Which one is more fun?
Jan. 31st, 2023 12:15 pmDecades ago I went to a conference in Albuquerque that was held on Thursday, Friday, and Saturday. So I took the whole week off, flew in early, rented a car, and drove all around northwestern New Mexico, checking out the sites.
There was one place, advertised on many billboards (that should have been a sign, I mean a figurative sign), that sounded really interesting. It was called volcano and ice cave or something. Eh, it was mildly interesting. The volcano looked like a human-sized ant mound. The ice cave was a cave with a frozen pond in it.
Then there was another place I was going to stop at only because it was on my route, even though it sounded kind of boring: El Morro, a rock famous for its graffiti. But it was pretty cool. The land around the rock kept eroding, so the vertical dimension is like a timeline. The eye-level graffiti is kind of boring, but above that is a signature from one of the guys from the Army's camel experiment portrayed in the movie "Hawmps!" that my mom liked. Above that is fancy Spanish script from the 1600s. And above that are petroglyphs.
So it's hard to know ahead of time which things are going to be the most fun.
I just had a similar experience while decluttering books. I had thought re-reading Edgar Allen Poe's "Eight Tales of Terror" would be fun and bring me back to my early grad school years when, in certain situations, it was exciting for my friends to find excuses to use the word "putrescence" or the phrase "yellow ichor." Well, those words were not in this particular collection. And in fact, getting into the sixth story, I found myself thinking, "wow, what a drama queen!" I did used to like swimming in the creepiness. And I do like that he can do terror without gore. But this book is not my thing so I will not be keeping it.
I also pulled out a paperback called "The Mathematician's Delight" from 1943. Clearly I found this as a used book back when I thought I was going to be a math teacher some day. No longer relevant. But I opened it and started reading it anyway, just to make sure. And now I'm writing a book review of it!
This is the second book I have from the 1940s where they actually know how to teach. He talked about how many people hate and fear math, and mostly that's due to bad teaching. He opposes "parrot learning," comparing it to teaching a deaf person to play the piano. Maybe they can learn, but they'll get no fun out of it at all.
He said there were "imitation courses" in all kinds of subjects, not just math (where people may be taught to memorize formulas without understanding them). 'One can learn imitation history--kings and dates, but not the slightest idea of the motives behind it all; imitation literature--stacks of notes on Shakespeare's phrases, and a complete destruction of the power to enjoy Shakespeare.' Sounds all-too-familiar! The poor guy actually thought we would get better at teaching.
I kept the book mostly for his ideas on how people should go about learning in general. One strategy he recommends is having specific goals for your learning. "Two students of law once provided a good illustration: one learnt by heart long lists of clauses; the other imagined himself to be a farmer, with wife and children, and he related everything to this farm. If he had to draw up a will, he would say, 'I must not forget to provide for Minnie's education, and something will have to be arranged about that mortgage.' One moved in a world of half-meaningless words; the other lived in the world of real things.'
Even better: 'If you want to remember a subject and enjoy it, you must somehow find a way of linking it up with something in which you are really interested. It is very unlikely that you will find much entertainment in text-books. If you read only the text-books, you will find the subject dull. Text-books are written for people who already possess a strong desire to study mathematics: they are not written to create such a desire. Do not begin by reading the subject: begin by reading round the subject--books about real life, which somehow bring in the subject, which show how the subject came to be needed.' He even thinks reading about the history of mathematics, including biographies of the discoverers, will give you good insights into what's going on.
Strangely, he admits that it's possible for calculus that you might have no interest in any of the topics for which calculus is helpful, in which case you shouldn't worry about learning it. (He does not admit any such thing for any other normal math topic, including logarithms and trigonometry, though.)
I remember deciding something similar about college courses versus high school courses--they no longer try to be interesting. But my conclusion was that you were supposed to be able to just be mature and suck it up! (Wrong answer! Thank you for playing!) Although I did start looking at the recommended reading at the ends of chapters, and now during my books-from-other-countries project, I will usually follow up with some online research of some aspect of the book that interested me.
Another strategy he recommends is just messing around with things, trying to see patterns yourself. And he gives lots of exercises to help you do this efficiently for math topics.
But first, "It is essential, if you are trying to overcome your dread of a subject, to realize what is your first objective. Your first job is not to learn any particular result. It is to get rid of fear. You must go back a certain way, and start with work which you are absolutely sure you can do. In learning a foreign language, for instance, it is helpful to get a book written in that language for children just learning to read. However badly you have been taught, you will amost certainly be able to read it. This is your first victory--you have read a book genuinely written for the use of someone speaking a foreign language.'
Okay, last time I checked, I couldn't actually read kids' books because of the imperative, etc. but I get his point. He continues that every time you come to something you don't understand, go back to the prerequisite skills.
I'm not going to say I learned a lot of math reading the book. I already knew most of it, and my eyes glazed at most of the parts I didn't know. He did get me with a math puzzle, though. Awesome!
Then, terrifyingly, he says there are some subjects 'on which everybody disagrees. These are the subjects which do not depend on evidence at all--what you like, what you think ought to be done, the kind of person you admire, the political party you vote for; these are things for which you yourself take responsibility, they show what sort of person you are. You may be ready to fight to secure the type of world you think best; indeed, you should be. But you do not change your basic ideas of what is desirable as the result of argument and evidence.'
No! I don't want politics to not be based on rationality! But research supports him in general. (It's about emotion; when people hear things that disprove their beliefs, they discount them somehow and even end up even more entrenched in their beliefs.) Which makes me even angrier when people politicize things, because it pulls those things into the land of emotion.
(I'm still processing that idea. I don't like it. It's definitely not true for me. Or at least not totally true. I've changed several of my political opinions after learning more fects. [For example I changed from pro-life to pro-choice and, in the other direction, I became pro-concealed-carry (in the US, anyway).])
Finally, I even enjoyed the mini-biography of author, W.W. Sawyer, on the back of the book. In college he specialized in quantum theory and relativity. Then he swerved into researching applications of math to industry and strategies for teaching math to "industrial students." Then he taught college math in the Gold Coast (now called Ghana) to help Africans in their quest "master modern knowledge and achieve self government." Several years before Ghana gained independence! Then he moved to New Zealand to help them reduce their shortage of math teachers by organizing student groups sort of like Dead Poets Societies but about math. And during all this, he managed to get a wife and a kid. And he looks like a total dork. (He's in a respectable suit and tie, with respectably short hair--that will not do what it's told.)
In other silliness, apparently children do not have gender. They are referred to as "it/its."
So it turns out I'll be keeping that book.
There was one place, advertised on many billboards (that should have been a sign, I mean a figurative sign), that sounded really interesting. It was called volcano and ice cave or something. Eh, it was mildly interesting. The volcano looked like a human-sized ant mound. The ice cave was a cave with a frozen pond in it.
Then there was another place I was going to stop at only because it was on my route, even though it sounded kind of boring: El Morro, a rock famous for its graffiti. But it was pretty cool. The land around the rock kept eroding, so the vertical dimension is like a timeline. The eye-level graffiti is kind of boring, but above that is a signature from one of the guys from the Army's camel experiment portrayed in the movie "Hawmps!" that my mom liked. Above that is fancy Spanish script from the 1600s. And above that are petroglyphs.
So it's hard to know ahead of time which things are going to be the most fun.
I just had a similar experience while decluttering books. I had thought re-reading Edgar Allen Poe's "Eight Tales of Terror" would be fun and bring me back to my early grad school years when, in certain situations, it was exciting for my friends to find excuses to use the word "putrescence" or the phrase "yellow ichor." Well, those words were not in this particular collection. And in fact, getting into the sixth story, I found myself thinking, "wow, what a drama queen!" I did used to like swimming in the creepiness. And I do like that he can do terror without gore. But this book is not my thing so I will not be keeping it.
I also pulled out a paperback called "The Mathematician's Delight" from 1943. Clearly I found this as a used book back when I thought I was going to be a math teacher some day. No longer relevant. But I opened it and started reading it anyway, just to make sure. And now I'm writing a book review of it!
This is the second book I have from the 1940s where they actually know how to teach. He talked about how many people hate and fear math, and mostly that's due to bad teaching. He opposes "parrot learning," comparing it to teaching a deaf person to play the piano. Maybe they can learn, but they'll get no fun out of it at all.
He said there were "imitation courses" in all kinds of subjects, not just math (where people may be taught to memorize formulas without understanding them). 'One can learn imitation history--kings and dates, but not the slightest idea of the motives behind it all; imitation literature--stacks of notes on Shakespeare's phrases, and a complete destruction of the power to enjoy Shakespeare.' Sounds all-too-familiar! The poor guy actually thought we would get better at teaching.
I kept the book mostly for his ideas on how people should go about learning in general. One strategy he recommends is having specific goals for your learning. "Two students of law once provided a good illustration: one learnt by heart long lists of clauses; the other imagined himself to be a farmer, with wife and children, and he related everything to this farm. If he had to draw up a will, he would say, 'I must not forget to provide for Minnie's education, and something will have to be arranged about that mortgage.' One moved in a world of half-meaningless words; the other lived in the world of real things.'
Even better: 'If you want to remember a subject and enjoy it, you must somehow find a way of linking it up with something in which you are really interested. It is very unlikely that you will find much entertainment in text-books. If you read only the text-books, you will find the subject dull. Text-books are written for people who already possess a strong desire to study mathematics: they are not written to create such a desire. Do not begin by reading the subject: begin by reading round the subject--books about real life, which somehow bring in the subject, which show how the subject came to be needed.' He even thinks reading about the history of mathematics, including biographies of the discoverers, will give you good insights into what's going on.
Strangely, he admits that it's possible for calculus that you might have no interest in any of the topics for which calculus is helpful, in which case you shouldn't worry about learning it. (He does not admit any such thing for any other normal math topic, including logarithms and trigonometry, though.)
I remember deciding something similar about college courses versus high school courses--they no longer try to be interesting. But my conclusion was that you were supposed to be able to just be mature and suck it up! (Wrong answer! Thank you for playing!) Although I did start looking at the recommended reading at the ends of chapters, and now during my books-from-other-countries project, I will usually follow up with some online research of some aspect of the book that interested me.
Another strategy he recommends is just messing around with things, trying to see patterns yourself. And he gives lots of exercises to help you do this efficiently for math topics.
But first, "It is essential, if you are trying to overcome your dread of a subject, to realize what is your first objective. Your first job is not to learn any particular result. It is to get rid of fear. You must go back a certain way, and start with work which you are absolutely sure you can do. In learning a foreign language, for instance, it is helpful to get a book written in that language for children just learning to read. However badly you have been taught, you will amost certainly be able to read it. This is your first victory--you have read a book genuinely written for the use of someone speaking a foreign language.'
Okay, last time I checked, I couldn't actually read kids' books because of the imperative, etc. but I get his point. He continues that every time you come to something you don't understand, go back to the prerequisite skills.
I'm not going to say I learned a lot of math reading the book. I already knew most of it, and my eyes glazed at most of the parts I didn't know. He did get me with a math puzzle, though. Awesome!
Then, terrifyingly, he says there are some subjects 'on which everybody disagrees. These are the subjects which do not depend on evidence at all--what you like, what you think ought to be done, the kind of person you admire, the political party you vote for; these are things for which you yourself take responsibility, they show what sort of person you are. You may be ready to fight to secure the type of world you think best; indeed, you should be. But you do not change your basic ideas of what is desirable as the result of argument and evidence.'
No! I don't want politics to not be based on rationality! But research supports him in general. (It's about emotion; when people hear things that disprove their beliefs, they discount them somehow and even end up even more entrenched in their beliefs.) Which makes me even angrier when people politicize things, because it pulls those things into the land of emotion.
(I'm still processing that idea. I don't like it. It's definitely not true for me. Or at least not totally true. I've changed several of my political opinions after learning more fects. [For example I changed from pro-life to pro-choice and, in the other direction, I became pro-concealed-carry (in the US, anyway).])
Finally, I even enjoyed the mini-biography of author, W.W. Sawyer, on the back of the book. In college he specialized in quantum theory and relativity. Then he swerved into researching applications of math to industry and strategies for teaching math to "industrial students." Then he taught college math in the Gold Coast (now called Ghana) to help Africans in their quest "master modern knowledge and achieve self government." Several years before Ghana gained independence! Then he moved to New Zealand to help them reduce their shortage of math teachers by organizing student groups sort of like Dead Poets Societies but about math. And during all this, he managed to get a wife and a kid. And he looks like a total dork. (He's in a respectable suit and tie, with respectably short hair--that will not do what it's told.)
In other silliness, apparently children do not have gender. They are referred to as "it/its."
So it turns out I'll be keeping that book.