JUNK RUNTAH

As we are now!

Available link for download

Are we all here Good Now lets begin

Available link for download

Are we having a fair election

A few weeks ago I was helping our daughter to prepare a power point presentation about the upcoming US presidential elections. We spent a lot of time trying to understand the Electoral College system and thinking how to explain this to the other 9-year olds.

US Electoral College is not something straightforward and every four years I have to be reminded how it works. It is not intuitive - the majority doesnt always rule, as had happened four times in the past with the most recent in the year 2000 when George Bush won the presidency while loosing by 543,816 votes to Al Gore. It doesnt look fair at all - candidate can concentrate his campaign on the 11-12 largest states only, winning these states and not even bothering to get a single vote in the rest 4/5th of the country. These largest states will provide the required 270 electoral votes.

Silly us, why then we use this ridiculous system? I have searched the net for answers.  It is believed that the founders feared trusting local folk with direct election of the president. Presidential campaigns have not been such lavishly funded and well-organized processes back in the late 18th century  Lack of media and limited travel capabilities led to candidates being known mainly locally.  How much that local New Jersey candidate may know about matters in the South? And what Southerner may have heard about this Jersey candidate without a Cable, radio and a car? It was proposed to choose a few educated and well-respected noblemen who will make this important decision on peoples behalf: electors. They will make sure to study the candidates. And in order to force the presidential candidates to address such electors across the whole country, they agreed to require the winner to get the majority of the all electors votes. This would also limit the number of candidates making the process simpler. Now it starts to make sense, but mainly in these specific historical settings.  Nowadays, our candidates cross the country on a daily basis, we know more about them than we may want to. Do we still need such a complex system?

Turns out my daughter and I were not the only ones troubled with the electoral math. A recent MIT conference was devoted to this topic. Mathematicians and political scientists debated what is fair and why. It was noted that smaller states have an advantage in the current system as they get more electors per capita.  It was pointed that the process of each state uniting behind a single candidate has an important political meaning.  Few alternatives were proposed - an obvious popular vote, a bit cumbersome ranking system with each person marking the degree of his preferences for each candidate, and a system in which votes would be awarded by multiplying each states popular vote percentage by its number of electoral votes. You can read more in the MIT news here, I was just glad someone else was worrying about that.

Yesterday my daughter shared with me that they had a free lesson. While the teacher was busy discussing something with the boys, she told the girls to pick a game to play in the school yard.  A few games were proposed and the girls voted who wants what. The problem, as my daughter stressed, that there is a group of four girls that always vote together. Shall one of them really want a specific game, they all vote for it. And guess what, their game always won!  Does it remind you of anything? It is not a direct analogy with the Electoral College system but perhaps there are cases when uniting behind one choice does make sense.

Available link for download

Are we sure its OK to be smart

Growing up on the other side of the world, I was brought up to believe that it is as admirable to be smart as it is to be strong, and that exercising our brain is as important as exercising the muscles of our body. Smart kids were respected in schools and colleges, and admired as much as beautiful and athletic kids. Therefore I was especially surprised to learn how vastly different the attitudes are towards science and sports, here in the US.

It is fascinating to observe our infatuation with famous athletes, the unmatched popularity of school sports, the pressure we frequently put on our kids to succeed in sports, and the lengths we go to help them achieve it. Who among us has not risen early on a Sunday for 7am hockey practices, swim meets, or baseball clinics? Or maybe you’ve driven or flown to out-of-state competitions in gymnastics; or changed family summer vacation plans to match a 9-year-old’s football training schedule? Why dont we treat science and, math in particular, in a similar manner? Why has pampering our bodies become much more acceptable and admirable than pampering our minds?

Perhaps it is due to the materialistic reward that high achievement in sports brings to the famous few (usually by means of advertising endorsements). But among the self-made millionaires and billionaires, there are significantly more people with math and economic acumen than athletic prowess. And this is not only true on the level of super-achievers. On average, mathematicians earn $94,960 annually according to the most recent data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. A January 2009 study of the best and worst professions by JobsRated.com, rated mathematician as the best career, taking into account work environment, income, employment outlook, physical demands, and stress (Ref 1).

Ok, the financial reward may be comparable, but it seems that becoming the next Shaun White, Michael Phelps or Lindsey Vonn is more achievable than making a fortune with math. We share our living rooms with these athletes daily via TV, we read their inspiring biographies, follow their advice on what to eat, how to dress or behave, and fantasize being just like them. Well, with only around 17,000 professional athletes in the US and with a total census population of around 308,788,000, chances of becoming one are only around 1 out of 18,000 or 0.0055%. Are those statistics pointing to the rarity of athletic success true? Take a look around. Chances are you are not familiar personally with a famous athlete. But you probably know someone on your street or in your extended family who made a million from a start-up company, very likely with the help of math. Check out the business class section on your next flight: do these people look like professional athletes or Internet entrepreneurs polishing the statistical graphs of their presentations? Sounds like math may be a ball worth catching.

Sports and math are universal languages anyone can speak and work in, anywhere on Earth. Similar to athletes who can easily train anywhere and hop from one countrys team to another, those fluent in the language of math have the whole world open to them as well. While we speak different languages, pray to different gods, and celebrate different holidays, most people on our planet use Hindu-Arabic numerals and study the same laws of logic. A math degree expands the geography of a job search way beyond national borders. Just compare this to a law or medical degree that frequently requires re-certification even when moving from one US state to another.

It does look convincing that math could offer an impressive combination of financial stability and job security along with comfort and low stress. And perhaps you happen to have a neighbor with a Yale math degree who leisurely works from home, travels around the world, and drives a Lexus. You may also recall Olympic stories of horrific sports injuries while comparing them to the paper cut math could inflict on you. Considering this all, you are becoming more convinced about the advantages of a math career. But what about the road to these achievements? The hours, days or years spent solving abstract equations, the tears and frustration that frequently accompany pages of exercises? Turns out that maths learning and achievement processes are intriguingly similar to that of sports. You have seen those tears before, on the high school grid irons, ski slopes and skating rinks, but you probably reacted to them differently.

Take for example, the following statement about sports:

Rigorous consistent practice strengthens your muscles, enables your brain to memorize specific movements, perfects and automates the whole pallet of possible movement patterns. Your body gains strength. You get better at sports and enjoy it more.

Now, substitute math lingo for sports lingo:

Rigorous consistent practice strengthens neural connections, enables your brain to memorize specific tricks, perfects and automates the whole pallet of possible solution approaches. Your expertise grows. You get better at math and enjoy it more.

Sounds quite similar and logical, right? Then why are we so stressed when our children bring home one or two extra pages of math homework? Why are we at a loss for words when kids complain of being bored when asked to do long lists of abstract exercises rather than a few applicable word problems? We would not ask a football coach to explain why our kid needs to do 20 repetitions of monotonous exercises during practice four times a week just to play 15 minutes at the local town competition. And most of us accept that it takes a year of weekly practices and daily stretching to learn to do a gymnastic cartwheel properly.

Whenever my own kids complain about math homework being difficult, I tell them that this is great. Their brain “muscles” (neural connections) strengthen and grow when being pushed over the comfort zone. Easy homework is like passing the ball back and forth with your little brother. Fun and relaxing, but it wont improve your athletic achievements. No muscle pain, no gain.

Many of us intuitively discover these math-sports similarities. One middle-school teacher wrote to me about her idea for a “math warm-up:”

I did not have research to prove this, but I used to tell my students on the day of a test to get to math class early. I suggested that they use the few minutes before class began to do "warm up" problems, so their brain was ready for the test. I felt that without the warm up it would take longer for their brain to accommodate to the new information it had to process, and the warm up got their mind ready for the material they would now have to think about. I thought about this with your analogy, because it is the same for athletes warming up their body before they add intensity to their workout, but in this case, it is a warm up for a math test.

Both math and sports require a lot of monotonous, deliberate practice to succeed. Frequently we find our progress at a plateau and this is exactly when parents encouragement and support are crucial. Perfecting one approach or taking a shot at an alternative strategy takes a lot of patience and determination but eventually bumps you up a level.

What about those who believe that math capabilities are inherited: one either has or doesnt have math aptitude? My quick survey of some soccer dads (who brought their five-year old daughters to the Kindergarten soccer practice) revealed that most of them believe that girls are not as good at math as boys are. Some explained their answer was a result of observing substantially more men than women in the engineering and scientific fields. All were surprisingly unaware of a multitude of recent scientific studies, financed by our taxes, aimed at improving the future of our little soccer princesses. Studies demonstrating that math skills are equal across genders; that culture is a factor in female math achievement and that girls’ confidence in math is dampened by parents and teachers gender stereotypes (Ref 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7).

So, we have entered an infinite loop here: by expecting less and demanding less from our girls, and kids in general, we encourage low performance and interest. This feeds our stereotypes and continues the vicious cycle. To break it, lets carefully look at the messages we send to our kids. Would you believe that these scientific studies showed that by merely suggesting to kids that they may not have racial or gender predisposition to math you can cause them to perform worse than they would have otherwise (Ref 8)? Or that by simply changing the class room decor from a Star Wars style to more feminine, you can make girls feel they belong and foster stronger interest in computer science (Ref 9)? It sounds like our math and science confidence is unbelievably fragile.

But then I recollect observing my six-year-old daughter on a ski slope recently. Frustrated with the cold air, wet snow and bulky clothes, she was trying to go up a tiny hill. Every other step she was sliding back or falling down with her skis crossed up in the air. We were both at the end of our patience and ready to give up. Until a fairytale ski instructor passed by, stopped for a few minutes and sprayed my daughter with an abundance of encouraging epithets: “You are doing amazing! Look at you, you are a natural skier. Great job.” It changed everything. My daughter beamed a victory smile, relaxed, and her patience was recharged for climbing the hill; she had fun and now is eager to go back.

So, how can we, as parents, help our kids become more comfortable, interested and successful in math, similar to the ways we support them in sports?

It is actually much easier than it sounds. We call ourselves soccer moms and dads even if we dont play soccer. One does not need to be an expert in math to become a Math Mom or Math Dad. Success in any kind of learning is enhanced by encouragement and challenge, and inhibited by threats or shame. Think of how we challenge and support our kids on the football field or ski slopes. Think of those trophies that everyone gets just for trying. The “Go, Alex, go!” you scream till you lose your voice. The pride we take when our child scores a homerun Recall how we share the excitement of our kids’ successes in sports and work on their failures. Why not adapt a similar mindset for math learning.

Think of the aura of adoration around successful athletes. We point out athlete role models on TV, in books and magazines. We buy those great Matt Christopher sports series books, we read and share Sports Illustrated stories. Those tear-jerking hero-making Superbowl or Olympic biographies that we re-tell to our kids to encourage them to practice and build perseverance. Remember how you are carefully avoiding negative stereotyping of athletes cursing, drinking or showcasing other misbehavior. When was the last time you switched off a TV program that featured smart kids as losers and unpopular geeks? Probably never. Can we then blame the kids for not wanting to be such unpopular geeks and crazy “beautiful minds”?

How about concentrating on the cool Stanford graduate, ocean-surfing Google founders that created something that comes as close as possible to saving the world by uniting it? Or showcasing mathematicians that apply their skills to create Mars mission or household robots, Avatar-style special effects, data analysis solutions that suggest the next movie you may enjoy watching or beer you would like based on your past ratings. It is not hard to find such role models.

Like sports, math is everywhere and it is not so hard to present it to our kids as a toy, a tool, and a friend. No one will stay indifferent when you reveal how prime numbers are used as weapons in secret message coding in war and peace, describe why 50% off on top of a 30% discount won’t give you 80% off, or share your financial insight on whether to buy or make school lunches and what to do with the money saved. Just imagine, science Olympiads and robotics competitions presented like the X-Games on TV, with groomed Rodarte-dressed geeks who tell your kids that nothing is impossible.

To expand the world of wonderful math possibilities for our children, we need to apply the same steps to math as we have been so masterfully using to encourage our kids in sports. Motivate, challenge, promote concentration, praise, share the excitement of successes and work together on failures, showcase inspiring role models, and avoid negative stereotypes.

And most importantly, never apologize for being smart.

Matt Damon as math whiz in the movie Good Will Hunting

P.S. Brain Quest has recently changed their logo to “Its fun to be smart!”

For more information on math see the NSF report:
Math: Whats the Problem?



References:

1. CNN & CareerBuilder: 10 jobs for math whizzes


2. Boston Globe: Study finds culture a factor in female math achievement


3. Girls confidence in math dampened by parents gender stereotypes


4. Highbeam: Math skills are equal among genders in primary and secondary school


5. ScienceDaily: Few Gender Differences in Math Abilities, Worldwide Study Finds


6. Proceedings of National Academy of Science: Female teachers math anxiety affects girls math achievement. Feb 2, 2010, vol. 107, no. 5, 1860-1863


7. ScienceDaily: How Dads Influence Their Daughters Interest In Math


8. CommunicationCurrents: Stereotype Threat and Female Students Math performance


9. Science Notes: of Geeks and Girls

Available link for download

Are We the Problem Pussy Riot in the USA

An Open Letter from Pussy Riot

We, the anonymous members of Pussy Riot, would like to say many thanks to all the people who have supported us all this time, those who demanded the release of our members, those who sympathized with us and sympathized with our ideology. We are very grateful to all of you, we deeply appreciate and respect everyone who has contributed to the overall Pussy Riot campaign at this difficult for us time.

Our joint efforts were not in vain: Putin had to bend under the pressure of the international community and let Nadia and Masha free.

Thus, December 23rd was a real celebration for us — the Liberation Day of prisoners of conscience and the real victory of the liberation of the entire Pussy Riot.

But the amnesty is certainly not the end of our dreams. We demand real justice: the complete abolition of the verdict and the recognition of the entire criminal case against Pussy Riot, illegitimate.

We do hope that the justice will be restored on February 21 — the anniversary of our teasing performance in the Christ the Saviour Cathedral, with the song " Mother of God, Put Putin away!"

We are very pleased with Mashas and Nadias release. We are proud of their resistance against harsh trials that fell to their lot, and their determination by all means to continue the struggle that they had started during their stay in the colonies.

Unfortunately for us, they are being so carried away with the problems in Russian prisons, that they completely forgot about the aspirations and ideals of our group — feminism, separatist resistance, fight against authoritarianism and personality cult, all of which, as a matter of fact, was the cause for their unjust punishment.

Now it is no secret that Masha and Nadia are no longer members of the group, and they will no longer take part in radical actionism. Now they are engaged in a new project. Now they are institutionalized advocates of prisoners rights.

And as you know, such advocacy is hardly compatible with radical political statements and provocative works of art, that raise controversial topics in modern society. Just as gender conformity is not compatible with radical feminism.

Institutionalized advocacy can hardly afford the critique of fundamental norms and rules that underline the very mechanics of modern patriarchal society. Being an institutional part of this society, such advocacy, can hardly go beyond the rules set forth by this society.

Yes, we lost two friends, two ideological fellow member, but the world has acquired two brave, interesting, controversial human rights defenders — fighters for the rights of the Russian prisoners.

Unfortunately, we can not congratulate them with this in person, because they refuse to have any contact with us. But we appreciate their choice and sincerely wish them well in their new career.

At the moment, we are witnessing an outrageous collision:

While Nadia Masha are being the focus of media and the international community, they gather crowds of journalists and people heed to their every word, so far no one hears them.

In almost every interview they repeat that they left the group, that they are no longer Pussy Riot, that they act in their own names, that they will no longer engage in radical art activities. However, the headlines are still full of the groups name, all their public appearances are declared as performances of Pussy Riot, and their personal withdrawal from Pussy Riot is treated as termination of the entire collective, thus ignoring the fact that at the pulpit and solea of Christ the Saviour Church, there were not two, but five women in balaclavas and the Red Square performance had eight participants.

The apotheosis of this misunderstanding was the public announcement by Amnesty International of Mashas and Nadias speech at a concert in Barclays Center in New York, as the first legal performance of Pussy Riot.

Moreover, instead of the names of Nadia and Masha, the poster of the event showed a man in a balaclava with electric guitar, under the name of Pussy Riot, while the organizers smartly called for people to buy expensive tickets.

All this is an extreme contradiction to the very principles of Pussy Riot collective:

We are all — female separatist collective — no man can represent us either on a poster or in reality.

We belong to leftist anti-capitalist ideology — we charge no fees for viewing our artwork, all our videos are distributed freely on the web, the spectators to our performances are always spontaneous passers by, and we never sell tickets to our "shows."

Our performances are always illegal, staged only in unpredictable locations and public places not designed for traditional entertainment. The distribution of our clips is always through free and unrestricted media channels.

We are anonymous, because we act against any personality cult, against hierarchies implied by appearance, age and other visible social attributes. We cover our heads, because we oppose the very idea of using female face as a trademark for promoting any sort of goods or services.

The mixing of the rebel feminist punk image with the image of institutionalized defenders of prisoners rights, is harmful for us as collective, as well as it is harmful for the new role that Nadia and Masha have taken on.

Hear them finally!

Since it happened that Nadia and Masha chose not to be with us, please, respect their choice. Remember, we are no longer Nadia and Masha. They are no longer Pussy Riot.

The campaign "Free Pussy Riot" is over. We, as art collective, have an ethical right to preserve our art practice, our name and our visual identity, distinct from other organizations.

Available link for download

At Least We Knew

{photo source: @hidinginhere via instagram}

In the wake of everything that has happened in the last two months, I come back to the words "at least we knew" over and over. We knew, just days after a positive test, that the pregnancy might not be viable. The day my HCG didnt double, I prepared myself for loss. Mr. Fix-It remained more optimistic. I think for him the real loss happened the morning of the no heartbeat ultrasound. Either way, we knew that the worst, a loss, was a possibility. It always is, but this was different. The other words I came back to were "bracing for impact". I was. Week after week after week.

Its funny - well not funny - but when I heard clients talk about miscarriages I always had this feeling. I had thought to myself, many times, that I was sure it was nothing I would experience. I believed in the adage that the universe will never give you more than you can handle. And I believed that I could truly never, not ever, handle the heartbreak of a miscarriage. I told myself that it would destroy me. It would be a level of pain so unimaginable Id never be the same.

Then this crazy thing happened. It happened. It happened to me. And I survived. I was actually ok. I was sad. So deeply, painfully sad, but also full of hope. The morning of my D&C I felt a profound sense of relief. All the stress, all the worry, all the anxiety of this maybe-hopefully-cautiously-optimistic pregnancy was gone. Hope. Hope told me that our next baby, the one that is meant to be will come in due time. And my HCG will double, and the gestational sac will be the right size, and the baby will grow to be strong and healthy. That is the baby we will take home. And I know we will. We are meant to have more children.

Available link for download