11 ms·

It is a limiting factor for many tasks, even such "simple" tasks as basic algebra and calculus. A lot of people fail at math simply because they do not have eno

by bearmf 14y ago

It is a limiting factor for many tasks, even such "simple" tasks as basic algebra and calculus. A lot of people fail at math simply because they do not have enough brainpower.

DiabloD3 14y ago
No, they fail at math because they have never learned how to use their brainpower effectively. The difference between geniuses and everyone else, from my experiences, are not any fundamental difference in their brain wiring, but that they learned how to better focus what brainpower they do have, Its like the difference between a guy who gives 120% every day but his work, taken individually, is mediocre vs a guy who gives his 1% but his 1% is the Nobel prize winning work of his field... the guy who gives his 120% day in and day out is a smarter man. Ironically, an IQ test will not say much about either of them. The 120% guy might score lower than the 1% man by 10 or 15 points, but the 120% guy, if he were, say, a researcher or inventor, would be spending day in and day out finding thousands of ways that don't work just so he can find one that does. The 120% man learned how to focus the skills he does have and learned how to apply them well; of the two, I'd hire him over the 1% man, Nobel or not. The few super geniuses that history remembers (such as Tesla) had both: 120% work ethic combined with a brilliant mind. These people are rare, but every single person no matter their racial or religious background has the ability to become that kind of person to.... they just never learn how to.
- victorhn 14y ago
  "but every single person no matter their racial or religious background has the ability to become that kind of person to..." Seriously? I don't know, but even if i had a 120% work ethic, i consider that i would never reach the level of genius of someone like Tesla, he is simply a genetic freak. Also, almost all the traits of humans seem to be unevenly undistributed in the population, not everyone has the capability to be a top athlete or top dancer, or top X. Why intelligence could be the exception?, when even common sense and observation tells us that some people are more intelligent than others.
  - danielweber 14y ago
    I'm leaning against (but not convinced against) "intelligence genes" existing, at least to the point where some people have them and some don't, because evolution would likely have spread them to everyone. But the science is much better for behaviors and temperaments being heritable. Some people are more comfortable sitting around only reading; some people are more likely to be comfortable fighting with abstract ideas; some people are more likely to be stubborn when they don't understand something and go at it until they figure it out. These things will affect what we measure as your IQ. My suspicion is that this is the source of the data for genetic differences in intelligence.
    - twoodfin 14y ago
      I'm leaning against (but not convinced against) "intelligence genes" existing, at least to the point where some people have them and some don't, because evolution would likely have spread them to everyone. Why? What survivability/reproduction benefits does intelligence provide beyond a certain level, particularly in pre-modern society? If you were the daughter of serfs a thousand years ago, what good would a 150 IQ do you? Especially if there's some tradeoff involved, such as a correspondingly lower ability to socialize with your peers.
      - danielweber 14y ago
        Especially if there's some tradeoff involved, such as a correspondingly lower ability to socialize with your peers If there's any reason for an "intelligence gene" not being completely wide-spread, it would be this. Intelligence would have to have some very significant drawbacks. Some people have theorized that autism is when you get "overloaded" on those intelligence genes. It strikes me as unlikely this would really provide significant pushback against the intelligence genes completely dominating the gene pool, but I agree it's possible.
        twoodfin 14y ago
        But why? Even if there's no tradeoff, what advantage would Albert Einstein have had over an average intelligence competitor for mates had he lived even a mere 200 years ago? Slim, I'd think. And who's to say he would have used that narrow advantage to win a mate of above average intelligence, vs. some other desirable characteristic? Exceptional intelligence as a strong determinant of economic and social success (and thus presumably reproductive success) seems to be a relatively recent phenomenon in the human species.
notb 14y ago
My impression is that IQ seems to be a measurement of a person's capacity to think abstractly, which is something you learn through the world around you. Perhaps those who fail at math have simply never experienced anything that requires abstract thought. Therefore, it seems like there is a skill that even basic arithmetic is dependent upon, basic abstractions. I can see how an otherwise able person would be hopeless at math if they never learned abstract thought.
- JacksonGariety 14y ago
  "Perhaps those who fail at math have simply never experienced anything that requires abstract thought." I disagree. Most math classes are structured as far away from the abstract as possible. Math classes, at least in the US high schools, are simply students sitting down and crunching numbers on paper with 40 other people around you. How is that abstract thought? I'm not saying math isn't useful in the abstract, I'm saying the way we measure people's math abilities is too focused.
  - notb 14y ago
    Crunching numbers is most definitely abstract. What is a number? Why does it matter? What does it represent? What is zero? Why is zero important? Think about how long it took for humans to actually start doing math. And then think about how difficult it used to be for people to grasp negative numbers. Sure, schools teach things with M&Ms and counting other concrete things, but you still have to think abstractly to apply the same concepts to other concrete things.
    - JacksonGariety 14y ago
      I assure you, passing Oregon high school's math classes without abstract thought is VERY easy.
eru 14y ago
If you spend lots of brainpower on basic algebra and calculus, you are doing it wrong. Learn the tricks (i.e. theory), and it'll be so easy that even a computer can do it.

by bearmf 14y ago

It is a limiting factor for many tasks, even such "simple" tasks as basic algebra and calculus. A lot of people fail at math simply because they do not have enough brainpower.

DiabloD3 14y ago

No, they fail at math because they have never learned how to use their brainpower effectively. The difference between geniuses and everyone else, from my experiences, are not any fundamental difference in their brain wiring, but that they learned how to better focus what brainpower they do have, Its like the difference between a guy who gives 120% every day but his work, taken individually, is mediocre vs a guy who gives his 1% but his 1% is the Nobel prize winning work of his field... the guy who gives his 120% day in and day out is a smarter man. Ironically, an IQ test will not say much about either of them. The 120% guy might score lower than the 1% man by 10 or 15 points, but the 120% guy, if he were, say, a researcher or inventor, would be spending day in and day out finding thousands of ways that don't work just so he can find one that does. The 120% man learned how to focus the skills he does have and learned how to apply them well; of the two, I'd hire him over the 1% man, Nobel or not. The few super geniuses that history remembers (such as Tesla) had both: 120% work ethic combined with a brilliant mind. These people are rare, but every single person no matter their racial or religious background has the ability to become that kind of person to.... they just never learn how to.

victorhn 14y ago
"but every single person no matter their racial or religious background has the ability to become that kind of person to..." Seriously? I don't know, but even if i had a 120% work ethic, i consider that i would never reach the level of genius of someone like Tesla, he is simply a genetic freak. Also, almost all the traits of humans seem to be unevenly undistributed in the population, not everyone has the capability to be a top athlete or top dancer, or top X. Why intelligence could be the exception?, when even common sense and observation tells us that some people are more intelligent than others.
- danielweber 14y ago
  I'm leaning against (but not convinced against) "intelligence genes" existing, at least to the point where some people have them and some don't, because evolution would likely have spread them to everyone. But the science is much better for behaviors and temperaments being heritable. Some people are more comfortable sitting around only reading; some people are more likely to be comfortable fighting with abstract ideas; some people are more likely to be stubborn when they don't understand something and go at it until they figure it out. These things will affect what we measure as your IQ. My suspicion is that this is the source of the data for genetic differences in intelligence.
  - twoodfin 14y ago
    I'm leaning against (but not convinced against) "intelligence genes" existing, at least to the point where some people have them and some don't, because evolution would likely have spread them to everyone. Why? What survivability/reproduction benefits does intelligence provide beyond a certain level, particularly in pre-modern society? If you were the daughter of serfs a thousand years ago, what good would a 150 IQ do you? Especially if there's some tradeoff involved, such as a correspondingly lower ability to socialize with your peers.
    - danielweber 14y ago
      Especially if there's some tradeoff involved, such as a correspondingly lower ability to socialize with your peers If there's any reason for an "intelligence gene" not being completely wide-spread, it would be this. Intelligence would have to have some very significant drawbacks. Some people have theorized that autism is when you get "overloaded" on those intelligence genes. It strikes me as unlikely this would really provide significant pushback against the intelligence genes completely dominating the gene pool, but I agree it's possible.
      - twoodfin 14y ago
        But why? Even if there's no tradeoff, what advantage would Albert Einstein have had over an average intelligence competitor for mates had he lived even a mere 200 years ago? Slim, I'd think. And who's to say he would have used that narrow advantage to win a mate of above average intelligence, vs. some other desirable characteristic? Exceptional intelligence as a strong determinant of economic and social success (and thus presumably reproductive success) seems to be a relatively recent phenomenon in the human species.

notb 14y ago

My impression is that IQ seems to be a measurement of a person's capacity to think abstractly, which is something you learn through the world around you. Perhaps those who fail at math have simply never experienced anything that requires abstract thought. Therefore, it seems like there is a skill that even basic arithmetic is dependent upon, basic abstractions. I can see how an otherwise able person would be hopeless at math if they never learned abstract thought.

JacksonGariety 14y ago
"Perhaps those who fail at math have simply never experienced anything that requires abstract thought." I disagree. Most math classes are structured as far away from the abstract as possible. Math classes, at least in the US high schools, are simply students sitting down and crunching numbers on paper with 40 other people around you. How is that abstract thought? I'm not saying math isn't useful in the abstract, I'm saying the way we measure people's math abilities is too focused.
- notb 14y ago
  Crunching numbers is most definitely abstract. What is a number? Why does it matter? What does it represent? What is zero? Why is zero important? Think about how long it took for humans to actually start doing math. And then think about how difficult it used to be for people to grasp negative numbers. Sure, schools teach things with M&Ms and counting other concrete things, but you still have to think abstractly to apply the same concepts to other concrete things.
  - JacksonGariety 14y ago
    I assure you, passing Oregon high school's math classes without abstract thought is VERY easy.

eru 14y ago

If you spend lots of brainpower on basic algebra and calculus, you are doing it wrong. Learn the tricks (i.e. theory), and it'll be so easy that even a computer can do it.