5 ms·

The Math Gift Myth

37 points by aqsalose 9y ago

ianai 9y ago
I realized in my math undergraduate studies that mathematicians have merely "sat" with the material longer. Sure, some people seem to click with certain topics reliably faster than average (even than their apparent peers). But ultimately solving a problem comes easier the more problems you have solved. If a geometry problem obscurely relies on some trick involving a right triangle then someone who knows more about triangles will solve it faster. There's also a caustic societal problem involved. People will declare themselves bad at math and stop trying. There is no bad or good at math. There is only persistence.
- xedrac 9y ago
  I agree. I recently read the book, "A Mind for Numbers" which also agrees with you. Math is abstract and people struggle with that (often giving up), but I don't believe it is inherently more difficult than other complex things we train our brains to do. It's a matter of creating new neural pathways through study and time.
- Grustaf 9y ago
  >I realized in my math undergraduate studies that mathematicians have merely "sat" with the material longer. Even if true, this just moves the issue to the ability to make yourself "sit" with the material. The variability here is at least as high, most people hate doing mathematics, some love it. In any case this only concerns "mathematicians", not "people considered math geniuses". There are plenty of mediocre mathematicians. EDIT: And it is of course not true that it's just a matter of spending time. Some people learn maths 100 times faster than others.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
Grustaf 9y ago
The statements in the article, even if true, in no way motivate the claim in the title (and the text). "In other words, all my experience in mathematics tells me I do not have an absolute ability limit. Nor, I am sure, do you. Mathematical proficiency is indeed a spectrum." Of course it's a spectrum, and sure practice helps anyone. But that in no way implies that there is no such thing as a "math gift". In fact, the spectrum presupposes that some people are on the most advanced part of it. They are the ones with the gift. The ones on the other end don't have the gift. They may have other gifts, and they may be productive members of society nonetheless, but they don't have the math gift.
- microcolonel 9y ago
  Yeah, I mean, it's self-evident that people with exceptionally high general intelligence are ~100% of people who advance mathematics. I don't understand why people want to think otherwise, fooling themselves isn't going to raise their IQ. Edit: I neglected to mention conscientiousness, which would be the other half of the puzzle. there are plenty of geniuses who will nonetheless never put themselves to work.
  - dwringer 9y ago
    If some form of anxiety and the ability to cope with it are major factors in affecting one's potential ability to do math, then in theory anyone could benefit from learning to cope with anxiety and to persist in mathematical study. The idea certainly rings true with my experience. > it's self-evident that people with exceptionally high general intelligence are ~100% of people who advance mathematics. Counterargument: anyone who advances mathematics will be considered of exceptionally high intelligence. Mathematicians like Gödel were known for being very eccentric and many might not consider them of exceptionally high _general_ intelligence. Whether that is an accurate assessment, I doubt you or I could say with any authority. EDIT (post-replies): Replies to this have descended into technical terminology from cognitive science, so I must remove myself from this discussion as I lack the required education [clearance?] to participate at the expected level. Nevertheless, without some objective way of measuring the psychometric "g-factor" of mathematicians throughout history up to now, I don't see this as particularly useful in addressing the issue of aptitude of the "~100% of people who advance mathematics". If you could point to any data sets on psychometric g-factors among practicing mathematicians (particularly, alongside values from the general population), that would lend some credence to what you say. The idea is very provocative.

37 points by aqsalose 9y ago

I realized in my math undergraduate studies that mathematicians have merely "sat" with the material longer. Sure, some people seem to click with certain topics reliably faster than average (even than their apparent peers). But ultimately solving a problem comes easier the more problems you have solved. If a geometry problem obscurely relies on some trick involving a right triangle then someone who knows more about triangles will solve it faster. There's also a caustic societal problem involved. People will declare themselves bad at math and stop trying. There is no bad or good at math. There is only persistence.

xedrac 9y ago
I agree. I recently read the book, "A Mind for Numbers" which also agrees with you. Math is abstract and people struggle with that (often giving up), but I don't believe it is inherently more difficult than other complex things we train our brains to do. It's a matter of creating new neural pathways through study and time.
Grustaf 9y ago
>I realized in my math undergraduate studies that mathematicians have merely "sat" with the material longer. Even if true, this just moves the issue to the ability to make yourself "sit" with the material. The variability here is at least as high, most people hate doing mathematics, some love it. In any case this only concerns "mathematicians", not "people considered math geniuses". There are plenty of mediocre mathematicians. EDIT: And it is of course not true that it's just a matter of spending time. Some people learn maths 100 times faster than others.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

Grustaf 9y ago

The statements in the article, even if true, in no way motivate the claim in the title (and the text). "In other words, all my experience in mathematics tells me I do not have an absolute ability limit. Nor, I am sure, do you. Mathematical proficiency is indeed a spectrum." Of course it's a spectrum, and sure practice helps anyone. But that in no way implies that there is no such thing as a "math gift". In fact, the spectrum presupposes that some people are on the most advanced part of it. They are the ones with the gift. The ones on the other end don't have the gift. They may have other gifts, and they may be productive members of society nonetheless, but they don't have the math gift.

microcolonel 9y ago
Yeah, I mean, it's self-evident that people with exceptionally high general intelligence are ~100% of people who advance mathematics. I don't understand why people want to think otherwise, fooling themselves isn't going to raise their IQ. Edit: I neglected to mention conscientiousness, which would be the other half of the puzzle. there are plenty of geniuses who will nonetheless never put themselves to work.
- dwringer 9y ago
  If some form of anxiety and the ability to cope with it are major factors in affecting one's potential ability to do math, then in theory anyone could benefit from learning to cope with anxiety and to persist in mathematical study. The idea certainly rings true with my experience. > it's self-evident that people with exceptionally high general intelligence are ~100% of people who advance mathematics. Counterargument: anyone who advances mathematics will be considered of exceptionally high intelligence. Mathematicians like Gödel were known for being very eccentric and many might not consider them of exceptionally high _general_ intelligence. Whether that is an accurate assessment, I doubt you or I could say with any authority. EDIT (post-replies): Replies to this have descended into technical terminology from cognitive science, so I must remove myself from this discussion as I lack the required education [clearance?] to participate at the expected level. Nevertheless, without some objective way of measuring the psychometric "g-factor" of mathematicians throughout history up to now, I don't see this as particularly useful in addressing the issue of aptitude of the "~100% of people who advance mathematics". If you could point to any data sets on psychometric g-factors among practicing mathematicians (particularly, alongside values from the general population), that would lend some credence to what you say. The idea is very provocative.