5 ms·

Do you really believe that Jacobi, Euler, Gauss and Ramanujan were just beneficiaries of privileged upbringing?

by bgorman 5y ago

BeetleB 5y ago
Do you really believe they would have benefited that much from "advanced" classes in high school?
- csee 5y ago
  That has nothing to do with the question of whether there's such a thing as natural ability.
  - BeetleB 5y ago
    The wider discussion is about how to structure public math education. If we're not going to connect it to the details of said education, then it is a moot point to discuss. Of all the things to evaluate the policy on, this is a real poor proxy as whether there are gifted people or not usually has little bearing on the overall health of math education across a very highly populated state. I never disagreed with whether they exist or not. I just don't see why this is such a sore point for people. I can virtually guarantee that the existing education system in CA didn't really benefit the gifted folks either. If I were setting up the program for a whole state, whether it will be good for a Jacobi/Euler/Gauss is totally irrelevant. We're not going to make people who show up once every 50-100 years be a major factor in educating millions of people.
    - crackercrews 5y ago
      This is a straw man. My original point (root level comment) was that the authors of this plan do not believe there are any innate differences in math ability, full stop. A reply to my comment supported my position by showing that obviously there are examples of people who are extreme outliers in terms of math ability. This proves the point that there are differences in innate math ability. Your reply is that we shouldn't design a state-wide math program for extreme outliers. But no one said we should! We only said that we should design a math program that acknowledges a diversity in innate math ability (as proven by the existence of extreme outliers, and the many, many less extreme outliers).
- amusedcyclist 5y ago
  Yes ? Ramanujan's introduction to math was when he stumbled upon a book by Hardy. If that book hadn't showed up in his life, his gift might never have been discovered
noahtallen 5y ago
Perhaps not, but the purpose of the public school system is not to turn out a couple of geniuses every year. It’s to maintain a well-educated populace. Most resources should be going towards making the average student better. I can’t tell you how many people have told me that I must be very smart for going into computer science, and that they could never do it because they’re just not math/stem people. That negative self-talk certainly has a huge amount to do with whether they’re capable of going into STEM. To me, it seems these changes are oriented towards helping everyone succeed in STEM, even those who don’t think they’re math people. Which, again, is less to do with their actual abilities and much more to do with their mental dialogue. This makes a ton of sense. Basically any skill or habit you might want to develop can be easily thwarted if you’re struggling mentally with discipline, focus, self-image, etc. In my opinion, the “mental game” is crucial to nearly everything and doesn’t get enough focus. (Think of how in sports, a bad mental game can easily loose you the physical game even if you’re an incredible athlete.) I doubt these educational changes would ever have much of an impact on bonafide geniuses, because they are operating in an entirely different context.
- jimbokun 5y ago
  > Perhaps not, but the purpose of the public school system is not to turn out a couple of geniuses every year. It’s to maintain a well-educated populace. It should be both.
  - naasking 5y ago
    Even if it can't be both, a few geniuses could very well outweigh the benefits of a slightly more well-educated populace. Einstein arguably gave us GPS and space flight. I'm not sure any amount of average-person level mathematics could make some advances like that.

Do you really believe that Jacobi, Euler, Gauss and Ramanujan were just beneficiaries of privileged upbringing?

BeetleB 5y ago

Do you really believe they would have benefited that much from "advanced" classes in high school?

csee 5y ago
That has nothing to do with the question of whether there's such a thing as natural ability.
- BeetleB 5y ago
  The wider discussion is about how to structure public math education. If we're not going to connect it to the details of said education, then it is a moot point to discuss. Of all the things to evaluate the policy on, this is a real poor proxy as whether there are gifted people or not usually has little bearing on the overall health of math education across a very highly populated state. I never disagreed with whether they exist or not. I just don't see why this is such a sore point for people. I can virtually guarantee that the existing education system in CA didn't really benefit the gifted folks either. If I were setting up the program for a whole state, whether it will be good for a Jacobi/Euler/Gauss is totally irrelevant. We're not going to make people who show up once every 50-100 years be a major factor in educating millions of people.
  - crackercrews 5y ago
    This is a straw man. My original point (root level comment) was that the authors of this plan do not believe there are any innate differences in math ability, full stop. A reply to my comment supported my position by showing that obviously there are examples of people who are extreme outliers in terms of math ability. This proves the point that there are differences in innate math ability. Your reply is that we shouldn't design a state-wide math program for extreme outliers. But no one said we should! We only said that we should design a math program that acknowledges a diversity in innate math ability (as proven by the existence of extreme outliers, and the many, many less extreme outliers).
amusedcyclist 5y ago
Yes ? Ramanujan's introduction to math was when he stumbled upon a book by Hardy. If that book hadn't showed up in his life, his gift might never have been discovered

noahtallen 5y ago

Perhaps not, but the purpose of the public school system is not to turn out a couple of geniuses every year. It’s to maintain a well-educated populace. Most resources should be going towards making the average student better. I can’t tell you how many people have told me that I must be very smart for going into computer science, and that they could never do it because they’re just not math/stem people. That negative self-talk certainly has a huge amount to do with whether they’re capable of going into STEM. To me, it seems these changes are oriented towards helping everyone succeed in STEM, even those who don’t think they’re math people. Which, again, is less to do with their actual abilities and much more to do with their mental dialogue. This makes a ton of sense. Basically any skill or habit you might want to develop can be easily thwarted if you’re struggling mentally with discipline, focus, self-image, etc. In my opinion, the “mental game” is crucial to nearly everything and doesn’t get enough focus. (Think of how in sports, a bad mental game can easily loose you the physical game even if you’re an incredible athlete.) I doubt these educational changes would ever have much of an impact on bonafide geniuses, because they are operating in an entirely different context.

jimbokun 5y ago
> Perhaps not, but the purpose of the public school system is not to turn out a couple of geniuses every year. It’s to maintain a well-educated populace. It should be both.
- naasking 5y ago
  Even if it can't be both, a few geniuses could very well outweigh the benefits of a slightly more well-educated populace. Einstein arguably gave us GPS and space flight. I'm not sure any amount of average-person level mathematics could make some advances like that.