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

[lagwagon555]

I'm going to post from the negative point of view, obviously because I'm not getting As at the moment :)

I think that some people are incredibly good at learning. My friend is one of the top scholars in the country. He never studies except before exams, and just somehow understands everything instantly, and memorizes it forever. I'm the complete opposite, lectures go in through one ear and out the other, and I don't learn anything until I actually do questions.

I don't get As, but that's because I don't study a lot. Most people aren't the natural genius that my friend is. All (most) of the other smart kids I know all study, heaps. I know the top scholar for calculus in my country, she does nothing but study. Literally. She could be someone with my amount of natural talent, but just works bloody hard. Or she could be a combo of genius/hard worker.

Anyway, I'm sure that it's possible to get As, no matter what your ability, if you just study hard. I don't mean make studying your life. Just make sure you go over everything, understand everything, and do it constantly throughout the semester to make sure you don't have to re-learn anything just before your exams.

I haven't done this yet, so my grades show for it. But I'm getting into the routine now (as well as having to relearn all the thermo from the first quart... argh).

 

[cristo]

Anyway, I'm sure that it's possible to get As, no matter what your ability, if you just study hard.

If your ability is over a certain threshold, then yes. But there are lots of people who will never be able to get top marks, regardless of how hard they work.

 

[lagwagon555]

If your ability is over a certain threshold, then yes. But there are lots of people who will never be able to get top marks, regardless of how hard they work.

For sure, not everyone can make it to the 99th percentile, A+ marks. But I think most, if not all people can make it to A- or A.

 

[deferro]

How's this math assignment:

"deduce from the symmetries of space and time the existence of a subgroup of SU(2)xSU(3), Pauli's sigma-closed algebra over fermions with mass"

 

[cristo]

For sure, not everyone can make it to the 99th percentile, A+ marks. But I think most, if not all people can make it to A- or A.

I made this point earlier on in the thread in response to someone else, but what do you mean here by "most"? If you mean that most people in high school could make it to an A in maths, then you must either go to an incredibly good high school, or maths education in high school must be very easy where you're from! If you mean that most people enrolled in a maths degree at university could be able to obtain A's, then this is perhaps more of a believable statement, though I still disagree with it!

 

[Wellesley]

I made this point earlier on in the thread in response to someone else, but what do you mean here by "most"? If you mean that most people in high school could make it to an A in maths, then you must either go to an incredibly good high school, or maths education in high school must be very easy where you're from! If you mean that most people enrolled in a maths degree at university could be able to obtain A's, then this is perhaps more of a believable statement, though I still disagree with it!

Would you agree that the average student has the ability to either improve their grades, or possibly get an A, depending on how hard they work?

 

[maze]

If your ability is over a certain threshold, then yes. But there are lots of people who will never be able to get top marks, regardless of how hard they work.

I think you mistook lack of ability for lack of motivation, low perserverence, and poor foundations.

 

[cristo]

Would you agree that the average student has the ability to either improve their grades, or possibly get an A, depending on how hard they work?

Clearly if a student studies more, then they are more likely to get a higher grade. All I'm saying is that it is not possible for all students to obtain A grades in mathematics, even on leaving high school, say.

I think you mistook lack of ability for lack of motivation, low perserverence, and poor foundations.

I disagree. It's very easy for people who are good at mathematics to look at this through rose-tinted glasses and say 'well anyone can do it if they work hard enough.. students who fail are just lazy', but in reality things are not so simple: there is a large proportion of the population who simply have no natural ability.

 

[thrill3rnit3]

Ever heard of tabula rasa??

 

[maze]

I disagree. It's very easy for people who are good at mathematics to look at this through rose-tinted glasses and say 'well anyone can do it if they work hard enough.. students who fail are just lazy', but in reality things are not so simple: there is a large proportion of the population who simply have no natural ability.

See, this whole notion that there is this magical thing called "ability" that let's you solve problems - it's a false notion. It's too vague to be useful and obscures the truth, which is that problem solving "ability" is a simple machinery of specific strategies, tricks, tactics, and heuristics.

Let put it this way,
1) With enough effort, one could write a program to solve any high school or university maths problem
2) The human mind is Turing-complete
3) Therefore, any student can learn to do high school or university mathematics.

 

[cristo]

It's too vague to be useful and obscures the truth, which is that problem solving "ability" is a simple machinery of specific strategies, tricks, tactics, and heuristics.

I would argue that the ability is really the ability to pick up mathematical concepts quickly, and to spot which "tricks"/techniques apply in which situation. One might argue that this could be learned, but remember that the statement I was responding to was "any student can obtain an A grade, at any level." Note that there is a small, finite amount of time in which one can study for their A grade. Thus, just programming the mind, as you suggest above, is not enough. It is 'the programming the mind' (or, studying), which must come hand in hand with the natural intuition to become successful in mathematics. Whilst you could, in principle, force yourself to learn the latter (by simply grinding through things), doing so in a time period of a couple of years is not possible in practice.

 

[Tobias Funke]

I disagree. It's very easy for people who are good at mathematics to look at this through rose-tinted glasses and say 'well anyone can do it if they work hard enough.. students who fail are just lazy', but in reality things are not so simple: there is a large proportion of the population who simply have no natural ability.

And I bet a large proportion of them could be decent at math (up to trig or pre calc maybe) if they were taught well when they were younger. There's got to be a reason why so many otherwise intelligent people can't understand or even manipulate fractions, for example. Can they just all be stupid? Maybe, but I don't think I'll ever be convinced that fractions are too difficult for the average person. Math education is just terrible in a lot of places.

 

[AUMathTutor]

To the OP:
Nope, you either gots it or you dont.

Seriously, though, not everybody can get an A. If everybody were getting As, they would raise expectations to get a distribution again... everybody can't be above average. ;D

(if they are, then getting >90 isn't really an A anymore, is it?)

 

[MissSilvy]

I'm both suspicious and amused by people who are good at math who claim it's a gene thing because that implies that they believe that they're gifted in some way. Mmm, ego!

Perhaps I just enjoy raining on people's parades, who knows :)?

 

[cristo]

I'm both suspicious and amused by people who are good at math who claim it's a gene thing because that implies that they believe that they're gifted in some way.

But everyone's gifted in some way, aren't they? It's hardly an ego thing!

 

[Chewy0087]

I think it's possible for anyone to get an A at A-Level maths in the UK (at least from experience at my school, maybe I'm being idealistic), maybe not further maths though.

 

[maze]

I would argue that the ability is really the ability to pick up mathematical concepts quickly, and to spot which "tricks"/techniques apply in which situation. One might argue that this could be learned, but remember that the statement I was responding to was "any student can obtain an A grade, at any level." Note that there is a small, finite amount of time in which one can study for their A grade. Thus, just programming the mind, as you suggest above, is not enough. It is 'the programming the mind' (or, studying), which must come hand in hand with the natural intuition to become successful in mathematics. Whilst you could, in principle, force yourself to learn the latter (by simply grinding through things), doing so in a time period of a couple of years is not possible in practice.

An interesting perspective. I don't think we actually disagree that much. My basic hypothesis is that if one student has less ability than another, it is because they have less problem solving and intuition software packages "installed" in their mind.

One can investigate whether or not people can be born with these softwares preinstalled, or if it is all learned. We can all recall examples where we had no clue about a subject at first, then after time and effort it became understandable, and eventually we find it clear and intuitive (eg, proving things in analysis). Thus at least some of these softwares are learned. My guess is that most of it is gained in childhood from playing, and later through directed practice; early differences are self-reinforced and cause divergence in ability over many years.

You're right that, given a random slice of the population, only a certain proportion of them could get an A in a course at an instant in time. But the reason is that everyone has different levels of problem solving and intuition installed. All a "dumb" student needs to do to become "smart" is to identify what mental software is missing, then go and install it. By the time people reach high school and college, the accumulated differences are so great that this could take years and so it is rarely done. Instead people convince themselves that they are "naturally" bad at math and go do something else.

 

[dx]

I agree with maze. I think "Natural ability" has more to do with early childhood environment and education than some characteristic that was present at birth.

 

[MissSilvy]

But everyone's gifted in some way, aren't they? It's hardly an ego thing!

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.)

 

[cristo]

The majority of, if not all, the people I know are good at something. (It'd be a pretty sad existence if one wasn't good at anything!)

The myth that everyone is good at something is a nice comfort to losers though, I suppose

The fact that you're using the term 'loser' probably says more about you than it does about the people you are trying to put down!

 

[Wellesley]

Clearly if a student studies more, then they are more likely to get a higher grade. All I'm saying is that it is not possible for all students to obtain A grades in mathematics, even on leaving high school, say.

I disagree. It's very easy for people who are good at mathematics to look at this through rose-tinted glasses and say 'well anyone can do it if they work hard enough.. students who fail are just lazy', but in reality things are not so simple: there is a large proportion of the population who simply have no natural ability.

Cristo, I see what you're saying...I agree that not everyone can get an A in math. Yet, at the simpler level of high school (compared to College), I do think most have the potential to do well at math. Whether they get an A or not, depends on a lot of things (how hard they work, seek help, etc.). Natural ability may make learning easier, but it is not a requirement to success.

And I bet a large proportion of them could be decent at math (up to trig or pre calc maybe) if they were taught well when they were younger. There's got to be a reason why so many otherwise intelligent people can't understand or even manipulate fractions, for example. Can they just all be stupid? Maybe, but I don't think I'll ever be convinced that fractions are too difficult for the average person. Math education is just terrible in a lot of places.

I'm not sure it's the teachers fault. If you are using fractions as an example, the information was presented by the teachers and it's up to the students to absorb or otherwise learn the material. If people don't want to learn, they won't learn.

 

[Tobias Funke]

I'm not sure it's the teachers fault. If you are using fractions as an example, the information was presented by the teachers and it's up to the students to absorb or otherwise learn the material. If people don't want to learn, they won't learn.

We're talking about 4th-8th graders here, not college or even high school students. Of course they don't want to learn fractions, especially if they're not taught well. In any case, how are the students supposed to know that they're not learning if they keep passing? A freshman girl last year was confused that she was failing algebra because she couldn't add and subtract consistently, let alone do fractions. She got A's in math all throughout middle school.

It's not just the teacher's fault of course. Any society that almost prides itself on its inability to do math will produce poor math students.

 

[bleedblue1234]

I believe early signs of any spark of "smartness" are greatly exaggerated through years of separation among peers. I believe innate intelligence plays a small role, but the "innate intellectuals" are pushed toward a path of rigorous math training, while the average American or any person for that matter sees math as some boring, old subject that is tought by grumpy old teachers, and as usual has "no basis in real life" or "it doesn't matter." Kids are tought that all math is "hard" and that only "smart" people can learn it, and as such I see countless kids struggling to understand basic concepts, when they really do understand it, they are just told they are not "smart enough" to do it and as such little Johnny is pushed by both parents and teachers into more culturistic pursuits...

I think a lot of what we think of as innate intelligence is in fact social selection... a lot of the "smart" kids early on got a lot of recognition for their work and praise for it, and naturally wanted to continue it, while the mediocre students early on sought no benefit in it and found no great boon to it when more money and 'social prestige' can be made from other pursuits in other fields... as math is for "nerds"

and btw i am the "mediocre student" ... but i still enjoy science and math...

 

[qntty]

I believe early signs of any spark of "smartness" are greatly exaggerated through years of separation among peers. I believe innate intelligence plays a small role, but the "innate intellectuals" are pushed toward a path of rigorous math training, while the average American or any person for that matter sees math as some boring, old subject that is tought by grumpy old teachers, and as usual has "no basis in real life" or "it doesn't matter." Kids are tought that all math is "hard" and that only "smart" people can learn it, and as such I see countless kids struggling to understand basic concepts, when they really do understand it, they are just told they are not "smart enough" to do it and as such little Johnny is pushed by both parents and teachers into more culturistic pursuits...

I think a lot of what we think of as innate intelligence is in fact social selection... a lot of the "smart" kids early on got a lot of recognition for their work and praise for it, and naturally wanted to continue it, while the mediocre students early on sought no benefit in it and found no great boon to it when more money and 'social prestige' can be made from other pursuits in other fields... as math is for "nerds"

and btw i am the "mediocre student" ... but i still enjoy science and math...

Nicely put. It seems that some people tend toward studying math but I think it has more to do with the intellectual experiences that happen at young ages than any sort of natural advantage. But It probably seems like a natural advantage when a kid who's always been a "math person" is years ahead of his/her peers simply because they have been working harder for years.

 

[benk99nenm312]

Any society that almost prides itself on its inability to do math will produce poor math students.

I couldn't agree more. Perfectly stated.

I sometimes help people with their math homework, and its things like this that I open with. The first way I approach the situation is I ask 'Do you want to learn it?' If the answer is no, then I reply "Are you willing to try, rigorously, to learn it?" If they say :uhhh...," then I say "Then I can't help you." What's so sad is that those people have more friends than I do. They are popular, they have mates. It's sad that our society is like that.

 

[maze]

It's not just the teacher's fault of course. Any society that almost prides itself on its inability to do math will produce poor math students.

There is a surprising sidenote here though - while the average math understanding of American adults is abysmal, the US still produces a lot of good research mathematicians. Not sure what to make of this.

 

[MissSilvy]

The fact that you're using the term 'loser' probably says more about you than it does about the people you are trying to put down!

I hate to diverge from the topic, but what exactly do you call someone who is mediocre at everything? You don't get an A in life for just showing up.

 

[diazona]

There is a surprising sidenote here though - while the average math understanding of American adults is abysmal, the US still produces a lot of good research mathematicians. Not sure what to make of this.

Must mean that most of the Americans who aren't good research mathematicians really suck at math Kidding... sorta. (Mathematically, it does sort of suggest that...)

 

[MathGangsta]

I hate to diverge from the topic, but what exactly do you call someone who is mediocre at everything? You don't get an A in life for just showing up.

Jack-of-all-trades? Haha, I definitely wouldn't use the word loser to describe that. I'm in agreement with cristo; that by using that word you're saying a lot about yourself.

 

[Nabeshin]

I hate to diverge from the topic, but what exactly do you call someone who is mediocre at everything? You don't get an A in life for just showing up.

Well rounded? Most people I know who are very good at one specific area are severely deficient at a lot of other things (classic example of geniuses not exactly having peak physical or artistic ability). Whether that's a result of society or some innate ability is besides the point.

That said, I'm on your side on this one.

 

[chiro]

Well rounded? Most people I know who are very good at one specific area are severely deficient at a lot of other things (classic example of geniuses not exactly having peak physical or artistic ability). Whether that's a result of society or some innate ability is besides the point.

That said, I'm on your side on this one.

I tend to have the view that this stuff about making people "well rounded" is a bit of a stretch as well. For example you have your extra curricular crap and all of that to attend some of the more premier schools but really why does anyone need it? If people like to play sports and be particle phycisists and be on the debate team then ok that's their thing. But how many people will have such broad minded interests to want to do a billion different things in different genres all at once?

It seems a lot of unis want "well rounded" students but honestly what's a person that is just ok at many things? If I was employing someone I would rather care what they did know for which I'm hiring them. There are of course some personality preferences but who gives a rats if they were on the soccer, football, chess, debating and political club societies.

It's hard enough becoming someone who is good at what they do for a single thing (and by good I mean it literally not someone who is just capable at doing well in exams but someone who really knows their stuff across the board for their chosen field).

 

[MissSilvy]

Originally Posted by MissSilvy
I hate to diverge from the topic, but what exactly do you call someone who is mediocre at everything? You don't get an A in life for just showing up.

Well rounded? Most people I know who are very good at one specific area are severely deficient at a lot of other things (classic example of geniuses not exactly having peak physical or artistic ability). Whether that's a result of society or some innate ability is besides the point.

That said, I'm on your side on this one.

Ah, we're talking about two different things. People who are good at absolutely nothing aren't good at one thing and mediocre at everything else. I'm talking about someone who isn't good at absolutely anything, who would be classified as a loser in the popular sense. You're talking about someone with a narrow and specific interest, which I sympathize with. To be truly great at something, you pretty much have to specialize so you're correct.

 

[cristo]

I'm talking about someone who isn't good at absolutely anything, who would be classified as a loser in the popular sense.

Who are such people? I don't think I've met anyone who fails at everything they attempt.

 

[Shovna]

Plzzzz help!

i m a 12th grade student & have opted 4 PCBM as i want to becum a doctor but m weak in mathematics & have kinda developed maths phobia!

as i was ignorant of the other options available, i had opted for PCBM though i wud have taken IT instead of maths & now i greatly regret it! :(

though now m gradually understanding maths wid the help of my tutor...i doubt if i'll be able 2 score gud marks in my boards which i'll appear in 2010...Plz help me cause i have no confidence at all on my maths skills!

 

[ank_gl]

No. Math is innate. Anyone who needs to work at it does not belong and will never be fit to lick the boots of the math gods among us.

Rubbish

There is nothing innate in anyone. A child molds himself/herself on what he/she observes around. One gets better at what he/she practices. That's just it. There is no vaccine for anything.

That being said, it isn't always that a kid will become whatever he sees around, eg a doctor's son isn't always going to become a doctor, but that is a possibility.

There is just no substitute for work & practice.

 

[ank_gl]

i m a 12th grade student & have opted 4 PCBM as i want to becum a doctor but m weak in mathematics & have kinda developed maths phobia!

as i was ignorant of the other options available, i had opted for PCBM though i wud have taken IT instead of maths & now i greatly regret it! :(

though now m gradually understanding maths wid the help of my tutor...i doubt if i'll be able 2 score gud marks in my boards which i'll appear in 2010...Plz help me cause i have no confidence at all on my maths skills!

My first guess is that you are from India.
If yes, the situation you wrote about isn't particularly yours, but is very much general. And its not because of you, its because of the way it is taught, too much formula based. A simple advice would be not to use any formulas at all, do everything right from the first principle, that will help you in understanding the situation & hone your so called "maths skill"(there are no skills, its only they way one looks around).

 

[mrb]

3 points to make to the OP:

1. The people who are saying there is no such thing as innate talent are just deluding themselves. Interact with a variety of people in any pursuit, whether that be sports, or academics, or whatever else, and it will become very clear very quickly that some people have it and others don't, and it cannot all be explained by the amount of effort people put in. A quick example from the world of sports: In powerlifting, the man who has deadlifted the most weight currently is Andy Bolton. He has deadlifted over 1000 lbs. He also deadlifted 600 lbs, at *18 years old*, the first time he ever touched a barbell. 600 lbs is far more than most powerlifters lift in a lifetime of trying.

2. Either way, you still have to work hard to achieve anything worthwhile. Bolton had a big headstart over other people. But he also worked his butt off for years to get that 1000 DL. Just head in the direction you want and work hard. Maybe eventually it will turn out that you don't have what it takes and will have to settle for a lesser goal. But you can't know that now anyway.

3. Don't worry about your current situation. You are not far behind. Take the classes you need now, and you can catch up more in college. My only concern would be this: You have presumably avoided math classes because you didn't enjoy them, so what makes you think you want to do computer science?

 

[marmot]

:shrugs: Maybe some people have innate talents. It seems to me though, that while some facility is needed, a person with moderate capabilities but disciplined would excel more than a really bright kid with terrible work ethic. I've seen people around me who are really smart but who flunk all their classes because they are addicted to Halo.

 

[djeitnstine]

Well, different people learn different ways. Not 100% of the time the classroom setting works for 100% of the students.

Some people learn visually - via pictoral representations, some learn through listening, Others learn through writing.

Of course many learn via a combination of the three, at varying degrees

A professor may only use one method while leaving behind 1/2 of his classroom and not even know it.

So one may never really truly ever know whether there is some inherent ability to math or not, too many factors come into play.

Some include: learning method, way of being taught, impression of math, self perseverance, dedication, handicap?(retardation, ADD...etc) - and to what degree?, parents, environment, friends, learning pace... List goes on and on.

So how do you sieve through innate ability with so many factors in play? You can't.

 

[benk99nenm312]

We are born with genetic codes that give us talents. We are affected by those around us, and what society encourages. It is not one, but both of these factors that make us who we are.

My Mom is naturally good at math. I inherited that gene. My sister didn't. But its not just the innate factors that make my sister and I different. It is who we are personally. I have a better work ethic, because I have not been influenced by the ethics of American society (math is dumb). My sister has. She chose her path, I chose mine. It is that choice that defines us in the end. If one wants to be good at math, there is more than hope. There is aspiration, and luckily, succesion.

For the OP, I am confident you will do fine in the end.

 

[MissSilvy]

Originally Posted by MissSilvy

No. Math is innate. Anyone who needs to work at it does not belong and will never be fit to lick the boots of the math gods among us.

RubbishRubbish

Not quite. Sarcasm, you see :)

 

[AUMathTutor]

The only way to know for sure is to get two people for whom math comes naturally, breed them, and observe the offspring. Then we can have a control group of two randomly selected individuals. We can also do a couple with average ability in math, and one couple who have no capacity for math whatsoever.

I'd read that paper.

 

[Wellesley]

3 points to make to the OP:

1. The people who are saying there is no such thing as innate talent are just deluding themselves. Interact with a variety of people in any pursuit, whether that be sports, or academics, or whatever else, and it will become very clear very quickly that some people have it and others don't, and it cannot all be explained by the amount of effort people put in. A quick example from the world of sports: In powerlifting, the man who has deadlifted the most weight currently is Andy Bolton. He has deadlifted over 1000 lbs. He also deadlifted 600 lbs, at *18 years old*, the first time he ever touched a barbell. 600 lbs is far more than most powerlifters lift in a lifetime of trying.

I do agree, some people are more gifted than others...that's just how humanity is. Yet, hard work and dedication does wonders...if you enjoy what you do. Passion plays a large role.

 

[Wellesley]

We are born with genetic codes that give us talents. We are affected by those around us, and what society encourages. It is not one, but both of these factors that make us who we are.

My Mom is naturally good at math. I inherited that gene. My sister didn't. But its not just the innate factors that make my sister and I different. It is who we are personally. I have a better work ethic, because I have not been influenced by the ethics of American society (math is dumb). My sister has. She chose her path, I chose mine. It is that choice that defines us in the end. If one wants to be good at math, there is more than hope. There is aspiration, and luckily, succesion.

I agree with you first statement, but I do not believe that there is a "math" gene that can be inherited. There is the ability to think analytically, to picture things visually, and many other math related tools, but there is not a cure all math gene.

I think the difference between you and your sister is the levels of passion. You clearly enjoy math, and she does not. Since she doesn't like it, she doesn't have any motivation to excel in math.

Even though there may not be a math gene, some people are definitely more number oriented.

 

[Troponin]

Different things come naturally to different people...I don't see why mathematical/logical thought would be any different.

I was always a good artist, especially pencil drawings. I could never understand why others can't draw. You look at a human face, see what it looks like, see the shadows...why can't you reproduce that on paper? You know a face doesn't look like what you draw, so why do you draw it that way?
I've joked with my wife about it because she can't draw. I can't understand why she draws so horribly when all she has to do is look at something and then draw it to look the same on paper...

I can't sing...at all. I'm sure someone that has always been able to sing finds it intriguing that others can't just reproduce musical notes with their voice. I know I don't sound like the song I'm trying to replicate...but I can't help it. Perhaps that makes absolutely no sense...but I'm not "good" at math either. However, I'm a math major...lol
People are "good" at different things. Some people aren't born as intelligent as others. It's not their fault, it's just the way it is. I could practice basketball 24 hours a day for the rest of my life and I still wouldn't be able to stop Lebron James from scoring on me at will.

But, just because you're not naturally blessed at something doesn't mean you can't be good at it.

To help with verification of my complete lack of natural math talents...I scored a 19 on the math portion of the ACT. I scored in the 30's on the other two (It was 12 years ago...I think there were only 3 parts). I even won an award for 99% percentile/perfect score on the reading comprehension part...but I'm sure there are a number of 5th graders that could score better than a 19 on math. lol

Because of that, I never gave math a chance...it took 29 years of life before I gave math an honest chance and realized I loved it...even though I sucked at it.

I read posts on here where people complain about their courses in the "humanities," or how their non-math courses bring their GPA down. I'm the complete opposite. Math courses beat me up bad...I have to work VERY hard. I spend my summers working through the math courses I'm going to cover the next year. By the time I begin a course, I've already spent more hours studying the material than many in the class will spend the entire semester.
I've had many history/psychology/philosophy, etc., courses where I don't even purchase the book. Spend a few minutes reading the "summary" at the end of the chapters in the library before an exam and make sure you use words like "commensurate" "empathetic" and "adrenergic" in your short answer questions and accept your A...

So, I definitely agree that some people are "just born with it," but I think it's a mistake to use that as a crutch to allow yourself to fail at mathematics.

Hope that makes sense...I had a few drinks tonight.

 

[Howers]

Rubbish

There is nothing innate in anyone. A child molds himself/herself on what he/she observes around. One gets better at what he/she practices. That's just it. There is no vaccine for anything.

That being said, it isn't always that a kid will become whatever he sees around, eg a doctor's son isn't always going to become a doctor, but that is a possibility.

There is just no substitute for work & practice.

First of all, he was kidding.

Second of all, you are completely wrong in saying there is nothing innate about people. What you believe is called egalitarianism. While its nice to tell children that we are all equal we are not. We are different in height, athletics, and certainly in intelligence. You should really aquaint yourself with someone smart and let them show you what I mean.

Having said that, I don't think there is such thing as a "math gene". There is such thing as being logical and thinking analytically which can be applied to a range of disciplines like science and computers, and as such these people will have better aptitude in these fields. But these abilities are common, you don't need to be a genius of any kind to study math at university.

 

[ank_gl]

Second of all, you are completely wrong in saying there is nothing innate about people. What you believe is called egalitarianism. While its nice to tell children that we are all equal we are not. We are different in height, athletics, and certainly in intelligence. You should really aquaint yourself with someone smart and let them show you what I mean.

I still stand by the point that there is nothing innate. And those who say that there is, they just don't try hard. Its a lame excuse of saying can't do, ain't born with it. Totally lame.

Anyone can run as fast as usain bolt, if he practices as much as he do, or even more. It is another thing that most of us can't practice as hard as he does.

The choice of being logical & analytical is too much personal. As I said earlier, a child becomes what he sees around(mostly).

@OP, relax & try a bit more, you will be up & running in no time

 

[djeitnstine]

Anyone can run as fast as usain bolt, if he practices as much as he do, or even more. It is another thing that most of us can't practice as hard as he does.

I am sorry sir I cannot agree with you there, this is where you are indeed wrong. I personally know what his training is like. In addition, I have also been training track and field for six years.

Part of Bolt's success comes from him having 25% super-fast twitch muscle fibers which is quite a rare phenomenon.

Also if your statement were true, many more people would be running under 10.0 seconds with ease. and the world record much lower.

I know that genetics do come into play in terms of athletic ability. There are people (including myself) Who train harder than he does for many years but fail to see results -or at least necessary results. Please do not compare math ability to any form of athletic ability as the dynamics of the two are completely different.

There has yet to be any direct correlation between mathematical ability and genetics, however genetics have a great role in athletic ability, especially in track and field.

Also how would you explain persons with retardation or ADD? Are they just making excuses?

 

[Wisey]

Well I don't think I am much of an authority on this, but to say there is nothing innate doesn't seem rational. Sylvia Nasar tells me John von Neumann could multiply 8 digit numbers in his head at the age of 6. I doubt most adults can do that after years and years of practise. As such, individuals with some talent or the other naturally tend to perform better in some aspects of life, and have a head start on those who are not so gifted.
That said, for those who are not as brilliant intellectually or strong physically, it simply becomes a matter of working hard and making up ground. However, the ground may simply be too much to make up for some, even after a lot of hardwork. If it were that simple, we would have a lot more of those "geniuses" than we have now.

I have no idea about college mathematics(I am just going to officially pass out of high school this month), but as far as high school mathematics are concerned, it is not something for which you need to be a genius to be good at. Most of the people who ace tests are those who actually study well and practise all the problems given at the back of the chapter. Basic algebra, trignometry and calculus are stuff everyone can understand, otherwise they wouldn't be included in high school courses, and as such it only becomes a matter of learning the matter efficiently and thoroughly, which anyone can do.

 

[ank_gl]

There has yet to be any direct correlation between mathematical ability and genetics, however genetics have a great role in athletic ability, especially in track and field.

Also how would you explain persons with retardation or ADD? Are they just making excuses?

hmm, didn't knew of that muscle thing. But what if tomorrow someone breaks the record with normal human like muscles?, what then?, oh yes, people will find another lucky bone in him. Look I am not forcing anyone to believe, its one's own choice.
Ok so my example was a bit extreme. But still I can't accept the fact that things relating to studies can be innate.

And regarding people with retardation, it isn't necessary that they will come last everytime, I have seen many guys up front with disabilities. For example stephen hawkings?, he just could have let it go, but determination kept him up & ...!

And not having something by birth isn't the end of world. Life is very long, you can still try harder, there is no point crying that you didnt have a golden tooth.

You should really aquaint yourself with someone smart and let them show you what I mean.

that would make me admire his/her efforts.