= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
That only covers telling the motormouth to shut it. This doesn't help a motormouth thinking "Damn, I should shut it, but I can't possibly bear to let this point go unaddressed!".
In response to
Leading Discussions: Addressing Time Monopolizers
Good point. I actually don't have any experience with that, but maybe you could write up some tips and I'll add a section? Or write up an article and we'll link to each other? Thanks!
It depends a lot on the social context. But I've rarely seen a moderated discussion where it was highly functional for a member of the audience to speak for 60% (or even 40%) of the discussion time.
Great feedback, guys. I added 2 paragraphs to clarify. (One below the bullet list of how to identify a monopolizer, the other below the italicized paragraph of what to say after the event.) Let me know what you think.
And I have another post in the works focused on getting quiet people to join in the conversation.
How much peer reviewed stuff about appropriate interpersonal interactions is there, really? And if it isn't peer reviewed, then there's almost no reason to think it is more likely to be true simply because someone printed it somewhere.
In short, cut some slack for a valuable contribution.
Thanks, both of you. I wish I had references for this, but this is based on my experience as a professional teacher. I have 10+ years experience, starting with martial arts in high school, then running a dance studio, and now designing and teaching classes on software security. I'm sure I read some of these items somewhere, but I can't recall where anymore.
In response to
Leading Discussions: Addressing Time Monopolizers
By the way, this is my first post here. Please feel free to comment on style, presentation, tags, and anything else, in addition to pointing out anything that's confusing and suggesting additions. Also, it feels to me like this needs some kind of conclusion or summary or some other point at the end, what do you think? Thanks!
In response to
Welcome to Less Wrong!
Hi everyone, I've been reading LW for a year or so, and met some of you at the May minicamp. (I was the guy doing the swing dancing.) Great to meet you, in person and online.
I'm helping Anna Salamon put together some workshops for the meetup groups, and I'll be posting some articles on presentation skills to help with that. But in order to do that, I'll need 5 points (I think). Can you help me out with that?
Thanks
Mike
Yay 5 points! That was quick. Thanks everyone.
In response to
Welcome to Less Wrong!
Hi everyone, I've been reading LW for a year or so, and met some of you at the May minicamp. (I was the guy doing the swing dancing.) Great to meet you, in person and online.
I'm helping Anna Salamon put together some workshops for the meetup groups, and I'll be posting some articles on presentation skills to help with that. But in order to do that, I'll need 5 points (I think). Can you help me out with that?
Thanks
Mike
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
There's a simple utility calculation going on here. I'd say the chances of having cancer given your dentist says you might have it is much higher than .01%. Without doing any research, I think it's safe to assume it is at least 10%, probably more.
So, you have a 90% of wasting $1000 and mildly inconveniencing yourself for a few days, vs. a 10% chance of having major oral problems in the future because you didn't get this treatment. Plus all the social stigma you mentioned earlier. With this analysis, it seems perfectly reasonable to go through with the biopsy.
Thanks. I'm not entirely sure about the 10%, but you're right: When we run the math on breast cancer given a positive mammogram, it's typically a few percent, not 0.01%.
By the way, lest people worry about me too much, my dentist thinks it's most likely pre-cancerous, and that if we remove it now, there's nothing to worry about. Or rather, that it's most likely nothing, maybe pre-cancerous, but probably not actual cancer yet.