3 ms·

So you can teach talent.

oblique63 13y ago
Yes: http://www.amazon.com/Talent-Code-Greatness-Born-Grown/dp/055380684X/ http://www.amazon.com/Talent-Code-Greatness-Born-Grown/dp/05... Success/fame/fortune/happiness/etc are another matter, but skill acquisition has been shown to be generally straightforward. Some things may have higher learning curves for some people (e.g. math for a person with dyscalculia[1]), but that doesn't mean it's impossible. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyscalculia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyscalculia
- cliveowen 13y ago
  Now I don't wanna be that guy and I hate it to break it to you, but the author isn't a behavioral psychologist or a social scientist. He graduated from journalism school, he's in the business of writing books and his credentials for tackling such an argument are squat. Hoping that practice alone in any given subject will get you wherever you want, is just wishful thinking. Think of all the kids that play piano, or write poems or generally do something great at a very young age. You can ascribe their skills to practice or experience, given their age, you just have to acknowledge that it's talent, an innate ability. They don't learn how to play piano, they just get it. The same is true with math people, their brains are wired to comprehend a complex subject, arguably impenetrable for most of the population.
  - oblique63 13y ago
    This argument would be great if you actually had any substance to back up your claims, without it you're not really arguing against anything. Perhaps I linked to a book written by a journalist because it's more accessible, and thus more helpful/actionable than published scientific papers? If math is difficult to grasp for some people, why would journal articles be any better? Not to mention that maybe the book itself has professional/scientific citations in case you were really interested in learning more? Neuroscience supports the ability to acquire skills. The combination of epigenetics, GMOs, neuroplasticity, and many other advances make it even more apparent that adjusting ourselves is possible; even without a 'free will'[1]. If people don't feel like trying to learn/improve, that's fine; but they shouldn't try going around loosely justifying their actions with 'science' just because it makes themselves feel better. [1] I only bring this up because determinism seems to be the biggest argument against this for some reason, but it really doesn't counter anything. Hell, I actually agree with it, and have written on the matter: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6235628 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6235628
jfarmer 13y ago
No, but talent does matter a lot in the last mile. Barring any physical or mental handicaps, however, I'd say it matters very little in the first few miles. I'd even go so far as to say this is true of almost any thing one might choose to get good at, not just mathematics. To put on my logician's hat for a second, the great grandparent said, "You can't teach a person to paint, or to write, because you can't teach them talent, the same is true with math." The unstated assumption in this sentence is that one must be talented at, say, writing in order to learn how to write. Of course, this depends entirely on what one means by "writing", "talented," and "learning." If "being able to write" means being able to write as well as the best writers do then, yes, I'd agree that takes talent. If "being able to write" means having a command of written language above the mere mechanical act of putting words on a page, e.g., humor, irony, structure, flow, etc., then no, I don't think that requires talent. It requires interest and deliberate practice, but I don't think it requires talent. This word "talent" is kind of a boogey man, anyhow. On the one hand folks plenty of folks say I'm "talented" at math. On the other hand, there were years in college where I spent 40+ hours a week studying it. I think anyone who chooses could become a decent at mathematics, swimming, playing the guitar, or baking pies if they really wanted to, regardless of talent.
- cliveowen 13y ago
  you point is valid but there's a difference between writing and learning math: while you can't without a doubt learn the basics of putting words on a page, you can't just learn enough math to write/understand a proof. A proof is reasoning put into writing, there's no mathematical equivalent of "putting words on a page" that lets you come up/comprehend one.
  - jfarmer 13y ago
    Well, perhaps we disagree, but I don't think mathematics is about "proofs". I think proofs are a by-product of folks doing mathematics. They're the output of a long chain of mathematical thinking and can take many forms. I would agree that being able to follow contemporary mathematical writing is important, but one should learn the formalisms after they have a grounding in mathematical thinking. The formalisms aren't the point. For example, I wouldn't stress out if a student couldn't follow Newton's * Principia Mathematica*. I've tried and I can't, really. This is why the way we introduce "proofs" in high school in the US (via tedious and seemingly arbitrary geometric arguments) is so destructive. It's all formalism and, honestly, very little mathematics. I can and have explained the Pythagorean theorem to folks with virtually no mathematical training. The only prerequisite is the ability to find the area of a rectangle and perhaps a little but of high school algebra. We're not talking about diagram chasing, here.

Yes: http://www.amazon.com/Talent-Code-Greatness-Born-Grown/dp/055380684X/ http://www.amazon.com/Talent-Code-Greatness-Born-Grown/dp/05... Success/fame/fortune/happiness/etc are another matter, but skill acquisition has been shown to be generally straightforward. Some things may have higher learning curves for some people (e.g. math for a person with dyscalculia[1]), but that doesn't mean it's impossible. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyscalculia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyscalculia

cliveowen 13y ago
Now I don't wanna be that guy and I hate it to break it to you, but the author isn't a behavioral psychologist or a social scientist. He graduated from journalism school, he's in the business of writing books and his credentials for tackling such an argument are squat. Hoping that practice alone in any given subject will get you wherever you want, is just wishful thinking. Think of all the kids that play piano, or write poems or generally do something great at a very young age. You can ascribe their skills to practice or experience, given their age, you just have to acknowledge that it's talent, an innate ability. They don't learn how to play piano, they just get it. The same is true with math people, their brains are wired to comprehend a complex subject, arguably impenetrable for most of the population.
- oblique63 13y ago
  This argument would be great if you actually had any substance to back up your claims, without it you're not really arguing against anything. Perhaps I linked to a book written by a journalist because it's more accessible, and thus more helpful/actionable than published scientific papers? If math is difficult to grasp for some people, why would journal articles be any better? Not to mention that maybe the book itself has professional/scientific citations in case you were really interested in learning more? Neuroscience supports the ability to acquire skills. The combination of epigenetics, GMOs, neuroplasticity, and many other advances make it even more apparent that adjusting ourselves is possible; even without a 'free will'[1]. If people don't feel like trying to learn/improve, that's fine; but they shouldn't try going around loosely justifying their actions with 'science' just because it makes themselves feel better. [1] I only bring this up because determinism seems to be the biggest argument against this for some reason, but it really doesn't counter anything. Hell, I actually agree with it, and have written on the matter: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6235628 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6235628

jfarmer 13y ago

No, but talent does matter a lot in the last mile. Barring any physical or mental handicaps, however, I'd say it matters very little in the first few miles. I'd even go so far as to say this is true of almost any thing one might choose to get good at, not just mathematics. To put on my logician's hat for a second, the great grandparent said, "You can't teach a person to paint, or to write, because you can't teach them talent, the same is true with math." The unstated assumption in this sentence is that one must be talented at, say, writing in order to learn how to write. Of course, this depends entirely on what one means by "writing", "talented," and "learning." If "being able to write" means being able to write as well as the best writers do then, yes, I'd agree that takes talent. If "being able to write" means having a command of written language above the mere mechanical act of putting words on a page, e.g., humor, irony, structure, flow, etc., then no, I don't think that requires talent. It requires interest and deliberate practice, but I don't think it requires talent. This word "talent" is kind of a boogey man, anyhow. On the one hand folks plenty of folks say I'm "talented" at math. On the other hand, there were years in college where I spent 40+ hours a week studying it. I think anyone who chooses could become a decent at mathematics, swimming, playing the guitar, or baking pies if they really wanted to, regardless of talent.

cliveowen 13y ago
you point is valid but there's a difference between writing and learning math: while you can't without a doubt learn the basics of putting words on a page, you can't just learn enough math to write/understand a proof. A proof is reasoning put into writing, there's no mathematical equivalent of "putting words on a page" that lets you come up/comprehend one.
- jfarmer 13y ago
  Well, perhaps we disagree, but I don't think mathematics is about "proofs". I think proofs are a by-product of folks doing mathematics. They're the output of a long chain of mathematical thinking and can take many forms. I would agree that being able to follow contemporary mathematical writing is important, but one should learn the formalisms after they have a grounding in mathematical thinking. The formalisms aren't the point. For example, I wouldn't stress out if a student couldn't follow Newton's * Principia Mathematica*. I've tried and I can't, really. This is why the way we introduce "proofs" in high school in the US (via tedious and seemingly arbitrary geometric arguments) is so destructive. It's all formalism and, honestly, very little mathematics. I can and have explained the Pythagorean theorem to folks with virtually no mathematical training. The only prerequisite is the ability to find the area of a rectangle and perhaps a little but of high school algebra. We're not talking about diagram chasing, here.