Um, I already know that...
August 16, 2008 6:43 PM Subscribe
It's that time of the year again, fall semester is beginning in a few days. I want to improve some of my writing and presentation skills. One of them, getting my point across without being condescending.
Funny thing is that when it comes to my social life, people complain about me being too curt and vague (providing little context)...but in the classroom, I have the opposite issue.
In my graduate classes, majority of the coursework consists of writing papers, classroom discussions, online discussions, and oral presentations. I get comments from both professors and classmates that I sometimes "state the obvious" and "talk down to them".
I think I know the roots of my problem, but I don't know where to go from there.
1. When it comes to papers, there's usually a page minimum; presentations are usually at least 20 minutes long; for online discussions we're required to post three posts minimum (a least a paragraph long) and two replies minimum per week. I often times run out of things to say, and just add common sense statements to lengthen my papers, discussions, and presentations.
2. Even when I don't have time/page requirements, and I condense my comments more, I sometimes get the same complaints. I guess the problem is not knowing enough about my "audience". I find it kind of difficult to figure out what my audience knows, and what they don't know. I assume what may be obvious to me, may not be obvious to some people. I'm wondering if there are any techniques I can use to inform semi-strangers, without repeating stuff they already know.
Funny thing is that when it comes to my social life, people complain about me being too curt and vague (providing little context)...but in the classroom, I have the opposite issue.
In my graduate classes, majority of the coursework consists of writing papers, classroom discussions, online discussions, and oral presentations. I get comments from both professors and classmates that I sometimes "state the obvious" and "talk down to them".
I think I know the roots of my problem, but I don't know where to go from there.
1. When it comes to papers, there's usually a page minimum; presentations are usually at least 20 minutes long; for online discussions we're required to post three posts minimum (a least a paragraph long) and two replies minimum per week. I often times run out of things to say, and just add common sense statements to lengthen my papers, discussions, and presentations.
2. Even when I don't have time/page requirements, and I condense my comments more, I sometimes get the same complaints. I guess the problem is not knowing enough about my "audience". I find it kind of difficult to figure out what my audience knows, and what they don't know. I assume what may be obvious to me, may not be obvious to some people. I'm wondering if there are any techniques I can use to inform semi-strangers, without repeating stuff they already know.
To speak better - Toastmasters.
As for talking down, you are not always right. Really, you are not as smart as you think you are. None of us are.
Now, are you really talking down, or are you just oblivious to your audience. Not knowing your audience's expertise in a subject and talking above their expertise level is not talking down to people, but quite the opposite. Talking down would be more like under appreciating how much they know.
posted by caddis at 7:20 PM on August 16, 2008
As for talking down, you are not always right. Really, you are not as smart as you think you are. None of us are.
Now, are you really talking down, or are you just oblivious to your audience. Not knowing your audience's expertise in a subject and talking above their expertise level is not talking down to people, but quite the opposite. Talking down would be more like under appreciating how much they know.
posted by caddis at 7:20 PM on August 16, 2008
Research more or do whatever it is you need so that you can meet your page/time/post minimum without resorting to stating the obvious. You could also be unintentionally writing in a condescending tone. If you're writing your papers and then going back and sticking in more background information to fill up space (as I've certainly done) then it could be that those background facts stick out awkwardly and make it seem like you're "talking down."
posted by martinX's bellbottoms at 7:38 PM on August 16, 2008
posted by martinX's bellbottoms at 7:38 PM on August 16, 2008
Best answer: With regards to "not knowing your audience", it's tough to fake empathy, and just as tough to fake camaraderie. For whatever reason, your life, and experiences, have not shown you people. While you might know facts, knowledge, information, etc., you are ineffective at the art of understanding what convinces people of anything. You assume too much. You think that your experiences are universal, and that what you know should be considered common knowledge.
I confront this issue constantly. I had a conversation just yesterday where a colleague said to me, "Yeah, we all know this, but [said knowledge] doesn't solve our problem." A week ago I spoke to someone who confronts this on a regular basis. He's an executive who leads a "management consultant and project management" group in our company. He said to me that just recently he ran into a manager who simply didn't get what he was trying to say. The solution was patently obvious, but unless the manager understood this, implementation was impossible. So his job became trying to approach the situation from as many angles as possible, just so ONE of the approaches might click with the manager, and the project could move on.
That's your job this year. Experiment with a variety of approaches that helps you become a better writer and presenter. Read books on persuasion. LISTEN to people. Shut the inner voice in your head and just pretend like you're always wrong and JUST LISTEN. From what you've written, that's exactly your problem. You may be right. You may be smart. But if you can't get the message to the audience, you may as well not exist. And that's what you need to remember each and every time you have a conversation with someone else. That THE OTHER PERSON is more important than you or your message. That the other person controls your destiny. Because in many cases, they really do.
I've read a book called "Reading People". I've also read a book called "The Art of Persuasion". And "How to Win Friends and Influence People". And I spent years (voluntarily and involuntarily) in positions where I was an underling, and forced to listen to rather stupid people tell me how their incompetent way was correct. What it taught me was that no matter how right I was, at the end of the day, the GOAL was to get the job done. My ego was secondary. I still struggle with that. I hate that, in fact. Because all these years I've been thinking that being right is enough. And being right is hard, because it requires thinking. But being right comes secondary to being able to convince people of anything. Unless you're trying to be the dead genius whose ideas come to fruition long after you're buried, you learn to get people, your audience. And while that takes a lot of time, there are plenty of little steps you can do in the meantime to help you on your way.
posted by SeizeTheDay at 7:48 PM on August 16, 2008 [3 favorites]
I confront this issue constantly. I had a conversation just yesterday where a colleague said to me, "Yeah, we all know this, but [said knowledge] doesn't solve our problem." A week ago I spoke to someone who confronts this on a regular basis. He's an executive who leads a "management consultant and project management" group in our company. He said to me that just recently he ran into a manager who simply didn't get what he was trying to say. The solution was patently obvious, but unless the manager understood this, implementation was impossible. So his job became trying to approach the situation from as many angles as possible, just so ONE of the approaches might click with the manager, and the project could move on.
That's your job this year. Experiment with a variety of approaches that helps you become a better writer and presenter. Read books on persuasion. LISTEN to people. Shut the inner voice in your head and just pretend like you're always wrong and JUST LISTEN. From what you've written, that's exactly your problem. You may be right. You may be smart. But if you can't get the message to the audience, you may as well not exist. And that's what you need to remember each and every time you have a conversation with someone else. That THE OTHER PERSON is more important than you or your message. That the other person controls your destiny. Because in many cases, they really do.
I've read a book called "Reading People". I've also read a book called "The Art of Persuasion". And "How to Win Friends and Influence People". And I spent years (voluntarily and involuntarily) in positions where I was an underling, and forced to listen to rather stupid people tell me how their incompetent way was correct. What it taught me was that no matter how right I was, at the end of the day, the GOAL was to get the job done. My ego was secondary. I still struggle with that. I hate that, in fact. Because all these years I've been thinking that being right is enough. And being right is hard, because it requires thinking. But being right comes secondary to being able to convince people of anything. Unless you're trying to be the dead genius whose ideas come to fruition long after you're buried, you learn to get people, your audience. And while that takes a lot of time, there are plenty of little steps you can do in the meantime to help you on your way.
posted by SeizeTheDay at 7:48 PM on August 16, 2008 [3 favorites]
Try this experiment: Before submitting comments, papers and whatnot, have some friends/roommates proofread your work, but don't let them know you wrote it. Ask them what the writer sounds like: a convincing author, a douche, etc. Anything unclear and condescending? Anything too blatantly obvious? Have them point out the fallacies, and you can then go on fixing them.
(Admittedly, I've never tried this before, but it's always good to have people proofread before submission.)
posted by curagea at 8:37 PM on August 16, 2008
(Admittedly, I've never tried this before, but it's always good to have people proofread before submission.)
posted by curagea at 8:37 PM on August 16, 2008
Well, you do know your audience... These are professors and classmates, your peers and betters. The idea that you would need to explain basic principals to them at all (rather than branching off into more complex ideas) is just pretty insulting in itself. Not to mention pointless and unflattering.
Working with something you're not 100% sure is safe (as in 'tried and true') should automatically take any condecsending tones out of your voice. It would also make things a lot more interesting for your audience and in turn generate feedback that's able to be much more constructive and therefore beneficial to you.
posted by mu~ha~ha~ha~har at 8:44 PM on August 16, 2008
Working with something you're not 100% sure is safe (as in 'tried and true') should automatically take any condecsending tones out of your voice. It would also make things a lot more interesting for your audience and in turn generate feedback that's able to be much more constructive and therefore beneficial to you.
posted by mu~ha~ha~ha~har at 8:44 PM on August 16, 2008
Best answer: I often times run out of things to say, and just add common sense statements to lengthen my papers, discussions, and presentations.
I really hate it when I have to read papers like this. Please never, ever do this again, for the sake of your reader.
The solution is that you need to know more about your topic. I'd have a great deal of trouble generating twenty pages on, say, the poetry of 14th century France because I know nothing about it; my only hope would be to fill in entire pages of "common sense statements."
But writing lucidly and clearly about something you know backwards and forwards isn't nearly so difficult. When I have had students who write like you say you do, I tend to find that they have read very little about the issue — they simply don't know what the major issues are, why they matter, and why anyone should care.
Every college and university that I have been affiliated with has had a writing center, where you can bring your writing for comments and help. Sometimes they are really good, and sometimes they are so-so; at the very least, you will receive an outside perspective on your writing.
As to the audience, that is always tricky. Are you writing for the educated layman, or for experts in your field? Are you defining terms as needed?
The presentation issue is maybe even more important than the writing, because only the professor will see your writing but everyone in the class will see it if you give a dud presentation. Again, most schools have classes and workshops on effective presentations, because it is a foundational skill in academia and the "real world." Sign up for every one that you can find. Like with writing, presenting something well is a lot easier if you know the subject extremely well, and you've practiced, practiced, and practiced again giving the presentation. Winging it doesn't work, unless you are a really skilled speaker.
With both the writing and the presentations, do you have a clear model of what it should look like? Every field has a couple of writers who are masters of the craft of writing — sometimes these are decades-old classic texts, and sometimes it is something from last year. Talk to a professor who really cares about writing and ask them for examples of really good writing in your subfield. Similarly, watch professorial lectures, invited speakers, and student presentations, and when you see a good one take it as your model, and strive to imitate.
posted by Forktine at 9:01 PM on August 16, 2008
I really hate it when I have to read papers like this. Please never, ever do this again, for the sake of your reader.
The solution is that you need to know more about your topic. I'd have a great deal of trouble generating twenty pages on, say, the poetry of 14th century France because I know nothing about it; my only hope would be to fill in entire pages of "common sense statements."
But writing lucidly and clearly about something you know backwards and forwards isn't nearly so difficult. When I have had students who write like you say you do, I tend to find that they have read very little about the issue — they simply don't know what the major issues are, why they matter, and why anyone should care.
Every college and university that I have been affiliated with has had a writing center, where you can bring your writing for comments and help. Sometimes they are really good, and sometimes they are so-so; at the very least, you will receive an outside perspective on your writing.
As to the audience, that is always tricky. Are you writing for the educated layman, or for experts in your field? Are you defining terms as needed?
The presentation issue is maybe even more important than the writing, because only the professor will see your writing but everyone in the class will see it if you give a dud presentation. Again, most schools have classes and workshops on effective presentations, because it is a foundational skill in academia and the "real world." Sign up for every one that you can find. Like with writing, presenting something well is a lot easier if you know the subject extremely well, and you've practiced, practiced, and practiced again giving the presentation. Winging it doesn't work, unless you are a really skilled speaker.
With both the writing and the presentations, do you have a clear model of what it should look like? Every field has a couple of writers who are masters of the craft of writing — sometimes these are decades-old classic texts, and sometimes it is something from last year. Talk to a professor who really cares about writing and ask them for examples of really good writing in your subfield. Similarly, watch professorial lectures, invited speakers, and student presentations, and when you see a good one take it as your model, and strive to imitate.
posted by Forktine at 9:01 PM on August 16, 2008
I think everyone has had to pad a presentation with obvious or simple information, but there are good and terrible ways to add this in. For instance:
"Today I am going to talk about recent political elections and the coattail effect. George Bush was elected President in 2000, which caused some interesting effects on..."
vs.
"Today I am going to talk about recent political elections and the coattail effect. As you all know, George Bush was elected President in 2000. This caused some interesting effects on..."
Now that's a small change, but already the second example is way less condescending than the first one.
Basically: It's fine to add some padding if you must, but don't pretend that it's novel information. Be clear with your audience that you know they know these trivial facts, but are just being detailed. That's always a good rule, I think: don't take the role of Big Important Teacher Passing Down Information From High, but rather a professor presenting something to a bunch of other academics who are also interested experts in the topic, if not in the specific new idea you are talking about.
posted by Solon and Thanks at 9:16 PM on August 16, 2008
"Today I am going to talk about recent political elections and the coattail effect. George Bush was elected President in 2000, which caused some interesting effects on..."
vs.
"Today I am going to talk about recent political elections and the coattail effect. As you all know, George Bush was elected President in 2000. This caused some interesting effects on..."
Now that's a small change, but already the second example is way less condescending than the first one.
Basically: It's fine to add some padding if you must, but don't pretend that it's novel information. Be clear with your audience that you know they know these trivial facts, but are just being detailed. That's always a good rule, I think: don't take the role of Big Important Teacher Passing Down Information From High, but rather a professor presenting something to a bunch of other academics who are also interested experts in the topic, if not in the specific new idea you are talking about.
posted by Solon and Thanks at 9:16 PM on August 16, 2008
(addition: if you're not sure that your audience knows these facts, "As you all know..." might be condescending and not a good bet. In that case, I'd try this sort of distinction:
"Monaco is a small city-state between France and Italy. It has x population." vs. "Monaco, a small city-state between France and Italy, has x population."
It's best not to make the things you're unsure your audience is aware of the subject of a sentence or a paragraph or a point or whatever. Blend it in, make it background noise but still available to inform. Anyone reading the first sentence who knows about Monaco would say "Duh, I'm offended by you thinking I don't know." Reading the second sentence, they'd go "yes, okay, skimming, oh okay population.")
posted by Solon and Thanks at 9:22 PM on August 16, 2008
"Monaco is a small city-state between France and Italy. It has x population." vs. "Monaco, a small city-state between France and Italy, has x population."
It's best not to make the things you're unsure your audience is aware of the subject of a sentence or a paragraph or a point or whatever. Blend it in, make it background noise but still available to inform. Anyone reading the first sentence who knows about Monaco would say "Duh, I'm offended by you thinking I don't know." Reading the second sentence, they'd go "yes, okay, skimming, oh okay population.")
posted by Solon and Thanks at 9:22 PM on August 16, 2008
Best answer: I would also suggest that you start to actually observe others presenting - do they capture their audience or not? Why?
That should help you notice how your own audience is doing...by the sound of it you don't actually know how to read your audience - think back to your last presentation - if you are condescending chances are you did not capture interest and they were bored, which you should have been able to see in their body language and faces!
Most bad presentations I have ever sat through were bad because the presenter did not know what they wanted to tell the audience. You can take any given topic and make it as high level or specialist and detailed as you want it to be but you need to know where your audience sits on the spectrum.
So I would suggest you take your next presentation topic and think about how you would present it to complete laymen. And then think about how you would present it to specialists at the top of the field. You will not be able to do this unless you have done your homework and read around your topic adequately.
The key messages you want to get across and your delivery will vary for each target audience.
Chances are your peers and profs will fall somewhere below the experts (well your peers will in any case) but well above the laymen...
So once you've worked out your messages and how you will deliver them what if you get there and start and realise you've got it wrong, that you're losing them?
Well, if you know your topic well enough you should be able to adjust the presentation - scale it up or down as required. If you really understand your topic you can always bring it back to first principles and make it accessible. Likewise if you have read around your topic properly you can also always go into more detail or interesting facets.
If you don't understand what I mean about adapting your messages and delivery pick up an introductory textbook which covers your topic and an advanced one/journal article and note what the differences are! What makes the introductory text boring for the expert and what makes the advanced text inaccessible for the novice? Examples, key points, depth of discussion will be completely different.
Same goes for writing btw - what makes interesting reading and what doesn't? Why?
posted by koahiatamadl at 9:29 AM on August 17, 2008
That should help you notice how your own audience is doing...by the sound of it you don't actually know how to read your audience - think back to your last presentation - if you are condescending chances are you did not capture interest and they were bored, which you should have been able to see in their body language and faces!
Most bad presentations I have ever sat through were bad because the presenter did not know what they wanted to tell the audience. You can take any given topic and make it as high level or specialist and detailed as you want it to be but you need to know where your audience sits on the spectrum.
So I would suggest you take your next presentation topic and think about how you would present it to complete laymen. And then think about how you would present it to specialists at the top of the field. You will not be able to do this unless you have done your homework and read around your topic adequately.
The key messages you want to get across and your delivery will vary for each target audience.
Chances are your peers and profs will fall somewhere below the experts (well your peers will in any case) but well above the laymen...
So once you've worked out your messages and how you will deliver them what if you get there and start and realise you've got it wrong, that you're losing them?
Well, if you know your topic well enough you should be able to adjust the presentation - scale it up or down as required. If you really understand your topic you can always bring it back to first principles and make it accessible. Likewise if you have read around your topic properly you can also always go into more detail or interesting facets.
If you don't understand what I mean about adapting your messages and delivery pick up an introductory textbook which covers your topic and an advanced one/journal article and note what the differences are! What makes the introductory text boring for the expert and what makes the advanced text inaccessible for the novice? Examples, key points, depth of discussion will be completely different.
Same goes for writing btw - what makes interesting reading and what doesn't? Why?
posted by koahiatamadl at 9:29 AM on August 17, 2008
I find your question a little confused... are you seeking advice on how to produce better, more well rounded and compelling work? Or are you in need of personal assistance when it comes to interacting with people face to face or in group settings?
They are sort of interrelated, but you haven't articulated them as such here. You write at one point that people find you curt and vague. In another passage you mention that your criticized for stating the obvious. Unless you truly are all over the place, I'm not really sure you even know what your problem is...
As your actual school work goes, it sounds like you need to sharpen up your writing and communication skills. If you're getting comments like "you state the obvious" it sounds to me like you're simply not crafting interesting, original work that demonstrates a deep and novel understanding of the subject at hand. There is no fix for this at the graduate level other than studying your source material with an eye toward finding interesting connections among various sources. The work you do shouldn't be a regurgitation of facts, but an exploration of the material.
Think about the best scholarly papers you've read (or even the mediocre ones) and then study not just the style of the text, but the overall frame work of the document. I'm not asking you to plagiarize, but you can learn a lot by carefully studying compelling writers.
As for the problem with "talking down to people" - I think this maybe nothing more than a style defect in your writing or presentation. Again, studying what other people do is key.
Look, I sit in classrooms every day and occasionally there are a few people (you get to know them quickly because they are so fucking inane and boring) who just drone on and on without really saying anything. I think these are people who think that it's more important to speak up, and be seen in class, than it is to actually say anything worthwhile.
I don't know if you're one of those people, but I'm grateful that it seems like you're getting help.
I think in both cases the key is to sit back and absorb what other people are saying and writing rather than trying to jump in with your own line of bullshit.
If you approach both a subject and people with a measure of humility, while telling yourself, "I can learn something from this person," even when it seems at first glance that you can't, then I think you'll be a lot better off.
posted by wfrgms at 9:42 AM on August 17, 2008
They are sort of interrelated, but you haven't articulated them as such here. You write at one point that people find you curt and vague. In another passage you mention that your criticized for stating the obvious. Unless you truly are all over the place, I'm not really sure you even know what your problem is...
As your actual school work goes, it sounds like you need to sharpen up your writing and communication skills. If you're getting comments like "you state the obvious" it sounds to me like you're simply not crafting interesting, original work that demonstrates a deep and novel understanding of the subject at hand. There is no fix for this at the graduate level other than studying your source material with an eye toward finding interesting connections among various sources. The work you do shouldn't be a regurgitation of facts, but an exploration of the material.
Think about the best scholarly papers you've read (or even the mediocre ones) and then study not just the style of the text, but the overall frame work of the document. I'm not asking you to plagiarize, but you can learn a lot by carefully studying compelling writers.
As for the problem with "talking down to people" - I think this maybe nothing more than a style defect in your writing or presentation. Again, studying what other people do is key.
Look, I sit in classrooms every day and occasionally there are a few people (you get to know them quickly because they are so fucking inane and boring) who just drone on and on without really saying anything. I think these are people who think that it's more important to speak up, and be seen in class, than it is to actually say anything worthwhile.
I don't know if you're one of those people, but I'm grateful that it seems like you're getting help.
I think in both cases the key is to sit back and absorb what other people are saying and writing rather than trying to jump in with your own line of bullshit.
If you approach both a subject and people with a measure of humility, while telling yourself, "I can learn something from this person," even when it seems at first glance that you can't, then I think you'll be a lot better off.
posted by wfrgms at 9:42 AM on August 17, 2008
Response by poster: Well, you do know your audience... These are professors and classmates, your peers and betters. The idea that you would need to explain basic principals to them at all (rather than branching off into more complex ideas) is just pretty insulting in itself. Not to mention pointless and unflattering.
That's part of the problem...what is considered as basic principles? What may be basic to me may not be basic to other people, and the other way around. It all seems very subjective. I have no idea what my audience knows and doesn't know, unless if I ask questions. Even if I ask questions, some people get insulted because I asked them a question that I was "supposed" to know the answer to.
If you don't understand what I mean about adapting your messages and delivery pick up an introductory textbook which covers your topic and an advanced one/journal article and note what the differences are! What makes the introductory text boring for the expert and what makes the advanced text inaccessible for the novice? Examples, key points, depth of discussion will be completely different.
I will take this into consideration. Makes a lot of since, thanks. So, in other words, anything that I find in a textbook, on wikipedia, or in magazine articles would be considered as basic info? My sources come from everywhere, should I only stick those advanced books and journal articles, and ignore introductory sources period?
Unless you truly are all over the place, I'm not really sure you even know what your problem is..
I think I am all over the place, I find the line between referring to obsecure crap that majority of people knows little about and spouting common knowledge quite thin. I'm trying to find the happy medium.
posted by sixcolors at 10:47 AM on August 17, 2008
That's part of the problem...what is considered as basic principles? What may be basic to me may not be basic to other people, and the other way around. It all seems very subjective. I have no idea what my audience knows and doesn't know, unless if I ask questions. Even if I ask questions, some people get insulted because I asked them a question that I was "supposed" to know the answer to.
If you don't understand what I mean about adapting your messages and delivery pick up an introductory textbook which covers your topic and an advanced one/journal article and note what the differences are! What makes the introductory text boring for the expert and what makes the advanced text inaccessible for the novice? Examples, key points, depth of discussion will be completely different.
I will take this into consideration. Makes a lot of since, thanks. So, in other words, anything that I find in a textbook, on wikipedia, or in magazine articles would be considered as basic info? My sources come from everywhere, should I only stick those advanced books and journal articles, and ignore introductory sources period?
Unless you truly are all over the place, I'm not really sure you even know what your problem is..
I think I am all over the place, I find the line between referring to obsecure crap that majority of people knows little about and spouting common knowledge quite thin. I'm trying to find the happy medium.
posted by sixcolors at 10:47 AM on August 17, 2008
Response by poster: Some have expressed that they're confused what I'm talking about, here's an example:
Last semester in one of my course we were discussing women's issues. The discussion led to women and gender study classes. Some of the female classmates didn't understand why some us (females) didn't take women and gender study classes when we were in undergrad. Well, I took did a few of them, and enjoyed it, but I could understand why some women may be turned off by those classes. Most of the women's and gender study classes I know of tend to have a feminist and liberal slant, I don't see how these classes would appeal to the more socially conservative women.
A couple of the women pretty much implied that if you're a woman, you should have some interest in taking women's and gender study courses in college. I replied "Not all women are alike. We all have different beliefs, lifestyles, and life experiences. I don't believe women and gender study classes cater to all women."
I got replies such as..."You're only stating the obvious, of course we're all different, but women, regardless of their background, should be interested in women's studies."
I guess it is obvious that women are a diverse group, but it appeared to me that my female classmates who were insisting that all women should take gender studies, were NOT taking that fact into consideration at all. I sometimes wonder when people say comments such as "you're stating the obvious" or "that's just common knowledge" is just another way to win an argument and shut people up.
posted by sixcolors at 11:25 AM on August 17, 2008
Last semester in one of my course we were discussing women's issues. The discussion led to women and gender study classes. Some of the female classmates didn't understand why some us (females) didn't take women and gender study classes when we were in undergrad. Well, I took did a few of them, and enjoyed it, but I could understand why some women may be turned off by those classes. Most of the women's and gender study classes I know of tend to have a feminist and liberal slant, I don't see how these classes would appeal to the more socially conservative women.
A couple of the women pretty much implied that if you're a woman, you should have some interest in taking women's and gender study courses in college. I replied "Not all women are alike. We all have different beliefs, lifestyles, and life experiences. I don't believe women and gender study classes cater to all women."
I got replies such as..."You're only stating the obvious, of course we're all different, but women, regardless of their background, should be interested in women's studies."
I guess it is obvious that women are a diverse group, but it appeared to me that my female classmates who were insisting that all women should take gender studies, were NOT taking that fact into consideration at all. I sometimes wonder when people say comments such as "you're stating the obvious" or "that's just common knowledge" is just another way to win an argument and shut people up.
posted by sixcolors at 11:25 AM on August 17, 2008
In the context of your reply, I think that your classmates were trying to, put it kindly, shut you up. The better response would have been to look at why they think women, no matter their diverse backgrounds, do not take the courses. Obviously, more than a few did not take the courses so why not? Better to have thrown it back and ask them why THEY thought their fellow women did not take the courses if diversity of beliefs and background were not the cause since it is OBVIOUS. Logic, reasoning, ruthless eye for detail are some of the techniques of problem solving. Now I can't help you when the "you're male identified" counter argument gets whipped out because you get to the rabbit hole on that one.
As mentioned upthread, it is a bit unclear what the problem specifically is, whether it is how to present material; your presentation persona/personality/communication style or now whether it is response techniques to the rhetorical style of fellow classmates.
posted by jadepearl at 1:45 PM on August 17, 2008
As mentioned upthread, it is a bit unclear what the problem specifically is, whether it is how to present material; your presentation persona/personality/communication style or now whether it is response techniques to the rhetorical style of fellow classmates.
posted by jadepearl at 1:45 PM on August 17, 2008
I sometimes wonder when people say comments such as "you're stating the obvious" or "that's just common knowledge" is just another way to win an argument and shut people up.
Yes. It can work well as a way to trivialize and dismiss what someone is saying. Or, it can be a simple statement of irritation that you are indeed stating the obvious. Without being there, it's hard to know which it really is in any particular situation.
But I guess I'm also a bit confused as to what is really going on here. Your initial question seemed to be about padding when you didn't have much substantive to say, but your example is about a really different issue — how to effectively bring a different perspective into a polarized discussion on a hot-button issue.
Maybe the answers you are getting here, a lot of which are expressing confusion as to your central point, are a good example of how you are having trouble communicating effectively? You are leaving things open for very different interpretation, and I'm feeling less clear as to what is the issue with each piece.
That's part of the problem...what is considered as basic principles? What may be basic to me may not be basic to other people, and the other way around. It all seems very subjective. I have no idea what my audience knows and doesn't know, unless if I ask questions. Even if I ask questions, some people get insulted because I asked them a question that I was "supposed" to know the answer to.
But you do know your audience. In a grad seminar, the audience is the other students (who have probably read most of the same books as you have, and by now you have a sense of what their backgrounds are like) and the professor(s), whom you also should know by now. These aren't random strangers of unknown knowledge. You all share a common base of readings and perhaps lab- or field-work, depending on your discipline.
So if the class is on Foucault's writings, you can safely assume that everyone in the class has heard of that wacky guy named Michel, and you can skip straight to talking about the nuances of his interest in prisons. But if the class is on new discoveries in astronomy, and you want to bring in Foucault's ideas to illustrate your point about the control of ideas in the field, you can't assume that everyone in the room has read his books, although most people will have heard his name. And when you are out on fieldwork doing participant-observation in a Nigerian village, you'll have to explain Foucault's ideas in very different terms than you did to those astronomers, because your audience is different.
posted by Forktine at 3:06 PM on August 17, 2008
Yes. It can work well as a way to trivialize and dismiss what someone is saying. Or, it can be a simple statement of irritation that you are indeed stating the obvious. Without being there, it's hard to know which it really is in any particular situation.
But I guess I'm also a bit confused as to what is really going on here. Your initial question seemed to be about padding when you didn't have much substantive to say, but your example is about a really different issue — how to effectively bring a different perspective into a polarized discussion on a hot-button issue.
Maybe the answers you are getting here, a lot of which are expressing confusion as to your central point, are a good example of how you are having trouble communicating effectively? You are leaving things open for very different interpretation, and I'm feeling less clear as to what is the issue with each piece.
That's part of the problem...what is considered as basic principles? What may be basic to me may not be basic to other people, and the other way around. It all seems very subjective. I have no idea what my audience knows and doesn't know, unless if I ask questions. Even if I ask questions, some people get insulted because I asked them a question that I was "supposed" to know the answer to.
But you do know your audience. In a grad seminar, the audience is the other students (who have probably read most of the same books as you have, and by now you have a sense of what their backgrounds are like) and the professor(s), whom you also should know by now. These aren't random strangers of unknown knowledge. You all share a common base of readings and perhaps lab- or field-work, depending on your discipline.
So if the class is on Foucault's writings, you can safely assume that everyone in the class has heard of that wacky guy named Michel, and you can skip straight to talking about the nuances of his interest in prisons. But if the class is on new discoveries in astronomy, and you want to bring in Foucault's ideas to illustrate your point about the control of ideas in the field, you can't assume that everyone in the room has read his books, although most people will have heard his name. And when you are out on fieldwork doing participant-observation in a Nigerian village, you'll have to explain Foucault's ideas in very different terms than you did to those astronomers, because your audience is different.
posted by Forktine at 3:06 PM on August 17, 2008
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by kldickson at 6:56 PM on August 16, 2008