Showing posts with label linear. Show all posts
Showing posts with label linear. Show all posts
Sunday, 11 April 2021
Friday, 25 November 2016
Don’t fall for the new hopelessness. We still have the power to bring change
Suzanne Moore in The Guardian
After the election, Obama told his daughters to carry on: ‘You don’t start worrying about apocalypse.’ Photograph: Rex/Shutterstock
A friend posts a picture of a baby. A beautiful baby. A child is brought into the world, this world, and I like it on Facebook because I like it in real life. If anything can be an unreservedly good thing it is a baby. But no ... someone else says to me, while airily discussing how terrible everything is: “I don’t know why anyone would have a child now.” As though any child was ever born of reason. I wonder at their mental state, but soon read that a war between the superpowers is likely. The doom and gloom begins to get to me. There is no sealant against the dread, the constant drip of the talk of end times.
I stay up into the small hours watching the footage of triumphant white nationalists sieg-heiling with excited hesitancy. My dreams are contaminated – at the edge of them, Trump roams the Black Lodge from Twin Peaks. But then I wake up and think: “Enough.” Enough of this competitive hopelessness.
Loss is loss. Our side has taken some heavy hits, the bad guys are in charge. Some take solace in the fact that the bad guys don’t know what they are doing: Farage, Trump, Johnson, Ukip donor Arron Banks, wear their ignorance as a badge of pride. One of the “liberal” values that has been overturned is apparently basic respect for knowledge. Wilful ignorance and inadequacy is now lauded as authenticity.
However, the biggest casualty for my generation is the idea that progress is linear. Things really would get better and better, we said; the world would somehow by itself become more open, equal, tolerant, as though everything would evolve in our own self-image. Long before Brexit or the US election, it was clear that this was not the case. I have often written about the way younger generations have had more and more stripped away from them: access to education, jobs and housing. Things have not been getting better and they know that inequality has solidified. Materially, they are suffering, but culturally and demographically the resistance to authoritarian populism, or whatever we want to call this movement of men old before their time, will come from the young. It will come also from the many for whom racism or sexism in society is nothing new.
Resistance can’t come personally or politically from the abject pessimism that prevails now. Of course, anger, despair, denial are all stages of grief, and the joys of nihilism are infinite. I am relieved that we are all going to die in a solar flare, anyway, but until then pessimism replayed as easy cynicism and inertia is not going to get us anywhere. The relentless wallowing in every detail of Trump or Farage’s infinite idiocy is drowning, not waving. The oft-repeated idea that history is a loop and that this is a replay of the1930s induces nothing but terror. Nothing is a foregone conclusion. That is why we learn history.
I am not asking for false optimism here, but a way to exist in the world that does not lead to feelings of absolute powerlessness. A mass retreat into the internal, small sphere of the domestic, the redecoration of one’s own safe space, is understandable, but so much of what has happened has been just this abandonment of any shared or civic space. It is absolutely to the advantage of these far-right scaremongers that we stay in our little boxes, fearing “the streets”, fearing difference, seeing danger everywhere.
Thinking for ourselves is, to use a bad word, empowering. It also demands that we give up some of the ridiculous binaries of the left. The choice between class politics and identity politics is a false one. All politics is identity politics. It is clear that economic and cultural marginalisation intertwine and that they often produce a rejection of basic modernity. Economic anxiety manifests in a longing for a time when everything was in its place and certain. But the energy of youth disrupts this immediately, as many young people are born into a modernity that does not accept that everything is fixed, whether that is sexuality or a job for life. Telling them: “We are all doomed” says something about the passivity of my generation, not theirs.
The historian and activist Howard Zinn said in his autobiography, You Can’t Be Neutral on a Moving Train: “Pessimism becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy: it reproduces by crippling our willingness to act.”
Indeed. Campaigning for reproductive rights isn’t something that suddenly has to be done because of Trump. It always has to be done. LGBT people did not “win”. The great fault line of race has been exposed, but it was never just theoretical. The idea that any of these struggles were over could be maintained only if you were not involved in them.
After the election, Obama told his daughters to carry on: “You don’t get into a foetal position about it. You don’t start worrying about apocalypse. You say: ‘OK, where are the places where I can push to keep it moving forward.’”
Where can you push to keep it moving forward? Locally? Globally? Get out of that foetal position. Look at some cats online if it helps. We render those in power even more powerful if we act as though everything is a done deal. Take back control.
A friend posts a picture of a baby. A beautiful baby. A child is brought into the world, this world, and I like it on Facebook because I like it in real life. If anything can be an unreservedly good thing it is a baby. But no ... someone else says to me, while airily discussing how terrible everything is: “I don’t know why anyone would have a child now.” As though any child was ever born of reason. I wonder at their mental state, but soon read that a war between the superpowers is likely. The doom and gloom begins to get to me. There is no sealant against the dread, the constant drip of the talk of end times.
I stay up into the small hours watching the footage of triumphant white nationalists sieg-heiling with excited hesitancy. My dreams are contaminated – at the edge of them, Trump roams the Black Lodge from Twin Peaks. But then I wake up and think: “Enough.” Enough of this competitive hopelessness.
Loss is loss. Our side has taken some heavy hits, the bad guys are in charge. Some take solace in the fact that the bad guys don’t know what they are doing: Farage, Trump, Johnson, Ukip donor Arron Banks, wear their ignorance as a badge of pride. One of the “liberal” values that has been overturned is apparently basic respect for knowledge. Wilful ignorance and inadequacy is now lauded as authenticity.
However, the biggest casualty for my generation is the idea that progress is linear. Things really would get better and better, we said; the world would somehow by itself become more open, equal, tolerant, as though everything would evolve in our own self-image. Long before Brexit or the US election, it was clear that this was not the case. I have often written about the way younger generations have had more and more stripped away from them: access to education, jobs and housing. Things have not been getting better and they know that inequality has solidified. Materially, they are suffering, but culturally and demographically the resistance to authoritarian populism, or whatever we want to call this movement of men old before their time, will come from the young. It will come also from the many for whom racism or sexism in society is nothing new.
Resistance can’t come personally or politically from the abject pessimism that prevails now. Of course, anger, despair, denial are all stages of grief, and the joys of nihilism are infinite. I am relieved that we are all going to die in a solar flare, anyway, but until then pessimism replayed as easy cynicism and inertia is not going to get us anywhere. The relentless wallowing in every detail of Trump or Farage’s infinite idiocy is drowning, not waving. The oft-repeated idea that history is a loop and that this is a replay of the1930s induces nothing but terror. Nothing is a foregone conclusion. That is why we learn history.
I am not asking for false optimism here, but a way to exist in the world that does not lead to feelings of absolute powerlessness. A mass retreat into the internal, small sphere of the domestic, the redecoration of one’s own safe space, is understandable, but so much of what has happened has been just this abandonment of any shared or civic space. It is absolutely to the advantage of these far-right scaremongers that we stay in our little boxes, fearing “the streets”, fearing difference, seeing danger everywhere.
Thinking for ourselves is, to use a bad word, empowering. It also demands that we give up some of the ridiculous binaries of the left. The choice between class politics and identity politics is a false one. All politics is identity politics. It is clear that economic and cultural marginalisation intertwine and that they often produce a rejection of basic modernity. Economic anxiety manifests in a longing for a time when everything was in its place and certain. But the energy of youth disrupts this immediately, as many young people are born into a modernity that does not accept that everything is fixed, whether that is sexuality or a job for life. Telling them: “We are all doomed” says something about the passivity of my generation, not theirs.
The historian and activist Howard Zinn said in his autobiography, You Can’t Be Neutral on a Moving Train: “Pessimism becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy: it reproduces by crippling our willingness to act.”
Indeed. Campaigning for reproductive rights isn’t something that suddenly has to be done because of Trump. It always has to be done. LGBT people did not “win”. The great fault line of race has been exposed, but it was never just theoretical. The idea that any of these struggles were over could be maintained only if you were not involved in them.
After the election, Obama told his daughters to carry on: “You don’t get into a foetal position about it. You don’t start worrying about apocalypse. You say: ‘OK, where are the places where I can push to keep it moving forward.’”
Where can you push to keep it moving forward? Locally? Globally? Get out of that foetal position. Look at some cats online if it helps. We render those in power even more powerful if we act as though everything is a done deal. Take back control.
Friday, 2 November 2012
A New 'Real World’ Maths Course
Two problems:
1. You are in an airport and are walking from the main departure lounge to a rather distant gate. On the way there are several moving walkways. There is a small stone in your shoe, which is annoying enough that you decide that you must remove it. If you want to get to the gate as quickly as possible, and if there is no danger of your annoying other passengers, is it better to remove the stone while on a moving walkway or while on stationary ground, or does it make no difference?
2. You want to give £1,000 to somebody as a 21st birthday present. The person in question is just about to turn 16. A savings scheme offers a guaranteed interest rate of 3 per cent for the next five years, provided you save the same amount at the beginning of each year. What should this amount be so that you end up with £1,000?
And which of those two questions did you find more engaging? If you are like almost everybody, you will already be thinking about the first, but the second will make your heart sink.
Recently, the government has expressed a wish that all schoolchildren should study mathematics up to the age of 18, a view that appears to have cross-party support. As a mathematician, I am a firm believer in the benefits, both direct and indirect, that mathematical understanding can bring. However, I am also aware that many intelligent people thoroughly dislike mathematics, give it up at the age of 16, and have absolutely no regrets afterwards. Will two further years of mathematics really make a difference to such people, other than turning them off the subject even more?
One method that is sometimes proposed for making subjects more appealing is to make them ‘relevant’. In mathematics, this supposed relevance often takes the dismal form of ‘word problems’ such as this: two apples and three pears cost £1.80, while four apples and one pear cost £1.60. What do apples and pears cost each? To solve such a problem, the technique is to turn the words into equations and solve the equations. Here one might begin by saying, ‘Let A be the number of apples and P be the number of pears. Then 2A+3P=180 and 4A+P=160.’ Then, using standard techniques, one shows that A=30 and P=40, so apples are 30p each and pears 40p each.
But problems like that don’t feel relevant at all. This problem may pretend to be about a trip to the greengrocer’s, but we all know that it is really just a flimsy disguise for some equations. We also know that a question of this form would neverarise at the greengrocer’s: if you want to know the price of apples, you look at the little sign that tells you the price of apples.
What is it that gives the stone-in-shoe question its appeal? Part of the answer is that one can imagine being in the situation described, or at least one can imagine thatsomebody might be in that situation. But that cannot be the whole story, because one can also imagine needing to know how much money to put away into a savings scheme in order to end up with a certain amount, and yet that question has no appeal at all. Another difference between the two questions is, I believe, more important: whereas the second question asks for a number, the first asks for a piece of advice. Many people, when asked to do a numerical calculation, switch off immediately, but almost nobody switches off when asked for advice: the natural reaction is to put oneself in the position of the person seeking the advice and to try to work out the best thing to do. The stone-in-shoe question exploits this instinct, at least initially, and it can then be answered without any calculations. (Just imagine how much less appealing the question would become if you were told the speed at which you walked and the speed of the moving walkways. Fortunately, you don’t need to know these.)
One might think that if calculation and solving equations were absent from a mathematics course, then there would be nothing left to teach. But that is quite wrong: there are plenty of things one could teach, many of them entertaining, important and useful in later life. Here are some examples.
We often need to make decisions based on incomplete data. Exact calculation is usually not possible in such situations, so it is very useful to be good at making rough estimates. For instance, will the benefits of building a high-speed rail line to Birmingham outweigh the costs? Even to begin to think about this question, one should have a rough idea of the number of journeys that would be made on the line each day. A useful trick for getting the right order of magnitude for quantities like this is to break the problem up into smaller parts. In this case we could estimate the number of hours per day that trains run on the line, the number of trains per hour, the number of carriages per train, the number of rows of seats per carriage, the number of seats per row and the proportion of seats that would typically be occupied. We would then need to multiply these numbers together. My own guesses, which I have made simple round numbers so that the multiplication will be easy, are 15, 4, 10, 20, 5 and 1. Multiplying those -together I get 60,000. Perhaps you would like to object to my assumption that the proportion of seats occupied is equal to 1. Of course I don’t actually believe that all seats would be occupied, but I think that most of them probably would be, and at this level of -accuracy rounding up a number like 0.8 to 1 is perfectly acceptable.
Another skill of genuine use is that of getting to the heart of a question by abstracting away irrelevant details. Consider the following dilemma faced by Alice, who has just been proposed to by her boyfriend Bob. Alice is very fond of Bob, who is a better match than any of her previous boyfriends, but she worries that whatever she does, she may end up with regrets. If she accepts his proposal, she risks going on to meet somebody she would much prefer to be married to, but if she refuses him, she risks never again meeting anybody as suitable.
Let us imagine that Alice is determined to be married by the age of 36, and that by that age she would expect to have had serious relationships with eight people, of whom Bob is the third, say. Then we can model Alice’s situation as follows. She is presented with a sequence of eight random numbers, one by one. At any time, she can say ‘stop’ and the number that has just been presented to her is the one that she must accept. What strategy will give her the best chance of accepting the largest number?
‘There’s the house. This must be the folly.’
This purely mathematical problem encapsulates Alice’s difficulty and has a known solution. Given the numbers above, it can be shown that Alice’s best chance of avoiding later regrets is to turn down Bob and then go for the first person she meets who is better than Bob. However, the validity of this advice depends on a number of questionable assumptions — not least of which is that the ‘irrelevant details’ that were abstracted away really were irrelevant — so this question is a good example both of the power of mathematics and of its limitations.
A third skill that is extremely useful is the ability to evaluate statistics, since we are continually bombarded with statistical arguments of widely varying degrees of soundness. For example, studies have shown that British vegetarians have, on average, higher IQs than the general population. Does this show that meat is bad for your brain? What other explanations might there be for an observation like this? How informative is an average anyway? Given some numerical data, what else can one usefully calculate from it besides the average? How large a random sample is needed if you want to be convinced that an observation is probably more than just a typical random fluctuation? One can get a feel for this kind of question without ever calculating an average or a standard deviation.
How should this kind of mathematics be taught? I strongly believe in two guiding principles. The first is to start with the real-world questions rather than with the mathematics. That is, rather than explaining mathematical ideas (about statistics, say) and then discussing how they can be applied to the real world, a teacher should instead start with a question that is interesting for non-mathematical reasons and keep a completely open mind about what mathematics has to contribute to the discussion.
The second is to make the discussion as Socratic as possible. Rather than asking the question and then explaining the answer, the teacher should just ask the question and leave the job of answering it to the pupils. The teacher’s role would be to guide the discussion, encouraging it when it moves in fruitful directions and making gentle interventions such as ‘Does everybody agree with that?’ when somebody says something wrong and is not corrected. This would be the opposite of the kind of spoonfeeding that goes on with GCSE and A-level.
Imagine if a teacher came into the classroom and said, ‘I’ve just read in the news that they are considering culling 70 per cent of badgers in certain areas of the country to halt the spread of TB in cattle. How on earth do they work out how many badgers there are in the first place? And how will they be able to tell whether the culling has worked?’ And imagine if the teacher admitted without any embarrassment to not knowing the answers. The aim would be to prompt a discussion in which the pupils were treated like adults and encouraged to think. The discussion would have many features that occur in real life: it would be open-ended, it would involve quantities that are hard to measure, it would be about estimates rather than exact calculations, and it would be responding to a non-mathematical need.
Can this possibly work? In February I was at a meeting about mathematics education at which Michael Gove was present, and at which I advocated this kind of course. The idea interested various people at the meeting, so in June I wrote a blog post about it, for which I compiled a list of over 50 questions that I thought could be the basis of interesting classroom discussions. One of those interested, Sir John Holman, arranged for me to visit Watford Grammar School for Boys, where I was given two hours with a class of about 25 sixth-formers, some from that school, some from the equivalent girls’ school, and some from a nearby comprehensive. Some were doing maths A-level and some were not. I discussed about half a dozen questions with them in the way I have been suggesting, and that left me convinced that it can be done.
Another person who was interested was Charlie Stripp, the chief executive of Mathematics in Education and Industry, an independent curriculum development body. He got in touch with me and said that MEI wanted to try to develop a course along these lines. Very recently, the government has agreed to provide the necessary funding, not just for developing the course, but for working out how best to assess it and for organising appropriate training for teachers, both of which will be essential, given how different this course will be from a traditional mathematics course. There is no guarantee that the course will be taken up by schools, and even if it is, it will not be suitable for everybody. But there is nothing to lose by making a course of this type available, and it is an experiment that is surely worth trying.
Some further questions for interested readers. The best answers will be published in next week’s letters page (letters@spectator.co.uk).
1. Roughly how often would you expect somebody in the UK to dream of the death of a loved one and that loved one to die the very next day?
2. You play a game in which when it is your turn, you can either add a point to your score and remove two points from your opponent’s score, or stop the game. You start with five points, and when someone stops the game you get £10 for every point you then have. Your opponent, whom you dislike, starts, choosing to add a point to his/her score and remove two points from yours. What should you do?
3. A divorcing couple are dividing up their possessions. The husband and wife agree about the financial values of these possessions but attach different sentimental values. Devise a good procedure for carrying out the division.
4. Roughly how many people could fit into the Isle of Wight?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)