see if I can record the conversation for next class on my phone, should be interesting for everyone and maybe it'll be more clear that I'm in the wrong (though I think we can deduce this). We'll see, next class is Friday. Dunno if I record well on my phone). On January 12 2012 09:54 turdburgler wrote:
torte, serious question, have you ever taken magic mushrooms or similar? No, I don't partake in drugs of alcoholic drinks. Not my fancy except for very sweet wine. On January 12 2012 10:01 StarStruck wrote:On January 12 2012 09:57 Torte de Lini wrote:On January 12 2012 09:44 RedJustice wrote:Precision. Something I learned when I was writing fiction was that the correct verb is far better than any adjective. One of my favorites: slog. One verb to describe walking through a thick slush of snow or freezing mud, never quite freeing your feet from it. Another thing I learned is that you should be able to tell any entire story of any length in one sentence. Condense words and ideas to the simplest but most precise expression you have. (As far as your writing here goes, I've never had difficulties with your thought process or vocabulary. Your blogs are rambling but... they're blogs.) EDIT: + Show Spoiler +On January 12 2012 09:40 Torte de Lini wrote:
See, this works, but how do I do that on the spot? Is there a technique?
Breathing  You got an example about verbs and less description? I am 100% the opposite and describe the verb extensively haha! Breathing, ha :B Then you are over confuddling your message. Keep it for your papers and don't be such a show off. No worries. I'm a bit of a show off myself. Except you get no feedback on your papers. It's just shitted on and then a grade pops up. 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 ):
|
On January 12 2012 10:25 Roe wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2012 10:07 Torte de Lini wrote:On January 12 2012 09:51 Viciousvx wrote:On January 12 2012 09:28 Torte de Lini wrote:
I'm trying to think of an example, but I don't feel I'm doing an accurate job of it.
Let me try.
Someone will say that they think powers and rational thought go together and that emotions is irrational and associated with women. I'll correct them and tell them: "I disagree and feel that power and emotionality are associated with one another through the approach of legitimate power such as charismatic leaders (Sarah Palin, Nixon, etc.) and that despite them being terrible people, they gained a legitimate form of power (of influence or other forms) by not only recognizing emotions that a collective society feels on general issues, but can also use those emotions to sway people in their favor.
All in one sentence. Well the good thing is, i don't think it's big words. bad thing is, with the example in given. You just seem to lack sublety. that was a simple generic opinion that can be right or wrong but was probably relevant to the class and was her participation. and....you threw a railroad at her Again i don't know what the class is like, if it's fierce Lion vs tiger blazing debates. or if it's regular i'm in school half ass i'm participating without being a douchebag debates. That you kinda threw the railroad at this situation person with a hint of current event jackass  and that doesn't seem bad, you're just more passionate, if that the case. it's not bad but just don't expect too much out of people your class is not an internet forum debate that never ends. share your ideas, halt your aggression, understand subtlety. you're essentially the one kid in my physics class, who read ahead of the class, knew the topic of the day, but came to class to argue (discuss read correct with later known terms) with the teacher, delaying lecture. of course yours is a discussion course and not a lecture. you expect too much, but nothing is wrong with you. Yeah, I am excessive. I said that I think. It's half-ass school with storytime about people's lives. It's sociology, social sciences. I wish my class was an internet forum debate minus google and wikipedia. That'd be heavenly to be frank! And yes, I am that kid. I read the material. You're suppose to BEFORE the class, not after. Just seems counterproductive too though D: 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.
|
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 ):
|
Take the bull by the horn.
|
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.
|
On January 12 2012 09:28 Torte de Lini wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2012 09:21 KleineGeist wrote:
Would you give a few specific examples? As in, brief context behind and then your argument from your psychology example or another situation? I'm confused as to what you mean by "different," and slightly skeptical because in most situations where someone brings up a point and everyone reacts to it in the manner you describe, it's usually because it's a non sequitur or completely stupid. You do write intelligently and you seem to appraise situations very well, so I'm confused because it seems you would appraise your own situation well, too... so please, example? I'm trying to think of an example, but I don't feel I'm doing an accurate job of it. Let me try. Someone will say that they think powers and rational thought go together and that emotions is irrational and associated with women. I'll correct them and tell them: "I disagree and feel that power and emotionality are associated with one another through the approach of legitimate power such as charismatic leaders (Sarah Palin, Nixon, etc.) and that despite them being terrible people, they gained a legitimate form of power (of influence or other forms) by not only recognizing emotions that a collective society feels on general issues, but can also use those emotions to sway people in their favor. All in one sentence.
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 10:35 Torte de Lini wrote:Show nested quote +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 10:27 Torte de Lini wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2012 10:16 3FFA wrote:On January 12 2012 09:33 Torte de Lini wrote: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 really want to record the next time I go!
|
On January 12 2012 10:34 Torte de Lini wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2012 10:25 Roe wrote:On January 12 2012 10:07 Torte de Lini wrote:On January 12 2012 09:51 Viciousvx wrote:On January 12 2012 09:28 Torte de Lini wrote:
I'm trying to think of an example, but I don't feel I'm doing an accurate job of it.
Let me try.
Someone will say that they think powers and rational thought go together and that emotions is irrational and associated with women. I'll correct them and tell them: "I disagree and feel that power and emotionality are associated with one another through the approach of legitimate power such as charismatic leaders (Sarah Palin, Nixon, etc.) and that despite them being terrible people, they gained a legitimate form of power (of influence or other forms) by not only recognizing emotions that a collective society feels on general issues, but can also use those emotions to sway people in their favor.
All in one sentence. Well the good thing is, i don't think it's big words. bad thing is, with the example in given. You just seem to lack sublety. that was a simple generic opinion that can be right or wrong but was probably relevant to the class and was her participation. and....you threw a railroad at her Again i don't know what the class is like, if it's fierce Lion vs tiger blazing debates. or if it's regular i'm in school half ass i'm participating without being a douchebag debates. That you kinda threw the railroad at this situation person with a hint of current event jackass and that doesn't seem bad, you're just more passionate, if that the case. it's not bad but just don't expect too much out of people your class is not an internet forum debate that never ends. share your ideas, halt your aggression, understand subtlety. you're essentially the one kid in my physics class, who read ahead of the class, knew the topic of the day, but came to class to argue (discuss read correct with later known terms) with the teacher, delaying lecture. of course yours is a discussion course and not a lecture. you expect too much, but nothing is wrong with you. Yeah, I am excessive. I said that I think. It's half-ass school with storytime about people's lives. It's sociology, social sciences. I wish my class was an internet forum debate minus google and wikipedia. That'd be heavenly to be frank! And yes, I am that kid. I read the material. You're suppose to BEFORE the class, not after. Just seems counterproductive too though D: 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 10:39 StarStruck wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2012 10:35 Torte de Lini wrote: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 10:38 PetRockSteve wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2012 09:28 Torte de Lini wrote:On January 12 2012 09:21 KleineGeist wrote:
Would you give a few specific examples? As in, brief context behind and then your argument from your psychology example or another situation? I'm confused as to what you mean by "different," and slightly skeptical because in most situations where someone brings up a point and everyone reacts to it in the manner you describe, it's usually because it's a non sequitur or completely stupid. You do write intelligently and you seem to appraise situations very well, so I'm confused because it seems you would appraise your own situation well, too... so please, example? I'm trying to think of an example, but I don't feel I'm doing an accurate job of it. Let me try. Someone will say that they think powers and rational thought go together and that emotions is irrational and associated with women. I'll correct them and tell them: "I disagree and feel that power and emotionality are associated with one another through the approach of legitimate power such as charismatic leaders (Sarah Palin, Nixon, etc.) and that despite them being terrible people, they gained a legitimate form of power (of influence or other forms) by not only recognizing emotions that a collective society feels on general issues, but can also use those emotions to sway people in their favor. All in one sentence. 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 10:32 Torte de Lini wrote:Show nested quote +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 10:38 PetRockSteve wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2012 09:28 Torte de Lini wrote:On January 12 2012 09:21 KleineGeist wrote:
Would you give a few specific examples? As in, brief context behind and then your argument from your psychology example or another situation? I'm confused as to what you mean by "different," and slightly skeptical because in most situations where someone brings up a point and everyone reacts to it in the manner you describe, it's usually because it's a non sequitur or completely stupid. You do write intelligently and you seem to appraise situations very well, so I'm confused because it seems you would appraise your own situation well, too... so please, example? I'm trying to think of an example, but I don't feel I'm doing an accurate job of it. Let me try. Someone will say that they think powers and rational thought go together and that emotions is irrational and associated with women. I'll correct them and tell them: "I disagree and feel that power and emotionality are associated with one another through the approach of legitimate power such as charismatic leaders (Sarah Palin, Nixon, etc.) and that despite them being terrible people, they gained a legitimate form of power (of influence or other forms) by not only recognizing emotions that a collective society feels on general issues, but can also use those emotions to sway people in their favor. All in one sentence. 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.
Good point.
|
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.
Fits right into Torte's debate.
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
