On Sun, 18 Mar 2012 20:14:26 -0700 (PDT), Peter Brooks <email@example.com> wrote:
>On Mar 19, 4:57 am, Tonico <Tonic...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> >> You may say you didn't write "ought" but I think the intention of your >> words is pretty clear. >> >Thank you for confessing your error. You've not admitted to >misunderstanding, nor to reading in things that were not there, but, >at least you admit you were wrong in claiming that I said what >mathematicians ought to say. > >Try to think it through. What somebody expects from something like >this, is based on their prior experience, their knowledge of the >associated stereotypes and their knowledge of the person in question
Precisely. Which is exactly why I asked about your prior experience here, to clarify whether your "expectation" was based on anything other than a stereotype.
It's very curious that you haven't _anwered_ my question about your experience. Because what seems most likely is that you have essentially no relevant experience, in which case your expectations must be based solely on a stereotype - surely you don't want people to think _that_.
>and their knowledge of the subject itself. These various influences >can, indeed, lead to faulty expectations, but there's nothing wrong >with having expectations - and, when they're not met, investigating >which of these might have led to the expectation not being met.
It doesn't appear as though that's what you've been doing. Your expectations here were evidently erroneous. Nobody else sees any reason you should expect what you expected. People have offered explanations, but you've simply rejected them all, saying you'd expect this and you're surprised at that.
Which, given that you seem to have no theory regarding why your expectations were not fulfilled, seems like a very curious approach. It _could_ be that you're simply wrong about the reasons you'd expect this and expect that.
>None >of this has any implication, necessarily, for what anybody ought to >have done - not meeting expectations isn't a wickedness.