You eventually found it necessary to rote memorize the multiplication tables
Nope. Incorrect. I made no specific effort to memorize a huge table of calculations. Instead, I *naturally* memorized the results of calculations that I saw often. 8*8 = 64. I saw such things often, so I memorized them naturally. That's what I meant. There was no big rote memorization scheme involved.
yet you are arguing against rote memorization?
Yes. There's far, far, far too much rote memorization going on right now.
Ah, so you count addition/subtraction on your fingers and do multiplication by iteration?
Why are these the only options? Nothing is strictly wrong with either of them, either.
You can memorize generalized patterns without memorizing entire tables, thereby saving time. You can memorize 'tricks' that allow you to multiply numbers extremely quickly. You don't have to go by some huge multiplication table or do multiplication by iteration, though it doesn't matter if you do. Just make sure you have an intuitive understanding of why it works.
If it's the first case, I'd say that you're an idiot.
I guarantee you that there are a number of mathematicians who have lots of trouble doing simple calculations, yet they are most certainly not "idiots."
but I'd say that you still rote-memorized the tables, just in a less-structured way.
That's a very important distinction. People memorize and learn at their own pace, and by forcing something on them, you don't give them a chance to do that, and possibly bore and/or frustrate them. This is but one problem with one-size-fits-all education.
but you're deluding yourself if you think that it's absolutely avoidable in all cases.
And that's a straw man. It happens every single time one of these discussions show up; someone says that the person criticizing rampant rote memorization is saying that memorization or rote memorization is always bad, even though they say no such thing.
The three things that come immediately to mind: the addition/subtraction tables, multiplication/division tables
Absolute nonsense. I never memorized multiplication tables, and yet I can do such calculations quite easily. How is this possible? Because I understand the processes of addition, subtraction, etc.
As I said many times, you only harm education by forcing this garbage on people. If they really, truly need it, it will be memorized naturally because they'll use it a lot. The idea that you have make some specific effort to memorize a bunch of tables is archaic nonsense. Math is not about speed to begin with.
Your replies sound like you're just trying to be contrary, anyhow.
My replies sound like I'm fed up with our awful education system, nonsense that's repeated again and again, and people who don't actually understand education to begin with.
By golly, you're right. People who want to do simple arithmatic calulations in their heads are fools.
Straw man. I never said that. Merely that mindless repetition shouldn't be forced on people, because that's not what math is about.
They shouldn't learn how to do simple practical things like work out the square footage of a room with a simple calcuation in their head.
You know, I know many people that a deep intuitive understanding of how and why more 'complex' math works, and a grand majority of them can do the things you said, even though they didn't waste their time doing all sorts of busywork like you (presumably, since you seem to be disagreeing with me) want students to have to do. It's inconceivable that having a deep understanding of the material would not also give you the ability to do such trivial tasks.
They should remain helplessly tethered to a calculator
I don't know how people could so thoroughly misunderstand what is being said here, but it happens every single time. People have been brainwashed since birth that education is all about rote memorization and repetition. While it's important to be able to retain information, we simply have far, far too much useless repetition and memorization; that's something that cannot be denied.
Yes, because learning and memorizing the formula to calculate the volume of a cylinder or a sphere or a cone was completely useless before I had learned the multi-dimensional calculus required to actually derive and understand what those formulas really meant.
You're confusing mindlessly reciting proofs with actually having an intuitive understanding of why these things work.
I notice that you don't even respond to the fact that the GP specifically mentions multiplication tables in respect to memorization.
Multiplication tables are garbage, and I never wasted my time with them. Again, math is *not* about memorization and speed. Humans are tool-using creatures, so make use of tools for the repetitive stuff. Plus, you'll likely memorize much of the multiplication table on your own without making a specific effort to memorize it, like I did. If you don't? Well, you obviously don't need it all that much, anyway. Don't waste your time, and instead focus on true understanding.
But again, in a multi-party system, things tend to balance out towards the center.
There is no definitive "center." That's about as meaningless as the words "extreme," "liberal," "conservative," "left," "right," etc. in the sense that they don't really tell you about the individual policies that a candidate supports. What I care about is whether someone supports good policies, not what "side" they're commonly attributed to. The "center" is not necessarily good, and what is sometimes considered "extreme" is not necessarily bad.
In a first-past-the-post system, the two sides are encouraged to move to the extremes.
I don't care about "extremes." What matters to me is that such systems encourage people vote for the 'lesser of two evils,' even if it's damn foolish to do so.
There's a random paper for everything, including for me. The fact that some papers exist that come to some conclusion means nothing, since they're likely just coming to arbitrary conclusions based on flawed tests. Our way of measuring proficiency is flawed to begin with, which is why I reject current tests.
that found that kids you memorized things like their multiplication tables performed better at higher level tasks.
Solving 40 multiplication problems that all ask you to do the same thing does nothing but waste your time on useless repetition. It won't magically make you understand the material any more than digging a giant hole in the ground with a spoon would; the information is simply not there.
By making low level steps reflexive, brain power was freed up to work on more complex parts of the problem.
Math is not about speed or memorizing facts, but about understanding. You're not just solving random, arbitrary problems, either. This is a poisonous mentality that is spread by awful educational systems all over the world.
Once the student understands the conceptual basis behind a particular mathematical operation
But they never do get that understanding.
there is often immense value in gaining fluency by memorization.
I disagree. It only seeks to waste people's time on useless busywork. I couldn't stand doing 40 problems telling me to find the missing side of a triangle, so I simply didn't. It was a waste of my time, and so was school in general.
By coming to understand how and why something works, you usually memorize it naturally, anyway. This is what rote memorization drones just don't understand; drill and kill is extremely inefficient, harmful to education, and unnecessary 99% of the time.
Memorization, particularly in elementary mathematics, paves the way for more rapid and accurate mental computation
I guarantee you that the study of mathematics is not about quickly and accurately performing random calculations in your head. I also guarantee you that you do nothing but degrade education when you waste time handing out pointless busywork trying to test for exactly this to people who are either already capable of doing it, or do not need to do it. We have computers and calculators for that, and no, using a tool does not mean they don't understand anything, which is what the focus should be on anyway.
This is not a small thing you are asking for, here.
No, it's not a small thing, but neither is the millions of taxpayer dollars wasting paying for crappy overpriced books that should be in the public domain anyway. Even if they had to pay someone to replace all the books, that would still end up being cheaper in the long run.
Primarily because the school boards aren't in the business of writing textbooks or funding the creation of the same.
But apparently they are in the business of wasting taxpayer money by giving slimy publishers lots and lots of it.
These games do make the rote part of learning a LOT more fun and it does capture one's attention
You make it sound like the "rote part of learning" is an inevitability, when it often is not; our education system is simply horrible. 99% of the time, rote memorization is not the right way to go about things, especially when it comes to math.
It would be even less expensive if the government just paid someone to write books in the public domain when necessary. Hell, some great books already are in the public domain, and yet we're too busy funneling taxpayer money to scumbag corporations to care.
It's better principles, maybe, but it also guarantees that your vote is tossed away.
As I said, the only wasted vote is a vote for evil.
The system, as is, is designed to not allow third parties to win.
But they still did - once. And it replaced the main party.
Therefore, by voting third-party, you're implicitly not voting for a candidate that could actually win.
And by shortsightedly voting for evil scumbags, you are ensuring that evil will remain victorious, and that your prophecy (that third parties can't win) is self-fulfilling. And what of sending a message to the main party? If even enough people vote for third parties, it sends a message to them that they need to take action if they want to reclaim those votes.
But really, I'd feel like vomiting if I voted for either a republican or a democrat. What's really sad, though, is that most people don't even think of voting for evil scumbags as 'gaming the system'; they don't even put *that* much thought into it. Instead, they just mindlessly vote for a candidate for a certain party.
So, if I participate in protests, vote for people aren't evil scumbags, get involved in my local government, and try to convince others to do the same, I'm directly responsible for evil scumbags being voted in, even though I have nothing to do with that? We're not even much of a democracy at all.
It seems more like you're trying to convince yourself that even doing the bare minimum (not voting for evil scumbags) is fine because other people who do don't accomplish much.
Or do you game the system, and aim for the best realistic outcome?
That's not gaming the system; that's being a shortsighted, unprincipled moron and mindlessly going along with the status quo. I assure you that voting for evil scumbags does not 'stick it to the man' or do anything similar; it definitely doesn't "game the system." It's better to have principles and vote for someone you like even if there's virtually no chance they'll win than it is to vote for evil and ensure that nothing will likely ever change. Have fun with your self-fulfilling prophecies.
I've voted for the lesser of two evils or against one I perceived as provably more evil.
Then, as already pointed out, you're part of the problem. Have fun with your TSA, your Patriot Act, your mass government surveillance, and all the other constitutional and rights violations that the government is more than happy to shove on us, all because of voters' shortsightedness.
The only wasted vote is a vote for provably evil scumbags. To say that someone else might win because I cast my vote for someone who isn't an evil scumbag is extremely short-sighted; nothing is ever going to change if people do not take a stand. And win or not, people voting for third parties sends a message to The One Party.
I don't see why. I'm already living in a country that strives to be 'the land of the free and the home of the brave.' I'm merely holding people here to the standard that they claim to aspire to. What is the problem with that?
There's no purpose to money if it isn't making you happy.
What makes me happy is financial independence. I save a large majority of my income, invest it, and spend extremely little compared to most others that make as much as I do all so I can retire 30 years before any of them likely do, without even taking into account social security.
The real problem is that people do not live within their means (which includes saving and investing money) and buy things that do not truly make them happy. I seriously doubt you're any less happy when you aren't able to spend money on an app. If you are, you may need to find other hobbies.
So no, my money is not just sitting in a bank account; it's going to guarantee that I can become financially independent and retire before a grand majority of the population.
I said you were the aberration for having difficulty with it.
Again, using something as vague as "first world problem" does not give enough information to discern what you really mean. Especially for such a short post as the one far above. I don't even know if it was you that made that comment, but you seem more preoccupied with making assumptions about me than you are about anything else.
I have come to realize that you have quite an autistic streak, whether it's intrinsic or an affectation.
I have come to realize that you have quite an autistic streak, whether it's intrinsic or an affectation. The evidence is in every single one of your comments. I have trouble believing you can function very well in the presence of others, and you're very likely a social outcast. Your tendency of making assumptions about the mental well-being of others based on insufficient data is definitely a put-off for most people (that's just common sense), so it's inconceivable that you're a social person.
Yes, it is true! I can determine all this from Slashdot posts.
It must be hard for you to operate socially when everyone presumes you are too self-absorbed to care about how they react to what you say.
I'd just rather not hold myself back to avoid causing others offense. I have different priorities from you, obviously, but that doesn't mean I have an autistic streak, or whatever other buzzword you want to use.
I suppose by now you're quite used to being shunned, too.
Nope. Another unfounded assumption on your part, no matter how much you wish it were not so. But continue making all sorts of assumptions and pretending that short Slashdot posts qualify as good evidence for your pseudo-scientific analysis. As you don't know how I usually operate, who I spend my time with, or any relevant details, anything you say is quite irrelevant.
It's unfortunate that you lack the insight to be able to predict with a degree of confidence whether something would be perceived to be rude.
I consider possibilities and try to suppress my own biases favoring certain answers in case where I simply lack data, whereas you seem to be overconfident and prone to make generalizations. I know this because you did it in a few posts on Slashdot, so it's true about you in general.
What you deride as "being part of a hivemind" seems quite apparent to the rest of us.
Really? Can you provide scientific evidence of this (preferably that you've reviewed previously before anyone ever asked this), or are you just going to cite "common sense," which has little to no meaning? If that's the case, then just vanish; I have no interest in your unscientific "common sense."
You seem to be choosing a life of self-imposed exile. Have fun with that.
Well, you've managed to shift the topic to one that's mostly about me personally, but I think you'll find that it won't help you one bit, and you might find it difficult to analyze someone based on Slashdot posts.
The fact that you have difficulty with the idiom while "everyone else" does not suggests you are the aberration.
Who says that "everyone" else uses it that way? My experience is that it's sometimes meant as, "X is a first world problem, which means that the problem is less bad than the problems in other parts of the world, so X is not a problem at all."
Do you have an ASD diagnosis?
Don't you think it's too early to be trotting out the buzzwords?
Either way, you should
That's subjective.
You seem to be asserting you prefer to be oblivious.
I'm not oblivious; I just don't care.
Protips: bitching about how a huge income tax check you had to send to the IRS in front of destitute people would be considered rude by the overwhelming preponderance of people.
I think it's nice that you're part of a hivemind; you can instantly know what most people think.
Slashdot Mirror
You eventually found it necessary to rote memorize the multiplication tables
Nope. Incorrect. I made no specific effort to memorize a huge table of calculations. Instead, I *naturally* memorized the results of calculations that I saw often. 8*8 = 64. I saw such things often, so I memorized them naturally. That's what I meant. There was no big rote memorization scheme involved.
yet you are arguing against rote memorization?
Yes. There's far, far, far too much rote memorization going on right now.
Ah, so you count addition/subtraction on your fingers and do multiplication by iteration?
Why are these the only options? Nothing is strictly wrong with either of them, either.
You can memorize generalized patterns without memorizing entire tables, thereby saving time. You can memorize 'tricks' that allow you to multiply numbers extremely quickly. You don't have to go by some huge multiplication table or do multiplication by iteration, though it doesn't matter if you do. Just make sure you have an intuitive understanding of why it works.
If it's the first case, I'd say that you're an idiot.
I guarantee you that there are a number of mathematicians who have lots of trouble doing simple calculations, yet they are most certainly not "idiots."
but I'd say that you still rote-memorized the tables, just in a less-structured way.
That's a very important distinction. People memorize and learn at their own pace, and by forcing something on them, you don't give them a chance to do that, and possibly bore and/or frustrate them. This is but one problem with one-size-fits-all education.
but you're deluding yourself if you think that it's absolutely avoidable in all cases.
And that's a straw man. It happens every single time one of these discussions show up; someone says that the person criticizing rampant rote memorization is saying that memorization or rote memorization is always bad, even though they say no such thing.
The three things that come immediately to mind: the addition/subtraction tables, multiplication/division tables
Absolute nonsense. I never memorized multiplication tables, and yet I can do such calculations quite easily. How is this possible? Because I understand the processes of addition, subtraction, etc.
As I said many times, you only harm education by forcing this garbage on people. If they really, truly need it, it will be memorized naturally because they'll use it a lot. The idea that you have make some specific effort to memorize a bunch of tables is archaic nonsense. Math is not about speed to begin with.
Your replies sound like you're just trying to be contrary, anyhow.
My replies sound like I'm fed up with our awful education system, nonsense that's repeated again and again, and people who don't actually understand education to begin with.
By golly, you're right. People who want to do simple arithmatic calulations in their heads are fools.
Straw man. I never said that. Merely that mindless repetition shouldn't be forced on people, because that's not what math is about.
They shouldn't learn how to do simple practical things like work out the square footage of a room with a simple calcuation in their head.
You know, I know many people that a deep intuitive understanding of how and why more 'complex' math works, and a grand majority of them can do the things you said, even though they didn't waste their time doing all sorts of busywork like you (presumably, since you seem to be disagreeing with me) want students to have to do. It's inconceivable that having a deep understanding of the material would not also give you the ability to do such trivial tasks.
They should remain helplessly tethered to a calculator
I don't know how people could so thoroughly misunderstand what is being said here, but it happens every single time. People have been brainwashed since birth that education is all about rote memorization and repetition. While it's important to be able to retain information, we simply have far, far too much useless repetition and memorization; that's something that cannot be denied.
Yes, because learning and memorizing the formula to calculate the volume of a cylinder or a sphere or a cone was completely useless before I had learned the multi-dimensional calculus required to actually derive and understand what those formulas really meant.
You're confusing mindlessly reciting proofs with actually having an intuitive understanding of why these things work.
I notice that you don't even respond to the fact that the GP specifically mentions multiplication tables in respect to memorization.
Multiplication tables are garbage, and I never wasted my time with them. Again, math is *not* about memorization and speed. Humans are tool-using creatures, so make use of tools for the repetitive stuff. Plus, you'll likely memorize much of the multiplication table on your own without making a specific effort to memorize it, like I did. If you don't? Well, you obviously don't need it all that much, anyway. Don't waste your time, and instead focus on true understanding.
But again, in a multi-party system, things tend to balance out towards the center.
There is no definitive "center." That's about as meaningless as the words "extreme," "liberal," "conservative," "left," "right," etc. in the sense that they don't really tell you about the individual policies that a candidate supports. What I care about is whether someone supports good policies, not what "side" they're commonly attributed to. The "center" is not necessarily good, and what is sometimes considered "extreme" is not necessarily bad.
In a first-past-the-post system, the two sides are encouraged to move to the extremes.
I don't care about "extremes." What matters to me is that such systems encourage people vote for the 'lesser of two evils,' even if it's damn foolish to do so.
I would, because it's proprietary junk.
Actually, rote memorization has its place
99.999% of the time, it simply doesn't.
especially in math.
I disagree.
There was a paper a while back
There's a random paper for everything, including for me. The fact that some papers exist that come to some conclusion means nothing, since they're likely just coming to arbitrary conclusions based on flawed tests. Our way of measuring proficiency is flawed to begin with, which is why I reject current tests.
that found that kids you memorized things like their multiplication tables performed better at higher level tasks.
Solving 40 multiplication problems that all ask you to do the same thing does nothing but waste your time on useless repetition. It won't magically make you understand the material any more than digging a giant hole in the ground with a spoon would; the information is simply not there.
By making low level steps reflexive, brain power was freed up to work on more complex parts of the problem.
Math is not about speed or memorizing facts, but about understanding. You're not just solving random, arbitrary problems, either. This is a poisonous mentality that is spread by awful educational systems all over the world.
Once the student understands the conceptual basis behind a particular mathematical operation
But they never do get that understanding.
there is often immense value in gaining fluency by memorization.
I disagree. It only seeks to waste people's time on useless busywork. I couldn't stand doing 40 problems telling me to find the missing side of a triangle, so I simply didn't. It was a waste of my time, and so was school in general.
By coming to understand how and why something works, you usually memorize it naturally, anyway. This is what rote memorization drones just don't understand; drill and kill is extremely inefficient, harmful to education, and unnecessary 99% of the time.
Memorization, particularly in elementary mathematics, paves the way for more rapid and accurate mental computation
I guarantee you that the study of mathematics is not about quickly and accurately performing random calculations in your head. I also guarantee you that you do nothing but degrade education when you waste time handing out pointless busywork trying to test for exactly this to people who are either already capable of doing it, or do not need to do it. We have computers and calculators for that, and no, using a tool does not mean they don't understand anything, which is what the focus should be on anyway.
This is not a small thing you are asking for, here.
No, it's not a small thing, but neither is the millions of taxpayer dollars wasting paying for crappy overpriced books that should be in the public domain anyway. Even if they had to pay someone to replace all the books, that would still end up being cheaper in the long run.
Primarily because the school boards aren't in the business of writing textbooks or funding the creation of the same.
But apparently they are in the business of wasting taxpayer money by giving slimy publishers lots and lots of it.
These games do make the rote part of learning a LOT more fun and it does capture one's attention
You make it sound like the "rote part of learning" is an inevitability, when it often is not; our education system is simply horrible. 99% of the time, rote memorization is not the right way to go about things, especially when it comes to math.
It would be even less expensive if the government just paid someone to write books in the public domain when necessary. Hell, some great books already are in the public domain, and yet we're too busy funneling taxpayer money to scumbag corporations to care.
It's better principles, maybe, but it also guarantees that your vote is tossed away.
As I said, the only wasted vote is a vote for evil.
The system, as is, is designed to not allow third parties to win.
But they still did - once. And it replaced the main party.
Therefore, by voting third-party, you're implicitly not voting for a candidate that could actually win.
And by shortsightedly voting for evil scumbags, you are ensuring that evil will remain victorious, and that your prophecy (that third parties can't win) is self-fulfilling. And what of sending a message to the main party? If even enough people vote for third parties, it sends a message to them that they need to take action if they want to reclaim those votes.
But really, I'd feel like vomiting if I voted for either a republican or a democrat. What's really sad, though, is that most people don't even think of voting for evil scumbags as 'gaming the system'; they don't even put *that* much thought into it. Instead, they just mindlessly vote for a candidate for a certain party.
So, if I participate in protests, vote for people aren't evil scumbags, get involved in my local government, and try to convince others to do the same, I'm directly responsible for evil scumbags being voted in, even though I have nothing to do with that? We're not even much of a democracy at all.
It seems more like you're trying to convince yourself that even doing the bare minimum (not voting for evil scumbags) is fine because other people who do don't accomplish much.
Or do you game the system, and aim for the best realistic outcome?
That's not gaming the system; that's being a shortsighted, unprincipled moron and mindlessly going along with the status quo. I assure you that voting for evil scumbags does not 'stick it to the man' or do anything similar; it definitely doesn't "game the system." It's better to have principles and vote for someone you like even if there's virtually no chance they'll win than it is to vote for evil and ensure that nothing will likely ever change. Have fun with your self-fulfilling prophecies.
I've voted for the lesser of two evils or against one I perceived as provably more evil.
Then, as already pointed out, you're part of the problem. Have fun with your TSA, your Patriot Act, your mass government surveillance, and all the other constitutional and rights violations that the government is more than happy to shove on us, all because of voters' shortsightedness.
But that stuff you rambled on about certainly sounds like a hassle. Is that how you live your life? Really?
I consider avoiding being tracked by government thugs to the best of my ability to be very important.
The only wasted vote is a vote for provably evil scumbags. To say that someone else might win because I cast my vote for someone who isn't an evil scumbag is extremely short-sighted; nothing is ever going to change if people do not take a stand. And win or not, people voting for third parties sends a message to The One Party.
These are the new realities: The high school diploma is not the gateway to the middle class that it used to be.
No piece of paper should be a gateway to any class to begin with.
Why would you spend money on a copy of Windows? It's on sale in certain places for the low, low price of $0.
And those countries instantly became bastions of freedom?
It didn't instantly fix everything, so it's worthless.
I don't see why. I'm already living in a country that strives to be 'the land of the free and the home of the brave.' I'm merely holding people here to the standard that they claim to aspire to. What is the problem with that?
There's no purpose to money if it isn't making you happy.
What makes me happy is financial independence. I save a large majority of my income, invest it, and spend extremely little compared to most others that make as much as I do all so I can retire 30 years before any of them likely do, without even taking into account social security.
The real problem is that people do not live within their means (which includes saving and investing money) and buy things that do not truly make them happy. I seriously doubt you're any less happy when you aren't able to spend money on an app. If you are, you may need to find other hobbies.
So no, my money is not just sitting in a bank account; it's going to guarantee that I can become financially independent and retire before a grand majority of the population.
I said you were the aberration for having difficulty with it.
Again, using something as vague as "first world problem" does not give enough information to discern what you really mean. Especially for such a short post as the one far above. I don't even know if it was you that made that comment, but you seem more preoccupied with making assumptions about me than you are about anything else.
I have come to realize that you have quite an autistic streak, whether it's intrinsic or an affectation.
I have come to realize that you have quite an autistic streak, whether it's intrinsic or an affectation. The evidence is in every single one of your comments. I have trouble believing you can function very well in the presence of others, and you're very likely a social outcast. Your tendency of making assumptions about the mental well-being of others based on insufficient data is definitely a put-off for most people (that's just common sense), so it's inconceivable that you're a social person.
Yes, it is true! I can determine all this from Slashdot posts.
It must be hard for you to operate socially when everyone presumes you are too self-absorbed to care about how they react to what you say.
I'd just rather not hold myself back to avoid causing others offense. I have different priorities from you, obviously, but that doesn't mean I have an autistic streak, or whatever other buzzword you want to use.
I suppose by now you're quite used to being shunned, too.
Nope. Another unfounded assumption on your part, no matter how much you wish it were not so. But continue making all sorts of assumptions and pretending that short Slashdot posts qualify as good evidence for your pseudo-scientific analysis. As you don't know how I usually operate, who I spend my time with, or any relevant details, anything you say is quite irrelevant.
It's unfortunate that you lack the insight to be able to predict with a degree of confidence whether something would be perceived to be rude.
I consider possibilities and try to suppress my own biases favoring certain answers in case where I simply lack data, whereas you seem to be overconfident and prone to make generalizations. I know this because you did it in a few posts on Slashdot, so it's true about you in general.
What you deride as "being part of a hivemind" seems quite apparent to the rest of us.
Really? Can you provide scientific evidence of this (preferably that you've reviewed previously before anyone ever asked this), or are you just going to cite "common sense," which has little to no meaning? If that's the case, then just vanish; I have no interest in your unscientific "common sense."
You seem to be choosing a life of self-imposed exile. Have fun with that.
Well, you've managed to shift the topic to one that's mostly about me personally, but I think you'll find that it won't help you one bit, and you might find it difficult to analyze someone based on Slashdot posts.
The fact that you have difficulty with the idiom while "everyone else" does not suggests you are the aberration.
Who says that "everyone" else uses it that way? My experience is that it's sometimes meant as, "X is a first world problem, which means that the problem is less bad than the problems in other parts of the world, so X is not a problem at all."
Do you have an ASD diagnosis?
Don't you think it's too early to be trotting out the buzzwords?
Either way, you should
That's subjective.
You seem to be asserting you prefer to be oblivious.
I'm not oblivious; I just don't care.
Protips: bitching about how a huge income tax check you had to send to the IRS in front of destitute people would be considered rude by the overwhelming preponderance of people.
I think it's nice that you're part of a hivemind; you can instantly know what most people think.