5 ms·
I've historically had the opposite problem. I find attempts in both science and mathematics textbooks to provide some sort of real world context to be distracti
by sfRattan 9y ago
I've historically had the opposite problem. I find attempts in both science and mathematics textbooks to provide some sort of real world context to be distracting and wasteful. I remember that impression going all the way back to high school, but the most recent memory comes from early in college. My discrete math book had some chapter that started with a page and a half about volcanoes.
Volcanoes.
Why are you wasting my precious time with this nonsense before getting to the meat? There are other things I need to read and study. There are problems I need to use these ideas to solve... and not only the ones in the textbook.
But then, I can also recognize that such winding introductions to a subject or an idea might be helpful to people who "get bored" as the author describes. Though I suspect the remedy might be to acquire and deliberately practice study skills. It would be nice if publishers sold versions of their textbooks both with and without what the individual posing the original question would identify as "motivation." I tend to think of it as fatty prose.
- santaclaus 9y agoHalf-assed physical analogs can be a drag, especially when the analogy breaks down after any bit of scrutiny. Geometric intuition, on the other hand, I often find worth the weight of a thousand words. There have been times I haven't been able to make my way through a dense piece of mathematical text, only to pop open another book on the same topic to find a single picture that makes all of the pieces click.
- mrout 9y agoYou have to understand that there are many people that do not feel this way. Geometric 'intuition' does nothing for me. That's why there are two books. :)
- eutectic 9y agoThere is a big difference between 'practical motivation' and 'theoretical motivation'.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]