One thing I appreciate about this piece is that it points us to a profound question: what exactly do we think is causing wealth inequality? Concretely? We must be able to talk specifically about those causes if we hope to change them.
Poor quality math curricula didn't cause concentration of wealth. Improving them will not be sufficient to fix it. Imagining ourselves as having outsized power is tempting when conditions are bad, which means now is an especially important time to be scrupulous about what power is held by whom.
It is ironic that both of the authors you quote seem to making an unsubstantiated mathematical implication: that the power of math teachers is disproportionate compared to other groups. It's worth asking, as many of us do in our classrooms: "how do we know?" "How can we check?"
I support the impulse to "dig where we stand" -- to start with the power we have in our classrooms. It is not nothing, and we have responsibilities in how we use it. But we're going to have to work with a lot of other people, in a lot of other places, if we're serious about making big change. Implying that the math classroom is more powerful than any other place, or the only place with real power at all, might be intended to be motivational. But it's a motivation that artificially inflates our own importance, while devaluing the contributions of other groups. Both lead away from democracy, not towards it.
Casinos don't rely on patrons having incorrect or incomplete understandings of math. They build their profit into every aspect of the design, leaving enough to chance that *someone* can win, while making sure that it's never possible for *everyone* to win. They might *like* for you to believe that your math knowledge is the reason why you lose money, though. The less energy you have for strengthening cross-group relationships, inquiring critically into power structures, and building something new, the longer they make a profit.
I’m not familiar with who and what you’re interacting with Dan, but what this discussion inspires in me is the idea of what assumptions and conclusions are made by people writing comments on social media, or anywhere for that matter. I see faulty logic again and again. It seems like our whole education system would have plenty to do in this regard. It seems that a question that should be asked in every subject is what assumptions are your conclusions based on? Perhaps mathematics is where the structure of logic might be centered? Or perhaps every subject should establish its own structure of logic and continually have this reflective circle of discourse around assumptions and conclusions.
Does this make sense to you and apply in any way to the topic you addressed?
I think your implicit left wing bias shows in your recommended sources and your comments. Example: where you imply voter suppression in your commentary, I would see it as ensuring voter integrity. Both sides need to be respected as they are both elements that need to be balanced in the democratic Republic we call the US. You don't seem to do that. I have a lot of admiration for you Dan as a Mathematician, but please leave the politics out of math. Politics has ruined everything and if you continue on this road, you will ruin math as well.
Really beautifully written, Dan. Poetic. Unfortunately, your argument is problematic on two fronts.
First, my argument in “Dear Citizen Math” is that the way we’ve historically taught math is incomplete in that it overlooks math as a tool for exploring actual issues in society. The brokenness of democracy isn’t simply a justification for *why* we as math educators need to expand our understanding of what constitutes a complete math education. More, it’s evidence of the consequence of our having not.
Second, you claim that I find “common cause” with billionaires and that I don’t address the underlying issues. That’s false. In fact, the first chapter specifically addresses the role of cable news and social media in undermining American discourse. And there’s an entire chapter about the damage wrought by Facebook, Twitter, etc, and the dangers of personalization. (Page 107: “As we saw with cable news and social media, the personalization of facts may have broken our democracy. The personalization of school may ensure it’s never fixed.”)
I admire your passion, Dan. I love the way you write. On the first point, though, your argument is incomplete. And on the second, I fear that it’s dishonest.
One thing I appreciate about this piece is that it points us to a profound question: what exactly do we think is causing wealth inequality? Concretely? We must be able to talk specifically about those causes if we hope to change them.
Poor quality math curricula didn't cause concentration of wealth. Improving them will not be sufficient to fix it. Imagining ourselves as having outsized power is tempting when conditions are bad, which means now is an especially important time to be scrupulous about what power is held by whom.
It is ironic that both of the authors you quote seem to making an unsubstantiated mathematical implication: that the power of math teachers is disproportionate compared to other groups. It's worth asking, as many of us do in our classrooms: "how do we know?" "How can we check?"
I support the impulse to "dig where we stand" -- to start with the power we have in our classrooms. It is not nothing, and we have responsibilities in how we use it. But we're going to have to work with a lot of other people, in a lot of other places, if we're serious about making big change. Implying that the math classroom is more powerful than any other place, or the only place with real power at all, might be intended to be motivational. But it's a motivation that artificially inflates our own importance, while devaluing the contributions of other groups. Both lead away from democracy, not towards it.
Casinos don't rely on patrons having incorrect or incomplete understandings of math. They build their profit into every aspect of the design, leaving enough to chance that *someone* can win, while making sure that it's never possible for *everyone* to win. They might *like* for you to believe that your math knowledge is the reason why you lose money, though. The less energy you have for strengthening cross-group relationships, inquiring critically into power structures, and building something new, the longer they make a profit.
Dan, this is so well written. Great job, you are spot on! I will be sharing this for sure! Thanks, Mitch!
I’m not familiar with who and what you’re interacting with Dan, but what this discussion inspires in me is the idea of what assumptions and conclusions are made by people writing comments on social media, or anywhere for that matter. I see faulty logic again and again. It seems like our whole education system would have plenty to do in this regard. It seems that a question that should be asked in every subject is what assumptions are your conclusions based on? Perhaps mathematics is where the structure of logic might be centered? Or perhaps every subject should establish its own structure of logic and continually have this reflective circle of discourse around assumptions and conclusions.
Does this make sense to you and apply in any way to the topic you addressed?
I think your implicit left wing bias shows in your recommended sources and your comments. Example: where you imply voter suppression in your commentary, I would see it as ensuring voter integrity. Both sides need to be respected as they are both elements that need to be balanced in the democratic Republic we call the US. You don't seem to do that. I have a lot of admiration for you Dan as a Mathematician, but please leave the politics out of math. Politics has ruined everything and if you continue on this road, you will ruin math as well.
Really beautifully written, Dan. Poetic. Unfortunately, your argument is problematic on two fronts.
First, my argument in “Dear Citizen Math” is that the way we’ve historically taught math is incomplete in that it overlooks math as a tool for exploring actual issues in society. The brokenness of democracy isn’t simply a justification for *why* we as math educators need to expand our understanding of what constitutes a complete math education. More, it’s evidence of the consequence of our having not.
Second, you claim that I find “common cause” with billionaires and that I don’t address the underlying issues. That’s false. In fact, the first chapter specifically addresses the role of cable news and social media in undermining American discourse. And there’s an entire chapter about the damage wrought by Facebook, Twitter, etc, and the dangers of personalization. (Page 107: “As we saw with cable news and social media, the personalization of facts may have broken our democracy. The personalization of school may ensure it’s never fixed.”)
I admire your passion, Dan. I love the way you write. On the first point, though, your argument is incomplete. And on the second, I fear that it’s dishonest.