←back to thread

351 points sonabinu | 4 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
gsabo ◴[] No.42201370[source]
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've been working a lot on my math skills lately (as an adult). A mindset I've had in the past is that "if it's hard, then that means you've hit your ceiling and you're wasting your time." But really, the opposite is true. If it's easy, then it means you already know this material, and you're wasting your time.

replies(15): >>42201667 #>>42201721 #>>42201729 #>>42201821 #>>42201915 #>>42202008 #>>42202194 #>>42202777 #>>42202780 #>>42202880 #>>42203292 #>>42203429 #>>42203649 #>>42204501 #>>42204671 #
junto ◴[] No.42201667[source]
> 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 reality is that this rule applies to everything.

The belief that some people have an innate skill that they are born with is deeply unhelpful. Whilst some people (mostly spectrum) do seem have an innate talent, I would argue that it is more an inbuilt ability to hyper focus on a topic, whether that topic be mathematics, Star Trek, dinosaurs or legacy console games from the 1980’s.

I think we do our children a disservice by convincing them that some of their peers are just “born with it”, because it discourages them from continuing to try.

What we should be teaching children is HOW to learn. At the moment it’s a by-product of learning about some topic. If we look at the old adage “feed a man a fish”, the same is true of learning.

“Teach someone mathematics and they will learn mathematics. Teach someone to learn and they will learn anything”.

replies(9): >>42201771 #>>42201890 #>>42202066 #>>42202222 #>>42202483 #>>42202522 #>>42202629 #>>42203513 #>>42203813 #
LoganDark ◴[] No.42202483[source]
> Whilst some people (mostly spectrum) do seem have an innate talent

I think the only thing in autism that I'd call an innate talent is detail-oriented thinking by default. It'd be the same type of "innate talent" as, say, synesthesia, or schizophrenia: a side effect of experiencing the world differently.

replies(1): >>42202521 #
yawpitch ◴[] No.42202521[source]
> a side effect of experiencing the world differently

A side effect for which there is a substantial, lifelong, and most importantly wide cost, even if it occasionally confers usually small, usually fleeting, and most importantly narrow advantage.

replies(2): >>42202750 #>>42202895 #
sethammons ◴[] No.42202750[source]
At such cost with such narrow advantage, why has it persisted so pervasively? I would counter that the advantage is wider and the cost narrower than your current value system is allowing you to accept.
replies(1): >>42202964 #
1. LoganDark ◴[] No.42202964[source]
Natural selection doesn't care about cost or advantage, only reproduction.
replies(1): >>42203241 #
2. sethammons ◴[] No.42203241[source]
It is the sum of costs and advantages that lead to reproductive success. The trait is still here and still prevalent meaning people are still getting laid and starting families and presumably leading fulfilling lives.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say.

replies(1): >>42204196 #
3. LoganDark ◴[] No.42204196[source]
> I'm not sure what you are trying to say.

I'm saying, if it doesn't ruin lives to the point of preventing reproduction, then it stays in the gene pool.

Basically, I'm saying this:

> The trait is still here and still prevalent meaning people are still getting laid and starting families and presumably leading fulfilling lives.

replies(1): >>42204951 #
4. vacuity ◴[] No.42204951{3}[source]
As long as an organism isn't performing too badly, it stays in the gene pool. It can persist and even share its genes more broadly, if in diluted form, to the other more successful organisms. And then some of those mixed-genes organisms may occasionally express more strongly, but again not enough to affect reproductive success across the population.