4 ms·

Why do you believe that "not everyone can understand chemistry"? Perhaps I should be a little more specific. When I say "everyone" below, I mean "the overwhel

Why do you believe that "not everyone can understand chemistry"? Perhaps I should be a little more specific. When I say "everyone" below, I mean "the overwhelming majority of people in the average range of human intelligence, without debilitating mental deficiencies". This group spans virtually everyone you are likely to encounter, from car mechanics to school teachers, to postal workers, to professional software engineers. People have blind spots, but in general they're pretty smart when it comes to the things they think about every day. I believe: * Everyone has the mental capacity to learn $RANDOM_DISCIPLINE if they put in the time and effort. A good teacher can dramatically accelerate the process, while a bad teacher can bring the process to a grinding halt. * Everyone has a limit to how well they can understand $RANDOM_DISCIPLINE, (even Terrence Tao) but most careers do not demand that workers reach that limit. One can be a successful researcher without performing at the same level as Terrence Tao. One can be a successful software engineer without being a computer science researcher. One can understand advanced topics in math or computer science or chemistry without having personally discovered them. One can work as a chemistry lab technician, or a high-school chemistry teacher without winning a Nobel prize. You can replace $RANDOM_DISCIPLINE with things like "computer science", "constitutional law", "how to reassemble a car", "chemistry", etc.. If you start getting very specific, you might be able to get me to disagree with statements like "Not everybody has the mental capacity to have invented Inter-universal Teichmuller Theory".

barry-cotter 5y ago
> Why do you believe that "not everyone can understand chemistry"? At least 5% of the population can’t understand algebra. If you can’t do algebra then you might be able to follow recipes but you can’t do chemistry. Without algebra you can’t do stochiometry and that’s essential for even high school level chemistry.
- benrbray 5y ago
  Sorry, by "can" I mean "has the mental capacity to". I agree with the statement "not everyone has the knowledge they need to understand chemistry right now". I disagree with "not everyone has the mental capacity to understand chemistry". Note also my definition of "everyone". I certainly think everyone has the mental capacity to understand algebra.
  - barry-cotter 5y ago
    > I certainly think everyone has the mental capacity to understand algebra. I invite you to tutor some middle school students then. For values of algebra that include “can be taught to draw the appropriate line given the corresponding equation” there are plenty who can’t understand algebra.
    - spacedcowboy 5y ago
      I don’t know about middle school kids, mine’s not there yet, he’s 9 - but he’s already done algebra, including simultaneous linear equations with multiple unknowns. No powers, quadratic equation or differentiation and the like yet, but I can see the QE coming up in next years books (which we recently bought since 3rd grade just finished) I’m pretty sure that when I was at school, this was a “senior school” (age 11-16) topic, and I was maybe 12 or 13. Kids are learning stuff earlier than they used to, at least it feels that way to me.
      - barry-cotter 5y ago
        Oh, you can teach some six year olds algebra. It’s not impossibly hard. Some children are ready at a very young age. But some people you can teach it for a semester and every shaky grasp of the subject they got in four months will disappear completely in two weeks. Some people cannot do abstraction.
- oblio 5y ago
  > At least 5% of the population can’t understand algebra. That's a very low bar, though. It would mean that 95% (ok, maybe slightly less) of everyone out there would be able to understand chemistry.
  - barry-cotter 5y ago
    That algebra is necessary for chemistry does not imply that it is sufficient.
- atoav 5y ago
  Can't or don't? I think there is a huge difference between currently being unable to understand something and being unable to understand something indefinitly (e.g. because you have mental deficiency that blocks you from forming the necessary pictures in your mind). Having thought math to mentally challenged kids, I had only one kid where I would really say he could not learn algebra at that point of his life. Mainly because he had a memory span of 10 minutes and severe developmental issues. All the other kids where really bad at math, but given the right effort I could really improve things by just working on their stuff for 1 hour a day. I know many tech guys like to see themselves as some kind of elite that has a secret knowledge very few others can master. But in my eyes that is just a failure of an education system.
  - kaba0 5y ago
    As for kids, I agree with you that the majority of them can potentially be good at almost every field. But as for adults, I’m not so sure. Most of us become way too rigid as we age, learning capability and more importantly motivation becomes way lowered. So someone who had trouble with basic algebra (at the time mostly due to a bad teacher/experience with math) will not generally be able to overcome his/her identity of “being bad at math”. Of course, there are exceptions.
  - ipaddr 5y ago
    The majority of us can improve in any area. Some brains are hard wired for programming others for say music. A programmer can make a song. A musician can make a program. I'm sure you could train those kids to sing as well. I'm sure you could train those kids to play basketball. You wouldn't be able to train them enough to make any professional league. Programming is genetic. Recently I met my birthparents and I discovered the whole family are programmers. I thought I came up with the idea myself I pushed myself through school. No one in my highschool did programming or elemetry school. I thought I determined my own choices.. I was proud of the unique path.. then I met the birthparents and realized how predetermined everything is.
    - atoav 5y ago
      I do think it is more about the way you explain something than about the actual topic. You can explain the same topic in such a way that it works for people who can visualize things, for people who like abstract concepts, for people where it is about social relationships etc. Good educators will always target multiple of those patterns. Bad educators always target the same pattern and will therefore only have auccess with the same kind of person. I am currently teaching electronics and programming to artists who quite uniformly hated math and physics in school, and it kinda works. You just cannot teach it in the way they would teach it to a STEM student.
lelanthran 5y ago
> Why do you believe that "not everyone can understand chemistry"? I didn't say that I did. My belief is irrelevant anyway, because it is generally accepted when someone says "not everyone can understand chemistry". I was pointing out that saying such a thing only draws ire if you say it about CS. > When I say "everyone" below, I mean "the overwhelming majority of people in the average range of human intelligence, without debilitating mental deficiencies". This group spans virtually everyone you are likely to encounter, from car mechanics to school teachers, to postal workers, to professional software engineers. And yet there is no controversy if postal workers, car mechanics and hairdressers say that they are not able to understand chemistry. There is only controversy for CS. I feel that you would do well to explain why only CS is controversial, while chemistry, auto mechanic and art is never controversial in regard to this particular assertion.
- benrbray 5y ago
  I guess I disagree with your premise then? In my experience someone who is likely to think that anyone can learn CS is likely to also think that anyone can learn art, car repair, or chemistry. On the flip side there are plenty of people who believe that people are born "chemistry people" or "math people" or "art people" etc.. I've not witnessed anyone say that CS is accessible but chemistry is not.
  - lelanthran 5y ago
    > I guess I disagree with your premise then? In my experience someone who is likely to think that anyone can learn CS is likely to also think that anyone can learn art, car repair, or chemistry. That isn't my premise. My premise is that saying such a thing isn't a bold claim, it's a commonly accepted claim. When you said "This is a bold claim", I replied with "I disagree", because "Some people just aren't any good at $DISCIPLINE" isn't a bold claim.
bostik 5y ago
> * Why do you believe that "not everyone can understand chemistry"?* I am a physical embodiment of a person who can not understand chemistry. Basics hell yes, organic chemistry for most parts yes, process chemistry ... iffily, but when it comes to physical chemistry, I'm hopeless. And I tried. Over many years. I changed my major in university from chemical engineering to CS because my head simply would not work the way you need it to work in physical chemistry. On the upside, I think there are surprising parallels that have made my recent life (~15 years) easier because of the lessons I picked up from chemical engineering. Conflicting feedback loops, S-curves and equilibrium states are not that different from the concepts and safeguards you encounter in distributed systems.
Toutouxc 5y ago
> Everyone has the mental capacity to learn $RANDOM_DISCIPLINE if they put in the time and effort. I know that this feels like something that should be true in an ideal, just world or in the HN-reading bubble, but I've never agreed with this. I know people who are incredibly smart, I know average people who are not very intelligent, but are fairly knowledgeable, I know rather simple people who live simple lives, and I know people who are, bluntly said, absolutely fucking stupid. I am absolutely sure that I know people who wouldn't be able to get from zero to doing my job exactly the way I do it (and I'm certainly no rockstar programmer, I'm like in the bottom 10 % here) in any reasonable timespan, like 20 years even. I would literally bet any amount of money on it.
tomp 5y ago
I really want to be as optimistic as you are, but I can attest from personal experience, not about chemistry, but about math - not everyone can understand basic mathematics. I often tried helping friends and classmates, in one-on-one sessions, to understand basic (primary and/or high school) math. Sometimes, you just end giving up. This was after trying a number of different approaches, different learning techniques, different ways of understanding / visualising abstract concepts, etc. Not everyone can understand abstract concepts (or our teaching methods are too primitive).

barry-cotter 5y ago

> Why do you believe that "not everyone can understand chemistry"? At least 5% of the population can’t understand algebra. If you can’t do algebra then you might be able to follow recipes but you can’t do chemistry. Without algebra you can’t do stochiometry and that’s essential for even high school level chemistry.

benrbray 5y ago
Sorry, by "can" I mean "has the mental capacity to". I agree with the statement "not everyone has the knowledge they need to understand chemistry right now". I disagree with "not everyone has the mental capacity to understand chemistry". Note also my definition of "everyone". I certainly think everyone has the mental capacity to understand algebra.
- barry-cotter 5y ago
  > I certainly think everyone has the mental capacity to understand algebra. I invite you to tutor some middle school students then. For values of algebra that include “can be taught to draw the appropriate line given the corresponding equation” there are plenty who can’t understand algebra.
  - spacedcowboy 5y ago
    I don’t know about middle school kids, mine’s not there yet, he’s 9 - but he’s already done algebra, including simultaneous linear equations with multiple unknowns. No powers, quadratic equation or differentiation and the like yet, but I can see the QE coming up in next years books (which we recently bought since 3rd grade just finished) I’m pretty sure that when I was at school, this was a “senior school” (age 11-16) topic, and I was maybe 12 or 13. Kids are learning stuff earlier than they used to, at least it feels that way to me.
    - barry-cotter 5y ago
      Oh, you can teach some six year olds algebra. It’s not impossibly hard. Some children are ready at a very young age. But some people you can teach it for a semester and every shaky grasp of the subject they got in four months will disappear completely in two weeks. Some people cannot do abstraction.
oblio 5y ago
> At least 5% of the population can’t understand algebra. That's a very low bar, though. It would mean that 95% (ok, maybe slightly less) of everyone out there would be able to understand chemistry.
- barry-cotter 5y ago
  That algebra is necessary for chemistry does not imply that it is sufficient.
atoav 5y ago
Can't or don't? I think there is a huge difference between currently being unable to understand something and being unable to understand something indefinitly (e.g. because you have mental deficiency that blocks you from forming the necessary pictures in your mind). Having thought math to mentally challenged kids, I had only one kid where I would really say he could not learn algebra at that point of his life. Mainly because he had a memory span of 10 minutes and severe developmental issues. All the other kids where really bad at math, but given the right effort I could really improve things by just working on their stuff for 1 hour a day. I know many tech guys like to see themselves as some kind of elite that has a secret knowledge very few others can master. But in my eyes that is just a failure of an education system.
- kaba0 5y ago
  As for kids, I agree with you that the majority of them can potentially be good at almost every field. But as for adults, I’m not so sure. Most of us become way too rigid as we age, learning capability and more importantly motivation becomes way lowered. So someone who had trouble with basic algebra (at the time mostly due to a bad teacher/experience with math) will not generally be able to overcome his/her identity of “being bad at math”. Of course, there are exceptions.
- ipaddr 5y ago
  The majority of us can improve in any area. Some brains are hard wired for programming others for say music. A programmer can make a song. A musician can make a program. I'm sure you could train those kids to sing as well. I'm sure you could train those kids to play basketball. You wouldn't be able to train them enough to make any professional league. Programming is genetic. Recently I met my birthparents and I discovered the whole family are programmers. I thought I came up with the idea myself I pushed myself through school. No one in my highschool did programming or elemetry school. I thought I determined my own choices.. I was proud of the unique path.. then I met the birthparents and realized how predetermined everything is.
  - atoav 5y ago
    I do think it is more about the way you explain something than about the actual topic. You can explain the same topic in such a way that it works for people who can visualize things, for people who like abstract concepts, for people where it is about social relationships etc. Good educators will always target multiple of those patterns. Bad educators always target the same pattern and will therefore only have auccess with the same kind of person. I am currently teaching electronics and programming to artists who quite uniformly hated math and physics in school, and it kinda works. You just cannot teach it in the way they would teach it to a STEM student.

lelanthran 5y ago

> Why do you believe that "not everyone can understand chemistry"? I didn't say that I did. My belief is irrelevant anyway, because it is generally accepted when someone says "not everyone can understand chemistry". I was pointing out that saying such a thing only draws ire if you say it about CS. > When I say "everyone" below, I mean "the overwhelming majority of people in the average range of human intelligence, without debilitating mental deficiencies". This group spans virtually everyone you are likely to encounter, from car mechanics to school teachers, to postal workers, to professional software engineers. And yet there is no controversy if postal workers, car mechanics and hairdressers say that they are not able to understand chemistry. There is only controversy for CS. I feel that you would do well to explain why only CS is controversial, while chemistry, auto mechanic and art is never controversial in regard to this particular assertion.

benrbray 5y ago
I guess I disagree with your premise then? In my experience someone who is likely to think that anyone can learn CS is likely to also think that anyone can learn art, car repair, or chemistry. On the flip side there are plenty of people who believe that people are born "chemistry people" or "math people" or "art people" etc.. I've not witnessed anyone say that CS is accessible but chemistry is not.
- lelanthran 5y ago
  > I guess I disagree with your premise then? In my experience someone who is likely to think that anyone can learn CS is likely to also think that anyone can learn art, car repair, or chemistry. That isn't my premise. My premise is that saying such a thing isn't a bold claim, it's a commonly accepted claim. When you said "This is a bold claim", I replied with "I disagree", because "Some people just aren't any good at $DISCIPLINE" isn't a bold claim.

bostik 5y ago

> * Why do you believe that "not everyone can understand chemistry"?* I am a physical embodiment of a person who can not understand chemistry. Basics hell yes, organic chemistry for most parts yes, process chemistry ... iffily, but when it comes to physical chemistry, I'm hopeless. And I tried. Over many years. I changed my major in university from chemical engineering to CS because my head simply would not work the way you need it to work in physical chemistry. On the upside, I think there are surprising parallels that have made my recent life (~15 years) easier because of the lessons I picked up from chemical engineering. Conflicting feedback loops, S-curves and equilibrium states are not that different from the concepts and safeguards you encounter in distributed systems.

Toutouxc 5y ago

> Everyone has the mental capacity to learn $RANDOM_DISCIPLINE if they put in the time and effort. I know that this feels like something that should be true in an ideal, just world or in the HN-reading bubble, but I've never agreed with this. I know people who are incredibly smart, I know average people who are not very intelligent, but are fairly knowledgeable, I know rather simple people who live simple lives, and I know people who are, bluntly said, absolutely fucking stupid. I am absolutely sure that I know people who wouldn't be able to get from zero to doing my job exactly the way I do it (and I'm certainly no rockstar programmer, I'm like in the bottom 10 % here) in any reasonable timespan, like 20 years even. I would literally bet any amount of money on it.

tomp 5y ago

I really want to be as optimistic as you are, but I can attest from personal experience, not about chemistry, but about math - not everyone can understand basic mathematics. I often tried helping friends and classmates, in one-on-one sessions, to understand basic (primary and/or high school) math. Sometimes, you just end giving up. This was after trying a number of different approaches, different learning techniques, different ways of understanding / visualising abstract concepts, etc. Not everyone can understand abstract concepts (or our teaching methods are too primitive).