The issue for me is that I seem to really "page out" parts of my life that aren't relevant to the situation I'm in. If I were to sincerely answer the "how are you" question, I would have to pause for ten or twenty seconds to think about how I am, which obviously doesn't fit the interaction. Any tips on how to avoid this? I'm a chronic over-preparer and I've tried to equip myself with answers to every conceivable question and that's just exhausting, so I've wanted to avoid that.
I think the answer is practice, for a few reasons. One is obvious: conversation is a skill. Just like a novice chess player can spend 5 seconds figuring out which squares the knight can move to while an intermediate player spots a fork to force trading a strong bishop or exposing an overworked queen, exposure to similar situations rewires your brain to work faster in those situations.
Another reason, though, is to me one of the main benefits of social interaction in the first place: The brain rewiring also makes you think about what other people would think, want to hear, say to you, etc, even when they're not around. That sure can give you better answers in conversations, but more importantly, I think this is just genuinely a nice way for the brain to be. In the same way that dogs are happy playing fetch, humans are happy living with other people in mind. Maybe because it feels like not everything is your responsibility, or that you worry less about what you should be doing, or that you look forward to laughing about disasters later... I'm not entirely sure. Whatever it is, it's nicer than the alternative.
I may suggest to answer genuinely about how you are instead of "how is life" — yes, my life is hard because of many ongoing family health issues, but I might still be OK in the moment. Or sleepy from a bad night of sleep, or hungry because I skipped breakfast. Or happy because I got my favourite parking spot. Or had a nice meal....
Say "I'm about to have coffee, so that's good :-) "
Alternately, instead of trying to prepare for every possible answer, you can constrain the possible replies significantly by being the one who asks the question in the first place. "How's your day going?" is only ever going to get some variation of "good" or "bad". You only need to respond with "great to hear that", or "sorrt to hear that, hope it improves soon". That's it.
The internet has objectively made life worse, and the people who say it hasn't haven't experienced the alternatives. Many people will never know true joy because of the internet.
Oh no. I looked at a screen. There goes all my joy...
/s
Objectively worse in some vectors, Objectively better in others. Being able to get medical advice quickly. Being able to communicate to vastly different people broadening your horizons. And yes, more comparisons to make (the thief of joy).
The above posts forgot the word "legitimate" before "monopoly": a state is defined as the entity that has the legitimate monopoly on violence within a defined geographic area. A state can cease to have the legitimate monopoly before they cease to have the monopoly.
The New Yorker prefers insure to ensure. They have a unique house style. I commented on another thread about alternative spellings like vender instead of vendor, too.
That M-W entry literally says they're different words with different meanings:
> They are in fact different words, but with sufficient overlap in meaning and form as to create uncertainty as to which should be used when.
> We define ensure as “to make sure, certain, or safe” and one sense of insure, “to make certain especially by taking necessary measures and precautions,” is quite similar. But insure has the additional meaning “to provide or obtain insurance on or for,” which is not shared by ensure.
To be fair, I use “ensure” myself, but it’s just one of several quirky elements of the New Yorker’s style, along with the diaeresis on repeated vowels with different sounds (like in reëmerge or coöperate), several uncommon spellings, and unusual conjoinings like “teen-ager” and “per cent.” It’s part of the charm, I suppose
But in this future, why will “the most compelling motivations, the clearest explanations, and the most useful maps between intuitions, theorems, and applications” be necessary? Catering to hobbyists?
Most mathematicians don't understand the fields outside of their specialization (at a research level). Your assumption that intuition and applications are limited to hobbyists ignores the possibility of enabling mathematicians to work and collaborate more effectively at the cutting edge of multiple fields.
Very far in the future when AI runs everything, of course math will be a hobby (and it will be great! As a professional programmer I'm happy that I now have a research-level tutor/mentor for my math/physics hobby). In the nearer term, it seems apparent to me that people with stronger mental models of the world are able (without even trying!) to formulate better prompts and get better output from models. i.e. as long as people are asking the questions, they'll do better to have some idea of the nuance within the problem/solution spaces. Math can provide vocabulary to express such nuance.
reply