- "My analogies are brilliant, but you need to already understand the field for them to be brilliant, which I learned after tons of people told me that the analogy is actually not brilliant. But they are brilliant!"
- "You need to identify as an X to be good at X" -- No. Polar opposite. The best people in any area don't identify as anything. If anything, the opposite is the case - once you think you're a great mathematician, you stop becoming exactly that.
- "If you had any difficulty following that first paragraph (only two sentences, each of pretty average length), then you are not a good mathematical thinker" -- or your semantics just suck and you're used to dealing with reading shitty semantics. That doesn't make you a good mathematical thinker, it just means that you opted for a bigger buffer than 99% of people need in their day to day jobs, even those which are able to either come up with or understand foreign omplex models on the fly. Also, the length of the sentence doesn't matter, its the density and arrangement of information in it - and, like I said, your semantics suck.
- "That then, is mathematical thinking. How do you teach it? Well, you can’t teach it; in fact there is very little anyone can teach anyone. People have to learn things for themselves; the best a “teacher” can do is help them to learn. " -- the entire paragraph just wastes the readers attention. Teaching is to help learn. What are you saying? Nothing of value.
Posts like these are why I can't take academics serious. This is high-school levels of ignorance, crossing into five different fields that the author is not even close to being competent in. What the hell?