3 ms·
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 f
by 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.
- microcolonel 9y agoI 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. Intelligence can't make you productive all alone. Which is why I said it the way I did, because otherwise I would imply that they are mathematicians because they are intelligent, where I was trying to say that in order to advance mathematics, you essentially have to be very intelligent. That said... > Counterargument: anyone who advances mathematics will be considered of exceptionally high intelligence. I'm referring to the psychometric g factor type of intelligence. Not the "I know a real smart gal" type. g is shockingly consistent, measurable, and clearly an important part of many human behaviours. Intelligence is a very specific thing, people can be exceptionally good at things without being exceptionally intelligent, but people can not be exceptionally intelligent merely by being exceptional at something.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- Grustaf 9y agoGeneral intelligence is not _that_ general. You can be extremely eccentric without lowering your g factor.