I wouldn't be surprised if "scratching under my nose" is the one guy's tell for "here comes a lie".

Me. I'm a coward. But people should still flirt with me anyway, even if I don't flirt with anyone.

Doesn't he know he's supposed to promise visible change AFTER the next election, so that voters don't realize they've been lied to until it's too late?

I believe I am (mildly) hypercalculic. Yay me. I have had dyscalculic students. I have seen how society's valuation messages have crushed their self-esteem. Why? WHY? W-H-Y-? do we feel the need to do that to people?

Anyway, enough ranting for now.

3. As with any other complex skill, the degree of success someone has at mathematics will vary based on innate neurological capability, effort, and self-efficacy. Yes, some people ARE innately more capable. And cactus plants that are never watered die anyway. Plus, see point 2.

2. Success or failure at mathematics says no more about the value of a person as success or failure at reading, or crochet, or driving, or just about any other skill.

Here are some more opinions: 1. Computational mathematics is best done by computational machines, that is, computers. It's important for humans to understand the how, but the what? Meh. Stop spending so much time in education refusing access to calculators, teachers.

So when walls are hit, Imposter Syndrome kicks in and ... shoot, there I go, adding Yet Another Humanities concept to the discussion. It's almost like mathematics isn't some monolithic beast to be tamed in a vacuum, but instead there's so much psychology at play.

The "innate skill/math people" view also harms people who happen to excel in certain fields of mathematics. Because everyone hits walls. Everyone has weak spots. Mathematics as a field is too diverse for any one person to be a master of it all, innately or otherwise.

By the way, the farther the Affective Filter goes up, the harder it is to learn something. So as educators, we want to find ways to bring that mean ol' filter down. Anyway. I digress. 🤷 Carrying on:

And I use "Affective Filter" deliberately, being a linguistic term: A huuuuuge part of success in mathematics education is learning the (pseudo-?)language of mathematical notation, but how often do teachers even talk in those terms? If you don't know what f(x)=x^2 - 2x SAYS, how can you use it?

Meanwhile, they use their own personal interpretation of God to be bigots, when the Christian Bible is vague at best on the issue of transgender rights.

And the Queens shooting was at a private memorial event for a teen that had been shot to death.

This is not a good start to the year.

(insert ", which" before "tells")

Thought this morning: The only way that's a Beatles song is with George on lead vocals, and George seems the least likely to have been lead with those lyrics. 🤔

Also worth noting: In Montana, Zooey Zephyr did the opposite. She stood by her position without compromise, and she got stripped of a lot of power. There's no winning. (But I'm prouder of Zephyr than of McBride. AND Zephyr just got reelected.)