Gary Tupper posted Jun 17, 2014 12:16 AM (http://mathforum.org/kb/message.jspa?messageID=9488113): > > A strange discussion insofar as it's between > math-friendly folk about math-phobics. Perhaps a > surfeit of analysis trumps direct experience? > I can imagine some gay fellows around a bar table > positing theories on what it is about men that > straights don't find attractive... > > Gary Tupper > > Offence can only be taken, never given. > Very true. And most insightful indeed. (Not to mention the 'mind-expanding' analogy!)
We might think of going a bit further:
Some of the math-friendly folk claim that most people have some 'math-sense' - at least enough easily to understand school math (which seems to be a basic need in the modern world). [By 'Math-friendly folk' I mean those NOT afflicted by fear and loathing of math]
Call this group 'A'. Most of the 'math failures' at school level (claims group 'A') should be attributed to a failure of the 'traditional educational system' that is little realised by the powers-that-be of the 'system'.
Some others of the math-friendly folk claim that there is no such thing as a 'math-sense', the world is divided into people that understand math and people who don't (and cannot ever) understand math. Further, they claim that the only thing to be done with those who don't understand school math as it is traditionally being taught should be sent straight to the 'coal mines' - or the modern equivalent, the 'vocational schools'.
Call this group 'B'.
At least one member of group 'A', specifically GSC, claims that it is no great hassle at all to rectify the 'traditional system of teaching math', and, in particular, that it is relatively easy (and very inexpensive indeed), to do the necessary rectifications. He states that it requires some little 'learning', along with a fair bit of 'unlearning', to do the needed rectifications. He specifically points to a tool called the 'One Page Management System' (OPMS) [which he has invented, based on contributions to systems science from the late John N. Warfield] as a simple instrument that can help significantly with needed 'rectifications' (of the educational system (as well as of other systems, as found appropriate and necessary).
One member of group 'B', Robert Hansen (RH) to be specific, wants GSC to divulge various information that GSC believes is confidential. RH therefore claims that GSC is a phoney and that he, RH, is taking up a 'Mission' to expose GSC as a fraud, as he has already exposed (he claims) others like Dan Meyer (1), Richard Strausz (2) and doubtless others.
I believe that (1) and (2) may in general belong to group 'A', though I've not specifically asked them about their position on this issue.
That's about "where it's at", at the moment , I think. Perhaps Robert Hansen might like to clarify if I'm in error in some respect?
(There is yet another group, call it 'C', those who fervently believe that 'blacks', and 'browns' - the 'Bl's and the 'Br's [and probably the 'reds' as well] - are so inferior in what members of 'C' have termed as 'IQ' (which to them represents human intelligence) that all of the 'Bl's, 'Br's and 'Reds' should be sent off to Africa (or perhaps to the moon so that Africa, India, etc may presumbly be taken over by the 'whites'). Unstated is the following proposition: Some fortunate few of those 'inferiors' may be allowed to live in the 'civilised world' with the 'whites' - as slaves of the 'whites'.
(A new entrant to the group of those deserving the description, 'civilised humans' are the 'yellows', for short the "Ye's". I observe that, till just a few years ago, even the "Ye's" were not felt fit to be counted as 'civilised humans'. There are some complex societal reasons for this new-found acceptance of the "Ye's" as constituting 'civilised human beings'. I suspect it has something to do with the emergence of China as a real world power. [The earlier emergence of Japan as an economic power did not have quite the impact that China's emergence has had].
(As a member of the 'Br's, I suggest that this group 'C' may generally be entirely ignored if possible [though I do have to confess that I've not been highly successful in doing what I strongly recommend: this is not hypocrisy on my part, it's just my human weakness]. Anyway, in regard to those "C's", my thought is that perhaps they may usefully be kept around for the laughs they may provide to those of us who appreciate such 'grey humour' as they may elicit in some of us).
I don't know if you'd regard the above as a "surfeit of analysis" - however I do believe this much may be appropriate to enable us to arrive at an effective 'synthesis' that could, perhaps, one day lead to us designing effective societal systems to handle the many issues identified by the 'analysis'.
It is true, of course, that we (i.e, humans, in general) have little or no idea of how to perform a 'synthesis of ideas' in relation to a societal system, but no doubt such skills will develop in due course. Many of us once upon a time didn't know how to do our 'reading and 'riting, and for quite a while only a few of us knew how to do our 'rithmetic. Now, the "Three R's" have become pretty widely recognised as basic needs in the modern world [not by that earlier-noted group 'B', of course]. No doubt, the need for 'synthesis' on societal issues will one day soon be recognised as a need in modern society.