Seriously?

Sigh.

Had the yearly retreat today. Usual stuff, you know, like strategic plans, mission and vision statements, shit like that. Overlooking the mountainside with breathtaking view on a gorgeous day. Quel perte de temps! I am perpetually amazed by how much we discuss and that how little of action it actually translates into.

Anyway, what probably disappointed me more was that people were so completely ignorant of cultural icons who left a legacy of work. During the 'identify your colleague' session my identity while was correctly matched with the Q&A piece i had provided (Q: Who is my fav dancer/musician? A: MJ), most didn't know what MJ stood for. Some thought it meant Michael Jordan and expressed due surprise, 'Oh i didn't know he could dance!' Um, reason much?

In mathematics we often utilise the same variable to represent different entities depending on the context. A rather simple example - the letter y could mean the function y = f(x) or the functional value (y-coordinate of a point (x, y)) which might throw some naive students off, but we are trained to weave the content symbol in and out of context with the same dexterity with which Hélio Castroneves changes form from a race-track to a ballroom floor. Well, maybe not that suave, lol, who am i kidding, but yeah.

Then my question is that why would we, the trained mathematicians, fail to apply the same rational thought process when we shift to non-mathematical territory? What's worse that there we were, the same folks, lamenting away the fact that how most of our students were not cognizant thinkers.

Maybe i am just offended that people don't know my fav performer, and i am the one being not rational about my expectation, or perhaps that they are just musically inept, seriously, what do i care!

Just late night ranting i guess...