Can you learn to be good at math or are you just born with it ?

[mrb]

I don't know what's hard to accept about people having natural talent in quantitative subjects. We accept that people are better athletes, better musicians, better leaders, and better actors. Yet when it comes to education there is supposed to be a common ground.

I think that point of view is related to a desire to be PC and inoffensive. For a variety of reasons it is more offensive to say "Person X is not smart" than "Person X is not athletic." It also connects in some people's minds with racist ideas; they want to stay as far as possible from the idea that different races may be more intelligent than others, because those ideas have been held by some very horrible people.

Regardless, nature does not care what we find offensive. Biologically, the idea that somehow all people would be equally talented is just silly.

A few times I have encountered a similar phenomenon where someone just *insists* that women are as strong as men. Again, this is silly, as both science and everyday experience should inform anyone. Men have much more testosterone than women. Testosterone builds muscle (anabolic steroids are derivatives of testosterone). Put 2 and 2 together. But for people who choose their beliefs based on social and political concerns rather than reality, it just sounds so much better to say that men and women are equally strong.

 

[kaos86]

Man, if anyone ever tells you that you weren't "born" with something and will thus fail, I'm telling you right now they're full of it.

That is very true! Work hard and practice. Practice will help and you must have strong will.
Do not give up. In the end, you will triumph.

 

[MathGangsta]

I've read quite a bit of this thread and there's been barely any use of scientific research.. Everyone is just spewing their opinion in a *very* non scientific way. I thought this forum holds high standards of not being a crack-pot site?

It's an interesting thread and that's why I've read a lot of it. But seriously no scientific arguments what so ever? Sorry to sound blunt, but most (not all) of the posters on this thread have seemed more like Politicians rather than Mathematicians/Physicists/Engineers.

I really want to read a good debate, not a cable news fiasco.

Seriously, can we get some moderation?

 

[Troponin]

I've read quite a bit of this thread and there's been barely any use of scientific research.. Everyone is just spewing their opinion in a *very* non scientific way. I thought this forum holds high standards of not being a crack-pot site?

It's an interesting thread and that's why I've read a lot of it. But seriously no scientific arguments what so ever? Sorry to sound blunt, but most (not all) of the posters on this thread have seemed more like Politicians rather than Mathematicians/Physicists/Engineers.

I really want to read a good debate, not a cable news fiasco.

Seriously, can we get some moderation?

Best post of the thread. The main reason I visit this site is because of what you just stated.

 

[Bourbaki1123]

That's hardly a fact and in most cases it's not true :/ I'm not very fond of empty bromides, so I still consider it an ego thing.

The myth that everyone is good at something is a nice comfort to losers though, I suppose (to clarify, I wasn't insulting you or anyone on this forum. Just making a general statement.)

Loser is inherently negative in the context you are presenting. If your claim is that those who lack any ability beyond the ordinary or even at the ordinary are losers, then you would have to include those who are handicapped and in essence you are poking fun at those who cannot help that they do not live up to your expectations. Now, if you had not included the fact that you disbelieve in the possibility that everyone could achieve at a high level this would not appear to be a cold and despicable statement, however that is not the case.

I would suggest you keep your ego and prejudice in check.

 

[djeitnstine]

I've read quite a bit of this thread and there's been barely any use of scientific research.. Everyone is just spewing their opinion in a *very* non scientific way. I thought this forum holds high standards of not being a crack-pot site?

It's an interesting thread and that's why I've read a lot of it. But seriously no scientific arguments what so ever? Sorry to sound blunt, but most (not all) of the posters on this thread have seemed more like Politicians rather than Mathematicians/Physicists/Engineers.

I really want to read a good debate, not a cable news fiasco.

Seriously, can we get some moderation?

Since there is no direct correlation between genetics and math ability, there is a grievous lack of scientific evidence sir.

Usually threads packed with evidence last a few pages cus something has been proven already - or in the process.

In this case nothing has proof or even tangible evidence. Keep crossing your fingers so that we can label that math gene somewhere along a chromosome - or find "the math region" of our brain.

Maybe you can find it for us? Good luck.

 

[mrb]

I've read quite a bit of this thread and there's been barely any use of scientific research.. Everyone is just spewing their opinion in a *very* non scientific way. I thought this forum holds high standards of not being a crack-pot site?

This is an informal discussion about a topic no one here is an expert on. What do you expect?

If you want something a little more scientific: Natural selection works because of variation in a given trait in a population. What if you want to breed some dogs to be smaller? No problem. You collect some dogs, and with each generation, you breed the smaller than average dogs. But if all the dogs are the same size, there is nothing you can do. Fortunately, of course, in any given population, there is plenty of variety. No variety, no evolution.

This is how humans were able to become more intelligent than our ancestors. Because our ancestors varied in intelligence, and for the situation they were in, the more intelligent ones were more successful breeders.

There really is no debate to be had here. If someone believes that somehow humans all magically became equally intelligent (contradicting abundant evidence and common experience), the burden of proof is on him to demonstrate how and why that particular trait defies basic rules of biology. But, again, that type of belief does not come from examining the facts, it comes from PC concerns.

 

[Howers]

I've read quite a bit of this thread and there's been barely any use of scientific research.. Everyone is just spewing their opinion in a *very* non scientific way. I thought this forum holds high standards of not being a crack-pot site?

It's an interesting thread and that's why I've read a lot of it. But seriously no scientific arguments what so ever? Sorry to sound blunt, but most (not all) of the posters on this thread have seemed more like Politicians rather than Mathematicians/Physicists/Engineers.

I really want to read a good debate, not a cable news fiasco.

Seriously, can we get some moderation?

Talent is not a very scientific topic. Its not like math where you can just axomize a few assumptions and develop all the inferences. Currently, the most scientific definition of intelligence is IQ. And they divide it into quantitative and verbal. But if you bring that up you will get zealots claiming that it is not measuring anything despite the fact that it is unanimously used in psychometrics. A good book to start is Bell Curve by Murray and Herrstein. I won't bother to list all the psychology books and websites I have read in my spare time; get and introductory one and you will know where to look. Here is one site from my school: http://www.psych.utoronto.ca/users/reingold/courses/intelligence/cache/1198gottfred.html

Most of what is said about talent is also based a lot on personal experience and case studies. If you socialize you should readily see people differ in abilities across the board. Think back to your class room, why were some people just better? Do you really think they all studied more? It is a widely understood phenomena and schools and businesses apply it in recruitment. The Milwaukee project was a famous experiment perfomed which suggested enviornment does little to innate intelligence. Other studies showed the success of intelligent people, like the ones by Lewis Terman. Why do you think gifted programs exist? Why do only a fraction of young atheletes make it to professional sports, given that they more or less spend equal time training. Do you think programs recruit young children because they worked harder up to that point?

I'm not going to write you reports quoting research journals on a forum for free. What I know is what I learned from basic psychology and I refer to it as fact. I think its your job to get educated if you don't like taking things at face value. But you don't even need to go that far. Apply basic biology: we are all animals with unique DNA, different codes cause different processes giving some animals new abilities. People have traits that make them better or worse at different things. You won't disagree that you can't teach a rat to multiply. It lacks innate ability. You won't disagree that you can't teach a mentally handicapped individual algebra. Which proves that not all humans are equal. Do a little extrapolation and the results speak for themselves...

 

[djeitnstine]

: we are all animals with unique DNA, different codes cause different processes giving some animals new abilities. People have traits that make them better or worse at different things. You won't disagree that you can't teach a rat to multiply. It lacks innate ability. You won't disagree that you can't teach a mentally handicapped individual algebra. Which proves that not all humans are equal.

Indeed.

As my professor likes to put it, "Nature has bad quality control". So who is to say we're all equal? If we were all stamped out of some cookie cutter then his -mathgangsta's- distress would hold weight. I.e. in a perfect world where all humans were made equal and some were better than others at math, surly scientific evidence would be easy to come by, since all other factors are under control.

 

[Wellesley]

They ran countless experiments over the last 50 years on impoverished kids by providing them with enriched education. There was only temporary improvement.

Do you have any links? I'm curious about their findings.

I've read quite a bit of this thread and there's been barely any use of scientific research.. Everyone is just spewing their opinion in a *very* non scientific way. I thought this forum holds high standards of not being a crack-pot site?
I really want to read a good debate, not a cable news fiasco.

Seriously, can we get some moderation?

This thread is in Academic Guidance, not the Social Sciences or Philosophy.

EDIT:

I found this: http://www.education-world.com/a_curr/curr140.shtml

For many years, most scientists believed that each person was born with a certain number of brain cells and, therefore, a genetically predetermined intellectual capacity. The most recent research, however, appears to refute some of those assumptions. Brain Research and Education: Neuroscience Research Has Impact for Education Policy, an Education Commission of the States (ECS) report, states, "Research shows [that] much of the "wiring" of the brain's neurons comes after birth and depends on the experiences infants and children have." In other words, the brain is formed, at least in part, by the environment.

Any thoughts?

 

[mrb]

I found this: http://www.education-world.com/a_curr/curr140.shtml


Any thoughts?

Nobody denies that environment has an impact. A huge impact. But this is not evidence against a genetic component. Nutrition plays a big role in height. A few generations ago the average height in Japan was much shorter than today because the population was not getting adequate nutrition. Does this mean that there is no genetic component to height?

 

[Wellesley]

Nutrition plays a big role in height. A few generations ago the average height in Japan was much shorter than today because the population was not getting adequate nutrition. Does this mean that there is no genetic component to height?

It has been proven that height, has a mostly http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-much-of-human-height".

Nobody denies that environment has an impact. A huge impact. But this is not evidence against a genetic component.

Would you elaborate please? If most of the brain's molding occurs after birth, then it is not genetic.

 

[cristo]

Would you elaborate please? If most of the brain's molding occurs after birth, then it is not genetic.

Why not? If 100% of the brain's moulding happened after birth, then one could draw conclusions that it is not genetic. But the article you quote does not say that.

 

[mrb]

It has been proven that height, has a mostly http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-much-of-human-height".

I know. This is my point. When I point out that nutrition affected the height of Japanese people, I haven't done *anything* towards disproving that height is affected by genetics. Similarly, when you point out that environment has an effect on the brain, you haven't done *anything* towards disproving that it is affected by genetics.

Would you elaborate please? If most of the brain's molding occurs after birth, then it is not genetic.

Think about what you are saying. Here is a parallel statement: "If most of a child's height is gained after birth, then it is not genetic." This is silly. Of course our genetics continue to influence us after we are born.

Moreover, most brain development occurs before birth. By far. During 9 months in the womb, a baby's brain goes from nothing to a functioning organ.

The point is, yes, there is an environmental influence. But the existence of an environmental influence does not mean there is not also a significant genetic influence.

 

[Wellesley]

Why not? If 100% of the brain's moulding happened after birth, then one could draw conclusions that it is not genetic. But the article you quote does not say that.

I see what you're saying, but that article was all I could find...

 

[Howers]

Do you have any links? I'm curious about their findings.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milwaukee_Project

Other things not there I learned in reading not found on Wiki: While IQ scores improved temporarily, students did not improve academic standing. It was argued that the program merely prepared them for the IQ tests by giving them similar questions ahead of time. By early adulthood, both the enriched and control groups lived similar lives. Others argued that once students returned to their poverty homes, they were not getting enough food and mental stimulation - ignoring the fact that even when they were getting it 6+ hours daily, they were still behind the national average.

There are at least half a dozen similar studies, but I think this is the most famous.

And duh, brain neurons are constantly formed... how else would learning work? Neurons and brain cells are not the only components of intelligence. Lastly, of course you need environment. Your IQ could be 200, but if you're raised by wolves you will likely never speak. Its just that people react differently to stimuli. And we certainly need food.

 

[ank_gl]

aaaaaahhh! too many thoughts, too many words! :zzz::zzz:

Is there even any point left to this thread?

 

[Wellesley]

aaaaaahhh! too many thoughts, too many words! :zzz::zzz:

Is there even any point left to this thread?

Nope.

It was a good read though.


Thanks Howers for the link.

 

[eep]

I suspect that a form of micro-evolution has taken place ever since they've taken it out of the curriculum decades ago the successive generations have lacked the capacity to understand such advanced math at that age, which could make something of that matter genetically induced.

So the people who do have the capacity to learn the material at that age have some sort of significant disadvantage towards breeding and passing their genes? Ridiculous.

 

[djeitnstine]

So the people who do have the capacity to learn the material at that age have some sort of significant disadvantage towards breeding and passing their genes? Ridiculous.

Would you like to rephrase that =S

 

[Wellesley]

I know. This is my point. When I point out that nutrition affected the height of Japanese people, I haven't done *anything* towards disproving that height is affected by genetics. Similarly, when you point out that environment has an effect on the brain, you haven't done *anything* towards disproving that it is affected by genetics.



Think about what you are saying. Here is a parallel statement: "If most of a child's height is gained after birth, then it is not genetic." This is silly. Of course our genetics continue to influence us after we are born.

Moreover, most brain development occurs before birth. By far. During 9 months in the womb, a baby's brain goes from nothing to a functioning organ.

The point is, yes, there is an environmental influence. But the existence of an environmental influence does not mean there is not also a significant genetic influence.

Now my brain really hurts... but I agree with your explanation and logic. I didn't see your post, otherwise I would have said something earlier.

 

[maze]

here comes the science...

EXPERT AND EXCEPTIONAL PERFORMANCE: Evidence of Maximal Adaptation to Task Constraints

K. A. Ericsson and A. C. Lehmann

Department of Psychology, Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida 32306-1051


▪ Abstract Expert and exceptional performance are shown to be mediated by cognitive and perceptual-motor skills and by domain-specific physiological and anatomical adaptations. The highest levels of human performance in different domains can only be attained after around ten years of extended, daily amounts of deliberate practice activities. Laboratory analyses of expert performance in many domains such as chess, medicine, auditing, computer programming, bridge, physics, sports, typing, juggling, dance, and music reveal maximal adaptations of experts to domain-specific constraints. For example, acquired anticipatory skills circumvent general limits on reaction time, and distinctive memory skills allow a domain-specific expansion of working memory capacity to support planning, reasoning, and evaluation. Many of the mechanisms of superior expert performance serve the dual purpose of mediating experts' current performance and of allowing continued improvement of this performance in response to informative feedback during practice activities.

http://arjournals.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.psych.47.1.273

The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance.
Ericsson, K. Anders; Krampe, Ralf T.; Tesch-Römer, Clemens

The theoretical framework presented in this article explains expert performance as the end result of individuals' prolonged efforts to improve performance while negotiating motivational and external constraints. In most domains of expertise, individuals begin in their childhood a regimen of effortful activities (deliberate practice) designed to optimize improvement. Individual differences, even among elite performers, are closely related to assessed amounts of deliberate practice. Many characteristics once believed to reflect innate talent are actually the result of intense practice extended for a minimum of 10 yrs. Analysis of expert performance provides unique evidence on the potential and limits of extreme environmental adaptation and learning

http://psycnet.apa.org/index.cfm?fa=main.doiLanding&uid=1993-40718-001

COGNITIVE SKILL ACQUISITION

Kurt VanLehn

Learning Research and Development Center, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15260


▪ Abstract Cognitive skill acquisition is acquiring the ability to solve problems in intellectual tasks, where success is determined more by subjects' knowledge than by their physical prowess. This review considers research conducted in the past ten years on cognitive skill acquisition. It covers the initial stages of acquiring a single principle or rule, the initial stages of acquiring a collection of interacting pieces of knowledge, and the final stages of acquiring a skill, wherein practice causes increases in speed and accuracy.

http://arjournals.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.psych.47.1.513

Howe, Michael J. A. and Davidson, Jane W. and Sloboda, John A. Behavioral and Brain Sciences (1998), 21:3:399-407 Cambridge University Press

Innate talents: Reality or myth?

Abstract

Talents that selectively facilitate the acquisition of high levels of skill are said to be present in some children but not others. The evidence for this includes biological correlates of specific abilities, certain rare abilities in autistic savants, and the seemingly spontaneous emergence of exceptional abilities in young children, but there is also contrary evidence indicating an absence of early precursors of high skill levels. An analysis of positive and negative evidence and arguments suggests that differences in early experiences, preferences, opportunities, habits, training, and practice are the real determinants of excellence.

http://cogprints.org/656/

I could go on...

 

[jweygna1]

There is a level of mathematical talent one is born with, but certainly don't change your area of interest because of it. Like the many posters have said, some might pick it up faster than others, but anyone can learn math.

 

[kaos86]

There is a level of mathematical talent one is born with, but certainly don't change your area of interest because of it. Like the many posters have said, some might pick it up faster than others, but anyone can learn math.

I agree what you say here. The human mind is a complicated thing. Any human being can obtain this so called "gift".

 

[Howers]

I agree what you say here. The human mind is a complicated thing. Any human being can obtain this so called "gift".

I don't think you understood what he said than.

 

[Howers]

http://cogprints.org/656/

I could go on...

This is the only one I could actually read. Anyway, all this does is show that successful people (particularly musicians) invested a lot of time. And that practice helps develop skill. It does not address people of varying ability, it only studies those who were already successful. The Milwaukee project attempted to "cure dullness" but failed, suggesting that there are people who lack sufficient ability. This has occurred often in psychometrics: the methods and cases were all criticized on whatever grounds people could think of. Yet, no real contradictory evidence exists: only that with multiple interepretations (as in your example: talented people were also hardworking, therefore hard work = talent).

 

[FirstYearGrad]

I was pretty poor in math up until middle school when I received some tutoring. It definitely was not innate with me, but now I'm a graduate student in a top 5 engineering school.

 

[Ivilean]

No one thinks we are a little bit too old for the "all men are created equal" argument? It was nice back in middle school, but now it only sounds funny. Seriously, how exactly can such thing be made possible?

People just delude themselves that there is no such thing as innate talent. While in most cases, motivation and hard work contribute significantly to success, motivation and hard work can only carry one through so much (99% of success or so they claim lol). The last 1% of innate talent is what breaks the tie. Otherwise, the world is already flooded with geniuses.

 

[x→∞]

Are you born with out-of-this-world math skills? No, you learn them later on.
Math isn't some genetic trait that you're "born with", it takes time to learn it, and to excel at it. If you are especially dedicated, you may someday know math to a point at which one may tell you you were probably born with the skill, but for now, practice.

Good luck!

 

[Ivilean]

Are you born with out-of-this-world math skills? No, you learn them later on.
Math isn't some genetic trait that you're "born with", it takes time to learn it, and to excel at it. If you are especially dedicated, you may someday know math to a point at which one may tell you you were probably born with the skill, but for now, practice.

No, you were not born with out-of-this-world math skills, but you can be born with extraordinary affinity to number, abstract reasoning, spatial visualization, etc, the kind of stuff that allow you to learn "math" faster, to grasp abstract concepts easier rather than agonizing over them for days (hard work?)

 

[MissSilvy]

People just delude themselves that there is no such thing as innate talent. While in most cases, motivation and hard work contribute significantly to success, motivation and hard work can only carry one through so much (99% of success or so they claim lol). The last 1% of innate talent is what breaks the tie. Otherwise, the world is already flooded with geniuses.

You hilariously overestimate the effort and 'hard work' people claim to put in. Most people 'study' for ten hours straight the night before a test, get a garbagety grade, and then conclude that they must lack some innate talent for math. Nope, just misdirected and wasted effort. Like the people who claim to put all this work into losing weight and are still fat. Their 'effort' sucks! That's why they don't get anywhere.

I don't give a damn if there's such thing as statistically significant innate talent or not. I'll still lick them at math anyways ;) Innate talent at math would certainly help someone at math but it's not a golden ticket or a guarantee of easy success over plebeians.

 

[cristo]

Most people 'study' for ten hours straight the night before a test, get a garbagety grade, and then conclude that they must lack some innate talent for math. Nope, just misdirected and wasted effort.

Most people where? I don't know where you go to university, but from my experience of decent universities, "most" people study properly for exams, with the small handful trying to wing it by only cramming the night before.

 

[Wellesley]

Most people where? I don't know where you go to university, but from my experience of decent universities, "most" people study properly for exams, with the small handful trying to wing it by only cramming the night before.

Hmm...how do you define properly? I define properly studying as practicing enough so that I fully understand the concept being tested. If I don't get something, I work it out until I do. I do the homework, ask questions, etc. If most people studied like that, then their grades would reflect it with either an A, or at the very least, a B. If this were the case, there would be no way to justify some can't learn math.

You hilariously overestimate the effort and 'hard work' people claim to put in. Most people 'study' for ten hours straight the night before a test, get a garbagety grade, and then conclude that they must lack some innate talent for math. Nope, just misdirected and wasted effort. Like the people who claim to put all this work into losing weight and are still fat. Their 'effort' sucks! That's why they don't get anywhere.

I tend to agree with you. There will always be exceptions, but overall, pretty accurate depiction.

 

[x→∞]

No, you were not born with out-of-this-world math skills, but you can be born with extraordinary affinity to number, abstract reasoning, spatial visualization, etc, the kind of stuff that allow you to learn "math" faster, to grasp abstract concepts easier rather than agonizing over them for days (hard work?)

I see what you mean. I don't believe genetics is a factor here, but mostly the environment in which you are raised ("nature vs. nurture"). Even from an extremely young age you are able to grasp very simple mathematical skills. The question is whether somebody put in the effort to help you grasp it (blocks, counting, etc.). If not, you see how much more difficult it would be to learn "faster", and to grasp the abstract concepts? It's all about the first few years.

 

[bleedblue1234]

I wonder if math and "language" are related in some way... it seems to me there is a similar process, that one just seems to get more comfortable and overtime you just "understand it" much like becoming fluent in a language...