2 ms·

The only part of the article I disagree with is that 'inborn talent' is a major force behind disparities in math ability. While I will grant the existence of su

The only part of the article I disagree with is that 'inborn talent' is a major force behind disparities in math ability. While I will grant the existence of superstar prodigies, by far most people 'good at math', including most mathematicians behind most of math's most used fields, are simply those who spent time studying mathematics and taking it seriously. We often mistake parental investment for 'in-born talent', while both are due to the lottery of birth, calling it 'in-born talent' makes it seem unachievable for others. It's a harder hill for sure, but not insurmountable.

medvezhenok 4y ago
We accept differential outcomes in sports and how genetics plays a strong role there, but we seem utterly resistant to accept it in intellectual pursuits for some dang reason. I've taught many people to juggle from literally zero juggling experience. Hand eye coordination is not equally distributed among the population, and some people are naturally significantly more talented (and make more progress much more quickly than others. 10X differences are not a joke). I'm not sure why we keep believing intellectual things are any different. Having gone to school with some exceptionally smart/not-smart people at both questionable public schools and then one of the best universities, the discrepancies there are definitely not just due to parental investment (though I'm not denying that it can play a role)