next »

[rodentmind]

Is this becoming a Bell Curve argument, i.e. Whites are smarter than everyone else but Asians, etc?

Interesting question. That might be the unanticipated logical extension of some of these statements.

[johnr]

I have a baby stroller that constantly veers to the left.

[jonesey]

I have a baby stroller that constantly veers to the left.

Must've bought it in Berkeley.

[polly_mer]

Well, I'm coming back to this argument late, but I do want to chime in on the "area" debate.

One thing that I didn't see mentioned by Sciencephd and DvF is that the term "area" in a mathematical sense has a specific meaning.  In the bedroom with a closet example, it would mean the amount of carpet necessary to cover the floor.  If the closet is always the same size, the needed amount of carpet will always be the same, regardless of where the closet is placed.  There is only one correct answer in a mathematical sense.

Sockgumbee is correct that the way the space is used is substantially different whether the closet is in the middle of the bedroom or in the corner.  However, that's a different question.  While that's an important idea to discuss under many circumstances, it's completely irrelevant in math class.

Yes, Sockgumbee, many things in schools are not intuitive or in accord with a natural pattern of thinking.  I also had the experience of being taught how to think in the way that is required to pass the standardized tests.  The standardized test  I took in kindergarten (a culturally biased thing that bears no resemblance to the culture in which I was raised) claimed that I was severely mentally retarded and should be placed in special ed.  My mother protested with the evidence "But she can already read!".  Consequently, I was placed in regular kindergarten and was taught "how normal people view the world".

Science means one particular way of thinking.  If one wants to accomplish technological feats, science is a proven method.  That doesn't imply that other ways  of thinking are not valuable (philosophy and religion address other topics), but it does mean that to call oneself a scientist and have other scientists agree requires thinking in a specific way.


While I'm thinking about it, to my dismay, I saw the term Anglo used on this thread.  The term Anglo is (1) derogatory and (2) not applicable to all Caucasian persons, only those of a particular ancestry.  Yes, I know that some big newspapers use it.  That doesn't make it less derogatory; it just means that some people have yet to be properly educated.

[daniel_von_flanagan]

The term Anglo is (1) derogatory and (2) not applicable to all Caucasian persons, only those of a particular ancestry.

For that matter, not all of us who are pigment-challenged have ancestry from the Caucusus. - DvF

[larryc]

The term Anglo is (1) derogatory

Huh? How so?

[polly_mer]

The term Anglo is (1) derogatory

Huh? How so?

At least around here, Anglo is not a complementary term and I had never heard it used before I came here.  When I first moved here, I picked up the term and used it to describe myself.  An older lady took me aside and explained the connotation.  Anglo-Saxon may be ok, but the general usage of Anglo is not polite.

The term Anglo is (1) derogatory and (2) not applicable to all Caucasian persons, only those of a particular ancestry.

For that matter, not all of us who are pigment-challenged have ancestry from the Caucusus. - DvF

True, but, although I am very pale, I am not White, either.

[larryc]

I have never seen nor heard "Anglo" used as an epithet. One of us is anomalous.

[polly_mer]

I have never seen nor heard "Anglo" used as an epithet. One of us is anomalous.

Do we live in the same part of the country?  I gather from your posts that we do not.

The local big city paper does use the term Anglo interchangeably with Caucasian, so clearly they do not think it is a pejorative term.  However, when I have heard it used in conversations by a certain subset of the general population, Anglo clearly means something more like "damn Whitey".  On the other hand, I also travel in circles in which being called a liberal is shorthand for a string of bad names while I gather that in some places it is a neutral, if not actually a positive term.

[sockgumbee]

Back to area

While I appreciate Polly Mer's discussion about different ways to think, I'm not sure that saying that scientists think in a particular way that others do not bear out. For example, an artist who does representational art has to see what they see as abstractions--shapes and colors and textures divorced from what the object are to accurately render them. The IQ question is asking the test taker to do the same thing.

And sorry, Polly Mer, the carpet example is not a good one because it may take more carpet to carpet the room if the closet is in the middle of the room because the section will probably have to be cut out and be wasted. And even if the area is the same, you have to pay for the carpet you waste. This would be less likely if the closet is on the edge of the room. That's one way it works out in the real world.

BTW, Polly Mer, sorry you got grief for thinking the way you did as a child/do. Such a crime.

DvF
Here's one Indian who has a PhD in a science discipline who has done work in making STEM accessible for folks in general, minority students and Indian in particular: Eric Jolly, (Cherokee) head of the Science Museum of Minnesota. Jolly is highly respected and a accomplished basket weaver to boot. Carrie Billy the head of the American Indian Higher Educational Consortium has done work in this are also but she only has a JD. I know there are more Indian with PhD working in this are but I'm not sure their discipline. I will say that your question implies a stereotype that Indians who go into science fields, particularly at the PhD level, leave all that wacky traditional thinking behind. I think you'd be surprised at how many Indians with doctorates are able to do rigorous work and still think traditionally. Weird huh?

I know there are other questions I should address but I am tired. And no, DvF teaching in a STEM field for so many years, even if you've taught minority students is not the same as finding out if there are particular ways you can reach minority students. You know that, even if you, in general are a good teacher.

[concordancia]

 And no, DvF teaching in a STEM field for so many years, even if you've taught minority students is not the same as finding out if there are particular ways you can reach minority students. You know that, even if you, in general are a good teacher.

Research is helpful, but there are some people whose way of thinking facilitates their teaching. If DvF has been successfully teaching these students for many years, he has probably intuited a way to reach them. While I constantly keep up on the literature for teaching my subject, I find that much of it validates what I am already doing. I just have a knack (I actually have a teaching philosophy style essay from before I even knew what the word pedagogy was that demonstrates this quite nicely) that unfortunately doesn't help much with figuring out how to get the attention of pop-up students.

[ablewasi]

Back to area

And sorry, Polly Mer, the carpet example is not a good one because it may take more carpet to carpet the room if the closet is in the middle of the room because the section will probably have to be cut out and be wasted. And even if the area is the same, you have to pay for the carpet you waste. This would be less likely if the closet is on the edge of the room. That's one way it works out in the real world.

Not at all.  You've never actually laid carpet, have you?


!a

[polly_mer]

Back to area

While I appreciate Polly Mer's discussion about different ways to think, I'm not sure that saying that scientists think in a particular way that others do not bear out. For example, an artist who does representational art has to see what they see as abstractions--shapes and colors and textures divorced from what the object are to accurately render them. The IQ question is asking the test taker to do the same thing.

And sorry, Polly Mer, the carpet example is not a good one because it may take more carpet to carpet the room if the closet is in the middle of the room because the section will probably have to be cut out and be wasted. And even if the area is the same, you have to pay for the carpet you waste. This would be less likely if the closet is on the edge of the room. That's one way it works out in the real world.

Well, Sockgumbee, I think we are still not quite on the same page regarding area.  It is true that the IQ question is probing for one particular answer and there are other answers that are still reasonable and deduced in a logical manner.  Your example of the fact that carpet may be wasted and yet still need to be considered for a real life situation is valid, but again not in a strictly mathematical sense of area.  Think of very small carpet squares used to tile the room.  There is no wastage.

That's one of the big problems with many IQ tests.  They are not testing innate ability, but rather whether one has the education or luck to think in the way to produce what has been deemed the right answer.  Can most people manage to arrange a room and get it carpeted with little wastage?  Sure, and it doesn't take a mathematician to do it.

DvF,
[...]
I will say that your question implies a stereotype that Indians who go into science fields, particularly at the PhD level, leave all that wacky traditional thinking behind. I think you'd be surprised at how many Indians with doctorates are able to do rigorous work and still think traditionally. Weird huh?

I don't find the idea that a person can switch between various modes of thinking weird at all.  I actually think it's a strength to be able to say "What type of problem is this?  What does the engineer in me say?  What does the kid in me say?  What does the moralist in me say?"

I know people who have devout beliefs about various deities and yet are still rigorous scientists.  Somehow they make it work.

[sciencephd]

Area is an abstract concept.  The question posed about area sereral pages ago has a definite, simple answer, which I have articulated repeatedly, that the areas are equal.  The carpet, room, and all other points are incidental, and learning to see through these red herrings is part of learning how to solve mathematical "word problems".

If you teach your students to equivocate in this way, it may make them good at pointlessly questioning authority, and maintaining their traditional way of thinking in opposition to a professor teaching a class, but it will not point them in a direction of academic success. 

If you want to call that "indoctrination" or white priveleged academic speak, fine.

[polly_mer]

Area is an abstract concept.  The question posed about area sereral pages ago has a definite, simple answer, which I have articulated repeatedly, that the areas are equal.  The carpet, room, and all other points are incidental, and learning to see through these red herrings is part of learning how to solve mathematical "word problems".

Yes.

If you teach your students to equivocate in this way, it may make them good at pointlessly questioning authority, and maintaining their traditional way of thinking in opposition to a professor teaching a class, but it will not point them in a direction of academic success. 

Half yes.  To be academically successful, one does need to learn to think and really accept certain methods.  Consequently, the attitude of "I'll mouth the necessary words to pass, but I still know that my way is the right way" will not fly.  For a math problem, the extraneous detail needs to be stripped away. 

This necessary acceptance does not mean that one must give up all other ways of thinking in all circumstances.  I am certain that Sciencephd did not mean to imply that it did.  Switching between different modes of thinking so as to use an appropriate method for various situations is great.  Vehemently claiming that a discipline change its methods to suit your current preferred mode of thinking isn't going to be successful.

The mathematical definition of area is already fixed.  Clarifying questions are fine (e.g., what about an irregular shape?) but trying to make an area discussion in a math class be about the abstractions of space utilization will not work.