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

[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.