Wired: Quit Saying I'm Just Not a Math Person

[ApostateAbe]

Some pop science is better than others, and I normally depend on Wired to get the science right. But, when it comes to the science of intelligence, all pop science on the matter is unified on ignoring it in favor of whatever feels good, because the sound science on the matter is just depressing. It is actually a fact that there are people who are born better at math than others. IQ variations are about 60% genetically heritable, IQ being the best measure of general intelligence. Not only that, but general intelligence has two correlated components: spatial and verbal. If you score highly on the spatial component, then you will become better at math easier, and it is probably mostly due to your genes. Maybe it is appropriate to tell education students to give it their best shot, but I think it does more harm than good to tell a general audience untruths based on the outmoded blank slate theory of psychology. It could mean that many more people borrow tens of thousands of dollars taking and retaking algebra, trig and calculus in college, with no degree to show for it, or a degree in a field of study where they can not compete.

http://www.wired.com/2015/05/im-just-not-math-person

 

[ApostateAbe]

I said "spatial" but I should have said the "logical/mathematical" component. "Spatial" would be the terminology of Howard Gardner's scientifically fringe but popular "multiple intelligences" theory.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Agreed. Intelligence isn't a single variable. Being smart in one area tends to correlate with being smart in others but it's by no means a precise relationship.

 

[fromderinside]

From all my reading on the topic until a definition of intelligence mirrors fitness intelligence, none have, is primarily just a social talking point for elitists.

 

[Jokodo]

Some pop science is better than others, and I normally depend on Wired to get the science right. But, when it comes to the science of intelligence, all pop science on the matter is unified on ignoring it in favor of whatever feels good, because the sound science on the matter is just depressing. It is actually a fact that there are people who are born better at math than others. IQ variations are about 60% genetically heritable, IQ being the best measure of general intelligence. Not only that, but general intelligence has two correlated components: spatial and verbal. If you score highly on the spatial component, then you will become better at math easier, and it is probably mostly due to your genes. Maybe it is appropriate to tell education students to give it their best shot, but I think it does more harm than good to tell a general audience untruths based on the outmoded blank slate theory of psychology. It could mean that many more people borrow tens of thousands of dollars taking and retaking algebra, trig and calculus in college, with no degree to show for it, or a degree in a field of study where they can not compete.

http://www.wired.com/2015/05/im-just-not-math-person

You must have been reading a different article from the one you linked. The article doesn't talk about inheritability of intelligence or its components for the same reason it doesn't talk about the moon landing - because they're irrelevant to the point he's making. Using it as an example of "tell[ing] a general audience untruths based on the outmoded blank slate theory" thus makes exactly as much sense as using it as an example for the moon landing conspiracy theory.

 

[Jokodo]

As for whether it does more harm than good, that's an easy one. Even if it's true that not everybody is born to become a Fields medalist, that doesn't mean that most (or even a significant minority) people who claim they're "just not a math person" is already performing near their personal limit. He's not expecting his students to quit their programme and start a math programme instead. He's expecting them to stop hiding behind the "I'm not a math person" and get their hands on some fairly basic math, because their pupil need them to do just that. What if it is harder for some people than for others? That's not in contradiction to anything he says.

The world will be a better place if people listen to his advice. The way things are, people who believe they suck at math (because they really are slower to pick up abstract concepts, or because they've had poor teachers, or a combination of both) way to often manage steer clear of any contact with math throughout there adult lives. If all those people instead told themselves "it's not going to be easy and I'm not going to get far as a mathematician or a physicist, but if I put some work in it even I can develop a decent grasp of some basic concept", the word would be a better place for it. Not everyone needs to be a mathematician, but a world in which lawyers and jury members have enough of a basic grasp of probability theory not to fall for the  Prosecutor's fallacy would be a better place. Similarly, a company in which the non-IT people have I basic idea of what makes a problem hard to implement before placing their orders with IT would be a more efficient company for it. Etc.

On the other hand, there's a lot of hidden mathematical talent buried under years of telling oneself that one "just isn't a math person". If you don't even try, you won't find out that you are a math person, so telling people to try a bit harder is more likely to uncover true talent that to set genuinely untalented people on track to pursuing a career in which they're bound to fail.

 

[J842P]

ApostateAbe, you are tilting at windmills. Of course mathematical ability isn't a blank slate. The author never makes that claim.

Most people will never be in the running for a Fields Medal, and the people who are probably have innate advantages over the rest of the population. However, the vast majority of people can learn basic mathematics, up to and including at least calculus, and differences in cognitive abilities aren't going to make much of a difference in their ability to learn those maths.

 

[ApostateAbe]

ApostateAbe, you are tilting at windmills. Of course mathematical ability isn't a blank slate. The author never makes that claim.

Most people will never be in the running for a Fields Medal, and the people who are probably have innate advantages over the rest of the population. However, the vast majority of people can learn basic mathematics, up to and including at least calculus, and differences in cognitive abilities aren't going to make much of a difference in their ability to learn those maths.

The average IQ of the world is 90. The "vast majority" of people are those with an IQ higher than a standard deviation below, to be conservative. So, you are saying everyone with an IQ of 75 and above can learn at least calculus. I don't know if you would still be willing to stand behind that claim when expressed as specifically as that, but I think the bizarre irony here is that only someone with a high IQ would be stupid enough to stand behind that claim. It takes high intelligence to be as stupid as that. Kinda weirds me out, really.

 

[Jokodo]

ApostateAbe, you are tilting at windmills. Of course mathematical ability isn't a blank slate. The author never makes that claim.

Most people will never be in the running for a Fields Medal, and the people who are probably have innate advantages over the rest of the population. However, the vast majority of people can learn basic mathematics, up to and including at least calculus, and differences in cognitive abilities aren't going to make much of a difference in their ability to learn those maths.

The average IQ of the world is 90. The "vast majority" of people are those with an IQ higher than a standard deviation below, to be conservative. So, you are saying everyone with an IQ of 75 and above can learn at least calculus. I don't know if you would still be willing to stand behind that claim when expressed as specifically as that, but I think the bizarre irony here is that only someone with a high IQ would be stupid enough to stand behind that claim. It takes high intelligence to be as stupid as that. Kinda weirds me out, really.

While I can't speak for J842P: I'd say yes but it's not particularly relevant; as per your link in the OP, we're not talking about everybody in the world, we're talking about students in a class of elementary education majors.

 

[ApostateAbe]

The average IQ of the world is 90. The "vast majority" of people are those with an IQ higher than a standard deviation below, to be conservative. So, you are saying everyone with an IQ of 75 and above can learn at least calculus. I don't know if you would still be willing to stand behind that claim when expressed as specifically as that, but I think the bizarre irony here is that only someone with a high IQ would be stupid enough to stand behind that claim. It takes high intelligence to be as stupid as that. Kinda weirds me out, really.

While I can't speak for J842P: I'd say yes but it's not particularly relevant; as per your link in the OP, we're not talking about everybody in the world, we're talking about students in a class of elementary education majors.

Yeah, and I would tentatively agree if the audience was college students alone, who tend to be of a higher intelligence. But the author directed his advice to a general audience, indiscriminately with no conditions, as though absolutely everyone is a math person so long as they try hard enough.

 

[Peez]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SyD4p8_y8Kw

 

[beero1000]

There's a difference between not enjoying reading and being illiterate. Similarly, there's a difference between 'not being a math person' and being mathematically illiterate.

The context of the OP was education majors who were planning on teaching elementary school students. I'll even agree with the extension that if an adult cannot master the basic arithmetic and algebra topics taught to children, it isn't because they 'aren't math people' in the same way that someone who reads at a second-grade level isn't just 'not a book person'. Hiding behind the phrase just obscures the fact that they haven't put in the requisite study to master the very basics of the subject. And make no mistake about it, if someone cannot solve basic algebra and word problems, they are illiterate.

The more intelligent one is, the less work it takes to become literate. This is pretty much true for every subject. However, the vast majority of people can and should become literate in every major subject of academic study, if only to become a well-rounded adult. The basic idea of a liberal arts education is a good one.

 

[Jokodo]

While I can't speak for J842P: I'd say yes but it's not particularly relevant; as per your link in the OP, we're not talking about everybody in the world, we're talking about students in a class of elementary education majors.

Yeah, and I would tentatively agree if the audience was college students alone, who tend to be of a higher intelligence. But the author directed his advice to a general audience, indiscriminately with no conditions, as though absolutely everyone is a math person so long as they try hard enough.

He didn't say "everyone is a math person"; he said that saying "I'm not a math person" is a poor excuse to not even try (even when true, I might add). And in many cases it's wrong anyway. I for one believed that I'm not a math person right up to the end of high school, but then naturally drifted into the relatively most math-heavy specialisation available within my study programme essentially within the first year at uni.