So basically you're saying that it is a preferred solution to teach kids math poorly, let them develop insecurity and aversion towards it and then spent a lot of money to let them overcome it than just do it right in the first place?

Yeah, I know that's not what you mean, but you're missing a point. The premise of the article is that US has a STEM problem. I merely suggested that they're allocating resources wrong to fix it. I didn't mean they should introduce rigor and discipline or increase hours - I said that the best way to achieve results in teaching math is to fix it early, when it's most commonly broken (in my experience).

It actually helps you if you decide to switch interests, because you got the basics right, which in this case is the ability to think in an abstract way.

If you don't agree with me, you should have provided arguments that math problems do not arise early in education system, but they are introduced later.

One last thought - timing _does_ matter. That's why almost every professional athlete starts as a child. The question is how much you gain for starting early and I agree, that it is usually unreasonable to put too much pressure on kids. Pressure is not necessary to fix the system as far as I see it, though.