Live data from Hacker News

Everyone is capable of, and can benefit from, mathematical thinking

quantamagazine.org

201–210 of 419 posts

Re: Everyone is capable of, and can benefit from, mathematical thinking

#201

I have an autistic friend with dyscalculia. They see numeric digits as individual characters (as in a story), each with their own personalities. Each digit has its own color, its own feelings. But they are not quantities; they don't make up quantities. Numbers are very nearly opaque to them. I wonder how this theory would apply to them. Do they still perform mathematical thinking? They're still capable of nearly all…

I don't have dyscalculia but behind the numbers I have my own intuitive system(s) that I jump to sometimes when doing arithmetic. I think we all do since the early days arithmetic in school or what not, perhaps the dyscalculia folk missed making some connection at some point. I feel that arithmetic with numbers without that intuitive system is rote memory..

Re: Everyone is capable of, and can benefit from, mathematical thinking

#202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed, speed is often read as "smarts" whereas I would maintain it's much more often "preparation". We can't on one hand believe in the plasticity and retrainability of the mind, while simultaneously believing that speed is something only a few are born with. On the nature/nurture scale, I think it's 20/80 or so - but prodigies and geniuses have an interest that keeps them thinking and learning 10x or 100x more than…

> I'm fond of saying "You can do anything you want, but wanting is the hard part", because to truly be a grandmaster, genius-level mathematician, olympic athlete, etc, requires a dedication and I was having a problem agreeing with this subthread, and I have you to thank for putting it into words that I can finally formulate my disagreement against. Have you never met one of those people for whom they did not need to…

I think I have met those folks. Maybe not. And you're welcome!

They're just quick. But the ones I've met, at least, are quick to make associations. When I really dig and ask them to explain themselves or a concept, they usually make analogies to things they know, but I don't. Then I have to go learn that thing. Then they try the analogy again, but I haven't fully learned it from years of making analogies about it.

Years of grad school experience was painful like this, until I got to a point 10 years after grad school, after a PhD, and well into research, that I "just got" things (in my subfield) as well. It's these experiences that made me feel that it's 80% preparation and perspiration (both of which are dominated by time), and 20% "other" mythology. Don't get me wrong, that 20% is what makes a 2 year old read earlier than others, and getting started reading at 2 (and continuing it!) for 4 years before starting school will make you light years ahead of your peers. The same goes for chess, math, etc etc. There is something legendary about Oppenheimer learning enough dutch in 6 weeks to deliver a lecture. Or perhaps learning to translate his lecture and memorizing it. Who knows.

Do we really believe there's a magical "genius" such that they can do anything? No, so what are the limits to their genius? The limits are defined by what they are a genius at. This is a tautological definition.

I'm not saying "Anyone at any time can become a genius at anything". I'm saying "If you take a kid, start early, and cultivate them just right so that you have time to realize compounding effects, - you can let them grow into basically anything" (probablistically speaking - there are learning disabilities and physical issues etc).

Re: Everyone is capable of, and can benefit from, mathematical thinking

#203

"It's the economy stupid" is what I would say. Mental capacity is capacity. Most of us don't study math not because we don't want to but because we can't. I bet if you asked in a survey of people that if you were given a UBI that covered all your expenses and needs what would you do? It would be perfection of the self or art. Both of these are what is practicing and learning math.

One thing I can agree with is that if one is stressed out and have poor psychological habits you will suffer and be miserable regardless. I would say focusing on mindfullness(like vipasaana) can go a long way in this. But mindfulness is not an intellectual exercise, one has to live it. Do multiple hours of meditation a day and it gets you somewhere good in a few months.

I can actually tell you how to do this right now. Take a 10 day vipassana course and practice the recommended two hours a day. If you use only therapy, seriously follow the therapist, but do some meditation too.

Once you do this, you will soon develop Attention(Concentration) and Equanimity(Inner Calmness in the face of tremendous external circumstances).

Soon you start realizing some inescapable facts:

1. Your current moment is ever changing.

2. One attaches more of the self(the ego, I me and mine) with the past and tries to predict his state in the future and ends up miserable. Don't think with the I, you are bound to suffer. The right action is timeless and free of the I. This is the reduction of the ego.

3. There is tremendous joy in focusing on being present in the moment. If you are into running and all you are doing is taking joy in your feet, breath and posture all the time for 5,10 miles you know what I mean.

This is the key to everything. No amount of book reading on self improvement can get this to you

Re: Everyone is capable of, and can benefit from, mathematical thinking

#204

I've been reading the author's book, Mathematica, and it's awesome. The title of this post doesn't do it justice. He shows that math skill is almost more like a sports talent than it is knowledge talent. He claims this based on the way people have to learn how to manipulate different math objects in their heads, whether treating them as rotated shapes, slot machines, or origami. It's like an imagination sport. Also,…

> rotated shapes, slot machines, or origami

Or gears (like Seymour Papert), or abacus beads, or nomograms, or slide rules, etc etc. Anyone have any more, throw them out!

Is mathacademy good? I have been thinking of giving it a month of a try. You say "stressful", which I'm not sure is a mis-type or not.

I ordered Mathematica at my local library by the way, and can now forget about it until I get an SMS one day informing me of its arrival. Thank you for confirming that it's worth it!

Re: Everyone is capable of, and can benefit from, mathematical thinking

#205
"High school students are often unhappy with math, because they think it requires some innate things that they don’t have,” Bessis said. “But that’s not true; really it relies on the same type of intuition we use every day."

Agreed, but from my observation mathematics is often taught with a rigor that's more suited to students with a highly mathematical and or scientific aptitude (and with the assumption that students will progress to university-level mathematics), thus this approach often alienates those who've a more practical outlook towards the subject.

Mathematics syllabuses are set by those with high mathematical knowledge and it seems they often lose sight of the fact that they are trying to teach students who may not have the aptitude or skills in the subject to the degree that they have.

From, say, mid highschool onwards students are confronted with a plethora of mathematical expressions that seemingly have no connection their daily lives or their existence per se. For example students are expected to remember the many dozens of trigonometrical identities that litter textbooks (or they did when I was at school), and for some that's difficult and or very tedious. I know, I recall forgetting a few important identities at crucial moments such as in the middle of an exam.

Perhaps a better approach—at least for those who are seemingly disinterested in (or with a phobia about) mathematics—would be to spend more time on both the historical and practical side of mathematics.

Providing students with instances of why earlier mathematicians (earlier because the examples are simpler) struggled with mathematical problems and why many mathematical ideas and concepts not only preceded but were later found to be essential for engineering, physics and the sciences generally to advance would, I reckon, go a long way towards easing the furtive more gently into world of mathematics and of mathematical thinking.

Dozens of names come to mind, Euclid, Descartes, Fermat, Lagrange, Galois, Hamilton and so on. And I'd wager that telling students the story of how the young head-strong Évariste Galois met his unfortunate end—unfortunate for both him and mathematics—would never be forgotten by students even if they weren't familiar with his mathematics—which of course they wouldn't be. That said, the moment Galois' name was mentioned in university maths they'd sit up and take instant note.

Yes, I know, teachers will be snorting that there just isn't time in the syllabus for all that stuff, my counterargument is that it makes no sense if you alienate students and turn them off mathematics altogether. Clearly, a balance has to be struck, tailoring the subject matter to suit students would seem the way with the more mathematically inclined being taught deeper theoretical/more advanced material.

I always liked mathematics especially calculus as it immediately made sense to me and I always understood why it was important for a comprehensive understanding of the sciences. Nevertheless, I can't claim that I was a 'natural' mathematician in the more usual context of those words. I struggled with some concepts and some I didn't find interesting such as parts of linear algebra.

Had some teacher taken the time to explain its crucial importance in say physics with some examples then I'm certain my interest would have been piqued and that I'd have showed more interest in learning the subject.

Re: Everyone is capable of, and can benefit from, mathematical thinking

#206

"It's the economy stupid" is what I would say. Mental capacity is capacity. Most of us don't study math not because we don't want to but because we can't. I bet if you asked in a survey of people that if you were given a UBI that covered all your expenses and needs what would you do? It would be perfection of the self or art. Both of these are what is practicing and learning math.

Come on, get real. If people had all of their needs covered a lot more of them would sit around getting high and playing video games than perfecting their art.

Re: Everyone is capable of, and can benefit from, mathematical thinking

#207

"It's the economy stupid" is what I would say. Mental capacity is capacity. Most of us don't study math not because we don't want to but because we can't. I bet if you asked in a survey of people that if you were given a UBI that covered all your expenses and needs what would you do? It would be perfection of the self or art. Both of these are what is practicing and learning math.

I must disagree. I consider art same as entertainment to the most part. I would want to be good at math and I also disagree that it has anything to do with mental capacity. It's not a competition, I don't need to be better at math than others but my pursuit of other things like cryptography, better algorithms, and understanding physics is limited by my primitive understanding of mathematics. If I was a multi-milliona…

Thanks.

> art same as entertainment

Could you volunteer me how much time you spend on it? And how is your day job?

> my pursuit of other things like cryptography, better algorithms, and understanding physics is limited by my primitive understanding of mathematics.

Could you volunteer why you would want to learn these subjects? Is it your day job or is it something you would like to pursue in the future.

> If I was a multi-millionaire, learning lots of math on my free time would be one of the things I would pursue while chilling at my beach house.

I said UBI

Re: Everyone is capable of, and can benefit from, mathematical thinking

#208
If the article is in any way representative of the book, then I'm not sure what there is to be learned from the book. That mathematical skills can be honed through practice? That it happens at an intuitive, pre-rigorous level before it is ready to be written down on paper? How surprising. And I doubt he can disprove the genetical component of intelligence, only show that there are other components to mathematical productivity as well.

At least I know that David Bessis's mathematical work is not as shallow as this. His twitter thread on the process https://x.com/davidbessis/status/1849442592519286899 is actually quite insightful. I would guess this also made it into the book in some longform version, but I don't know whether I would buy the book just for that.

Re: Everyone is capable of, and can benefit from, mathematical thinking

#209
post #206

"It's the economy stupid" is what I would say. Mental capacity is capacity. Most of us don't study math not because we don't want to but because we can't. I bet if you asked in a survey of people that if you were given a UBI that covered all your expenses and needs what would you do? It would be perfection of the self or art. Both of these are what is practicing and learning math.

Come on, get real. If people had all of their needs covered a lot more of them would sit around getting high and playing video games than perfecting their art.

And how far would that get one doing that? 1, 5, 10, 40 years?

Re: Everyone is capable of, and can benefit from, mathematical thinking

#210
post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I agree with the sentiment of this. I think our obsession with innate ~~mathematical~~ skill and genius is so detrimental to the growth mindset that you need to have in order to learn things. I strongly believe that the average human being can be exceptional in any niche topic given enough time, dedication and focus. The author of the book has picked out mathematics because that was what he was interested in. The r…

> I strongly believe that the average human being can be exceptional in any niche topic given enough time, dedication and focus. I respectfully, but strongly, disagree. There's a reason most NBA players are over 2 meters tall, and one does not become taller with time, dedication nor focus. It might be different for intellectual skills but I am not that sure. Almost anyone can become decent at almost anything though.…

Most NBA players are under 2 meters tall. The average height is 1.99 meters.

https://www.lines.com/guides/average-height-nba-players/1519

Post reply on HN