/lit/ - Literature

Why am I able to articulate my words in writing so well but not when I speak?

Word recall is sharper, sentence structuring is better, and overall my thoughts are more cohesive when I write.

When I speak I don't sound nearly as intelligent. This claim can be backed by multiple occasions of "YOU wrote this?" when I've shown others my written material. And I can tell their question isn't issued out of malice or mockery, but out of genuine surprise--that me, inarticulate, stupid anon, could write something of substance. That hurts.

I feel like there's something wrong with my ability to express myself orally. Perhaps writing gives me more time to think, and generally there aren't many distractions around me when I write, or pressure to speak fluently in front of others. I also have the ability to review, in detail, what I write before submission. But again, maybe I'm just orally retarded.

Anyone deal with this? Anyone solve the problem for themselves?

>>10993232
>>10993160
maybe you should take your own advice schmuck

>>10982135
I mean... that's good advice.

>>10943167
>A more important reason why Peterson is “misinterpreted” is that he is so consistently vague and vacillating that it’s impossible to tell what he is “actually saying.”

Many, many philosophers throughout history write in an obfuscating way. I guess Kant was a shallow hypocrite too eh? Sartre? Aristotle? Or any other philosopher eh? eh?

I think the author you linked is probably too dense to understand anything really so chalks up his frustration to MUH VAGUENESS.

t. kek if you're the author.

>>10771330

>>10765764
>there are more non-smokers than smokers and thus more non-smokers with cancer

>>10759337
>there isn’t a single person on the planet that cares about engineering.
>engineers literally build civilization

>>10696056
wat, u got a problem with my post?

>>10685439
is this the same guy who posted that "muh if there isn't a god then everything is permitted" thread?

>>10684966
>martin shkreli has feminine features
>small jaw line, smooth skin, luscious lips, interest in wu tang
>fantasizes about bjs from martin daily
> not gay cuz "muh feminine features"

>>10680947

brainstorm, form vague thesis, write arguments with supporting text to develop thesis into something robust, have final, real thesis. Done.

The trick is to write your arguments first and pull your thesis from your arguments. Not the other way round.

>>10681127

>Just because religious people will kill others does not mean that religion has not prevented that much more people from doing the same.

Can you provide recorded examples for this claim?

>>10627002
The Mars Trilogy by Kim Stanley Robinson because he talked about red fucking rocks, deserts, and mountains too fucking much.

Good reads besides that.

>>10628418
>There is no space for philosophy in the modern world. We just need to advance the social and the natural sciences further.

If we need to advance the sciences forward in order to understand philosophical concepts, then clearly we still need philosophy to do that until those sciences are able to achieve that. In other words, the modern world needs philosophy because the sciences aren't "there" yet.

Do you not see the contradiction of your argument?

>>10625811
definitely read more, and above your reading level at that.

>>10608706
Rote-exercises work your memory you ignorant dolt. In moderation, it's good and supplements creativity. However, if it's the only thing you're doing, you're probably stifling your creativity by virtue of not doing anything creative, which would be bad.

Stop buying into the rote exercises are bad meme. I love you.

>>10582636
get downvoted for this pleb post, pleb

>read once quickly
>read a second time, learn new vocab if there is any
>third time, highlight outstanding passages to keep for reference
>Result: Actually learned something

Is there a better way?

>>10568050
>Your post basically confirmed that the only thing philosophy exists for is stuff that we can't reliably investigate using science.

Not him, but no shit. Philosophy exists to investigate the mysteries of life. If there were a better way to do it, we would do it. Science cannot solve all of our mysteries (currently, and perhaps never, though there is a chance it will be able to in the future). So ALL we have RIGHT NOW, is philosophy. There are no other options.

Or are you suggesting we collectively sit on our haunches and give up our musings because "science will eventually figure it out?"

>>10192630
aww yeahhh