Shelby Strong: 0:03

if I have predicated my identity on being smart, and if I have predicated being smart on being good at math, then the moment that I'm not good at math, that takes out the linchpin in my entire sense of self. we can't keep demonizing one or the other. We can't say, you can only be, a critical thinker in conceptual knowledge, or you can only access mathematics because you've mastered the fundamentals, there has to be a space for everyone, if everyone can be a math person, that means everyone has to show up to mathematics in the way that makes sense to them.

Vanessa Vakharia: 0:38

Hey guys, it's me Vanessa, and welcome back to Math Therapy. Okay, so today's guest is my friend, Shelby Strong, math educator, coach, consultant, and just one of my favorite people. Thing about Shelby is that she has extremely strong opinions about even the most innocuous of math education topics. And literally every time we talk on the phone or like via voice note, we both end up screaming, oh my God, we just basically recorded a podcast episode. And like at a certain point it kind of just got weird that she wasn't on my actual podcast. So today is the day covered a ton of spicy topics from the whole, our algorithms destroying children debacle to the gatekeeping. That happens when we define who gets to be a math person. And we also have an honest and compassionate discussion about the guilt and pressure teachers feel when they just wanna help students, but the rules keep changing on them. We're also gonna get into the dangers of building one's entire identity around one thing, and why some people resist more people being invited into that thing. Math, education, gaming culture. This is one of those episodes that absolutely everyone needs to listen to. Because at its core, it's about the real reason the world can often feel so divided. And if you're anything like me right now, you're probably wondering why we can't all just stop pointing fingers at one another. And this episode really reminded me that we are all just humans who want to belong, and sometimes the fear that we don't belong is what leads us to trying to exclude others. And if some point during this convo you're like, that is what I've been trying to say, please share this podcast. Send it to a friend, post a clip on your socials or just like throw it in your group chat with 30 exclamation points. And if something in this episode lands, text us. You can text the podcast by hitting the link in the show notes for this episode. I really wanna hear from you. Okay guys, I can't wait for you to hear this conversation. Let's get into it. My first question for you is, because you told me to ask you this, what does Dave Grohl have to do with math? Let's hear it.

Shelby Strong: 2:42

I was watching an interview with Dave Grohl a couple months ago where he, is an old interview, but he's talking about how he never really received a formal music education, and yet no one's gonna look at him and say, you're not a musician. Right. And you could argue that he wouldn't have made the music that he made if he had received a formal music education. And so there's this guy, Paul Lockhart, who wrote a Mathematician's Lament a couple of years ago. He talks about how math doesn't get treated the way that art gets treated. And yet, think about someone who is a musician for, say the Philharmonic or some sort of orchestral musician. They did receive a formal music education. They do, you know, read music, and many of them are not original composers. Are we gonna point at them and say, you're not a musician'cause you don't write your own music and all you do is reproduce someone else's. And so I think that, you know, we've got this spectrum of musicians, you've got your Dave Grohls and you've got your, you know, first chair cellists. You've got this spectrum of mathematical ability. You've got people who are really good at algorithms and really good at following procedures. And then you have people who are super creative and like to dig in and, and unpack different things. And I have absolutely been guilty of, you know, kind of giving my students a hard time, who are really good at the algorithms, who are really good at the procedures and bless their heart, couldn't critically think their way out of a wet paper bag. And that is kind of the shift that has happened in math where we've moved toward this more like creative unpacking. And I'm not saying we don't need that, but I'm also saying that we can't keep demonizing one or the other. We can't say, you can only be, you know, a critical thinker in conceptual knowledge, or you can only access mathematics because you've mastered the fundamentals, whatever the hell the fundamentals are, that there has to be a space for everyone, if we're gonna run around saying, everyone can be a math person. If everyone can be a math person, that means everyone has to show up to mathematics in the way that makes sense to them.

Vanessa Vakharia: 4:43

Oh my God, I am so glad you just started with this hot, juicy take.'cause I could not agree, the thing is also with me and Shelby that I've realized is often I'll have a thought, I may express it, I may not. But no matter what, Shelby will express it in a way more articulate way than I will. I'm kind of having you on here to just actually make me sound better by translating what I mean into, into a mic drop. But what

Shelby Strong: 5:10

ven, the Vanessa translator, like this

Vanessa Vakharia: 5:12

The van. But I love that you saw that because as you may or may not know, my debate with Pam Harris actually was about this exact thing. And now, I mean, no shade, I just had Pam on the pod, we had an amazing conversation. But part of her, what she talks about is the idea that if you're using an algorithm, it's fake math. And I actually take a really big, big issue with that. And we are, we've already talked about this publicly, so this isn't about her. A lot of people have that thinking exactly like you said.

Shelby Strong: 5:40

And the reason why I started thinking about it is because of this idea that, you know, I do think that we do need to do more of an emphasis on conceptual understanding of math ethics because we have spent so long without it, like algorithms didn't come from nowhere. Right. And I think that's where we got it twisted in the last several decades is that we, we hold up, particularly in America, American standard algorithms as the way of doing math and anything else is not acceptable. But then we went kind of too far in the other direction to say only, you know, thinking about this with 12 steps is the way to, to really understand mathematics. And I think we have to find a way to kind of come into harmony where, you know, you'll hear critics all the time saying, oh, well, you know, if the students don't know their times tables, what are they gonna do? Count on their fingers every time they have to do a problem. No, I don't want a kid counting on their fingers every time they have to do a problem. And I also want them to be able to self-select the method that makes for the, the most sense for them in the moment, not the most sense ever. I think that some people like tend to go, oh, the algorithm is the only way, or, oh, partial products is the only way. Or, oh, this other method is the only way. But having an arsenal of strategies is about being responsive to the moment in front of you. So I'm not gonna use standard algorithm if it's a thousand minus 998 because that's stupid, but I am going to use it in another case where I don't wanna think that hard and this thing works.

Vanessa Vakharia: 7:11

Sometimes I think like, literally like take math out of it for a second, this happens with so many things in life, is like we're all like gung-ho about this one way of doing things. All of a sudden, as a society or group of people or educators or whatever, we're like, oh my god. You know, it's like eating, you know what I mean? Like it's like, I've been eating sugar my entire life and all of a sudden I have this moment of like, wait, everyone's saying sugar's bad. And instead of being like, oh, you know what? Like I'll have sugar when it makes sense, but maybe not all the time. I'm like, I'm going to eat zero sugar. I'm gonna do none of it. And then my quality of life decreases in another sense because now like.

Shelby Strong: 7:45

I'm gonna stop eating candy. I'm going to eat fruit instead. And someone's like, well, you know, fruit's got sugar too. And it's like, fuck you. Do you want me to make a better

Vanessa Vakharia: 7:51

Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. A hundred and contextual it's like, oh, maybe I'll have some candy. Maybe not for breakfast. You know what I mean? Like, or maybe around Halloween, like it's like it's, doesn't have to be, I really agree. I think it's like the pen. That's what happens. And I really think it's because we just tend towards black and white thinking. Right. It's so much easier,

Shelby Strong: 8:11

It's human nature.,

Vanessa Vakharia: 8:12

well, and also what requires more thinking than to actually discern which strategy to use. It's easier to not think. Can you also, just for our listeners, and actually for me,'cause I'm curious what, where you'll go with this. Can you briefly just define algorithm so we all know what we're talking about?

Shelby Strong: 8:30

I'm thinking standard algorithm, I'm thinking what I learned in second, third, fourth grade, the rules that my teacher said, this is how you add, this is how you subtract, this is how you multiply, this is how you divide. So long division is your standard algorithm where you've got the little house and you've got the, put the number on the outside into the number on the big side. And there's some sort of goofy acronym for what to do after you've like,'cause you have to use all the operations when you're doing long division. Actually, this reminds me of a story I wanted to tell you. So, uh, I moved to Massachusetts three years ago and when I first moved up here, I went and did a job kind of a little far away from where I ended up living and got there No problem. a great time with the teachers and it's time to go home. I'm leaving Boston and no one had told me that the Sumner Tunnel was gonna be closed, which is this big tunnel around Boston. But more importantly, no one had told Google Maps that the Sumner Tunnel was gonna be closed. And so kept trying to direct me into this tunnel that I couldn't take. So I end up like just driving in circles surrounding Logan Airport because I don't know how to get home, I just moved here. And what I thought about was if I had been back home in New Orleans and the Crescent City connection had been closed and I couldn't take that bridge, it's fine. I could have taken the HU EP. I have other ways to get there. Is that the option I'm gonna choose every day? No, but it's the option. I'm gonna choose when the way that I want to go is closed to me. And in the same way, that's what we are really trying to accomplish with mathematics now, is not to say, only take this path, or, you know, this path is wrong. Take the path that you're comfortable with and when you run into a situation where that path is blocked to you for whatever reason, you know the landscape well enough to be able to not panic when it comes time to take another path instead of just three times.

Vanessa Vakharia: 10:21

So let's just take a step back here. We are kind of vilifying the algorithms and that way I would also like to say, there was a time when, you know, people keep saying, well, you don't need it anymore. We don't need people to punch things into calculators. We don't need algorithms. Calculators can do that. We need people to think. And like, let's be fair, there was a time where that was a skill that was way more necessary than it was now, let's say, however, it doesn't mean that an algorithm is not useful. But now we've vilified it to the point of being like, if you're using an algorithm, if you're just following rules, you're mimicking, you're not thinking. There's so much about this.

Shelby Strong: 10:56

Let's go back to the musician example, right? There's a difference between like playing a piece of music from like reading the music and playing it and really feeling it. Like there's a reason some people are first chair, right? Because like, yes, they're playing music that someone else wrote, but they are dialed into it. The problem is, is when all you know is an algorithm and you don't understand why the algorithm works and it goes wrong, then how do you get yourself out of it, right? How do you stop circling the airport? And that's where I think that we had we gotten it wrong for so long, is that, because the adults didn't understand why the algorithm worked, they couldn't answer student questions about, well, why do I do that? And what if I, what if I didn't wanna use that? I was talking about addition with someone the other day and we were adding two three digit numbers and I started from the left. I started with the hundreds place and I was, I was

Vanessa Vakharia: 11:49

Whoa. What?

Shelby Strong: 11:50

In the role of a student and they were like, no, no, no, you have to start with the ones place. And I was like, actually, I don't. That's a convention. That's not something that I have to do. That's why I think algorithms are being vilified because we're saying, you have to do it this way. Yeah, you do have to do it that way, if you're using the algorithm. If you're not, then there is a way to still approach mathematics. And we have to be comfortable and confident enough ourselves with not being scared of someone doing something that doesn't look like what we're used to. And I have seen a lot fear in classrooms where teachers will cut students off before letting them finish their thought. Because what they're hearing so far doesn't sound like what they're expecting. And instead of letting them finish the thought, there, there's this fear of, oh, if, if that makes sense to that student. But if they start talking and other kids are gonna hear it, and then they're gonna get confused and, and I have to save the children from being confused. Like, you don't have to save the children from being confused. You can just let them be confused and ask their questions.

Vanessa Vakharia: 12:48

Teaching an algorithm without context and reason, I think, and I'm curious what you think is different than, okay, like let's say, I wanna show you the algorithm rhythm as a teacher.'cause that's what I'm comfortable with right now, but I can explain to you why it works.

Shelby Strong: 13:02

Great.

Vanessa Vakharia: 13:02

that different?

Shelby Strong: 13:04

I think

Vanessa Vakharia: 13:04

Like, that's fine, right?

Shelby Strong: 13:06

I taught high. I taught a lot of things. So when I taught algebra one, uh, the thing that a lot of people remember, at least the name of, if you, even if they don't remember what it actually is, is the quadratic formula, right? For solving things like, they may not remember

Vanessa Vakharia: 13:19

I've just,

Shelby Strong: 13:20

is, but they remember hearing

Vanessa Vakharia: 13:21

I love the quadratic formula guys. I know it, so many songs,

Shelby Strong: 13:26

But,

Vanessa Vakharia: 13:26

you know.

Shelby Strong: 13:27

Glad that you said songs because I spent years telling kids to memorize this thing. And they were like, Ugh, why? And I was like, because it makes your life easier. And that's all I had for them. And then what I started doing instead was I started with completing the square instead, literally visualize a square and and solve that way. And then I made them solve a X squared plus BX plus C equals zero, and gave them an hour, gave the whole class period to just go solve this thing, figure it out, off you go. And by the end of it, they had X equals blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. And I said, do you feel like doing that every time? And they were like, Ugh, no.'Cause they're teenagers, of course they don't want to. And I said, well, what if I told you you could just memorize this thing instead? And they were like, we can do that.

Vanessa Vakharia: 14:08

So here's the thing that's, this is bringing up for me. This idea of who we call math people and who we don't. We used to call those who could just do the algorithms, get the answer. They were the math people, those people identified as math people. Now all of a sudden, you know, this is actually crazy'cause this is almost like reverse gatekeeping or something, because now we're like, what?

Shelby Strong: 14:29

I just remembered something when you were saying that. I was thinking about how wrong I was to judge a child for only being able to use algorithms and not being able to, you know, critically think and not being able to engage with more conceptual understanding. When, if every year up until the point that they met to me, that is what was valued, was rules, was following an algorithm, was being able to follow the steps, then now I'm gonna punish them for meeting the expectations that were set before they came to me. And that is, I think, where we end up having a big issue. I'm always open to the idea, like I have a lot of opinions, I have a lot of strong feelings on things, and I am open to the idea that I could be wrong. And, and I think that's where, like, that's not very profitable, because if you're open to the idea that you could be wrong, then, uh, you just went around the country and sold your ideas to all these people and, and, you know, profited very heavily off of it. And that doesn't work for certain voices in this space. Uh, to be able to be willing to say, I held this idea. I, I genuinely believed it at the time. I've heard something new or I've considered something else, and now I wanna reflect on that. We're expecting that from the students, but when the adults do it, we call them two-faced and we call them grifters and we call them whatever else.

Vanessa Vakharia: 15:51

I am actually stunned by how well you've put this. As always, you honestly always blow my mind because you are so right. And I was just saying to someone the other day, oh my god, fucking Dr. Raj Shah, he asked me what my superpowers were and I said one of them was that I can see both sides of everything. Like I can, I can have a very strong opinion. I can see the other side. And you are so right that, you know, there are those people who talk, this is exactly what you, who you're talking about, there are people who talk in this way where it's like, I found the solution. Like all you've gotta do is this thing and this is the way to do it. And we both get it because you just used the word profitable and whether you mean that monetarily or just people buying into you and your idea, you're right. Right. It's like when you look at these self help coaches and stuff, the reason I'm so un, it's like I wanna be a self-help cult leader, but I would never be able to say, I've got the answer like, do this and you, I wouldn't be able to do it because I'm so aware like you are that right now this is what I think and I'm so open to being wrong because I want to always be learning and growing. And it would be insane to think that like I for sure know something we, none of us for sure know anything,

Shelby Strong: 17:00

I think part of why it's so scary to say I could be wrong is because it's not just you and I, you know, two adults sitting at and talking into microphones on a podcast. There's children's futures at stake, and

Vanessa Vakharia: 17:14

Right.

Shelby Strong: 17:14

Idea of being, of getting it wrong, the stakes are very, very high if we're getting it wrong in front of children and we're, we're getting it wrong for the children. And I think that's where you see all of these science of whatever wars is because, we are so locked into this way of thinking that teaching is a helping profession and we're doing it for the children, so and so and so forth. And we forget that children are malleable. We forget that children are capable of complex thought, that they are capable of evolving in their mindset and their perspective, and it is really hard to overwrite a first impression. If children come to mathematics, come to ELA, come to science, come to social studies, and shape their worldview and their perspective around this is what it means to do this subject, this is what it means to do school. It takes so much more work to overwrite that first impression. And so it is a little terrifying. I, I experienced it myself in the classroom where I had been trained on teach the algorithms, have them, you know, I do, we do, you do whatever. And then all of a sudden here's these new standards and it's like, oh, by the way, everything that you've been doing, you've been damaging the children, so fix everything about yourself. But we're not gonna give you the time or the space to figure out how to do this new thing. And we're not gonna train you on it. We're just going to once again, put it on your shoulders and good luck. Figure it out. We're gonna blame you when it goes wrong. And that's a very scary place to be in. I think teachers feel a lot of pressure to constantly get it right, because that has been the perception forever. When, when it was, you know, one house, school, Mars, that's always been, you are the one responsible. And so we are gonna hold you accountable for everything, but we're not gonna give you any space to grow and develop. We're just going to, you know, we're gonna make decisions and hold you accountable for the results of them.

Vanessa Vakharia: 19:15

I mean, it's so real, like what you're saying, and I know so many people listening are probably like, it's, it's hitting where it hurts, but I, I wonder something, you know, I wonder if part of it is the way we frame it as, you know, we're saying something like, oh, now we've learned that things we've been doing for decades have damaged children. I'd like to actually pause at that statement for a second. There's so much pressure there. First of all, when you know better, you do better. Sometimes we just don't know things. Do you know what I mean? Like, we think about how every week a new food, it's like, oh, strawberries are actually, they cause fucking cardiac arrests. Like they've been good for you up till now. Like, you're not gonna, you know, the strawberry farmers aren't like, fuck, we've been, okay. First of all, that's not a sign. There's nothing wrong with strawberries, but you know what I mean?

Shelby Strong: 19:57

Pale people, don't drink orange juice and go in the sun because it'll burn your skin from the inside.

Vanessa Vakharia: 20:01

Right, like whatever. There's always some new thing. Like it's like wine is good for you, then it's not, the sun was good for us. Remember how good the sun was? Now it's gonna burn us to a, it's not like the, it's not like, like think about it. Think, let's just go back to my strawberry example, which isn't a true example, but the strawberry farmer or whatever isn't like, shit, I spent years poisoning people and I've, you know, I've done wrong. They didn't know. They literally didn't know. So we're always doing the best we can in the moment. But I'd also like to argue, but I'm curious what you think, let's say, okay, something, I'm trying to think of something we can agree on is not a great practice maybe that a lot of people could agree on. Like, let's say doing mad minutes, getting students to get up in front of the entire class and being timed. So let's say it's a harmful practice, okay? Which let's, a lot of us can agree that it is, some may not, whatever. There are many of us, okay, who grew up in that time with that practice, who actually developed a very healthy relationship with math. And I would argue it's because regardless of the pedagogy and the curriculum, the teacher believed in, like, let's just say for me, I mean the Mad Minutes was, I remember doing them, but I remember my teacher was so lovely and believed in me and there was all this other stuff going on under the, under the covers of the practice. She was just doing what she thought was a good practice'cause she was told to. Could we just not say even though some of the practices, like maybe teaching through the algorithm, maybe not, people debate on their, the benefit of that practice that you're not actually necessarily damaging students. Do you know what I'm saying? I'm just trying to like take the pressure off.

Shelby Strong: 21:40

so I think that's, I think it's twofold, right? Part of it is I would say that you thrived in spite of the practice, not because of it.

Vanessa Vakharia: 21:47

Yes. Fair. Yes.

Shelby Strong: 21:48

The thing that was, you know, that in spite of was because you had someone who was lovely and who was validating. And I would say, I mentioned earlier, my son did mad minutes in first grade for his edition facts. Now my son. Has me for a mom, right? Like we, we, we do math at home together on a regular basis. And so he's not a slouch when it comes to his mathematical ability so far. Like he, he's been doing really interesting thinking for a long time. And because he was a COVID kid, he did not do a whole lot of writing. Like he didn't go to preschool. His kindergarten year was the first year back, uh, post pandemic, you know, whatever post pandemic means. Um, and I told his kindergarten teacher, I was like, look, the content standards that you guys are covering this year, we took care of them at home already. Like, he's got it. I need him to kind of learn how to function as a student. And so I need to work on, you know, his handwriting and listening and staying seated and like the things that we've unfortunately determined make you good at school. Right. I was less focused on his academic learning so much as his social learning that year. Then he gets to first grade and he's still not a super proficient writer. And so he comes outta school one day stomping, crying, like, so upset. And I'm like, what's going on? And it was the mad minutes because when I verbally asked him all the questions on that page, he did it in 20 seconds. But because his handwriting had not developed to the same ability, he was getting

Vanessa Vakharia: 23:14

Oh, wow.

Shelby Strong: 23:15

On these assignments because he couldn't write down as quickly as he could think. So we were assessing like, his assessment wasn't assessing the thing that they thought they were assessing that happens all the time. Right. And so he doesn't know that that's why he's frustrated. I know. Mom and,'cause I'm a grown adult. And so what, what Ben, is he going to say? He's going to say I'm bad at math. F it's not his mathematical ability that's causing the frustration, but he's seven. He doesn't know that. I think that we do need to offer humans a lot of grace'cause we make the best decisions we can with the information we, and that doesn't mean that we double down and get defensive. And I think that that's where, that's the hardest part is that we spend a lot of time being defensive as educators because we feel like we're getting it from all sides and we feel constantly attack.'cause we're not perfect and we're not doing everything for your sweet baby angel when there are 31 other sweet baby angels who also need our time and love and, and so it's hard to sort of put that defensiveness aside and truly engage with, okay, is this just someone being mad at me and blowing off steam? Or is this something I genuinely need to, to examine? And trying to determine that when you're drowning in paperwork and responsibilities. It, it's very, it's hard. Really hard.

Vanessa Vakharia: 24:38

It's really hard. And you know, you're, I think you're such a wonderful,'cause you're a coach, right? You work with teachers a lot and you understand their plate because you've been a teacher, you've been in a variety of classrooms. I feel like we are in this very interesting place, like you've just said, where all of a sudden everything shifted to, we need to be teaching, thinking. If you're not doing that, you're potentially damaging kids by teaching them to mimic, as you've just said, there is so much to do. So someone might be listening to this thinking, yeah, I get it. I have examined it and I'm not being defensive and I get that it would be better if I taught in this different way and I don't have the bandwidth for it at this moment. And I don't wanna feel like I'm damaging kids anytime I walk into the classroom. Like, what can I do? Or like, do you have any, anything to say to those teachers who are like, you know what I mean?

Shelby Strong: 25:28

I think Zak Champagne talks about this really beautifully when he talks about listen to kids, and recognizing the humanity of the kid in front of you first. Like, yes, we have to teach content. Yes, we have a lot of responsibilities, but the humanity the children in front of us and the humanity of our coworkers has to come first because otherwise, what are we doing? You know, when we really stop to consider the humanity of the people in front of us, it becomes a little bit easier to assume the most generous interpretation of someone's actions. Once they have proven to you that, that's not this is about, like, like I, I like to give everyone the benefit of the doubt, but I like to do it once. Once you've shown that that's not what's actually happening here, then we're having a different conversation. I would rather be generous with my interpretation and generous with someone's motivations and be proven wrong, then think too harshly of someone because if they were, if they were coming from a place of generosity of spirit, and I assume the worst of them, just made it harder.

Vanessa Vakharia: 26:40

Yeah. Yeah. No, I love it. I think I'm particularly sensitive, to be honest, to never wanting, just'cause I've been in this, this scene for a few years now and I've heard the way math eds talked about, and what you said about when we are just like, this is the way to do it and if you're not doing it this way, I've seen so much of that, and I understand it for the reasons you said, you know, like A, I understand it because as people we wanna simplify things down to, it's right and wrong. There's no gray area, just pick one. As, you know, we wanna be really convicted in our own ideas so we, we have the confidence in them so we can get buy-in from people. I get it. But what I've seen happen is so many teachers feeling like shit, walking out of a session, being like, fuck, I'm still using the algorithm and now this person says I'm damaging children. And that I hate because no one, like, that's all. I think I'm very sensitive to hearing that and then hearing from teachers who already are carrying math trauma, who already have their own baggage around math, now feeling that shit, because I don't, I learned through the algorithm and I finally mastered teaching the way I was taught. Now I'm being told to teach a whole different way. Otherwise now I'm apparently damaging children, not only with my math trauma, that's apparently contagious, but now because I'm teaching math the wrong way, like I just wanna prevent that.

Shelby Strong: 28:01

We shouldn't go around finger wagging at teachers and saying, you're damaging children. I don't think that that's helpful to anyone ever. If someone has gone to a session and all they've taken away from it is a feeling of guilt, then that presenter didn't, maybe didn't do a great job. Because I do present on occasionally, like on different ways without an algorithm or ways to build up towards an algorithm and I don't often hear, now, maybe they're not saying it to my face, so who knows, but what I often hear is I hadn't considered that approach. I wanna go try it and see what happens. So I don't want anyone to ever walk away saying like, oh, I need to change everything about my practice. But instead, if we inspire people to consider something that they hadn't considered before, and then they go, oh, well what if I went back and showed that to my students? Like how would that solve a problem that I'm having?

Vanessa Vakharia: 28:48

So, the thing that I was gonna ask you about 20 minutes ago, but it actually ties in perfectly, is we kind of started this conversation by saying you were like, I'm kind of having beef with the whole idea that now all of a sudden we're saying people who like, thrive on the algorithm, that algorithm life, are no longer real mathematicians. Right. You started with your be this started with Dave fucking Grohl. Oh my God, I forgot. Yes. When the ADHD takes

Shelby Strong: 29:11

over, there's no stopping it.

Vanessa Vakharia: 29:14

Oh my God. Okay. This is beautiful. So yes, we started with who would we call a real musician or not. Now we moved on to who would we call a real mathematician. It's shifted from the algorithm people to the creative thinking people, and now we're gonna double up on all of that and say, what is the risk for those who consider themselves math people and those who don't. You brought up a point during one of our talks where you said, I actually think the idea of a math person is not only harmful for those who don't consider themselves falling into that camp, but even more so for those who do

Shelby Strong: 29:49

I think about it the same way, that part, that the patriarchy is not only harmful for women, but it's also harmful for men.

Vanessa Vakharia: 29:56

Go off

Shelby Strong: 29:58

Men are just as damaged by the patriarchy because they, if they do not conform to this idea of what it means to be a man, then they're not a real man, and then they are punished for not to the standards of patriarchy. And in the same way we find that with mathematics, where if we are defining being a math person by being fast, by not, by never asking questions, by, uh, always getting the answer right by, you know, following the algorithms, like what, however we're defining it. If that is what if we set the standard and say, this is what it means to be a math person, then the first time that your perception. altered the first time that you encounter something that rocks that a little bit, it kind of shatters your confidence. I personally, like didn't care one way or the other about math. Like, I guess I was good at it. Geek in high school, certified nerd, science Olympiad, you know, took more math classes than I needed to graduate, whatever. Like, I, I didn't feel any type of way about it. I certainly did not anticipate that this was going to be my life growing up, like this was, and so I get to college and I go, I take my first two, like kind of pre-req math classes and they're fine. I take calculus and I face plant hard. Like when I tell you I had to withdraw'cause I was gonna fail, and then I did it again and I got a D and then I barely managed to get a C, the third go around. And it rattled my identity. It rattled who I was as a person because prior to this I hadn't really thought about math one way or the other, but other people had acknowledged I was good at math, therefore I must be smart. And the first time that I encountered some mathematics that wasn't, that didn't come to me easily. That wasn't intuitive for me. one of two options. Either the math is stupid or I am or I am. And that for a long well that's the professor's fault. Like he didn't a good job teaching me, or, or she didn't show me enough examples or what. Like, because if I have predicated my identity on being smart, and if I have predicated being smart on being good at math, then the moment that I'm not good at math, that takes out sort of the linchpin in my entire sense of self.

Vanessa Vakharia: 32:15

Oh my God.

Shelby Strong: 32:16

and so, when people like you and I come along and say, actually math should be accessible to everyone, then if you've built your identity around being good at this thing that other people aren't good at, and like I'm setting myself apart because I'm good at math and that makes me special and that makes me better than other people because this is something that not everyone has access to. When someone comes along and says, actually, we're gonna redefine that thing, then you feel attacked because you're taking, because now we're taking away the thing that makes them special. Should that have been the thing that made them feel special in the first place? Well, I would argue no, because the, the practice itself was exclusionary as mathematics has often been to women, has often been to people who do not fit a certain mold, as mathematics has often been to folks who do mathematics in a non Eurocentric way. Think about Pascal's Triangle and the fact that we call it Pascal's Triangle when it existed in other cultures for centuries before Pascal.

Vanessa Vakharia: 33:19

It did?

Shelby Strong: 33:19

Oh my God. Yeah. There are so many things mathematically that we ascribe to white European men that existed in other cultures. And so if you have built

Vanessa Vakharia: 33:31

So whose fucking triangle is it?

Shelby Strong: 33:33

Girl, I don't know, I should know if I, I'll, need a producer's note from David. Where did Pascal's Triangle come

Vanessa Vakharia: 33:40

David's on it. He's on it. He's already on it. Don't worry.

Shelby Strong: 33:44

It's the triangle. Well, and that's why you, you hear some people refer to the right triangle theorem instead of the Pythagorean Theorem because the right triangle theorem was known prior to the Greeks.

Vanessa Vakharia: 33:58

Fuck me up. Okay. Hold on.

Shelby Strong: 34:00

All of that is to say if you have built a sense of self around being good at math and therefore you're smart and therefore you're better than other people, then the idea that anyone could be good at math threatens your position at the top of the pecking order. So that's for some people. And then for other people, it threatens their sense of self and their sense of who they are and their sense of, well, if I'm not good at math, then who am I? And I think we see that a lot with teachers as well, particularly when they leave the classroom because they make being a teacher part of their identity. It's who they are, not what they do. And so once they don't have that anymore, well then who I am, who am I without that? And it causes this sort of like crisis of character that I think sometimes we dismiss a little too easily.

Vanessa Vakharia: 34:46

And I think, I mean this is the whole thing with labels in general, but what's interesting is, I'm gonna take this a step further and well, you've just segued this so nicely into like the final juicy thing I wanted to talk to you about. I was like, how am I gonna tie this all together? And you just did it for me. You're actually here coming at us from your husband's streaming studio where he plays video games, I believe. Okay. One of the things we were talking about that's completely tangential to what you're saying now is there is this whole rift in what you call geek culture, specifically about this quote unquote identity crisis. Take this a little further into what's happening right now

Shelby Strong: 35:24

Okay. So,

Vanessa Vakharia: 35:26

In your world, in your geek world.

Shelby Strong: 35:28

so I think that this sense of self is something that we. Equally don't pay enough attention to, and sometimes we pay a little bit too much attention to, which is weird because it's a matter of who gets the attention and who gets the moment, right? And so when we think about, you know, math can be accessible to everyone in the same way that like, oh, if m math is acceptable to everyone, then I don't get to be a gatekeeper anymore. And game culture has been dealing with this since fricking, I would say, since Gamer Gate, but honestly, it's been longer than that. It's been, I mean, since I was a child for sure, where women and certain, like folks, like people of color, there's just been this sort of idea of who is a geek. So, you know, remember that, that time when everyone was like, oh, draw a mathematician, and then they all, all the pictures

Vanessa Vakharia: 36:19

Yes. Yes.

Shelby Strong: 36:20

If you ask someone, draw a gamer or draw a nerd or draw, you know, a geek or whatever. I'm sure you would get very similar drawings of this stereotype of what it means to be a geek, what it means to be a gamer, what it means to be whatever. And my pet theory is that, humans just want to belong somewhere like that is, is the core of everything.

Vanessa Vakharia: 36:45

The core.

Shelby Strong: 36:46

That doesn't mean that they want to belong to everyone, but it does mean they want to belong somewhere. And so if they are being excluded in certain avenues of life, then they're going to go where they feel welcome and where they feel accepted. But there's, I think that, for folks like geeks and gamers and folks who maybe didn't fit a certain definition of cool, is a little bit of resentment. There's a little bit of harboring of that sense of being excluded. And so when tables turn, and they get to be the gatekeeper, some folks jump on that opportunity. And you know, you get the stereotype of the, the guy who, you know, sees an, uh, someone and quizzes them on obscure Star Wars characters because they're gonna prove their nerd mettle. They're gonna prove their geek mettle. They're gonna, you know, I'm going, I'm gonna test whether or not you actually belong here. And I think in the same way, folks who have self-identified as math people, because of being good at the things that we used to define as being good at math, there is that sense of gatekeeping, that sense of, well, how do I know you actually belong here? I can't tell you how many students would ask me to multiply two seven digit numbers together to prove that I was good at math. And I was like, babe, that's

Vanessa Vakharia: 38:08

I got it all the time. I got it all the time. You said something earlier about paying the price.

Shelby Strong: 38:14

So if I got called to gaming like I, because I was, I am obsessed with video games and that meant that sometimes that I was not first kid picked in the sports at PE. Like I, I had to sort of the, the price of popularity for the things that I love. And I don't know that it's the same way for the kids now. I think kids have gotten

Vanessa Vakharia: 38:42

I think it's a bit different. It's a bit different, but I don't think it's non-existent.

Shelby Strong: 38:47

But adults are just tall, hurt kids. And so don't think that

Vanessa Vakharia: 38:51

Yeah, for sure.

Shelby Strong: 38:51

we let go of the things that hurt us when we were younger. We might say we do

Vanessa Vakharia: 38:55

A hundred percent.

Shelby Strong: 38:56

There's always that like, like it, it sort of shapes and forms who you are. And so if I felt like I belonged to mathematics, and belonging to mathematics meant that I was excluded elsewhere, then, if someone else gets to just be good at math, but they didn't have to pay for it with their popularity. They didn't have pay with their time. They didn't have to pay for it with who they got to hang out with. Then they haven't paid the price of admission. They haven't paid the cost of, you know, like you can enjoy anime and, but it means that you're not going to be cool. You can enjoy video games, but it means you're not gonna be cool. And so then if someone else comes along and likes anime and is cool and who likes War Hammer and is cool Henry Cavill, like there's, I think some folks have a sense of resentment towards those folks because how dare you like those things And you didn't have to pay you, you didn't have to to

Vanessa Vakharia: 39:52

total sense.

Shelby Strong: 39:53

Go in and so it's something that I think the children are a lot better about now, but I wonder if that's because the parameters have shifted and they've got their own thing that like, if you like this thing, then you can't be cool.

Vanessa Vakharia: 40:10

yes, I think you're right. I think, I think that's a very, very good point. You just said at the end, maybe they have a new thing that you can't like this and be cool. Like what, what, what it is to be cool has changed. Like there's a lot there. I also am wondering, I don't know who Henry, whatever is, I don't know what warheads, I don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

Shelby Strong: 40:26

a Superman, and I'm gonna have to send you a picture of him because he is a,

Vanessa Vakharia: 40:31

Is he a hottie?

Shelby Strong: 40:32

man, like.

Vanessa Vakharia: 40:33

Well, the reason I bring this up is, is I'm curious if in, uh, gaming culture, because for those,'cause some people listening might have no idea what gamer gate is, by the way. So can you summarize, can you just in a couple of sentences, because I wanna like say something.

Shelby Strong: 40:47

Claimed to be about ethics in journalism that, uh, women who were making video games got favorable coverage and some man children got their undies in a wad over it. Um, and then it turned into online harassment campaigns, threats of violence, threats of sexual assault, threats of death, and it became this sort of linchpin moment of"we get to set the parameters for whether or not you are allowed to exist in the space that we've claimed as our own". And that, that has sort of rippled out into anti-war culture into like a lot of, a lot of what we're seeing in modern discourse and the, you know, so-called manosphere and all of these things. You can sort of trace it back to that moment in time of defining, we set the standard for what it means to be a gamer, we set the standard for what it means to this moment.

Vanessa Vakharia: 41:44

And, and and truly, we, one of those standards were that you had to be a man, right? Like, and, and so now my question is now with what Henry Cavill was that his name with whatever, Superman hottie, who's a gamer? I, my, my question is to you,'cause I have no idea. Is it gendered or is it like anyone who is traditionally cool and good looking, can't be in? Like do the men, are they getting the same bullshit treatment that the women got? Is he getting death threats?

Shelby Strong: 42:10

I would sincerely doubt if he's getting death threats. Um, I don't know him personally, so I can't ask, but I

Vanessa Vakharia: 42:16

I'm gonna get him on the podcast.

Shelby Strong: 42:18

Call his agent, see what happens.

Vanessa Vakharia: 42:20

You know, I talk about this so much and you and I talk about it so much. We're at such an interesting time where it's like, yeah, things have shifted. We're seeing intelligent female characters in teen movies and stuff, but there's still no cheerleader that's good at math. I think there's still boundaries around their, these characters like, you know, Ginny and Georgia, like Ginny's pretty and smart and cool, but it's in English. Like math is still never brought up. Like, I just think we're still, there's still this very interesting,

Shelby Strong: 42:45

did want to ask you about this actually. Have you seen Mean Girls?

Vanessa Vakharia: 42:50

Of course.

Shelby Strong: 42:50

What do you feel about the character of Cady? Because does end up having to sacrifice being cool for going to be a athlete?

Vanessa Vakharia: 43:00

Well, this is, but this is the most controversial, I think example, because you could say both. I still think it is a movie personally, where the trope is the cheerleader. Popular girls. She had to, she was pretending she was dumb in front of them, otherwise she wouldn't be included. She was dumbing herself down to get the guy. In the end, she's like, fuck all of that, and she perseveres and she joins the mathletes and everything's good, she decides to be true to herself and go for math. Now, the plastics and the cheerleaders sucked, but it was still the divide, right? She had to choose one or the other,

Shelby Strong: 43:34

I mean, quite frankly, I don't know if the plastics are what you aspire to be in life, but,

Vanessa Vakharia: 43:39

you don't it. But that's not the, they, they were also a trope, right? Like cheerleaders could be pissed off too and be like, oh my God, why are you painting us like that? Like, it's always this, it, it's the idea of the dichotomy of the divides of like, there's this group and that group, and the other group, I think, I mean,

Shelby Strong: 43:54

I think those tropes only exist in movies sometimes.'Cause when I think about my own high school experience, like, yeah, there were athletes, but there were also like, there were athletes who were theater kids. There were cheerleaders who were not super popular. I think that we categorize people into like, you must belong to this group, uh, you are an element of this set, and therefore you cannot belong somewhere else. And yet, a square can also be a rectangle. If we feel as though we need to belong to one thing, then yes. If we are cognizant of the fact that humans are just complex, then I think it becomes a little bit easier to be like, okay, you can, you can exist in multitudes. But I do think that if that's all you have going for you, then you're going to defend that very fiercely. And I think that some have mistaken a hobby for a personality and don't then realize that they have more work to do on becoming a full, a fully complete human

Vanessa Vakharia: 44:59

A lot there. So much to think about, honestly, I mean there, there's so much that we've gone all over the place here, but I, you're just one of my favorite people to talk to and we have to wrap up. We have to wrap up with the final two questions that I ask every single person. Question number one, what, if you could change one thing about the way math is done in schools, what would it be?

Shelby Strong: 45:19

I would change the perspective that math is a solo activity, because my favourite memories in college were sitting around on the third floor of the math building with staring up at a whiteboard, trying to solve a problem together, and like throwing different things literally at the wall to see what would stick. And I think we overemphasize this idea of math as an individual accomplishment when most papers are co-written. When something like an Erdős number exists, that you know, Erdős number is like a Kevin Bacon number, but for math writers.

Vanessa Vakharia: 45:49

We don't have time for this. David's doing this in his mind, but now I need to know what, just tell me what it is. I need to know what it's, no, just tell me,

Shelby Strong: 45:55

like how, like if you co-wrote with Paul Erdős a mathematician, you have a number of one. If you wrote with someone who wrote with Paul Erdős, you have a number of two. So it's a Kevin

Vanessa Vakharia: 46:02

oh, who is this guy? Oh my God. That is so fucking nerdy. I love Next question. If somebody was listening to all this and they were like, yeah, yeah, yeah. Cool, cool. I'm just not a math person, what would you say?

Shelby Strong: 46:15

I'm married to that person, quite frankly, uh, that's my husband. So I do this for a

Vanessa Vakharia: 46:19

The gamer, the geek, huh?

Shelby Strong: 46:23

Married to that person. And what I would say is, okay. Just like with algorithms where we swung too hard, the other way, we swung too hard into this idea that everyone can be a math person, therefore everyone should be a math person. And in

Vanessa Vakharia: 46:34

Love it.

Shelby Strong: 46:35

That I am allowed to not like poetry, in the same way that I'm allowed to not like thrillers and like horror movies, I'm allowed to, to not like every aspect of mathematics. But I do think that that perspective doesn't shift until we open up the meaning of what mathematics is. Because if you say the word math, and I say the word math and we hold different definitions of that word, we're never gonna be in agreement on what it means to be a math person and whether or not it's okay to be one or not.

Vanessa Vakharia: 47:00

I love it. I love everything you said. I loved having you on. I could talk to you for 10 more hours. You're amazing. You're such an inspiration. I'm so glad, we will leave you with Shelby's favorite question, which is, is a hot dog a sandwich?

Shelby Strong: 47:13

You tell us, go to social media and let us know whether or not you think a hot dog is a sandwich. I'm not wearing my hot dog shirt today, sorry

Vanessa Vakharia: 47:20

Okay. You rock. See you on our our, yeah, bye.

Shelby Strong: 47:26

Vanessa. goodbye.

Vanessa Vakharia: 47:27

Yeah. Goodbye. Okay. Like, come on, where do I even begin to summarize all of that? Honestly, I think one of my favorite things about Shelby is she doesn't hold back. Like she doesn't sugarcoat, she just says it like it is, and she's fearless when it comes to holding both institutions and individuals accountable for their role in shaping not just our education system, but our entire world. And she does all that while holding compassion for all the teachers out there who are literally trying their best within a completely chaotic timeline. If something in our talk made you like spit out your coffee or react in a far less dramatic but still excited manner to text me, I wanna hear from you. You can find the link to text the podcast in your show notes. You can email me, you can DM me on Instagram@themathguru. But also please rate the podcast on your app. Write a quick review if you can, and most importantly, share this episode with one person who needs to hear it. A reminder that this episode would not exist without the amazing David Kochberg, AKA, our producer and sound engineer, that I'm your host, Vanessa Vakharia, and that the song soundtrack music you're listening to right now is by our band, Goodnight Sunrise. Thank you so much for being here. I can't wait to see you next Thursday. the thing about Shelby guys is Shelby has an opinion on everything, right?

Shelby Strong: 48:53

It's true.

Vanessa Vakharia: 48:54

And not only that, like, sure, you know what a friend I have says opinions are like assholes, everyone has one. But the thing is, and I'm not saying this to be demeaning to anyone else, Shelby's opinions are so fascinating to me.

Shelby Strong: 49:06

I'm so glad that I have fascinating asshole!

Vanessa Vakharia: 49:10

Oh my God. Oh my God. Well, we are at a hot start here. Let me just say, and that was not, that was not a pun in any way. That was not related.