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

[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.

 

[ank_gl]

If it were that simple, we would have a lot more of those "geniuses" than we have now.

And how do you define a genius? Look around, world is changing at an ever faster rate. There are sooo soo many different fields to work in & I am sure you will find many many talented people.

Besides, how many more geniuses do you want?

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.

Only head start comes because of resources, better school, better teachers, better education, better home environment(in terms of education). And similar things in atheletics also.

 

[djeitnstine]

But still I can't accept the fact that things relating to studies can be innate.
.

In Japan students are required to learn calculus by middle school. In the US, ask a middle schooler to do that.

I know that calculus just isn't in the curriculum before HS in the US (it isn't even a required course!), or the entire western hemisphere for that matter, but I'm sure you wouldn't even dream of asking a middle schooler what a derivative is. I'm not even sure if they'd have the capacity to do so.

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.

Spend a few weeks with a local US middle schooler explaining a differential and integration and tell me how far you get.

 

[maze]

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.

This is not true (consider fast-twitch muscle distribution, etc), but that is simply because running is not a "deep game". If you had chosen something like, say, soccer or chess then you would be right. Consider how many great soccer players have had widely different body types and playing styles but yet managed to become great in their own way. Also consider the recent scientific studies on how chess grandmasters are made not born.

The question is: is mathematics a deep game like soccer and chess, or is it a superficial game like the 100m sprint. Mathematics must be a deep game.

 

[ank_gl]

This is not true (consider fast-twitch muscle distribution, etc), but that is simply because running is not a "deep game".

yea, i did accept that my example was a bit too extreme.

In Japan students are required to learn calculus by middle school. In the US, ask a middle schooler to do that.

similar stuff is done in India, but I don't think its fair on kids. Topics which require deep understanding should be taught after a level of maturity has been reached.

And I am sure you would appreciate the fact that its one thing understanding something, & a completely another phenomenon clearing the exam. SImply knowing a thing doesn't make one a master.

 

[Howers]

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.

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. There isn't, there are people who are simply good in quantitative work, or good in verbal/written work, or both. A lot of them are slackers all their life, and they still come out on top. So that blows the practice theory out of the way.

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.

People with retardation do end up last, and it is only very extreme exceptions that you hear a lot about. Hawking was not retarded. He was a highly gifted student who developed his motor disease after obtaining his degree.

You are correct in stating that birth is not the end all. As I've said many times, the ability to cope with university is relatively common and good portion of people can make something of themselves if they choose. But to pretend talent does not exist is just wrong.

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

So if I stretch every day will I be 6 feet eventually?

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

 

[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...