Sociopath Community

muh dik shrugs

why?

just looked over it, no. i'll probably make another thread saying why.

stupid thoughts tbh

Sounds like you would be a fan of the Scandinavian principle of Jante's Law. 

It's less manipulation and more a presentation of information with guidance offered as to the information's application. Teaching styles relate to the way the information is presented, ie. a practical hands-on approach, lecture, etc. 

Facts are still going to bounce off their skulls regardless. One cannot make a student want to learn something or force an understanding on a student who does not have the appropriate educational background to understand the material. One can, however, present the material in a manner that is accessible to the student as possible, offer guidance, and hope for the best. 

Manipulation is conjures ideas of cleverly or subtly exerting control. It's very difficult to manipulate, and unethical by the definition of the word, in the context of a classroom setting.

I appeal to Cricket's outlook. She's brighter than the lot of you combined.

What about teaching, coaching, or otherwise mentoring? Things that don't really require "manipulating" others, but instead, well, teaching, coaching, or mentoring them. Encouraging, offering guidance and training people in a skill or skills is far superior to "manipulating" them if one is interested in actually helping someone become better at something. Really one can't "make" someone better. One can be there for others, if needed, to offer their skills and mentorship. I would argue here that if one is truly "better" at something, then sharing the skill with others via means other than manipulation helps make one better.

not all manipulation is considered bad imo. It's your opinion that you can't use your skills to make someone else better. It depends on what you think "better" means. but you definitely can make someone better, at least in a sense.  in a way that improves the quality of life on earth or at least cleans up this mess humans made and continue to make.

This statement makes very little sense, in that, it seems to suggest every single person on the planet is inferior (to what?) due to the actions of a very rare few who live within or come in from outside of their society. It also seems to suggest that those who live in areas that are more prone to such types of attacks are inferior people, which is something with which I strongly disagree. A Syrian or Iraqi child, having been born in to a warzone that was definitely not of his choosing, is not inferior to a Swedish child, who is very unlikely to be killed in a car bombing. 

that's not what i mean at all. the swedish child is at the same level as the syrian child because they both live in the same planet where the terrorist attacks are going on.  this isn't the only way to establish the equality, but it's the only one i'll bring up since you said that.

I would also like to propose the idea that my ego is not "too large" but instead proportional to my accomplishments. 

 I didn't mean to say your ego was too large. I just took what you said as inspiration for this thread.

that's what i thought