Comment by tgv
16 hours ago
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.
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.
> cannot agree. It's just "feel-good thinking."
Not really. There's nothing inherently special about people who dedicated enough time to learn a subject.
> "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.
What a bad comparison. So far in human history there were less than 200 people who ran 100m in less than 10s.
I think you're just reflecting an inflated sense of self worth.
> Not really. There's nothing inherently special about people who dedicated enough time to learn a subject.
"You didn't work hard enough." People really blame you for that, not for lacking talent.
> So far in human history there were less than 200 people who ran 100m in less than 10s.
And many millions have tried. There may be 200 people who can run it under 10s, but there are thousands that can run it under 11s, and hundreds of thousands that can run it under 12s. Unless you've got clear evidence that those people can actually run 100m in less than 10s if they simply try harder, I think the experience of practically every athlete is that they hit a performance wall. And it isn't different for maths, languages, music, sculpting (did you ever try that?), etc. Where there are geniuses, there also absolute blockheads.
That's not to say that people won't perform better when they work harder, but the limits are just not the same for everyone. So 'capable of mathematical reasoning' either is some common denominator barely worth mentioning, or the statement simply isn't true. Clickbait, if you will.
I'm the author of what you've just described as clickbait.
Interestingly, the 100m metaphor is extensively discussed in my book, where I explain why it should rather lead to the exact opposite of your conclusion.
The situation with math isn't that there's a bunch of people who run under 10s. It's more like the best people run in 1 nanosecond, while the majority of the population never gets to the finish line.
Highly-heritable polygenic traits like height follow a Gaussian distribution because this is what you get through linear expression of many random variations. There is no genetic pathway to Pareto-like distribution like what we see in math — they're always obtained through iterated stochastic draws where one capitalizes on past successes (Yule process).
When I claim everyone is capable of doing math, I'm not making a naive egalitarian claim.
As a pure mathematician who's been exposed to insane levels of math "genius" , I'm acutely aware of the breadth of the math talent gap. As explained in the interview, I don't think "normal people" can catch up with people like Grothendieck or Thurston, who started in early childhood. But I do think that the extreme talent of these "geniuses" is a testimonial to the gigantic margin of progression that lies in each of us.
In other words: you'll never run in a nanosecond, but you can become 1000x better at math than you thought was your limit.
There are actual techniques that career mathematicians know about. These techniques are hard to teach because they’re hard to communicate: it's all about adopting the right mental attitude, performing the right "unseen actions" in your head.
I know this sounds like clickbait, but it's not. My book is a serious attempt to document the secret "oral tradition" of top mathematicians, what they all know and discuss behind closed doors.
Feel free to dismiss my ideas with a shrug, but just be aware that they are fairly consensual among elite mathematicians.
A good number of Abel prize winners & Fields medallists have read my book and found it important and accurate. It's been blurbed by Steve Strogatz and Terry Tao.
In other words: the people who run the mathematical 100m in under a second don't think it's because of their genes. They may have a hard time putting words to it, but they all have a very clear memory of how they got there.
5 replies →
There's a difference between being able to memorize what a square root is and being able to do math - which to mathematicians means being able to organize a proof.
I've found that the people who most believe in math being a genetic ability are the ones who do not work in the symbolic world of modern math, but in the semantic world of whatever the field the math describes is.
The two are rather different.
Strangely enough, you'd be hard pressed to find a mathematician who doesn't know what a square root is.
And I didn't mention genetics. Nature is complicated.
You'd also be hard pressed to find one who doesn't know how to flush a toilet.
Neither trivia has anything to do with being good at mathematics as done by mathematicians.
1 reply →
Square roots are not some "mathematical trivia", they're amongst the most fundamental operations in mathematics.
In arithmetic. There is a lot more to math than arithmetic.
This is mostly correct. Working memory plays a huge component in grokking more complicated mathematical components, and IQ itself is separated into performance and verbal IQ (which together constitute your IQ score) and its demonstrably robust. Some people find this easier than others and that is OK.
I dont disagree with the premise that mathematical thinking can benefit anybody, but its absurd notion that everything abstract is teachable and learnable to all is a fantasy of a distinctly left-wing variety, who would have you believe that everything is just social conditioning and human beings dont differ from one-another.
I think most people can become fairly skilled in useful fields if educated properly, and the people who can't are a small group that can be cared for. I agree that even in a better education system, people aren't all going to be equally skilled in the same fields, just that most people can contribute something of value.
Imagine our world was extremely similar to how it is now in any way you'd care to imagine, except two things were different.
1. Everyone (young, old, poor, rich) thinks that maths is interesting and fun and beautiful and important. Not important "to get a good job" or "to go to a good college" or "to be an impressive person", but rather important because it's fun and interesting. And maybe it also helps you think clearly and get a good job and all these practical things, but they're secondary to the tremendous beauty and wondrousness of the domain.
2. Everyone believes that barring actual brain injuries people can learn mathematics to a pretty high level. Not Ramanujan level, not Terrence Tao, not even a research mathematician at one of the smaller universities, but a level of extreme comfort, let's say a minimum level of being able to confidently ace the typical types of exams 17 and 18 year olds face to finish secondary school in various countries.
Would you claim that in that world - people think maths is great, and that anyone can learn it - we'd see similar levels of ability and enjoyment of mathematics?
My claim is that we don't live in "Math-World", as described above, but "Anti-Math-World". And further, that anyone suggesting things have to be the way they are in Anti-Math-World is not only wrong, but also fundamentally lacking imagination and courage.
Kids are told week in week out that maths is stupid, that they are stupid, that their parents themselves are stupid, that the parents hated maths, that the teachers are stupid, and then when they end up doing poorly, people say: "ahhh, some kids just aren't bright!"
Parents who like things like learning and maths and reading and so on, have kids that tend to like those things. And parents that don't, usually don't. Saying that this somehow tells us something concrete and inalterable about the nature of the human brain is preposterous.
It's a card that's used by grown-ups who are terrified by the idea that our education systems are fundamentally broken.
"Kids are told week in week out that maths is stupid, that they are stupid. …."
Come on, how often are kids exposed to such stupid talk? I suspect very infrequently.
My grandmother, who wasn't stupid by any means but who knew only basic arithmetic, would never have uttered such nonsense.
And I'd stress, like many of her generation and background, her knowledge of mathematics was minimal, if she'd been ask what calculus was she'd likely have been perplexed and probably have guessed it to be some kind of growth on one's foot.
Anybody can do everything if we restrict everything to things everyone can do.
You don't need to be able to run 100m in less than 10 seconds. But almost everyone probably could run a marathon in three and a half hours. How many people do you think have actualized their physical potential, or how far is the average person removed from it?
If someone's smart enough to get into a psychology class they are smart enough to be thought basic undergrad math. It wasn't your teaching failure necessarily, but it was someone's teaching failure at some point.
Not everyone can play Rachmaninov like Lugansky or do math like Terence Tao, but there is absolutely no doubt that almost all people are magnitudes away from their latent potential in almost all domains. I'm fairly certain you could teach any average person how to play Rachmaninov decently. You could bring any person to a reasonably high mathematical level. You can get any person to lift a few hundred pounds.
Most people today read at a 7th grade level, can't do basic math, and are out of air after 3 flights of stairs. "Everyone can do everything" is maybe not literally right but directionally right given how utterly far removed we are from developing practically anyone's potential.
> 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.
Bad example, it's much more likely to create a musical prodigy by providing early and appropriate guidance. Of course this is not easy as it assumes already ideal teaching methods and adequate motivation to the youngling, but even those with some learning difficulties have the potential to excel. The subtypes of intellect required to play complex music and absord advanced abstract math subjects are quite different, former requiring strong short-term memory (sightreading) the latter fluid intelligence -I think almost everyone is familiar with these terms by now and knows that one can score high/low on certain subtypes of an IQ test affecting the total score-.
BTW IDK if the Rachmaninoff choice was deliberate to imply that even the most capable who lack the hand size won't be able to perform his works well yeah, but there are like 1000s of others composers accessible that the audiences appreciate even more. Attempting to equate music with sports in such manner is heavily Americanized and therefore completely absurd. Tons of great pianists who didn't have the hand size to interpret his most majestic works and of others. Tons of others who could but never bothered. There have been winners of large competitions who barely played any of his works during all stages of audition or generally music requiring immense bodily advantage. Besides, it's almost 100% not a hand size issue when there are 5 year old kids playing La Campanella with remarkable fluidity.
And even in this case this isn't even the point. Most conservatory alumni today are 100x skilled than the pianists of previous generations... yet they all sound the exact same, their playing lacks character/variability, deepness, elegance to the point where the composers ideas end up distorted. And those can be very skilled but just have poor understanding of the art, which is what music is, not the fast trills/runs, clean arpeggios, very strict metronomic pulse.
> 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.
Well the vast majority of people in the Soviet Union were very math literate, regardless of what they ended up working as (although indeed most became engineers) and in quite advanced subjects. This is obviously a product of the extensive focus of primary and secondary education on the sciences back then.
So the point isn't to make everyone have PhD level math background and I heavily dislike the dork undertones/culture that everyone should love doing abstract math on their freetime or have to have some mathematical temperament' . But let's not go the other way and claim that those not coming close to achieving the knowledge those in the top % of the fields possess, they are chumps.