Making slower movements, not turning my head quickly, nor making reactive movements. The thinking is, if I am a native of an area, I would be accustomed to things like immediate stimuli (loud sounds are a big one) and not react immediately due to my desensitization
Making eye contact with workers, and nodding, this tends to work for folks who outwardly identify as men
For women I tend to give a small smile, no teeth visible, only for a few moments, it's clear it is not a genuine smile; I do not engage in a way which could be flirtatious, I do not need to give any additional emotional labor or pressure women into being nice if I can manage it; I ensure to let them finish their sentences (I do not want to talk over them); I raise the pitch of my voice, using more words like, 'like', 'uh', 'hmm', 'yeah', 'so'
When crossing the street I look the driver who is waiting to turn a very small smile (even smaller than the above, which is usually for any kind of service worker) and I give a nod, not a quick one, I would describe it as moderate. Almost always I get a nod back, a small smile back, or a comment back (e.g. 'have a good one', 'take care', 'good morning', 'have a good day')
You make some good points throughout, but this is some Patrick Bateman shit lol
You're missing the bit in the middle and being reactionary, comrade. This is done automatically, I did not consciously decide to do these, I noticed and am describing them.
You are correct that they are surface level and therefore appear superficial. The depth of understanding does not come with off-the-cuff dismissal. To quote Mao, "No investigation, no right to speak." Have you asked yourself, and engaged dialectically with your reactionary take, to say "If what this brainwormed Bateman comrade says is true, then how could it be true?" or "If 60% of what Bateman comrade said are good points, to my judgement and evaluation, could it be the other 40% are also good points? Or perhaps 30% of the remaining 40%?"
I likewise did not investigate your claims. You did not give much to investigate in your immediate comment. Obviously there are things which can be investigated. Your comment history, the historical context of your comments, the social structure and culture of this forum, etc.
You were dismissive, which is fine. You did not explain to me and I do not understand. I would appreciate critical comments as that would be most helpful for me, if you are so inclined.
A note, to quote a notable piece in mathematics education, Lockhart's Lament, he states the decrepit state of mathematics education in Amerika has to do with the introduction of concepts. He mentioned, unlike a painter who has an idea and assortment of tools and a challenge to make what they wish. Who struggles in their own manner and gets a result which they have an intimate knowledge of due to their experience. He says the mathematics student is given the finished piece of art and told what the meaning is.
Rather than give a problem and have students attempt to work it out on their own, they are given the entirety of the explanation and the sense of wonder, of learning, is lost. It is no surprise route memorization is practiced.
In my examples I did not strive for the utmost quality of examples as 1. the issues can be worked out by the reader and a novel solution which is most amenable to them can be found, and 2. there is limited knowledge on my part of the audience, or the reader, which for myself and in my experience makes communication difficult as my 'general style' without knowing the specific audience has been called 'incomprehensible' or 'incoherent'. Then I try to do my best to explain or communicate to the audience I believe there to be (to my and obviously others' dismay).
You make some good points throughout, but this is some Patrick Bateman shit lol
You're missing the bit in the middle and being reactionary, comrade. This is done automatically, I did not consciously decide to do these, I noticed and am describing them.
You are correct that they are surface level and therefore appear superficial. The depth of understanding does not come with off-the-cuff dismissal. To quote Mao, "No investigation, no right to speak." Have you asked yourself, and engaged dialectically with your reactionary take, to say "If what this brainwormed Bateman comrade says is true, then how could it be true?" or "If 60% of what Bateman comrade said are good points, to my judgement and evaluation, could it be the other 40% are also good points? Or perhaps 30% of the remaining 40%?"
I likewise did not investigate your claims. You did not give much to investigate in your immediate comment. Obviously there are things which can be investigated. Your comment history, the historical context of your comments, the social structure and culture of this forum, etc.
You were dismissive, which is fine. You did not explain to me and I do not understand. I would appreciate critical comments as that would be most helpful for me, if you are so inclined.
A note, to quote a notable piece in mathematics education, Lockhart's Lament, he states the decrepit state of mathematics education in Amerika has to do with the introduction of concepts. He mentioned, unlike a painter who has an idea and assortment of tools and a challenge to make what they wish. Who struggles in their own manner and gets a result which they have an intimate knowledge of due to their experience. He says the mathematics student is given the finished piece of art and told what the meaning is.
Rather than give a problem and have students attempt to work it out on their own, they are given the entirety of the explanation and the sense of wonder, of learning, is lost. It is no surprise route memorization is practiced.
In my examples I did not strive for the utmost quality of examples as 1. the issues can be worked out by the reader and a novel solution which is most amenable to them can be found, and 2. there is limited knowledge on my part of the audience, or the reader, which for myself and in my experience makes communication difficult as my 'general style' without knowing the specific audience has been called 'incomprehensible' or 'incoherent'. Then I try to do my best to explain or communicate to the audience I believe there to be (to my and obviously others' dismay).
Lockhart's Lament is good
fr fr