> I don't see how your answer relates to my criticism at all. What I'm pointing out is that the author touches on a variety of topics where he clearly exceeds his field of expertise. I'm not saying that he is incompetent as a mathematician at all, nor that he is ill-intended in writing the post.
Forgive me, I'm confused. You did claim hubris. Which topics, precisely, does the good professor touch upon that is not within his field of expertise as a mathematician and an educator ? ... within this post that you claimed is full of hubris ?
>If you want to be good at activity X, you have to start to see yourself as an X-er – to act like an X-er.
This is what struck me the most. It's a terrible generalization (beyond the limits of a mathematicians competence) that doesn't hold up - you can be good at any given topic without actually identifying as anything. Since I have no degree in psychology, I'm in no position to actually claim to know better. That being said: the notion that identifying with anything somehow enables you to reach deeper ends of a field is simply off. Afaik, identifying with anything is more a blockage than anything else. Also, the mere fact that he is an educator is meaningless to me in this context, as some of the most ignorant/filled with hubris people I've come across can call themselves educators, so if anything I take that term as counter-indicative for general competence.
That being said, I may have judged too harshly given that I missed the clarification in the last paragraph.
> Unless you get inside the activity and identify with it, you are not going to be good at it.
..taking the statement you quoted out of context ?
I don't quite agree it is a terrible generalization. I do not think you can become good at something without actually identifying as a 'do-er' of the said thing; without actually getting so involved with the thing that it becomes part of your identity.
Also, on the thing you say about educators -- who else, if not educators, would you listen to if the person telling you that math education needs to be impress upon students, mathematical thinking (as opposed to than bland mathematical procedures )? Wouldn't they have the most context ?
PS: also, unless you are a mathematician and/or an educator, I hope you do see the irony of your comments dismissing as 'exceeds his field of expertise', the opinions of someone who is both.
I don‘t have a strong opinion about it, but there is a similar point made in Atomic habits about identifying as an athlete to do more exercise. I thought it was an unexpected connection
Forgive me, I'm confused. You did claim hubris. Which topics, precisely, does the good professor touch upon that is not within his field of expertise as a mathematician and an educator ? ... within this post that you claimed is full of hubris ?