
Mathematical genius is fragile - fjmubeen
https://medium.com/@fjmubeen/mathematical-genius-is-fragile-society-needs-to-stop-destroying-it-5fdf3f08336e#.es3gqj3h2
======
malanj
The author lost me at "Mathematical genius resides within every one of us —
most people just don’t know it yet."

The movie Ratatouille captured the sentiment much better, "a great chef can be
anyone". Which is not the same as "anyone can be a great chef". It seems the
author is mixing up those two.

I fully agree that gender, background, schooling, etc is not the key
determination of genius. However, saying anyone could be a genius is
disingenuous.

~~~
Moshe_Silnorin
Math is a high IQ game. Anyone who tells you otherwise is kidding themselves.

~~~
hyperpape
Since mathematical skills (broadly defined) are a component of IQ, this is
dangerously close to "Basketball is a getting the ball in the hoop game.
Anyone who tells you otherwise is kidding themselves." True, but less
informative than you might think...

(This is not to comment on the underlying question of whether everyone has the
potential to be a great mathematician, just a particular type of reasoning).

~~~
martindelemotte
It would be more like "Basketball is about being in very good physical shape",
which makes more sense.

IQ (or more precisely the g factor) correlates not only with math but also
with language skills and music[1].

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G_factor_(psychometrics)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G_factor_\(psychometrics\))

~~~
hyperpape
I very clearly said component and "close to", so I don't think what I said
merits a correction.

~~~
martindelemotte
Then why would the g factor also apply to animals as stated on the Wikipedia
page? You don't see that many doing mathematics.

------
vivekd
His last point about poverty destroying genius was what really struck me. I
remember reading that 71% of the world's population lives on less than $10 a
day. That doesn't seem to be enough to get a decent education and contribute
meaningfully to any field. This means that the world is working at 30%
capacity. Our species only gets innovations from the 30% of inventors,
entrepreneurs, politicians, scientists who were born in circumstances that
allow them to contribute. How many more Srinivasa Ramanujans are there
scattered throughout the world who simply didn't run into an obscure textbook
or write to all the worlds top mathematicians. What would our species be like
if we were working at closer to 100% capacity in terms of scientific
innovations and discoveries.

~~~
joe_the_user
I would mention that statistics like "$10/day" don't necessary capture the
average living conditions of people.

$10/day may yield a room over your head, a dull but acceptable meal and a
somewhat austere routine in one place (whatever third world nation) but may
yield a chaotic struggle for survival in another area (the USA).

Which is not to say that poverty isn't eating a lot of people but rather that
guarantees of food, cloth and shelter can be more useful metrics than median
income in various places (world median income is rising but does that mean an
increase people's ability to realize their geniuses, visions, passions etc?).

------
alimw
The author backs up his assertion that mathematical genius is fragile by ...
listing a bunch of people whose genius was apparently rather robust.

------
watwut
The thing about first example is that the speed of brain development in child
and adulthood geniality/iq/whatever are only loosely related. It is perfectly
possible for a child to be bad in math in first few grades and good later on.
It did not had to be test, it is perfectly possible for him to be slower at
that age or him having lower attention span. (That assumes school systems that
wont give up on such child as bad early on.)

The situation of women now is a lot better then it was in 19 century. There is
some bias and unequal expectation toward gender, but nowhere near as was at
the time. While all the kids now know what is supposed to be girly
toy/profession and what is boyish, there is no particular stigma facing
working females nor female mathematicians. The 'it could easily play out like
that now' is far from being accurate.

I don't think you are helping equality when you compare stigma of being women
who knows stuff with unequal representation of genders now. One, you are
lowering her achievement and strength of will which had to be huge. I would
say she was anything but fragile. Two, you are not doing service to women now
- our situation is not the same as situation hundreds years ago and talking
about it as it would helps no one.

~~~
stale2002
It is better for women now than it was before, but it is still far from
perfect.

Just look at the turn over rate and exit rate of women in these fields.

Even the women who objectively "make it" are being driven out of the industry
in droves.

~~~
whenwillitstop
Driven out by who? A mass group of secret conspirators?

~~~
psyc
Women report being driven out by men hitting on them and sexually harassing
them.

~~~
alimw
Many women are not attracted to work in fields populated 90% by males. I
believe this to be a more subtle problem that you suggest; you might eliminate
all sexual harassment and it would still be the case.

EDIT: not calling anyone a liar.

~~~
psyc
What I am saying, is that the two biggest complaints that women who _have_
worked in this industry have stated to me, are being hit on, and being
harassed. Not as a single incident, but as a pattern. The only argument you
could make against this is that I'm lying, and women haven't actually said
these things to me.

~~~
Godel_unicode
> The only argument you could make against this is that I'm lying

First, that's lacking in civility, you've been here long enough to know that
tone isn't appropriate.

Now then. The fact that your experience is not statistically significant isn't
a possible counter argument? In order for you to be right, you would need
evidence not only that most female mathematicians were harassed, but that they
left the field because of if. If you have exit interview data for a random
sample of former mathematicians, there are a lot of people here who would
probably love to talk to you.

This is an especially unfortunate stance given that this is an article about
math.

Edit: I make no claims one way or the other, I'm only talking about
statistical validity.

------
lordnacho
I find it hard to accept the "you must be 7ft tall to play basketball" story
about why people become good at something.

My own view is more something like what bodybuilders say. Some people find it
harder to grow than others, but everyone can do it. And people who put effort
into it will definitely be separable from people who don't, regardless of
endowment.

Now as for who gets to be written into history books, there's a fair bit of
randomness about that. A hard working person can well find that the only phd
advisor who will take them wants them to work on some dead end. Or you may
work on something hot, but other people will know it's hot, too, and they may
well beat you to publication. Doesn't make you any dumber, but your name will
not be enshrined in that theorem.

There's also a necessary confluence of factors that depends very much on your
parents, specifically whether they figure out how to manage your development.
Look at the current first-in-most-people's-minds genius, Terence Tao. Not only
did his parents figure out that he was good at math, they somehow got him the
right guidance. I'm guessing very few parents, even quite well educated ones,
would know what to do if a guy like that turned up in their house. There's
also the sheer randomness of whether you'll end up doing things that encourage
the kid. Most parents, myself included, have very little idea of how to get a
kid to do what's good for them. You laugh, unless you are a parent.

~~~
ZeroFries
Isn't a part of a person's endowment their ability to work hard and put in
effort where it's required, when it's required? The 7ft tall thing is an
example of an easy to see factor, which some people have, and some don't. In
reality, as you say, there are unlimited factors going into a person's
greatness (or lack-of).

By the way, there was a study where, given the same weight lifting program, a
couple people gained tons of muscle, most gained some, some gained none, and a
few even lost muscle. Not everyone can gain appreciable muscle, and not
everyone can get good at math (although most can, and the average person
underestimates their ability to do so).

~~~
sn9
>Isn't a part of a person's endowment their ability to work hard and put in
effort where it's required, when it's required?

No this is largely a malleable set of traits.

Good teachers can frequently change them in whole populations of students.

~~~
ZeroFries
Good nutrition can frequently change the height of whole populations. Yet, we
say height is part of a person's endowment. One might say potential is largely
determined at birth, but how that potential unfolds is determined over the
course of an organism's life.

~~~
sn9
Yes but in even the most developed countries, nutrition isn't an issue but
sufficiently good educational environments aren't.

We're still barely tapping into people's potential, but people still act form
arguments on the assumption that we are.

------
imakecomments
There are other examples of mathematical late bloomers. Check out
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Smale](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Smale)

He almost got kicked out of graduate school. Later went on to win the Fields
Medal.

~~~
osti
I read somewhere that hes incredibly smart, but very lazy. Just because he
didnt do too well ealier on dosent mean he's not a genius. Most people no
matter how much they work, still won't achieve 1/100th of what he did.

------
carsongross
With common core, math is mostly now word problems, which makes them as much
reading comprehension as abstract mathematical problems. This is going to be
especially brutal for boys, who typically trail girls in reading skills early
on.

I expect in a decade the current 2-1 female-male ratio in higher education is
going to reach such crisis levels that even our media will be unable to ignore
it, as they do currently.

~~~
jessaustin
It will be shocking if there's a 2:1 female:male ratio at the bleeding edge of
math anytime in the next century, even if word problems are required at lower
levels. As for the rest of the fields, I suspect the media as currently
constituted to celebrate rather than lament, when they can no longer ignore
the situation entirely.

[EDIT:] 'HeavenBanned's sibling comment should be restored; it's a good point
that is seldom made about math.

~~~
jimhefferon
At the (not-BE) college college where I teach, the math majors who are female
significantly outnumber those who are male. We don't have any program or
special selection. We just find that the students who succeed at math are
female, in the great majority.

------
deepnotderp
I'd just like to note that math in early years is taught as rote memorization
problems and doing things over and over again like memorization. Contrast this
with higher level math which is highly creative...

~~~
0xFFC
This is my exact problem. For my whole life i was afraid of math, after i (i
had to took it, it was not my choice) took real Analysis class and watched
Francis Su Real Analysis videos, I realized i like math more than CS (and cs
was my only love in my entire life.). Right now i am starting abstract Algebra
and i have plan to took probability and number theory after that.

I am literally in love with math. It does feelit is the only reason i was born
in the first place. I sometimes think i have to change my career to math.

And something i am really feel is brain plasticity. It may not have proven.But
i can feel in my self, as much as i go deeper into math, i do realize it makes
more sense, i can feel its effect on my day to day life, the way i think, the
more effective way I Analysis circumstances.

~~~
deepnotderp
Haha, that's great, good job :)

Side note: Su's real analysis videos are great aren't they?

~~~
0xFFC
They are excellent, literally.

I start to love math after I understand math, and he was the one showed me how
to understand math. Every one of those proofs was enjoyable, more than
anything i have ever done.

P.S. if he was accessible for me , I would go to every class he goes, every
office hour he has. I would just stick to the guy until I can find my way in
mathematics.

------
stupidcar
I think these sort of anecdotes about genius mathematicians are rather
disheartening. For many students, math is a struggle, even with the advantages
of a good education. Hearing about how such-and-such a person derived the
whole of number theory from an old Sesame Street book they found in the trash
just makes me feel dumb in comparison.

If anything, the examples given suggest that mathematical geniuses will find a
way to contribute whatever the obstacles in their way. But what about the
majority of students who are turned off the subject because they don't have
the same drive and natural ability? What's fragile isn't the abilities of
savants, but the belief of the average person that math is something they can
do, rather than the preserve of the super-intelligent.

------
aphextron
>Tests can serve a profoundly useful purpose in providing feedback and
diagnosing students’ learning needs. But as blunt labels for students’
abilities, they can be devastating.

This is so spot on. I've recently started taking college math courses for the
first time, and I'm astounded by how little actual "teaching" goes on in these
classes. My entire term grade for Precalculus was determined by 5 tests of 8
questions each, and the class consisted of a professor reading from a text
book for an hour a week with zero feedback or help. I think experiences like
this lead to a lot of people becoming completely frustrated and feeling
worthless at math, while also outwardly validating that feeling with an unfair
poor grade.

------
robertk
Very similar to what I wrote years ago:
[https://deconstructinggenius.wordpress.com](https://deconstructinggenius.wordpress.com)

------
tnzn
Fallacious first paragraph. Not everyone has the potential to become a genius
en math, or any other discipline for that matter.

~~~
davesque
I think it's a bit pointless to get hung up on that wording. It seem to me
that his point is more that people are often so bad at spotting genius that we
may as well assume everyone is a genius.

------
naranana
To the author of the article—you have a very tiny typo, garderning instead of
gardening.

------
psyc
This can be, and IMO ought to be, generalized to "People have a lot of
potential, and society needs to stop being a lottery".

------
jankotek
> _Mathematical genius is fragile; society needs to stop destroying it_

... but there are too many men in this field. Just love this marxist logic.

~~~
hiddencost
s/too many men/not enough women/

Suddenly it makes perfect sense. Why on earth do you choose to frame it the
first way? Getting more women into math by having male mathematicians be less
shitty people doesn't decrease the total number of mathematicians.

~~~
jankotek
Do you know any 'shitty mathematician' in person, or is it just another
stereotype?

~~~
GFK_of_xmaspast
> Do you know any 'shitty mathematician' in person

I certainly do.

~~~
jankotek
That talk to individuals, do not blame entire field or entire gender.

