The language brain matters more for programming than the math brain? (2020)

Post by seadan83 » Fri, May 02, 2025, 6:43 PM UTC

godelski wrote: post #166

NickM wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you might be missing the point of the article: the study being cited isn't trying to establish the existence of a "language brain" or a "math brain", that's just the way the headline editorialized it to help people understand the conclusions. The conclusion of the study was that linguistic aptitude seemed to be more correlated with programming aptitude than mathematical aptitude, which seems fairly interestin…

I understood it. > The conclusion of the study was that linguistic aptitude seemed to be more correlated with programming aptitude than mathematical aptitude And this is what I'm pushing back against and where I think you've misinterpreted. > They found that how well students learned Python was mostly explained by general cognitive abilities (problem solving and working memory), while how quickly they learned was exp…

Post by godelski » Fri, May 02, 2025, 6:44 PM UTC

florbnit wrote: post #172

godelski wrote: post #113

It think this is silly on multiple accounts. I'll claim that there's not real thing such as a "language brain" or "math brain." I'll also claim that most people don't know what math is, and that their evidence supports a "math brain". Math isn't about calculations/computations, it is about patterns. You get to algebra and think "what are these letters doing in my math" but once you get further you think "what are the…

> It think this is silly on multiple accounts. I'll claim that there's not real thing such as a "language brain" or "math brain." It seems plainly obvious that this language just means “areas of brain that activate when dealing with math problems” vs “areas of brain that activate when dealing with language problems” and yes there is hard evidence that there is a difference between them.

Post by Tlousebenza » Fri, May 02, 2025, 6:46 PM UTC

Post by deeThrow94 » Fri, May 02, 2025, 6:46 PM UTC

Jensson wrote: post #154

deeThrow94 wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you define recursion as a symbol referencing itself, either directly or indirectly, and if you define language as a system of relating symbols to each other, recursion is a linguistic concept, it is a concept that describes a relationship between symbols. There are good reasons to define each concept differently, but if you identify recursion empirically, recursion won't "actually" exist outside of the description…

> If you define recursion as a symbol referencing itself, either directly or indirectly, and if you define language as a system of relating symbols to each other, recursion is a linguistic concept But that isn't what we mean with recursive function. We don't call this recursive: x = x + 1 Its just incrementing x.

Post by bee_rider » Fri, May 02, 2025, 6:48 PM UTC

godelski wrote: post #197

bee_rider wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I was never told, for example, that matrices are a useful abstraction (shorthand?) for representing linear equations. Congratulations on overcoming the (very weird) choice of whoever taught your intro to linear algebra class.

I'm not sure how to interpret this comment, it could easily be read in multiple ways. (Depends on priors) Regardless, it's a shockingly common occurrence. I'd agree it's not the right way, but it is also a common way. That perspective might define those priors