Traps set by the machine

[Verbal Mike]

000, I was referring to the system's obsession with nomenclature, not with the actual math that gets taught. Here's part of what Lockhart says about it:

In place of a natural problem context in which students can make decisions about what they
want their words to mean, and what notions they wish to codify, they are instead subjected to an
endless sequence of unmotivated and a priori "definitions." The curriculum is obsessed with
jargon and nomenclature, seemingly for no other purpose than to provide teachers with
something to test the students on. No mathematician in the world would bother making these
senseless distinctions: 2 1/2 is a "mixed number," while 5/2 is an "improper fraction." They're
equal for crying out loud. They are the same exact numbers, and have the same exact properties.
Who uses such words outside of fourth grade?

[LMNO]

I'll leave it to the mathematicians to explain why 2 1/2 is not the same as 5/2...

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

It is two ways of stating the same thing, though. It can logically be expressed either way.

[Requia ☣]

Not manipulated in the same way though.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Unless you first change it from one to the other. Then you can.

[Triple Zero]

Hrm...

See the Turing Machine.  A theoretical, impossible to build (or even approximate at the time) construct that was invented for the purpose of proving that some problems cannot be solved by logic.

That the concepts laid out became critical to computing and modern cryptography had nothing to do with Turing's original intent.

okay, but these events are rare, and they hardly ever apply to math taught in high schools, before people get to decide if they want to get into math -- because taking into account the context in which the turing machine (and especially the Halting problem) were discovered, it is not at all that useless.

000, I was referring to the system's obsession with nomenclature, not with the actual math that gets taught. Here's part of what Lockhart says about it:

In place of a natural problem context in which students can make decisions about what they
want their words to mean, and what notions they wish to codify, they are instead subjected to an
endless sequence of unmotivated and a priori “definitions.” The curriculum is obsessed with
jargon and nomenclature, seemingly for no other purpose than to provide teachers with
something to test the students on. No mathematician in the world would bother making these
senseless distinctions: 2 1/2 is a “mixed number,” while 5/2 is an “improper fraction.” They’re
equal for crying out loud. They are the same exact numbers, and have the same exact properties.
Who uses such words outside of fourth grade?

this has nothing to do with math. as you say, it's just a manner of nomenclature.

please explain me why this "obsession" is wrong. for any topic worth working with and thinking about, it is tremendously useful to have some definitions to wrap more complex ideas into a simpler terms (symbol).

[Requia ☣]

By the time you get to the high school level, almost all the math taught was made for the sake of math with practical applications coming later (Calculus depends on if you believe Newton really had already developed it, or at least started it, before he started working on gravity.  Even then, somebody else had developed it without practical application in time to publish concurrently).  The only real exception to this I know of in math is 4 operation math (addition/subtraction/multiplication/division.

Even the 0 was an esoteric concept before it was practical.

[Golden Applesauce]

The difference between 2 1/2 and 5/2 is that 2 1/2 looks like 21/2 if your handwriting is bad, and 2 1/2 is the easiest to look at and go, Oh, that number is halfway between 2 and 3.

[Golden Applesauce]

please explain me why this "obsession" is wrong. for any topic worth working with and thinking about, it is tremendously useful to have some definitions to wrap more complex ideas into a simpler terms (symbol).

It's wrong because it teaches kids math in a fragmented way.  They learn how to manipulate numbers, then how to manipulate fractions, then mixed numbers, then irregular fractions, then integers, then rational numbers, etc.  It's not the progression from less complicated to more complicated that's the problem.

The problem comes in when a student looks at problem and only knows how to handle it if it's a normal number but not a fraction - they have to be retaught that all the basic algebra rules still work if a fraction is involved.  The don't see math as a single consistent system but as a whole bunch of little arbitrary constructs, and when a little piece changes that are totally lost.

[OneSeventeen]

Okay. So. It seems to me that this argument is about the wrong thing. Maybe its just me.

I have a linguistics degree. I program computers for a living. The most important thing I learned in school? How to learn!

Really, I think it's sort of immaterial WHAT you teach people in school. It's nice if it's something interesting (they'll want to work at it more) or useful later (useful things are always, you know, useful), but they key is not learning (read: memorizing) some equation, but knowing that, if you don't know about a topic, there are ways to find out and if you don't want to look it up every time you need that piece of information, ways to help yourself remember.

I didn't realize that this was the point of education until I'd gotten my degree already, but either I had a happy accident and learned it anyway, the system worked, or I figured it out on some kind of instinctual level (or, I suppose, some confluence of more than one of those).

Here's the wonderful paradox: Schools should teach you how to learn (and, thus, how to think... implied "for yourself"?)... but that's actually BAD for The Machine, right? Thinking cogs are bad, right?

I think The Machine benefits from overtesting because people learn that leaning is hard, and school sucks and thinking is rough work and, man... flipping burgers is easy. If you can be socially engineered into having negative associations with using your frickin' brain, you are going to be easier to tell what to do ("Trust us. We know better..."). So maybe this is why national governments have become so over-emphatic about testing and regulation? They're benefiting from ruining their own educational systems?

I mean--people who don't get conditioned by the education system being jacked up were probably not going to need all that hand holding anyway, so there's no loss if you teach them how to think, you can always catch them with, say, the money trap or the need-to-be-accepted trap (which is nasty, since it's biological, to some extent) or any of the other ones laid out.


117

[Verbal Mike]

This is the correct motorcycle, 117. (Golden Applesauce too, btw)

I just honestly don't think learning is something that can taught by coercion. My learning skills improved much more quickly in the four years at the Sudbury school, where my learning was my responsibility (as compared to the eight years I spent in more traditional schools).
Schools that try to teach learning will generally fail to do so (en masse) because learning is something you are born with and can only improve when you care to improve it. By turning learning into a chore, schools make it more difficult to learn because they make it less desirable.
And as you said, 117, this is very good for authoritarianism because it encourages people to turn on their ears and shut off their brains.

[AFK]

I just honestly don't think learning is something that can taught by coercion.

Coercion?  Srsly?  I don't ever remember being "coerced" when I was in the public school system.  I call total and utter BS on this notion. 

My learning skills improved much more quickly in the four years at the Sudbury school, where my learning was my responsibility (as compared to the eight years I spent in more traditional schools).

Perhaps this had more to do with you than the school system.  Perhaps the Sudburry school system was better for you, but that is one example, and cannot be generalised to the whole.  But I think you know that. 

Schools that try to teach learning will generally fail to do so (en masse) because learning is something you are born with and can only improve when you care to improve it. By turning learning into a chore, schools make it more difficult to learn because they make it less desirable.

Wait, so if learning can only improve when the individual cares to improve it how can you then pin their failure to learn on the public school system?  If what you posit is true (and I'm not saying it is) then isn't what the public school system does become a moot point, because the individual has already put up the barrier to learning.  So which is it, the individual or the school?  You seem to be wavering back and forth on this point. 

It may be in some cases that the public school system does become a tool of The Machine, but that is different then saying the public school system, is inherently a tool of The Machine.  I believe whether or not it does become a tool will be based upon the individual community or society.  I've lived and worked in communities that have wonderful public school systems.  They have developed innovative approaches to education that engage the students.  ONe in particular, has worked in a community service program that encourages the students to get out in the community, to become a part of it.  This is a very anti-Machine thing to do if you ask me.  I've worked in another school where they have a program that has the kids dealing with civics and working with the local government on local policies.  So I will continue to call BS on this generalized premise because I have witnessed ample first hand evidence that is quite contrary to it. 

[Verbal Mike]

Coercion?  Srsly?  I don't ever remember being "coerced" when I was in the public school system.  I call total and utter BS on this notion.

Well I clearly remember being coerced. I remember many mornings in elementary school where I was crying outside the school gate, begging my mom to let me go back home with her. I really didn't like going there.
Of course my sister, who loved school, wasn't overtly coerced to go there. There was no need.
Now, of course my parents could have let me stay home. But this would have been technically illegal in Israel (not that they were likely to be prosecuted or anything) and highly inconvenient for them.
And then at school, when I often wanted to just read a book I was told to shut the book and listen up. I was given no choice about it.
I could give less obvious examples of coercion but I think this illustrates my point. Your milage may vary, of course.

Wait, so if learning can only improve when the individual cares to improve it how can you then pin their failure to learn on the public school system?  If what you posit is true (and I'm not saying it is) then isn't what the public school system does become a moot point, because the individual has already put up the barrier to learning.  So which is it, the individual or the school?  You seem to be wavering back and forth on this point.

No, like I said, by making learning into a chore, schools actually manage to impede a great deal of learning. Of course some people remain resilient, but the general trend seems to be that making people learn things when they're interested in other things altogether, causes them to lose interest in learning and dumb themselves down. Some environments are different to others, of course, but this seems to me the general trend in education.

It may be in some cases that the public school system does become a tool of The Machine, but that is different then saying the public school system, is inherently a tool of The Machine.  I believe whether or not it does become a tool will be based upon the individual community or society.  I've lived and worked in communities that have wonderful public school systems.  They have developed innovative approaches to education that engage the students.  ONe in particular, has worked in a community service program that encourages the students to get out in the community, to become a part of it.  This is a very anti-Machine thing to do if you ask me.  I've worked in another school where they have a program that has the kids dealing with civics and working with the local government on local policies.  So I will continue to call BS on this generalized premise because I have witnessed ample first hand evidence that is quite contrary to it. 

You're right in a sense. But even the most innovative traditional schools still strongly rely on authoritarian top-down learning, where the teacher (or whatever authority figures are provided) is in authority and is not to be questioned. Even schools where teachers challenge their students to challenge their authority do not escape this trap -- they still rely on the teacher's authority to motivate the students to question said authority. You know what I mean? The teacher-student relationship is inherently a tool of the Machine, in that it discourages independence and encourages obedience. The only way to escape this situation is by dissolving that authoritarian relationship, as far as I can see.

[AFK]

Coercion?  Srsly?  I don't ever remember being "coerced" when I was in the public school system.  I call total and utter BS on this notion.

Well I clearly remember being coerced. I remember many mornings in elementary school where I was crying outside the school gate, begging my mom to let me go back home with her. I really didn't like going there.
Of course my sister, who loved school, wasn't overtly coerced to go there. There was no need.
Now, of course my parents could have let me stay home. But this would have been technically illegal in Israel (not that they were likely to be prosecuted or anything) and highly inconvenient for them.
And then at school, when I often wanted to just read a book I was told to shut the book and listen up. I was given no choice about it.
I could give less obvious examples of coercion but I think this illustrates my point. Your milage may vary, of course.

Yeah, it illustrates the point that it isn't the system, it's the kid.  Your sister wanted to go to school, you didn't.  That isn't the system, it's the kid.  And not reading a book while the teacher is teaching is called courtesy for the instructor, it isn't coercion.  Of course you don't have to pay that respect to the teacher, but I'm certain they'd be quite appreciative if you did. 

No, like I said, by making learning into a chore, schools actually manage to impede a great deal of learning. Of course some people remain resilient, but the general trend seems to be that making people learn things when they're interested in other things altogether, causes them to lose interest in learning and dumb themselves down. Some environments are different to others, of course, but this seems to me the general trend in education.

Yeah, some kids are going to look at it like a chore, and others won't.  I liked learning, so I never viewed it as a chore.  Other kids would rather be outside throwing rocks at cars or fishing.  That's what kids are like.  It isn't the fault of the education system, it's the way kids are.  Many schools have one-on-one mentors or tutors that will try to work with the kids who want nothing to do with learning.  But it's like the saying goes, you can lead a horse to water, etc., etc.,  It is the goal of the education to teach the kids who want to learn.  They can't be held responsible for the stubborn and unwilling.  So if there is a trend, perhaps it is starting at home with parents, perhaps it's that kids are being cared for by television and video games while Mom is working the second job at Denny's so they can pay the mortgage.  Perhaps it is this societal deterioration that is creating kids who don't give a fuck about anything, and then what, you expect the education system to become Dr. Phil and fix them?  I think there are problems, but I think you have fingered the wrong criminal. 

You're right in a sense. But even the most innovative traditional schools still strongly rely on authoritarian top-down learning, where the teacher (or whatever authority figures are provided) is in authority and is not to be questioned. Even schools where teachers challenge their students to challenge their authority do not escape this trap -- they still rely on the teacher's authority to motivate the students to question said authority. You know what I mean? The teacher-student relationship is inherently a tool of the Machine, in that it discourages independence and encourages obedience. The only way to escape this situation is by dissolving that authoritarian relationship, as far as I can see.

Oh sure, bedlam in the classroom will fix everything.  I hear they are going after the U.S. Secretary of Education.  Maybe you should apply for the job.   

[Cain]

Are we still talking about schools?