6 ms·
Perhaps it is also the case that many mathematicians are far to the autism side of the spectrum, and find it difficult to verbalize "soft" aspects such as motiv
by Melchizedek 9y ago
Perhaps it is also the case that many mathematicians are far to the autism side of the spectrum, and find it difficult to verbalize "soft" aspects such as motivation and intuition, even though those are extremely important in a textbook.
It's almost as if they partly lack theory of mind, and cannot imagine that somebody else does not know what they know, and consequently give explanations that are only suitable for someone who already knows the material.
- mrout 9y agoThere's no shortage of 'intuitive' books on physics or programming though, and those fields have no shortage of, to use your terminology, 'autists'. Mathematics is hard. Many people find it hard, and blame their lack of understanding on the material they are given. That is not really the fault of mathematicians.
- gjulianm 9y agoSorry but this is extremely misguided. You are making assumptions that make you look like you haven't talked to a mathematician as if they were a person, but a machine or a misterious magician. Mathematicians do not find difficult to verbalize motivation and intuition because they (we) are autists. We struggle to do it because it is really difficult sometimes. You can find that you have an intuition that you cannot put into useful words (sometimes the intuition is "it should be like this"), or that it relies on more advanced concepts (something that clicks only when you get to know concepts that rely on it), or that you know that the idea in your head is not useful to others and putting that down in a book would make things worse. I have not written any book, only some notes for other students, and with that I already know it is difficult to write a good motivation and intuition to abstract concepts even when you completely dominate them. Moreover, most of the mathematicians learn to develop their own intuition and motivations and it is not as important to write yours (which are subjective most of the time) down.
- Broken_Hippo 9y agoI'm an artist. I've been doing art since I was a child: I started oil painting when I was 8 or something, and remember drawing and coloring being one of my favorite activities as a young child (before kindergarten). I can't properly explain how I see things the way I do. I can't really explain why I choose some colors in non-realistic pieces other than "they look good", although I know that learning color theory from the color wheel helps explain that and helps folks learn. It took me some time to learn to explain this stuff to others. I'm not autistic, though I likely have a mild case of dyslexia. I always imagine that skilled mathematicians are somewhat the same. It isn't that it only works for someone that already knows, it is more that they are writing the books for folks whose mind simply has that sort of slant to it. If we change all the books to help someone like me - I generally did poorly in algebra, trig, and calculus but found geometry fairly straighforward - that's going to let the other folks down because their mind's logic simply doesn't work on the same wavelength. This isn't autism, but simply human variation.
- watwut 9y agoI think that there is difference - there is nothing natural about things like notations, axiomatic system or concrete theories. They have been developed for hundreds of years and have to be learned. Kid will not invent them intuitively (unlike colors matching). As you are learning math, you oftentimes you don't understand for long and then something clicks and suddenly you get it. Mathematicien coming to new theory oftentimes needs a lot of time to go through just one page of article. I am not denying that talent exist, but it just makes learning harder or easier and defines plateau. Through, if you was good in geometry, then your brain works well enough in math (meaning some click on algebra did not happened but you are unlikely to be unable to think that way - thinking is not that dissimilar).
- watwut 9y agoNonsense. Most people on the spectrum are not good at math (lacking abstract thinking for example) and most mathematiciens are perfectly within normal spectrum. While it is cool and fun to read about mathematiciens or programmers on the spectrum, the majority is nowhere near. Moreover, mathematiciens are trained to remove things like motivation and intuition from scientific papers and when they communicate among themselves. You get punished when you dont. The training (which is perfectly sensible for given field) is much simpler explanation then attempts diagnoze people.
- hackinthebochs 9y ago>Moreover, mathematiciens are trained to remove things like motivation and intuition from scientific papers and when they communicate among themselves. You get punished when you dont. Why is this the case?
- GuB-42 9y agoIt is not about being autistic. It is just that teaching is hard, especially maths. Math is all about abstraction, and we want concrete examples, see the problem... Teachers know that their students don't know everything. But the hard part is guessing what they actually do know and adapt to it.
- wayn3 9y ago"Oh look someone put in the time to become really good at something. lets just assume they're on the spectrum and keep being mediocre"
- Verdex_2 9y agoI spent a couple years figuring out a certain problem. When I was done, it took me six months to be able to write up a blog series about it. I don't think autism has anything to do with it. Some problems are really hard to communicate.
- dang 9y agoWe detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14339146 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14339146 and marked it off-topic.