In a message of Sat, 08 Oct 2005 22:32:01 EDT, Arthur writes: > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Arthur [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> > -----Original Message----- >> > From: Laura Creighton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> > Sent: Saturday, October 08, 2005 9:52 PM >> > To: Radenski, Atanas >> > Cc: Arthur; Laura Creighton; Chuck Allison; edu-sig@python.org; > > >> So the feminists have rearranged the system to better reward a subservi >ent >> attitude. > >Perhaps someone as unaffiliated as myself can suggest that perhaps math a >nd >science seem too hard, in that sense. Not intellectually - but the >performance criteria are not the one's women prefer. > >The standards by which one is judged to have or have not absorbed the >material are too objective. > >There is no one to please. > > >Art
This is extremely well known by women. It is a mystery to me why this simple truth is not well known by men. Actually, the problem is not 'there is no one to please' but rather 'you have to please yourself'. External objective validation of math is all well and good, but the first inkling you must have in order to develop a mathematical intuition is the 'this feels good -- like the correct way to proceed' feeling. Then, if you get rewarded when you get the correct answer, thus validating your 'mathematical workmanship' all is well. But only some people develop a mathematical intuition, given mathematical problems to solve. The rest seem to learn how to solve them by rote learning, memorization of techniques, and things that do not involve the mathematical intuition at all. I think that only people who thrive on playing with their mathematical intuition will love computer science and all higher math. But most women do not work on developing one. Laura _______________________________________________ Edu-sig mailing list Edu-sig@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/edu-sig