Mathematical maturity should be well defined if you are using it as a prerequisite. Mathematicians, of all people, should be good at coming up with such precise definitions.
Some people are better with math than others. Undergrad math majors thought the major was pretty easy. Many of us in engineering majors--who weren't that bad at math (it was a good school)--could no more have graduated with a degree in math (or physics) than have flapped our arms and flown.
What happens when people tell you about problems that require experts in a specific area to solve, and you are not an expert in that area? Do you still try to help?
Like I will tell my friends and family about problems I am having at work because they are my friends and family and I assume that they care about how my life is going. If they are able to provide solutions, I will not rule it out for them. But most likely they are not because they have different jobs. When people attempt to give advice on things they don't know about, I assume they are more interested in appearing smart than my well being.
> about problems that require experts in a specific area to solve, and you are not an expert in that area? Do you still try to help?
Depends on the situation. I would certainly make it clear (if I didn't think it was already abundantly so) that anything I said wasn't from a position of expertise.
If someone is simply wanting to sound out a problem, or is seeking to describe their frustration as in your example, that should be fairly obvious from their wording (this tends to fall apart a little when there is a bit of a language barrier, so take extra care in those situations).
They may be deliberately looking for an outsides view - sometimes even a wrong suggestion can jog the mind towards some wood that you've not seen for the trees. Here asking questions can help: if you try to formulate your problem in a way that an outsider understands it can actually help your own understanding, or make you spot the simply thing that you'd managed to miss while "thinking too hard".
Another way of helping rather than directly, particularly in technical matters, is to suggest other helpers ("have you asked [insert someone I think will be able to help for more than I, here]?"). Or even general problem solving help. They may just need a distraction (the old "fresh air / food / hydration / company - then hopefully hit the problem again with a fresher mind).
> When people attempt to give advice on things they don't know about, I assume they are more interested in appearing smart than my well being.
I would agree with that, but only after allowing for the above caveats. And I try to be polite when it happens: the Dunning-Kruger effect can lead people to innocently misunderstand both complexity and scale, through no malice nor desire for self promotion.
At least for me, I would love advice that perfectly solves all my problems. But probably this advice doesn't exist, because if it did, I would have figured it out already. I often have conversations that go like this -
Me: I have this problem that sucks.
Other person: Have you tried A?
Me: No, I thought about that already. A isn't a good idea because of B.
Other person: Well, what about C?
Me: No, I thought about that too. C isn't a good idea because of D.
Other person: (Angrily) Well, I don't know how to help you then.
And so now in addition to having to deal with a hard problem to solve, I have to deal with making other people angry about how they can not solve my hard problems.
I've been on both sides of this. When somebody will try and help me in a situation like that, once they suggest one thing to me i've thought of or tried, i'll usually give a quick rundown of what I have tried and thought of. Doing it that way still validates them and at that point i'll usually say something like so 'I dunno what do you think, any ideas?'. Then they might give another suggestion I have or haven't thought of. If it's something I have thought of and realized won't work, instead of saying I already thought of that, i'll pretend to think about it, then give them my reason I thought of before for not using that option, but pretend I just thought of it.
People get angry, because they want to feel helpful and useful. When they can't help with something they feel frustrated and when you tell them you've already thought of everything, they feel stupid. By doing it the other way, they still feel like they've helped you. I'll usually try and be light hearted about it and laugh about how it really is a difficult problem or something like that. When you do it that way, it puts the problem into perspective for them and they don't feel stupid for trying to help, they feel like it's something difficult you're both trying to solve. Then they inevitably get bored and go do something else and leave you amicably to work on your problem. At least in my experience.
The other thing is tailoring it to the individual. All of this is easier if there’s less ego on both sides. I try to operate that way generally, but everyone has their triggers. There’s no one size fits all solution.
I'm a different person then. When I talk about my problems, I do want advice, because if I'd have already figured out a solution, I wouldn't be talking about it in the first place!
I just don't understand this humanoid need for seeking emotional validation by pretending to ask for advice. A lot of my friends and acquaintances do that, and I know how to handle it, but myself, I just can't do that.
I don't think pretending to ask for advice is a fair description of what's happening. usually when people tell me about their problems, it comes in the form of declarative sentences. clearly venting, not asking for advice. sometimes they'll say something like "I don't know what I'm gonna do" or "what am I gonna do?" which almost sounds like asking for advice, but really isn't.
now if someone describes a problem and asks "what should I do?", that is a clear solicitation for advice. if they get mad at you for trying to help solve the problem, that's totally on them.
Very often, there is no perfect solution. Even if somebody has some idea what they can do about the problem, that doesn't mean they can just do it and everything is great. Say, if your marriage is falling apart, you can either stick with it and try to improve things or get divorced. Those are your options, and they're both painful.
In some cases People aren’t looking for the advice/solution, as much as the recognition that they have a problem... person A tells a problem, person B suggests ways to resolve the problem, to which person A has to give/come up with a reason why that solution won’t do.
We then repeat this until a stalemate is reached, and everybody can acknowledge that person A is justified in their feelings about having a problem...
So on the flip side; your example seems to be a misinterpretation of this game. I.e. some person who’s played this game, and learned that this is what to do, meets a frustration where you’re not playing along with it... (maybe)
Short order solution; don’t play that game with people who don’t have a healthy relationship with frustrating problems.
- If I talk to someone about a problem and he gives me a suggestion. I know that he is trying to help. getting mad at him is unfair because he means well. In fact what's natural is to be happy that someone values me enough that he's spending effort to help me.
- If someone talks to me about a problem that I can't solve. I'll try to help, if I don't know the answer. that's normal. I don't know everything.
- If I try a solution to a problem and It doesn't work, I get frustrated not at the asker, but because It didn't work.
If everybody acts this way, The situation gets easier for everybody, problem are solved if possible and no bad feeling are had,if not.
In fact this behaviour follows directly from already well established moral values: giving others the benefit of the doubt, not being vain ( needing others to validate/compliment you), humility, "I know that I know nothing", Thirst for learning.
I don't understand why autistic people are assumed to be wrong/inferrior in scoial contexts even when their behaviour is the right thing to do.
Another example is trashtalking people behind their back. I always feel compelled to either say a nicething about that person, defend him/play the devil, stop the conversation. People don't like it when I do that, although I'm sure that they, as well as I, would appreciate if someone defends them when they are not there.
> I don't understand why autistic people are assumed to be wrong/inferrior in scoial contexts even when their behaviour is the right thing to do.
The world would be a better place if you ever found an answer to that question.
It's not a fair comparison[0], but I tend to internally categorize people as logical or emotional. It usually helps keep things running more smoothly to treat the two groups how they prefer.
The trick is to not make the distinction a value judgement. I'm usually pretty good at that, but sometimes I slip up.
[0]: Because both groups display traits of the other, and it's not a hard line distinction. Ever seen someone on the spectrum throw a tantrum? It might (might) be logic that started it, but emotions take over nearly immediately.
Well you kind of led them down a path to failure/wasted effort. One of the best ways to prevent these kinds of unhappy conversational paths is pre-emption. If you've already considered A, B, and C, then you can assume that someone else might think of them, and you should mention them in your initial problem statement. "I tried A but then realized it wouldn't work because of B." Now you've communicated the same information and skipped the part where you ask them for ideas and instantly reject them. They may still be equally unable to offer a solution, but at least they haven't gotten frustrated and given up before understanding the true problem.
are you positive that B and D are rule out A and C?
maybe a slight more productive way to have these conversations would be
"I thought about A, it didn't seem like a good idea to me because of B, what do you think? Am I thinking about this wrong? Is there some reason why B doesn't prevent A from being a good idea?"
subtle difference, but it signals that you value their input and ideas, and leaves open the possibility of you learning new things about your problem
(if you don't value their input and ideas, perhaps you shouldn't share your problems with them)
I know many people who are very happy to talk to me online but are not willing to hang out with me in real life. In my case it's because I'm inherently unlikeable, but I suspect if I were unaware of this, I would assume it's because people like to be online.
I'm curious why you're inherently unlikable. Are you are rude to people in real life? Does talking to people online allow you to filter what you say (therefore you can catch yourself before you say or do something off-putting)?
What do you do when your friends don't pick up, or if they aren't willing to go on outings with you? I think the biggest contributor to my loneliness is that no one seems to like me. I reach out to hang out, and usually, get rejected.
This will seem counter-intuitive but work on opening up strangers in public places, and your friends will end up gravitating towards you.
Gladwell observed in Tipping Point that most peoples' social circle is usually created by one high connection "maven" who connects many low connection end nodes. You want to try to move closer to how that maven operates.
Concretely: If you go out with a friend, and end up becoming buddies with the waitress, and then also know of an after party you can bring the friend to, by virtue of your network, you will constantly be getting solicited to hang out. Even more quantitatively: if you can average +2 casual connections per day when you try, you'll be doing very well. But two connections in a day is very difficult for most people on HN; you'll have to work and experiment on how to achieve that.
I call those social connectors - one of the biggest differences I’ve seen having moved from California to the PNW is that they have large groups with absolutely no connectors. Having usually been one (but between groups), it’s signifcantly detracted from the quality of relationships here - it takes so much effort to get “into” a group because there is no front door, just a long slow osmosis by proximity.
I lived in Seattle for seven years, and what I observed there was that people there are shy (not snobby or cliquish, as the "Seattle Freeze" stereotype implies), which means you need to approach them because they will never approach you. When I put energy into introducing myself to people, I always got good results and I made a lot of friends that way. In contexts where a conversation started before names were exchanged (like hanging out with the smokers outside), I noticed that people seemed relieved once I introduced myself. I've shared this with friends, some who have tried it with similar good results.
Another interesting dynamic in Seattle is that people seem to assume all the people they know already know each other, which means nobody tries to introduce people. I have an old friend up there who used to insist I already knew people I hadn't met, which was frustrating. The result of this tendency is a social network with a highly connected center and a lot of poorly connected leaves. This structure really revealed itself when my social network was struck by a tragedy where several people were victims of a shooting -- there was a group of people who all had direct connections to at least one victim, and another group who didn't know any of the victims personally but a majority of their friends had. I was in the latter group and I found it very strange.
It was a huge contrast when I moved to the Bay Area, where people assumed everyone was a transplant and went out of their way to do introductions. I was at a party once where I was reintroduced to the same person four times -- someone who I had already met years earlier.
Reminds me of the parable of the two shoe salesmen in Africa [0]. The point being, if there's all these isolated, lonely cliques, there's actually a huge opportunity for someone who can consistently connect with others starting out as a stranger.
The opportunity is there but in seattle you definitely have a huge barrier - people will instantly mistrust you if you do anything other than the slow and steady route.
Common misconception: having your finger in a lot of different pies is not being a Maven. If you joined an improv group, a church group, a softball team, and an MMA gym, you're at best a conglomerate, but more likely an overextended end node.
That can be really tough; I've had similar experiences and I'm sorry to see what you're going through. You are not the only one (there's an article above with the data!). I hope some of this helps; f some is way off base, ignore that part:
Most of all, have compassion for and care about yourself. It doesn't solve every problem, but it's the most important relationship you have by far. Without it, you'll always be lonely no matter who is around. With it, how others respond won't matter so much.
Have compassion for the other people too, especially those who don't respond. They have their own problems which have nothing to do with you, which, like everyone else's problems, might make them a*holes at times. The reasons they don't respond likely have nothing to do with you. Don't objectify them - don't make them characters in your narrative of your social life; they have their own narratives independently of everyone else.
Another reason to have compassion for them is that people in your situation tend to adopt a perspective where all the power is in the hands of others: They respond or they don't. It's not a healthy (or realistic) perspective; you have power too and they are flawed, vulnerable human beings too.
And more practically, instead of worrying about people who don't seem to respond, keep trying until you find some who do - it can be hard to motivate yourself but it's worth the effort. For everyone, there are plenty of both kinds and it's no shame if it doesn't work out with some - that's inevitable given the odds - or if the ones that will respond are hard to find. You don't need many successes to have a social life and you are worth the effort no matter how bad your experiences so far.
Finally, many people find themselves lonely at times in their life, and find they need only one really close relationship, a life partner. If you have yourself (see above) and a life partner, then the other relationships become much less significant. Maybe that's the real goal; it can take a lot of looking, but once you find the person you both have it made (with plenty of work!).
My biggest issue is similar. My friends and I can hang out together easily, but we don't really just hang out anymore, they always want to go to bars and I'm not really into that.
I usually try to find out what passions the other person has. If somebody is passionate about something (no matter what), then they have experienced depth in that topic. I want that depth; it is the underlying treasure of this world. That's why I will steer the conversation in that direction. If somebody I talk to wants to have a shallow pretentious chat, we can safely depart after 3 minutes, him thinking: "ok, that's one of the weird ones, that doesn't believe in the value of a high society chat". I celebrate being different and open-minded and non-elitist (in the sense that I don't feel that I'm better than anybody else) and all my close friends do too.
You probably have a reason for liking those Japanese bands. They excite you somehow. Find out why. If you can articulate it, then people will be able to understand your passion.
