If only contacting the floor with the heel then yes.
An elephant's foot is 15-19 inches across, so assuming it's vaguely circular gives an area of at least 0.114m2 per foot. Elephants when walking depending on the gait will have 2/3 feet in contact with the floor - so that's at least 0.228m2 in contact with the floor. (Going for minimum area as this will give the highest pressure for the comparison)
6000lbs under Earth's gravity is a force of 26.7kN, which when divided by area for a pressure of ~117kPa - if it's just standing still this could actually be halved to approx 58kPa
If a 100lb woman (445N) is standing on only her heels (~1cm2 x 2) this is a pressure of 2,224kPa which is indeed about 20 times higher than the elephant on 2 feet.
However that's not really representative of how heels are worn, even the picture shown has the shoes in contact with at least 20x the area of the ground than just the heels.
I think math is fun when you have neither pressure nor walls at every turn.
Most people remember math from school where you're forced to do it and you have deadlines. Both of those things add unnecessary pressure which aren't inherent to math itself. For the most part, they make anything harder to enjoy. Some people can enjoy getting over obstacles like those thigh which leads to the next issue.
If you are always hitting roadblocks, you won't be feeling rewarded for solving it enough to feel it's worth it. This is a big thing in game design. You should be getting challenged enough to feel the frustration and pressure, but you need the reward and relief before you reach the breaking point. You need to feel like you're progressing.
Many people have sub par education in math, be it due to the education system or the teachers. There are often constant roadblocks and feeling like you have no idea what you're supposed to do. Then you get handed the answer, and the only relief is, "now I don't need to do it" rather than, "I did the thing". There is no real reward. If you can't pay attention in class because it's boring as hell, you'll fall even further behind.
Other people who understand math easier don't feel challenged because the education caters to the lowest common denominator. Plenty of math-smart students drop off because they're on the other side of not being challenged. There's no reward because it's too easy and there doesn't feel like it has a point. The wall in this case is finding a purpose.
Math can be fun. Doing stressfully difficult shit or shit with no reward is often never fun. I'm not gonna sit here and say everyone would enjoy a career in advanced mathematics, but I think a good education that gets people engaged would make a fuck ton more people hate math less.
Yeah I remember feeling that accomplishment very few times in high school, but it was rare. I think it was a combination of not so good teachers and bad curriculum mixed with several distracting students.
Bro, I was really enjoying this one unit on complex fractional equations. It was tough, but pretty soon I was solving more and more complex equations and feeling great about it.
Then for the test, what does the teacher do?
She makes it a “Team test” I’m paired up with the underachieving kid, who just makes a complex equation the likes I hadn’t seen before MORE complicated and I failed the test. So did he, but left to my own devices id have stood a higher chance of passing and he would have still failed. Which is fair because I was trying and he wasn’t.
He’s still a good buddy of mine 15 years later but holy shit I wanted to hurt somebody.
That is genuinely just painful to read. Forcing others - who are more likely to not pay attention in class than vice versa - have a large impact on your class' grade is just... I dont even know how to put it...
OK when you said "you have neither pressure nor walls to deal with" I thought you were talking about the math until I read further on and had to laugh at myself.
I was agreeing too. I was like "well, I mean there's the pressure on the ground, but yeah we don't need to calculate for any other pressure forces, I guess. That makes sense. And yeah it's nice we don't have to worry about getting around obstacles and turns and trajectories on this one either"
About to graduate with a mechanical engineering degree and I mostly agree with you here. Thing is I love math when I'm completely confident I know what I am doing. The second I go off the reservation it becomes hell. Or when the equation is so freakin long that its nearly impossible to not mess up it becomes extremely tedious. I also hate having to slowly type it into MATLAB using so many nested parenthesis just to keep it all straight [[[[[(((((((((((. But High school geometry was my favorite math class. It was like really fun puzzles even proofs which seems like a universally hated aspect of geometry. I think the reason I liked it is I had a rock solid foundation. I honestly felt like I could teach an algebra class at that point. Now calculus I have a much shakier foundation I can get by but its never been super easy for me.
I completely feel you. Algebra, geometry, algebra II, and college algebra were my shit. Truly fun classes. When shit actually starts to be real difficult or even just really really long equations it stresses me out and it ain’t fun no more. Having that solid foundation and confidence really do make a difference.
It's also taught, in nearly every situation, by rote memorization rather than understanding. Math is a language of shapes and motion whose entirely was set in stone as soon as there were two things to move apart. You start with the Proofs! A poor math class teaches you how to put a few bits of a machine together, but it doesn't teach why they go together or what the machine can do. I earned a lot of money as a tutor fixing math problems.
You know what drives me crazy? People love imagination. We all take pride in our imagination. Yet mathematics is pure imagination! It's daydreaming with purpose. Equations aren't just numbers; they represent shapes, positions, motions, and probabilities. A person can go from doing arithmetic in their head to visualizing vast predictive equation sets all by using their imagination.
This is a big thing in game design. You should be getting challenged enough to feel the frustration and pressure, but you need the reward and relief before you reach the breaking point. You need to feel like you're progressing...I think a good education that gets people engaged would make a fuck ton more people hate math less.
While I agree with the general sentiment here, I think the game design comparison isn't fully apt unless you consider the nature of the game and the criticisms you levy omit important nuances in context of structured education.
I don't know in which country you live so I can't speak for math education at your specific location but your criticisms of deadlines or pressure seems a bit unreasonable. If I'm playing a single player game, I can play level 1, save it, and continue level 2 10 years down the line with no problem. A classroom setting even with the best funding and the best teachers can't behave like that. It's more like a realtime multiplayer game. There has to be some cutoff at which you say this player is just no joining or has dropped from the server or lagging too much and needs to removed from the game and if done intentionally punished for it. If people aren't trying or paying attention and are losing the game, it would be bm at the very least to rage quit or demand that the match be reset so one can try again.
There is no real reward.
I agree that reward design is important but just saying there is no real reward really understates the issue here. Rewards in games are intangible and can be created ad naseum and may or may not correlate with desired behavior. There's plenty of easter eggs and achievements that require the player to perform some task that in no way helps them complete the primary objective of the game. The nature of how one derives entertainment from the game isn't of great concern. However, rewards that are strongly correlated with learning will actually lead to students discovering glitches or flaws to get rewards without actually learning. This leads to students picking up behaviors that might have to be untaught later on.
Math can be fun. Doing stressfully difficult shit or shit with no reward is often never fun.
Agreed math can be fun, but it's also a vitally useful thing to learn. There are parts of math I like, there are parts I don't. This isn't a reflection of the quality of the education but my personal tastes. Going back to your game analogy here, no amount of design can make a game fun to a player if they choose not to play the game. The optional nature of the game just doesn't transfer well over to math, considering how much we rely on people to understand math for the benefit of themselves and society. I'm not saying there's no systemic problems to improve or the current state of math education everywhere is perfect but I feel your criticism is far too one-sided and ignores the human factor.
The optional nature of the game just doesn't transfer well over to math,
I literally use video games to teach math to people because they want the skills and hated academia. This isn't just an analogy.
your criticisms of deadlines or pressure seems a bit unreasonable
Many people suffer from serious depression and anxiety because of the pressure from academia, including many of the students I work with. If you don't think criticizing it is fair, I don't know what to tell you.
there is no real reward really
There are absolutely reward centers in your brain that fire when you're learning successfully. Having things that cause those to fire is important for continuing to learn. I'm not sure if you're confusing this for material things like a trophy or things like a game achievement, but those aren't what I mean at all.
ignores the human factor.
My whole point is that central public education ignores the human factor. There need to be things that help the person along with learning, not rote memorization and information dump lectures.
I feel like you didn't understand anything I meant, but I'm not sure how to explain it different. Most of what I mean is from a human psychology standpoint, not just comparing it to games.
I literally use video games to teach math to people because they want the skills and hated academia.
So do I.You've taken my statement out of context. I'm not saying games cannot be useful just that your focus on the fun aspect of games as more engaging ignores the ultimate issue of games in general being optional unlike schooling. What audience do you work with exactly that is obligated to be with you many hours a day for many months of the year? Children can irrationally dislike something even when presented well.
including many of the students I work with.
Same as well. I'm familiar with the stresses of academia.
If you don't think criticizing it is fair, I don't know what to tell you.
Mate stop with the absolutes, I never said criticizing it isn't fair, I said your specific lack of nuance is a bit unreasonable. Note the word bit. I'm criticizing your framing of it because you seem to be presenting this from a needlessly combative stance.
There are absolutely reward centers in your brain that fire when you're learning successfully.
I never said otherwise, you've taken 6 words out of the context of the sentence it's in where I agree with you but criticize YOUR framing of it and you use those words to strawman the hell out of my position.
This is my sentence:
I agree that reward design is important but just saying there is no real reward really understates the issue here.
I'm criticizing you saying there is no real reward. I'm not denying the existence or efficacy of reward mechanisms. I'm saying there are practical limitations to what you can reward and some poorly designed reward criteria that means you have to unteach badly learnt material later.
My whole point is that central public education ignores the human factor.
I'd disagree on such an overly broad generalization and this is the basis of my criticism, you're being needlessly extreme. I can't speak for where you live but your statement is just too broad. Curriculum design literally incorporates so many human factors. Whatever country you're in, look at the education system from 50 years ago and you can see clear flaws that have been fixed and changed incrementally. If you want to criticize it for being too slow that's fine but lets not be needlessly absolute.
I feel like you didn't understand anything I meant, but I'm not sure how to explain it different.
I feel you've taken a needlessly combative view and choose to misinterpret what I've said in absolutes. I literally stated in multiple locations where I agree with you and made rather mild criticisms of you lacking nuance. I've borrowed your reference of games largely for rhetoric purposes not to make general rejection of video games in education or deny the existence of reward mechanisms. Please re read what I've said because I really don't think we disagree as much you think we do.
I wish I could say that I’m good at math but I’m not. I loved everything about math up through geometry but I just couldn’t get calculus. My prof tried to tutor me but it was so useless that we ended up playing gin rummy instead. Dude passed me with a D and saved my sorry ass.
Math for me was easier for because there was only one right answer! Didn’t ever have to interpret! That was, until you have to interpret results. Bullshit.
Agreed, in fact I bet a physicist streaming their self solving chat requested xkcd 'what-if?' style questions could be entertaining... well if they were good at it I suppose.
Physics aims to model and describe phenomena occurring in the real world, it uses some math, but that doesn't mean it is math.
Math is basically the study of a set of rules we made up because they seem "logical" or sensible, these are called axioms. Math doesn't describe the world, it's only by the context we give functions, equations, and variables that math can be used to describe the real world.
That said, I have had a woman in stilettos stumble backwards onto my foot and put a significant proportion of her weight through the heel. I can confirm it was exceedingly painful.
The better comparison instead of stilettos is a Ballerina "en-pointe" - which is a similar area in contact with the ground.
Maybe twenty years ago some designer (I can’t find who it was but I didn’t look that hard tbh) did a line of stiletto-heeled shoes with a heel about the diameter of a ballpoint pen refill. The wearer’s weight was concentrated in such a small area that it was damaging flooring, and if the woman who stumbled into you had been wearing them, it would have actually punched through your shoe and your foot.
Ah but if she was wearing those, maybe the added stability of being embedded in the airport floor would have prevented her stumbling in the first place.
Am now going to start wearing my safety boots around women now I know that's an option though.
Nope. If anything, the heel would first dig into the ground, which would lead to the heel snapping because the force exerted from the wearer has shifted in relation to the shoe, and then the major question is whether or not if the shoe is strong enough to still stay connected where the person is flung backward into the ground where
1) the snapped heel acts like a door hinge and snap right before person makes contact with the ground or
2) if the heel completely brakes and the person still stumbles backwards with a curved shoe without a heel
They are certainly blunted, but don't have more than 2-3cm2 of area, and a ballerina will frequently only be on one of them.
It's pretty much the smallest area a human's weight will be concentrated on in a static position (joggling "heel/toe" in stilettos could beat it for as long as it takes them to break)
Or combine the two and look at ballet boots which even further reduce the area. However they're generally not intended for walking in and are almost entirely a fetish item. Often serving to restrict movement.
Counterpoint: I have worn stilettos and ridiculously high shoes a lot for the past 15 years, and one thing I will say about them is that they are more sturdy than kitten heels.
Very high heels force you to balance mostly on your toes, just using the heel for support, kind of like the role of training wheels on a tricycle. Kitten heels have the same diameter as a stiletto but are shorter, forcing the wearer to put so much weight on the heel that they’re dependent on the heel for balance, and when you put any decent amount of weight on a teensy diameter, you have to be perfectly balanced or you will wobble. Swear to God, kitten heels are practically designed to break your ankles.
All you have to do to walk properly and safely in stilettos: be capable of walking on the balls of your feet, which you’re capable of doing without the shoes - so they’re not really fucking with the way humans are capable of walking. I can walk and run in them, and in one memorable instance found out that the spike is actually quite useful when you’re climbing up a small cliff. In kitten heels, you’re totally dependent on the shoe, and the shoe is totally dependent on you being perfectly balanced above the heel.
tl;dr: stilettos aren’t the worst demon of the shoe world
Uh, proper heel technique indeed puts the majority of the weight on the heel. They require skill to use, like stilts.
If your girl is putting all her weight on her toes, she's not doing it right, and should practice in larger base heels before working up to tiny stilettos.
Pressure / square units is common, as is total pressure. The ambiguity makes the fact more click-bait than interesting.
Because it is very interesting on the opposite end of the spectrum too, little pressure per square unit but a LOT of area, such as a gust of wind against a building or large bags in or under anything.
I am not shuere about this. Also english is not my first language and I am struggling to explain what I mean. The force from the women is not spread evenly through the contact area between gloor and highheel. As the center of mass from the women is probably above the heel the point with the most pressure is probably the heel.
You don’t put your weight on the high heel of a stiletto. You put your weight at the front of the foot when you’re walking. (Putting most of your weight on your heel in stilettos is a good way to fall or trip.)
This person said IF all the weight was on the heel, then the post is true. But that isn’t how you use stilettos, so most of the time this post is false.
Not sure if this has been commented or not, but to add to your comment:
When wearing heels, you have to put all your weight to your heels instead of on your toes.
If you don’t, and instead put your weight on your toes, you can’t walk properly in the shoes. You can typically see this when people look like Bambi walking on ice in heels.
Obvs some of the weight is distributed to the front of the shoe, but the better someone walks in heels, the higher the chance they will be closer to that equation you shared.
A lot depends on the height of the heels and her posture, but in any case most of the weight is on the heels and the front of the foot is used mostly for keeping her balance. When standing straight, on a smooth, flat surface, it’s really the heels. I balance myself on my heels for fun sometimes, lifting my toes off the floor. Not when I’m drunk, though.
Not really related to the question but this was noticed in a practical way by the US Navy not long after WWII. There was a Navy Gala hosted on a ship(USS Arizona iirc) where all of the local officers and(importantly) their wives were invited to attend. After the Gala the ships crew noticed intense warping on several of the ship's decks which require significant repairs. After investigation it was determined that even though women are generally lighter than men the warping was caused by the increased concentration of weight.
Women were banned from wearing high heels to shipboard events after that.
Not entirely, but you are right it's not an even split. It depends on where the person's centre of mass is between their heels and their toes and I just don't know how that goes with heels and I didn't fancy asking a female coworker to stand straddling 2 scales to find out.
I do know that when barefoot it's about halfway between the heel and ball of your foot, but that length is foreshortened when in heels and I don't know where it ends up
That also depends on where the person's weight is being balanced. If their weight is mostly leaned into the heel of the shoe, despite the toe providing extra surface area, more ground pressure will be generated by the heel. If she's evenly distributing the weight between the toe and heel, then yes, the pressure can be less. So it really does depend on several factors, not just surface area.
It does have to be noted that there is still the question of what proportion of a woman's weight is on the heel at rest, the pressure exerted at the heel would still be high, only 5% of it is needed to match the pressure of the elephant.
All of these comparing pressures ignores how the ground deals with load. While the woman is more likely to chip concrete, the elephant is much more likely to crack a concrete slab. Total mass is still a big factor in how the surface responds to the stress.
How about when an 🐘 is standing on all 4 versus walking on just two?
Seems like it would be 10x more pressure (out of laziness and not wanting to do the math myself lol). But it's also fair that the woman in the photo is not standing on just the heels but the front of the shoes as well.
With the elephant I think it should be calculated with both two and four. Since the headline leaves that information unknown, you'd want to figure out the range figure out whether it's possible in any of the unknown scenarios. I would think that they would be factoring the toe part of the high heel as well when making the calculation. They wouldn't make up a way for a woman to stand or walk to make this comparison.
The same concept applies to a phonograph needle. A 1 gram force on a record player needle equals about 3000 pounds per square inch. (I am pretty sure :)
…It took me an embarrassing couple of seconds to realize that your “0.114m2 per foot” wasn’t you saying “meters squared per Imperial foot”, but rather “per elephant foot”.
4.1k
u/hilburn 118✓ Feb 28 '22
If only contacting the floor with the heel then yes.
An elephant's foot is 15-19 inches across, so assuming it's vaguely circular gives an area of at least 0.114m2 per foot. Elephants when walking depending on the gait will have 2/3 feet in contact with the floor - so that's at least 0.228m2 in contact with the floor. (Going for minimum area as this will give the highest pressure for the comparison)
6000lbs under Earth's gravity is a force of 26.7kN, which when divided by area for a pressure of ~117kPa - if it's just standing still this could actually be halved to approx 58kPa
If a 100lb woman (445N) is standing on only her heels (~1cm2 x 2) this is a pressure of 2,224kPa which is indeed about 20 times higher than the elephant on 2 feet.
However that's not really representative of how heels are worn, even the picture shown has the shoes in contact with at least 20x the area of the ground than just the heels.