Thinking faster than speaking and writing (the reason for the phenomenon?)
There is a phenomenon. I don’t know if it is common among many people, but unfortunately I experience it myself.
The phenomenon is as follows: (my interpretation)
That the mind runs faster than the ability to write and speak. The implication is that when you speak, you are actually already thinking about the next argument or the one after it, especially according to how you think your interlocutor will probably answer you.
The side effects.
Many times you cut off words and miss what you actually wanted to argue and why. Sometimes you go too far and the other person doesn’t understand what your story is…
Usually, speech is fast and less clear, and in writing the same. However, in reading, you skim and skim, mainly reading the idea and not the words, so you hardly notice any errors in reading and spelling.
(And when the smart keyboard helps with all this, it seems like a bit of a puzzle… These things are said due to the harsh criticism of a grumpy, sad grandfather.)
I wanted to know if the rabbi had experienced things like this.
I have seen quite a few talents who speak slowly and clearly and those who speak quickly, and it is unclear whether those who speak slowly manage to control their minds over the words even though their minds are running faster, or whether this is a matter that has nothing to do with talent at all.
You’re repeating a snarky grandfather for the second time, when it was me. It seems you also read faster than you write.
Your question is a matter for the researchers to look into, not for me.
[The Holy Father was referring to the deleted question (replaced) in which I wondered about proofreading phobia (in the name of Grandpa Akom) and I explained in the S.D. that the keyboard is one thing and proofreading with the eye is another. And here he explained that even in proofreading, people fly and pass, etc. And I questioned him because here there is no wound or bruise in it, and therefore the urge is conquerable. From the Lord, Father, you taught me a chapter on accepting criticism]
Indeed, your piercing words in the name of the sad Grandfather Kadisha had a lot of insides and skins in them. I tried to take the insides and shake the skins.
I'm glad that you learned something from me about criticism, and indeed I try to go over my words again due to your criticism of my words at least once or twice.
There is no shame in learning from anyone, even if they are bitter and snarky. It is only worthwhile and even recommended to extract the straight lines from the snarls.
As for the phenomenon itself;
It seems that the rabbi is in the family of the quick-witted.
I did not receive the main question of whether the phenomenon is familiar to the rabbi (directly). The rabbi, as is known, is a talented person and I, the little one, saw him suffering from the phenomenon of reading the content mainly while skipping over the words and thus spilling the baby with a lot.
Even here, when talking about the phenomenon itself, the problem fell on him.
In his above response, which proves beyond any doubt that he is definitely on the aforementioned spectrum, it seems that the Rabbi is reading faster than he writes (and thus attacks a person for no wrongdoing) so that from his words there is no longer any need for the scholars he recommended.
Poke Hezi Ma Ma Dabar… and his words as Messiah quickly according to his completeness cleared up the doubt.
That is what he said.
I am indeed in the family of the fast ones, but here I really did not make a mistake. I am the one who told you about the A”T B”S. But I exhausted myself.
By the nature of things under the guise of ambiguity, one can go to extremes, and the one who takes it will judge him according to his own standards. I wonder if anyone besides you understood that this was not just a troll (which was intended to be deleted). There is also no reason to expect others to understand that ’Grandpa Crooked’ is my young, gibberish-like ego, and they will call me a sad father, a crooked grandfather. Since you specifically used the description, you gave room for error.
The body of your message, by the way, has two separate situations. When you think about the idea with a companion and it is still taking shape, then things are really confused and jumpy and there are loose ends. But after the negotiation and the formation, when you present the matter in writing or in a lecture, then it is possible (and necessary) to impose order, clarity, and structure. That is why, by the way, there are also two types of companionship in my opinion: the crooked and the doula. One is a scoundrel, every idea is lost in its infancy unless it suddenly enlightens the eyes. And one is a doula and a madela, that if you say something, he pauses for a moment to consider whether there is anything in it to be deduced from (or whether there is a gem underneath it), even if it is not final and does not solve everything, etc. And even more than I felt it in the Gemara fellowship, I felt it in working together on a relatively long-term study, and when two doulas come together, the land is filled with abundance.
Kaskashani.
Agree with almost every pearl this time.
Just notice how the rabbi fell for the bash, even though I bothered to point out right after the example that I didn't mean his bash criticism (which was gentle and focused) but Kaskashani's criticism (which was harsh and arrogant).
Once again, this proves that the rabbi is indeed in the family of the quick-witted and ”missing” what can be done? There is no perfection. The rabbi is not autistic … (the rabbi, ibid.).
And by the way, I heard something that I find amazing. I have known, etc., several lecturers and tutors, and I almost include a general rule that every good lecturer speaks slowly (in a way that on YouTube you can easily put it by 2). If things are well-founded, then a good virtue for understanding is to explain slowly.
For example, I had a lecturer who was like a galloping horse at his own pace and also enjoyed saying the answer before the question (for example, he mentioned that no effect can be faster than the speed of light, and then he was asked what the rule is with a very long stick that is moved from one end and then “immediately” the other end moved. But he did not address the question, but immediately said the answer and in a casual manner. There was a commotion in the audience due to lack of understanding. Then he explains again). In the end, it comes out as an explanation of an arithmetic series. At first, you explain in two sentences, then you don't understand, then you explain in five, and again you don't understand, then you explain in eight, etc. It is better to explain in eight sentences from the beginning.
I also had a rabbi whose lessons were truly full of content and delivered at a leisurely pace, but it was like driving on the Baka highway. You reach your destination, but everything is monotonous and without paying attention you can't feel whether there is a huge problem here with all of the Rashba's interpretations on the subject of sex and gender, and whether it is worthy of being honored and changing the world order for it, or whether it is a simple grammar in Rashi”y that makes it sound a bit like not the face of Joshua but rather like a marsha.
And let us clarify that the virtues of a good explanation are to explain in a moderate manner, to explain in an orderly manner, and to blend the form with the content in order to make it easier for the listener (just like designated figures of speech. In the Gemara, for example, ‘Liplog ve litani badida’, ‘Mamma nefeshech’ – These are figures of speech whose very use reveals to you the type of argument that is about to come here. And whoever has a question about liplog ve litani badida should very much use this (excellent) figure of speech. I have extended it well and have gone beyond the scope of the Syrian matter.
The truth is, he will be praised by the rabbi in the lessons, but he speaks slowly and clearly.
I don't know Shiurim, but I'm familiar with his writing (which in my eyes is exemplary, and by the way, I personally prefer the non-edited books). But as I said, I don't really understand what the complaint is here. There was no fall, you just hinted at the hint that hints at the land, and your hint was not understood. And what you wrote is harsh and arrogant (as opposed to gentle and focused, and after reading it should be resolved) the truth is that your suspicion that excessive arrogance gave rise to the skipping of the proofreading, and from now on I will withdraw and cry until both my eyes shed tears and my eyelids water.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
