
The Math Gift Myth - aqsalose
http://devlinsangle.blogspot.com/2017/05/the-math-gift-myth.html
======
ianai
I realized in my math undergraduate studies that mathematicians have merely
"sat" with the material longer. Sure, some people seem to click with certain
topics reliably faster than average (even than their apparent peers). But
ultimately solving a problem comes easier the more problems you have solved.
If a geometry problem obscurely relies on some trick involving a right
triangle then someone who knows more about triangles will solve it faster.

There's also a caustic societal problem involved. People will declare
themselves bad at math and stop trying. There is no bad or good at math. There
is only persistence.

~~~
Grustaf
>I realized in my math undergraduate studies that mathematicians have merely
"sat" with the material longer.

Even if true, this just moves the issue to the ability to make yourself "sit"
with the material. The variability here is at least as high, most people hate
doing mathematics, some love it.

In any case this only concerns "mathematicians", not "people considered math
geniuses". There are plenty of mediocre mathematicians.

EDIT: And it is of course not true that it's just a matter of spending time.
Some people learn maths 100 times faster than others.

------
Grustaf
The statements in the article, even if true, in no way motivate the claim in
the title (and the text).

"In other words, all my experience in mathematics tells me I do not have an
absolute ability limit. Nor, I am sure, do you. Mathematical proficiency is
indeed a spectrum."

Of course it's a spectrum, and sure practice helps anyone. But that in no way
implies that there is no such thing as a "math gift". In fact, the spectrum
presupposes that some people are on the most advanced part of it. They are the
ones with the gift. The ones on the other end don't have the gift. They may
have other gifts, and they may be productive members of society nonetheless,
but they don't have the math gift.

~~~
microcolonel
Yeah, I mean, it's self-evident that people with exceptionally high general
intelligence are ~100% of people who advance mathematics. I don't understand
why people want to think otherwise, fooling themselves isn't going to raise
their IQ.

Edit: I neglected to mention conscientiousness, which would be the other half
of the puzzle. there are plenty of geniuses who will nonetheless never put
themselves to work.

~~~
dwringer
If some form of anxiety and the ability to cope with it are major factors in
affecting one's potential ability to do math, then in theory anyone could
benefit from learning to cope with anxiety and to persist in mathematical
study. The idea certainly rings true with my experience.

> it's self-evident that people with exceptionally high general intelligence
> are ~100% of people who advance mathematics.

Counterargument: anyone who advances mathematics will be considered of
exceptionally high intelligence. Mathematicians like Gödel were known for
being very eccentric and many might not consider them of exceptionally high
_general_ intelligence. Whether that is an accurate assessment, I doubt you or
I could say with any authority.

EDIT (post-replies): Replies to this have descended into technical terminology
from cognitive science, so I must remove myself from this discussion as I lack
the required education [clearance?] to participate at the expected level.
Nevertheless, without some objective way of measuring the psychometric
"g-factor" of mathematicians throughout history up to now, I don't see this as
particularly useful in addressing the issue of aptitude of the "~100% of
people who advance mathematics". If you could point to any data sets on
psychometric g-factors among practicing mathematicians (particularly,
alongside values from the general population), that would lend some credence
to what you say. The idea is very provocative.

~~~
microcolonel
I neglected to mention conscientiousness, which would be the other half of the
puzzle. There are plenty of geniuses who will nonetheless never put themselves
to work. Intelligence can't make you productive all alone. Which is why I said
it the way I did, because otherwise I would imply that they are mathematicians
because they are intelligent, where I was trying to say that in order to
advance mathematics, you essentially have to be very intelligent.

That said...

> _Counterargument: anyone who advances mathematics will be considered of
> exceptionally high intelligence._

I'm referring to the psychometric _g factor_ type of intelligence. Not the "I
know a real smart gal" type. _g_ is shockingly consistent, measurable, and
clearly an important part of many human behaviours.

Intelligence is a very specific thing, people can be exceptionally good at
things without being exceptionally intelligent, but people can not be
exceptionally intelligent merely by being exceptional at something.

