Robert Hansen (RH) posted Jul 5, 2014 8:36 PM (http://mathforum.org/kb/message.jspa?messageID=9511716) - GSC's remarks interspersed: > > On Jul 5, 2014, at 2:03 AM, GS Chandy > <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: > > > (GSC):In real life; in the real world where most of us > > live, the learning and understanding of music or math > > or anything else are all hugely more complex than RH > > H makes them out to be, and we (humans; science) know > > rather little about any kind of learning that we > > humans do. > > (RH): This might help. Teaching everyone to be a > musician or a mathematician isn?t complex, it is impossible. ('A', from Robert Hansen) > It would help even more if you'd refrain from falsely suggesting that 'A', above - which has been put up by RH - represents any idea that GSC has ever put forward.
'A' is a pure Robert Hansen invention - it's not anything ever suggested by GSC!!
Thus, the following appears to be the 'tried and tested Robert Hansen style/strategy of argument':
1. Make a claim (such as 'A', above) that only RH has thought up.
2. Suggest or allege that it is GSC who has thus argued! > > (RH): Teaching students with inherent interest in these > subjects isn?t complex it is easy, once you > understand how the process works. > Did you ever see GSC arguing against the above approach? In fact, the whole approach I have been promoting from Day 1 is founded EXACTLY on 'enabling learners' to do what comes naturally to them. It's remarkable that you have as yet not understood this.
Further, I observe that this claim that you are now making appears, to me, to be at least partly in conflict with the famous 'Robert Hansen philosophy of math education':
"Children must be PUSHED (or GOADED) to learn math!" > > (RH): What is complex is the source of freewill and > inherent interest. > As is the case all too often with RH's arguments, the very instant he seeks to 'go deeper', he becomes meaningless.. > > (RH): I have pointed out many times here > that teaching is not and can not be about deciding > what someone?s inherent interest is, and I have > provided tons of evidence and analysis why. All you > have provided is that this is your goal because you > think the world would be a better place if everyone > or almost everyone had an inherent interest in math. > As is too often the case with RH's arguments, the above is not from any suggestion that GSC had ever made. As noted earlier: it is something invented out of whole cloth by RH. For needed emphasis, I repeat the famous RH 'style of argument':
1. Make a statement, say 'A', that GSC has never supported.
2. Allege that it is GSC who has thus argued!
(The above is not a rare occurrence at all. It has been demonstrated in a large number of instances, across diverse circumstances).
I observe that Joe Niederberger has remarked on this 'style of argument' that is all too often employed by RH.
QUESTION to RH: Does it provide you some profound sense of satisfaction to argue thus falsely?
(Joe N. had asked a question: "Do you have a 'condition'?") > > (RH): I think the world would be a better place if > everyone > just developed what they are inherently interested > in. The latter is doable and many countries do just > that. > Indeed. I also believe that the world would be a MUCH better place if people would refrain from putting up false suggestions and statements when we enter into discussions of any kind on issues complex or simple.
If you'd ever do yourself the favour of finding out what the 'One Page Management System' (OPMS) actually does, you *may* be able to understand (no guarantees!) that this is just about what is accomplished through the OPMS approach - except this is rarely, if EVER, accomplished through the 'conventional (and traditional) means'. Despite your above claim, most countries have in fact NOT used any such commonsense means to set up and work their systems, from education to governance.
All too often (as seen right here at Math-teach), the 'conventional means' of doing things 'societally' involves just empty 'sloganeering'. > > (RH): The former is not doable nor is it even > ethical. > Indeed.
I suggest you should give some serious consideration - if such is at all possible for you to accomplish - to the ethics of your above-noted 'style of argument'.
GSC ("Still Shoveling! Not PUSHING!! Not GOADING!!!")