Math:verbal skills~Fast twitch:slow twitch
This post was removed.
Math:verbal skills~Fast twitch:slow twitch
No. This is not always true. I've been a math teacher for 15 years, mostly at the high school level. I have worked with some highly intelligent students who are not very good at what I am teaching. Some of those students are lazy, like the kid who runs 5:05 in the 1600m for 4 years, but does so without practicing. As a freshman that is an alright time and got him by, but by the time he is a senior and running the same time, he's way behind. For a lot of students, they missed something along the way.
I taught a girl who got a B- or C+ in my algebra 2 class that was taught at half speed for those who struggle. She ended up going on to a JC, which is pretty typical of a student from that grade range. What is not typical is that after 3 years, yes 3 years instead of 2 at the JC, she transferred to Berkeley and ended up finishing with a degree in mathematics. Last I knew, she took that to law school. She should be done by now, but we haven't kept up. Back when she transferred to Berkeley and decided to major in math, I asked her what happened. She said that at Christmas Break of her second year of JC she realized that she understood the concepts that the professor was talking about, but couldn't keep up with her calculations in the notes. She spent time every day of the break going over her basic multiplication tables...the ones we learn in 2nd grade. She got that down in a way that she never had and after that, the degree was easy. That's a true story and it blew my mind when she told it. It gave me a whole new perspective.
Ozzie wrote:
No. This is not always true. I've been a math teacher for 15 years, mostly at the high school level. I have worked with some highly intelligent students who are not very good at what I am teaching. Some of those students are lazy, like the kid who runs 5:05 in the 1600m for 4 years, but does so without practicing. As a freshman that is an alright time and got him by, but by the time he is a senior and running the same time, he's way behind. For a lot of students, they missed something along the way.
I taught a girl who got a B- or C+ in my algebra 2 class that was taught at half speed for those who struggle. She ended up going on to a JC, which is pretty typical of a student from that grade range. What is not typical is that after 3 years, yes 3 years instead of 2 at the JC, she transferred to Berkeley and ended up finishing with a degree in mathematics. Last I knew, she took that to law school. She should be done by now, but we haven't kept up. Back when she transferred to Berkeley and decided to major in math, I asked her what happened. She said that at Christmas Break of her second year of JC she realized that she understood the concepts that the professor was talking about, but couldn't keep up with her calculations in the notes. She spent time every day of the break going over her basic multiplication tables...the ones we learn in 2nd grade. She got that down in a way that she never had and after that, the degree was easy. That's a true story and it blew my mind when she told it. It gave me a whole new perspective.
There's a widespread misconception that math is a natural capability like perfect pitch instead of a subject to be learned where working on later topics depend on knowing the earlier ones. So many who struggled with calculus in college had the intelligence to do well but didn't have the foundation in trigonometry and algebra. Maybe in high school they were able to solve problems in these subjects, calculus too, and even do well but didn't really bother to learn it.
Those type of stories are so great. It reminds me of stories about WW2 soldiers from small towns going to school on the GI bill and blossoming. It's not even about being humble. Just living life seriously and taking it as it comes. This person is an example of someone who's lost in the crowd. Good enough to get passing grades so there really wasn't a problem. She just needed the right experience and time to subconciously percolate and figure out what was really going on. I doubt her talent could have been brought out deliberately.
Coaching distance runners at various schools over a number of years, I will add this reflection:
There is a tremendous difference between who CAN do the mental work, and who is conditioned to ATTEMPT to do the mental work.
I think this is directly related to what Daniel Kahneman writes about in Thinking, Fast and Slow. In this book, he writes about system 1 and system 2 thinking, which he approximately defines (I'm certainly oversimplifying) as instinctual quick respone, and deep analytical thinking. A component of this is that it is, unsurprisingly, literally more work to think deeply. I see runners who can calculate pace guess at pace and check my reaction ALL THE TIME. They can do it, but their habit is to not. Do I know anything about this person's intellect?
What one has to ask to better understand, is HOW DO SOME LEARN TO DO THE WORK OF DEEPER ANALYTICAL THINKING? For many this is exposure, cultural messaging, confidence, or fixed vs growth mindsets. In my opinion, most people fail to use anywhere close to their mental capacities, most of the time. Fewer still actively determine when it is a good time to be "lazy" in approximating vs. spending time and energy to do the work.
If you want to learn more, read Kahneman's book.
If you want to help the people over whom you have influence, teach them that they can develop any skill at which they practice, and that learning to think is in fact a skill as much as a trait.
Bad Wigins wrote:
being "not good at math" is usually due to an inability to separate reason from emotion.
So, do you have any facts that led you to this conclusion, or are you just saying how you feel?
the more interesting question to me is whether smart people can be bad at standardized tests but actually smart.
That one doesn't make as much sense to me since tests like the SAT cover many different kinds of skills and talents.
Seems to me that there is a much closer correlation between
SAT and intelligence
than
math ability and intelligence.
worst is academia for killing your mind.
academia = no survival skills, except to survive with a stupid paycheck in the rapidly fading western societies.
you want smart, you go the third world,
your degree is pretty much worthless.
regarding math, probably 99% here don't know what math is.
as in good with numbers descriptor.
which is not math, of course.
but 99% don't know that.
math is a language and a philosophy, descriptor.
calling arithmetic math, is like calling your foot, a runner
and teachers have the lowest SAT score and related IQ of any professional group, that is if you want to cal teachers professional.
This guy never did squat in HS, but in prison he started doing very very very complex math problems, even out shining the professors.
ok first of all notice that I am fully aware that I'm just saying how I feel. I don't need to pretend like I'm stating facts in order to sound more authoritative. And you can pretty much assume that about everything I or anyone else says unless they provide a rigorous proof.
I think the real issue that people don't talk about in these discussions is value. One person might be more intelligent than another person by some measure, but does it make that person more valuable? Valuable to society, valuable to their family, community, etc. This is the big issue because what's really at stake is which people are worth keeping around and which people we can do without. The reason why being intelligent is considered important is because it supposedly makes you more valuable. We don't want "dumb" people around because they supposedly are just a drain on our resources and don't provide any value. We would just get rid of them if we could. So instead of debating about test scores I think the discussion really should be about value. What is the point of your existence? Would anybody give a sh*t if you just disappeared? Maybe some people would rather you did stop existing. That goes a lot deeper than any of the metrics I see people posting. I think it hits a raw nerve with a lot of people too because down inside a lot of people don't feel very valuable, even if they have achieved a lot.
I feel like I just got by in math until graduate school where I had to do an overhaul of ky understanding from the ground up. At the time, I found a fun morning puzzle to unlock my confidence in math that was completely irrational (pun) and that no one else would think of doing.
Math wasnt easy for me until month three of studying upwards of 4 hours per day. My performance comes down to being dedicated or not being dedicated just like distance running. Cant fake it. Math is also a belief system that you have to believe in.
The not so big problem with this lifestyle: I became introverted, didnt talk to many people and felt like I didnt have any free time. I felt if I wasnt studying someone else was. I also felt unrelatable to others.
But man, I was so good at Java, C++, R and Octave as a result and could readily ponder algorithms to draw trumpet like shapes on a 2d graph.
For some math is a rabbit hole that you have to go down into to understand. That said, if you are intimidated by math or even scared of it, this means you probably have the ability to be quite good if you set your mind to it and overcome the fears. The fear must be understood as an internal challenge. Take deep dives!
Exquisite Corpse wrote:
Coaching distance runners at various schools over a number of years, I will add this reflection:
There is a tremendous difference between who CAN do the mental work, and who is conditioned to ATTEMPT to do the mental work.
I think this is directly related to what Daniel Kahneman writes about in Thinking, Fast and Slow. In this book, he writes about system 1 and system 2 thinking, which he approximately defines (I'm certainly oversimplifying) as instinctual quick respone, and deep analytical thinking. A component of this is that it is, unsurprisingly, literally more work to think deeply. I see runners who can calculate pace guess at pace and check my reaction ALL THE TIME. They can do it, but their habit is to not. Do I know anything about this person's intellect?
What one has to ask to better understand, is HOW DO SOME LEARN TO DO THE WORK OF DEEPER ANALYTICAL THINKING? For many this is exposure, cultural messaging, confidence, or fixed vs growth mindsets. In my opinion, most people fail to use anywhere close to their mental capacities, most of the time. Fewer still actively determine when it is a good time to be "lazy" in approximating vs. spending time and energy to do the work.
If you want to learn more, read Kahneman's book.
If you want to help the people over whom you have influence, teach them that they can develop any skill at which they practice, and that learning to think is in fact a skill as much as a trait.
If schools were really able to teach students how to think then MIT wouldn't be special. Some say they learned how to think in college but they were given stuff to study and tested and eventually figured out something because they had to and weren't hand fed anymore. Is a professor offering that the struggle with the thesis might be because there's actually two main ideas instead of one, teaching or advising? The student at MIT isn't taught but advised.
Personally I'm pretty good at maths but in-terms of overall intelligence I'm pretty stupid. Would have to disagree with this thread.
This is some straight BS. The same people who say stuff like this are the ones lacking the ability to speak well, write well, and socialize.
seth_da_runner wrote:
This is some straight BS. The same people who say stuff like this are the ones lacking the ability to speak well, write well, and socialize.
True
A lot of math is just memorization. Whoever studies/practices the most will do better 9 times out of 10. A person with 150 IQ who hasn't done a math class in a while vs a person with 80 IQ who is a math major. The 80 IQ math major wins on the math test because he studies way more.
I have to point out that your grammar wasn't perfect either.