4 ms·

> Of course, the math is exactly the same, but you give the student something to relate to. No, you give the student an extra problem they need to solve: Figur

> Of course, the math is exactly the same, but you give the student something to relate to. No, you give the student an extra problem they need to solve: Figure out what the hell supply and demand has to do with price. Understanding that isn't expected of high schoolers and teaching it isn't a part of mathematics. History shows there are no intuitive equations outside of basic counting and summing. Even the concept of rate of change weren't explored before the 17th century, before then people had very ridiculous views on what equations physics uses, that is what you get if you try to invoke students intuition here.

adam_arthur 5y ago
> Figure out what the hell supply and demand has to do with price. Are more people going to relate more to a problem framed that way, or framed as what A has to do with B? If you're comparing the two, it's self evident that the real world example is easier for the average person to understand. People know what price of a good is. People know that factories make goods, so there must be some supply. Demand is maybe more foreign, but I admit this domain is not the most widely understood... just off the cuff to make a point. The solution to both problems is the same, does not require specialized domain knowledge at all, so I don't get your point. There are plenty of more culturally widely understood domains we could use, rather than economics. Physics is of course the easy go to. Not sure what you mean by ridiculous views on physics, clarify?
- username90 5y ago
  > People know what price of a good is. People know that factories make goods, so there must be some supply. Demand is maybe more foreign, but I admit this example is not the most widely recognized... just off the cuff to make a point. Have you ever tried to argue with an average person? Those deductions aren't simple to make at all. > Are more people going to relate more to a problem framed that way, or framed as what A has to do with B? All students have already seen countless of examples of what A and B can be. So when they see an equation with A and B they can relate it to apples, to money, to distances, to mass, to temperature etc, at once. If you use special names for the variables most students assumes that the equation only works for those variables and either memorises it or tries hard to understand what makes those input kinds special. Edit: > Physics is of course the easy go to. If you use physics then your class is no longer a math class but a physics class. It takes years for students to build intuition for even basic physics. > Not sure what you mean by ridiculous views on physics, clarify? Before newton people didn't understand rate of change or movement properly, instead they came up with shit explanations like this: > Based on Aristotelian physics, Scholastic physics described things as moving according to their essential nature. Celestial objects were described as moving in circles, because perfect circular motion was considered an innate property of objects that existed in the uncorrupted realm of the celestial spheres. The theory of impetus, the ancestor to the concepts of inertia and momentum, was developed along similar lines by medieval philosophers such as John Philoponus and Jean Buridan. Motions below the lunar sphere were seen as imperfect, and thus could not be expected to exhibit consistent motion. More idealized motion in the "sublunary" realm could only be achieved through artifice, and prior to the 17th century, many did not view artificial experiments as a valid means of learning about the natural world. Physical explanations in the sublunary realm revolved around tendencies. Stones contained the element earth, and earthly objects tended to move in a straight line toward the centre of the earth (and the universe in the Aristotelian geocentric view) unless otherwise prevented from doing so.[25] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_physics#Medieval_Europe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_physics#Medieval_Eu... That was what the best of humanity could come up with over 2 millennia. You can't expect an average modern high schooler to do better than that without first being taught physics.
- watwut 5y ago
  > There are plenty of more culturally widely understood domains we could use, rather than economics. Physics is of course the easy go to. Kids dont know basic physics naturally. They need to learn that and it takes quite a lot of effort. Using physics examples kids who struggle with C = 40*B is not making it simple. It is complicating whole thing by making claims the kids don't believe yet.

adam_arthur 5y ago

> Figure out what the hell supply and demand has to do with price. Are more people going to relate more to a problem framed that way, or framed as what A has to do with B? If you're comparing the two, it's self evident that the real world example is easier for the average person to understand. People know what price of a good is. People know that factories make goods, so there must be some supply. Demand is maybe more foreign, but I admit this domain is not the most widely understood... just off the cuff to make a point. The solution to both problems is the same, does not require specialized domain knowledge at all, so I don't get your point. There are plenty of more culturally widely understood domains we could use, rather than economics. Physics is of course the easy go to. Not sure what you mean by ridiculous views on physics, clarify?

username90 5y ago
> People know what price of a good is. People know that factories make goods, so there must be some supply. Demand is maybe more foreign, but I admit this example is not the most widely recognized... just off the cuff to make a point. Have you ever tried to argue with an average person? Those deductions aren't simple to make at all. > Are more people going to relate more to a problem framed that way, or framed as what A has to do with B? All students have already seen countless of examples of what A and B can be. So when they see an equation with A and B they can relate it to apples, to money, to distances, to mass, to temperature etc, at once. If you use special names for the variables most students assumes that the equation only works for those variables and either memorises it or tries hard to understand what makes those input kinds special. Edit: > Physics is of course the easy go to. If you use physics then your class is no longer a math class but a physics class. It takes years for students to build intuition for even basic physics. > Not sure what you mean by ridiculous views on physics, clarify? Before newton people didn't understand rate of change or movement properly, instead they came up with shit explanations like this: > Based on Aristotelian physics, Scholastic physics described things as moving according to their essential nature. Celestial objects were described as moving in circles, because perfect circular motion was considered an innate property of objects that existed in the uncorrupted realm of the celestial spheres. The theory of impetus, the ancestor to the concepts of inertia and momentum, was developed along similar lines by medieval philosophers such as John Philoponus and Jean Buridan. Motions below the lunar sphere were seen as imperfect, and thus could not be expected to exhibit consistent motion. More idealized motion in the "sublunary" realm could only be achieved through artifice, and prior to the 17th century, many did not view artificial experiments as a valid means of learning about the natural world. Physical explanations in the sublunary realm revolved around tendencies. Stones contained the element earth, and earthly objects tended to move in a straight line toward the centre of the earth (and the universe in the Aristotelian geocentric view) unless otherwise prevented from doing so.[25] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_physics#Medieval_Europe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_physics#Medieval_Eu... That was what the best of humanity could come up with over 2 millennia. You can't expect an average modern high schooler to do better than that without first being taught physics.
watwut 5y ago
> There are plenty of more culturally widely understood domains we could use, rather than economics. Physics is of course the easy go to. Kids dont know basic physics naturally. They need to learn that and it takes quite a lot of effort. Using physics examples kids who struggle with C = 40*B is not making it simple. It is complicating whole thing by making claims the kids don't believe yet.