3 ms·

In the last couple of months, two readings stay with me on challenging the notion that math/science are things that only “certain kinds of men” do (more a gende

In the last couple of months, two readings stay with me on challenging the notion that math/science are things that only “certain kinds of men” do (more a gendered stance in the u.s. than eastern europe / asia). The first is The Dawn of Everything, by David Graeber. I’m left with the notion that what we now call science and mathematics emerged from tinkering, persistent experimentation done mostly by women, and that what we have now disciplined into mathematics emerges from the systematic study and production of pattern (basket making, the organization of communal structures), and Graeber seems to argue against the hierarchical gender divides when viewed across the broad stretch of human history. Rachel Thomas https://www.fast.ai/2022/03/15/math-person/ https://www.fast.ai/2022/03/15/math-person/ also makes a case that math is something that all people do. I think that the larger point both are making is that disciplines don’t have to be the way they are constructed now. My only “political”’statement would be the hope that states (particularly the u.s.) would invest as deeply in mathematics education at the primary and secondary level, for all of its communities, at the level of investment in big science and big military projects.

hintymad 4y ago
I also believe that maths and STEM is something that all people do. Well, maybe not all, but at least not just a few geniuses. For that matter, I believe the progressives prescribed the wrong solution. The ordinary people, those who are are not the top X% in schools, need the push from their teachers, need the challenges in course work to push themselves to truly learn, and need a certain repetitiveness to truly grasp the fundamental concepts and skills. How do I know that? I was one of such students. I made it because my teachers pushed me. They used carefully designed homework to show me that I didn't really have the deep understanding of math as I thought. They used homework to show me that my understanding of Newton physics was inadequate. They used midterms to show me that I didn't really intuitively grasp algorithm analysis (I didn't know how to rigorously and succinctly argue that two pivots and one pivot are really the same in quicksort). I grew to enjoy STEM and CS precisely because I was lucky to have tough yet encouraging schools. Dumbing down courses would have taken away the push I needed, and I would likely have a lot more failures in my life.

hintymad 4y ago

I also believe that maths and STEM is something that all people do. Well, maybe not all, but at least not just a few geniuses. For that matter, I believe the progressives prescribed the wrong solution. The ordinary people, those who are are not the top X% in schools, need the push from their teachers, need the challenges in course work to push themselves to truly learn, and need a certain repetitiveness to truly grasp the fundamental concepts and skills. How do I know that? I was one of such students. I made it because my teachers pushed me. They used carefully designed homework to show me that I didn't really have the deep understanding of math as I thought. They used homework to show me that my understanding of Newton physics was inadequate. They used midterms to show me that I didn't really intuitively grasp algorithm analysis (I didn't know how to rigorously and succinctly argue that two pivots and one pivot are really the same in quicksort). I grew to enjoy STEM and CS precisely because I was lucky to have tough yet encouraging schools. Dumbing down courses would have taken away the push I needed, and I would likely have a lot more failures in my life.