Is Math Success Determined by Genetics or Effort?

  • Thread starter Thread starter avant-garde
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Iq
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the relationship between passion, effort, and innate ability in math and computer-related fields. It highlights the observation that success in math often appears to correlate more with intelligence and genetic predisposition than with effort or motivation. While some individuals grasp mathematical concepts quickly without much effort, others may struggle despite their enthusiasm and hard work. This raises questions about whether pure effort can lead to success in math, contrasting it with other subjects that allow for more subjective interpretation. The conversation also touches on the idea that individuals tend to enjoy and excel in areas where they have natural aptitude, suggesting a cyclical relationship between ability and interest.
avant-garde
Messages
195
Reaction score
0
Sure they say that if you love what you're doing, you will excel at it. But how well does that apply to math/computer related fields? From my personal observations, I have noticed that math depends more on IQ/genes for success than any other subject.

That's a strong correlation, but certainly not causal. It just seems that certain people seem to "catch on" quickly to mathematical concepts, even if they are not motivated at all. Others really try hard and enjoy math, but fall behind those people who just seem to cruise at this subject.

Other subjects seem to have room for more subjectivity. Is math a subject where pure effort cannot guarantee results? What does current psychological research say about the matter?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
No. One cannot be good at math unless he is Asian. :-p (just kidding)

Seriously, I think that people tend to like what they're good at, so if you like math, you're probably good at it. People who like something tend to spend more hours doing that thing so they get even better at it.
 
Closed pending moderation.

Zz.
 
I’ve been looking through the curricula of several European theoretical/mathematical physics MSc programs (ETH, Oxford, Cambridge, LMU, ENS Paris, etc), and I’m struck by how little emphasis they place on advanced fundamental courses. Nearly everything seems to be research-adjacent: string theory, quantum field theory, quantum optics, cosmology, soft matter physics, black hole radiation, etc. What I don’t see are the kinds of “second-pass fundamentals” I was hoping for, things like...
TL;DR Summary: I want to do a PhD in applied math but I hate group theory, is this a big problem? Hello, I am a second-year math and physics double major with a minor in data science. I just finished group theory (today actually), and it was my least favorite class in all of university so far. It doesn't interest me, and I am also very bad at it compared to other math courses I have done. The other courses I have done are calculus I-III, ODEs, Linear Algebra, and Prob/Stats. Is it a...
Back
Top