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

[Howers]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[ank_gl]

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

Is there even any point left to this thread?

 

[Wellesley]

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

Is there even any point left to this thread?

Nope.

It was a good read though.


Thanks Howers for the link.

 

[eep]

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

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

 

[djeitnstine]

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

Would you like to rephrase that =S

 

[Wellesley]

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



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

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

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

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

 

[maze]

here comes the science...

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

K. A. Ericsson and A. C. Lehmann

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


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

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

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

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

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

COGNITIVE SKILL ACQUISITION

Kurt VanLehn

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


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

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

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

Innate talents: Reality or myth?

Abstract

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

http://cogprints.org/656/

I could go on...

 

[jweygna1]

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

 

[kaos86]

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

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

 

[Howers]

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

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

 

[Howers]

http://cogprints.org/656/

I could go on...

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

 

[FirstYearGrad]

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

 

[Ivilean]

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

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

 

[x→∞]

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

Good luck!

 

[Ivilean]

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

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

 

[MissSilvy]

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

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

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

 

[cristo]

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

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

 

[Wellesley]

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

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

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

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

 

[x→∞]

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

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

 

[bleedblue1234]

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

 

[x→∞]

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

They are related, like anything else you learn. Your mother language, the one you speak best, is usually the one you learn and hear from the very beginning of your life. Same with mathematics, you begin understanding it little by little from a very young age.

 

[cristo]

Hmm...how do you define properly?

In the sense I used it there, I would define "properly" as not cramming the night before an exam, but studying and revising for courses in the weeks preceding an exam. If it's true that "most" people cram and only study the day before exams where you are, then perhaps this a common trait in the US system. I can assure you, however, that this does not happen at the decent universities in the UK (which is where my personal experience comes from).

 

[symbolipoint]

bleedblue1234 was discussing a comparison between Mathematics and Language, and then:

They are related, like anything else you learn. Your mother language, the one you speak best, is usually the one you learn and hear from the very beginning of your life. Same with mathematics, you begin understanding it little by little from a very young age.

Not exactly. A student may struggle with several topics related to fractions for many years, and then while studying "Algebra 1", suddenly all of the Properties of Real Numbers may eliminate most of the previous confusion. MAYBE this is because some students are extremely slow to find the generalizations until someone directly teaches those generalizations.

 

[chiro]

bleedblue1234 was discussing a comparison between Mathematics and Language, and then:



Not exactly. A student may struggle with several topics related to fractions for many years, and then while studying "Algebra 1", suddenly all of the Properties of Real Numbers may eliminate most of the previous confusion. MAYBE this is because some students are extremely slow to find the generalizations until someone directly teaches those generalizations.

I think you hit a nail right on someones head there. Ones ability to generalize as far as one can possibly go helps one be able to see how things are really part of just one big idea. I think that as far as human knowledge goes, that is extremely important. For example you could have the idea that the entire world is decomposed into finite elements of matter. Whether or not that is true, it reflects some level of generalization and thus our understanding of a particular set and subsets of some category.

And we all do it naturally as mathematicians. We stereotype, we generalize everything as far as we can mentally do so (even with physical forces) so it seems to be a normal integral part of human behaviour which might say something about the nature of beings but that's another story altogether.

 

[Mosis]

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

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

The world IS flooded with geniuses. There are tons of "highly-talented" losers bumming about, but without the discipline, organization and hard work required to excel in anything, these people don't.

 

[Bourbaki1123]

If you were to put any stock in i.q., which is a reasonably decent indicator of academic success at least, then there should be about half a billion people who could become fairly competent scientists(assuming an i.q. of 120 ish would suffice, which has some backing). I don't know how many geniuses that makes...

Not taking stock in i.q., and there being no truly accurate measurement of potential intellectual accomplishment, I would say that there is no way to tell how many genius potential people there are in the world.

 

[cshum00]

There might be some inborn mental wiring that helps for the development of math but even without it; humans still can develop those skills.

One note about IQ tests is that those test have some kind of pattern too. By just taking a lot of those IQ tests, you will eventually score higher and higher. I remember that i repetively took certain IQ tests and started to score from 80 all the way to 130 or so.

 

[aneesh.mulye]

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.

A trivial counterexample - could a cow do calculus?

If your theory is correct, a cow should be able to, as the difference between humans and cows is only in what is "innate" - the genetic code.

Take an example which is less extreme - chimpanzees. We share 98% of our genes with them. Could they do calculus?

If you concede the point that they cannot, then you have to also concede that a 2% difference in genes - an innate difference - can have consequences for mathematical ability.

This presupposes the concession that a genetic difference can have consequences for mathematical ability.

Once this philosophical point is conceded, and the fact that humans differ genetically acknowledged, I don't think the statement in the above quotation is defensible any longer.

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.

Can anyone run as fast as a cheetah?

You will try to say that the examples I'm giving here are not relevant, as they refer to different species. The problem is that philosophically and scientifically, all life on Earth is a ring species, whose separation is spatio-temporal instead of merely spatial, as the traditional definition of ring species would have it.

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

This part I agree with. As long as the person in the OP does not have any learning disability of any sort, the standard levels of university achievement are within his grasp.

 

[Jammin_James]

I'm sure cows can do calculus; the ones with the innate ability, that is! Those dumb cows can get back to eating their grass.

 

[Troponin]

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 true. The other Olympic athletes don't feel like training enough to run faster. Usain can actually run much faster as well, he just doesn't want to train more or harder.

I started to run faster than Usain Bolt last week but didn't want to practice anymore because I wanted to be a better basketball player than Lebron James. My brother is going to be a better Mathematician than Euler. I would do that too, but I don't feel like practicing as much as him.