←back to thread

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

(www.quantamagazine.org)
669 points sonabinu | 1 comments | 21 Nov 24 01:45 UTC | HN request time: 0.278s | source
Show context
gsabo ◴[21 Nov 24 05:19 UTC] 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(18): >>42201667 #>>42201721 #>>42201729 #>>42201821 #>>42201915 #>>42202008 #>>42202194 #>>42202777 #>>42202780 #>>42202880 #>>42203292 #>>42203429 #>>42203649 #>>42204501 #>>42204671 #>>42206252 #>>42208029 #>>42219658 #
tgv ◴[21 Nov 24 11:37 UTC] No.42203292[source]▶
I cannot agree. It's just "feel-good thinking." "Everybody can do everything." Well, that's simply not true. I'm fairly sure you (yes, you in particular) can't run the 100m in less than 10s, no matter how hard you trained. And the biological underpinning of our capabilities doesn't magically stop at the brain-blood barrier. We all do have different brains.

I've taught math to psychology students, and they just don't get it. I remember the frustration of the section's head when a student asked "what's a square root?" We all know how many of our fellow pupils struggled with maths. I'm not saying they all lacked the capability to learn it, but it can't be the case they all were capable but "it was the teacher's fault". Even then, how do you explain the difference between those who struggled and those who breezed through the material?

Or let's try other topics, e.g. music. Conservatory students study quite hard, but some are better than others, and a select few really shine. "Everyone is capable of playing Rachmaninov"? I don't think so.

So no, unless you've placed the bar for "mathetical skill" pretty low, or can show me proper evidence, I'm not going to believe it. "Everyone is capable of..." reeks of bullshit.

replies(7): >>42203591 #>>42203975 #>>42204030 #>>42204224 #>>42204460 #>>42205681 #>>42205961 #
1. nestes ◴[21 Nov 24 12:19 UTC] No.42203591[source]▶
Not the original poster, but I want to push back on one thing -- being capable of something and being one of the best in the world at something are hugely different. Forgive me if I'm putting words in your math -- you mentioned "placing the bar for mathematical skill pretty" low but also mentioned running a sub-10s 100m. If, correspondingly, your notion of mathematical success is being Terence Tao, then I envy your ambition.

I do broadly agree with your position that some people are going to excel where others fail. We know there trivially exist people with significant disabilities that will never excel in certain activities. What the variance is on "other people" (a crude distinction) I hesitate to say. And whatever the solution is, if there is even a solution, I'd at least like for the null hypothesis to be "this is possible, we just may need to change our approach or put more time in".

On a slightly more philosophical note, I firmly believe that it is important to believe some things that are not necessarily true -- let's call this "feel-good thinking". If someone is truly putting significant dedicated effort in and not getting results, that is a tragedy. I would, however, greatly prefer that scenario to the one in which people are regularly told, "well, you could just be stupid." That is a self-fulfilling prophecy.