There is not such thing as being bad at math

[Felya]

This really isn't a fundamental debate in any meaningful sense - no one that's remotely serious about understanding cognition thinks that everyone can reach the same intellectual heights. The hereditary and genetic bases for intelligence are well established as is the validity of intelligence testing for predicting academic success.

You are not contradicting what I'm saying, other than to assert that a test of a construct's success, defines success. While I'm saying pretty much... 'there is more than one way to skin a cat'. You are again using subjective terms like meaningful to define validity. Does changing the test, change the outcome of the result?

What I think is touchy feely is dancing around the really obvious differences in ability that people have. People with lower innate ability don't fail to learn incredibly difficult concepts because they're "lazy", but because it's actually just beyond their abilities. This really is like telling a 5'2" girl that the only reason she can't play in the NBA is that she didn't put in the necessary work.

What I'm saying, is that intelligence is not a sport defined by a rule set. What if the basket is 2 feet off the ground and the field was 3 times as long. Still going Kareem Abdul Jabar over that 5'2 girl? Intelligence isn't a sport, your ability to put the ball in the basket, is not defined by the height of the basket.

I need you to explain, how my comment that Felps and Bolt are going at the same speed, while one is swimming and the other is running... has anything remotely to do with 5'2 girls playing in NBA? How would my answer be that she needs to practice and not change the sport? Your judgment is being clouded for some need to worry about being touchy feely.

- - - Updated - - -

I can speak and write in four languanges, I'm studying a fifth and I'm pants at math. Does that make me lazy? No. I just don't give a crap about math, I hate it, it's boring and I don't really use it in real life unless I need to pay or count for something. I would rather translate a book than take a look at anything with numbers in it.

Plus, my math teacher in high school was a jerk, so yeah.

Case and point...

(Just saying you'd be better at math if you had a better teacher and/or cared. )

[Spectral]

You are not contradicting what I'm saying, other than to assert that a test of a construct's success, defines success. While I'm saying pretty much... 'there is more than one way to skin a cat'. You are again using subjective terms like meaningful to define validity. Does changing the test, change the outcome of the result?



What I'm saying, is that intelligence is not a sport defined by a rule set. What if the basket is 2 feet off the ground and the field was 3 times as long. Still going Kareem Abdul Jabar over that 5'2 girl? Intelligence isn't a sport, your ability to put the ball in the basket, is not defined by the height of the basket.

I need you to explain, how my comment that Felps and Bolt are going at the same speed, while one is swimming and the other is running... has anything remotely to do with 5'2 girls playing in NBA? How would my answer be that she needs to practice and not change the sport? Your judgment is being clouded for some need to worry about being touchy feely.

The thread's about whether people can be "good at math". Trying to come up with some fuzzy definition of intelligence where everyone has their own special talents is pretty silly in that context. Some people are cut out to get perfect scores on math GREs, some people aren't. These are actual, real differences in ability that are well measured by tests.

[Kyr]

well it's on the internets now so it must be true :/

If being bad at math isn't a thing I would like an explanation of how I've seen people that are LONG out of school still using their fingers to count higher than 3

[oplawlz]

Man, lot of angst in this thread even though most people seem to agree with the premise. The point I got from this was "don't feel like math is impossible for you, with enough effort you can do it too!". Obviously if you're past the point in your life where learning additional mathematics isn't beneficial enough to justify the effort this isn't a particularly useful bit of information.

[Sunseeker]

Man, lot of angst in this thread even though most people seem to agree with the premise. The point I got from this was "don't feel like math is impossible for you, with enough effort you can do it too!". Obviously if you're past the point in your life where learning additional mathematics isn't beneficial enough to justify the effort this isn't a particularly useful bit of information.

It's amazing how quickly an encouraging statement like "If you work hard and put your mind to it, you can accomplish things!" gets turned into "You're a lazy shitstain with no value because you didn't do this thing I think is important!"

[Felya]

The thread's about whether people can be "good at math". Trying to come up with some fuzzy definition of intelligence where everyone has their own special talents is pretty silly in that context. Some people are cut out to get perfect scores on math GREs, some people aren't. These are actual, real differences in ability that are well measured by tests.

I'm saying some people figured it out and some have not. I'm saying people learn differently.

- - - Updated - - -

It's amazing how quickly an encouraging statement like "If you work hard and put your mind to it, you can accomplish things!" gets turned into "You're a lazy shitstain with no value because you didn't do this thing I think is important!"

They are the same thing. It just depends on the person who uses either. That's how you judge the character of those expressing the opinion.

[Sunseeker]

They are the same thing. It just depends on the person who uses either. That's how you judge the character of those expressing the opinion.

No, they're not the same thing, and its important to differentiate positive reinforcement (which works) from degradation (which doesn't).

[Luperca]

You'd be surprised how much math is put into basically every single form of art there is. There's a reason some of the most famous artists in history were also mathematicians.

Yes but how many Artists throughout history were not? Both my uncle and my boyfriend are artists, they both make a living off it. My uncle paints and does some sculpting, metal work, and painting. The latter I have seen him do several times. All he does is sketch out what he is going to paint and then paints, no math, he just puts on canvas what he thinks looks good. And I have helped both of them make and assemble, casts and molds of large (life size) and small statues. I find most artists after making the things either put something heavy at the bottom or put a rod through it anchoring it to a stand/floor. If it's small enough, printed statues normally are, they glue it to a platform or print one with it. No math, no complex equations, that's not to say some artists don't use math, but the most I see it used is to make sure something fits through a doorway.

[Vargur]

I'm bad at Chinese. Because I never learned it.

[Fojos]

For some people it takes longer to understand.

Also known as being bad at mathematics (or with less politically correct language; stupid people).

[Mad_Murdock]

Man, lot of angst in this thread even though most people seem to agree with the premise. The point I got from this was "don't feel like math is impossible for you, with enough effort you can do it too!". Obviously if you're past the point in your life where learning additional mathematics isn't beneficial enough to justify the effort this isn't a particularly useful bit of information.

I guess the question is, what level of math are we talking about? The basic stuff, mid level stuff, advance? If the general theme is that anyone can be good(capable) at basic math (say up to and include algebra 1) with enough focus\work, I'm sure we can all agree with that. If it's anyone can be good at theoretical math, I would disagree. Part of the video says that like yoga and running, people could be a "master" at it. I need a definition of what master means.

[Deleted]

For some people it takes longer to understand.

Also known as being bad at mathematics (or with less politically correct language; stupid people).

Mathematics is such a broad subject though...

[Deleted]

Well yeah, on some level you can say the same about almost every subject or interest.

[Underverse]

I'm sure it's not a binary switch. But there are certainly some people who are simply better at imagining how numbers fit together than others. This follows for any other skill. Unless you want to argue that everyone can excel at everything equally if they put the same amount of effort in - which from my experience and I'm sure the experiences of many others is not true either.

Also, non-celiac gluten sensitivity is a medically defined term that affects 0.5-13% of the population, depending on which populations you look at. I think you've filled your quota for being wrong today.

[Valech]

So OP... you mean I get better in something when I practise it? And that I am bad at things, that I do not do frequently for whatever reasons?

More news at 8.

[Varitok]

I honestly don't believe you at all. I am a math and physics tutor and I see the same shit everyday. Students come complaining to me that "it's just too hard" and that "they worked so hard" then I look at the work they have done and find out that they haven't even attempted the first problem.

I honestly don't believe this. I was good at math, I breezed through it but I watched my friends work their asses off, hitting the books every single day trying to understand it and do it effectively but they just couldn't get it done.

[Triggered Fridgekin]

It's all relative to your interests. I was never a fan of math math and it showed on my work because nothing about it really excited me whereas put me in a Chemistry or Astronomy program and all the sudden it's enjoyable because the subject is interesting.

I think the biggest tragedy in our educational system is that it's a "one size fits all" program where those who are fortunate enough to have a natural grasp or the cognitive ability to make it stick on general academic abilities will always excel whereas those who don't either fall through the cracks or abandon their talents because they don't know what the definition of an inflection point is in spite of being abble to rattle off the kingdom right through to the genus of a Antillean manatee. I don't think it's a matter of being lazy in most cases but rather the way our interests will shape our academic proficiency.

I'm not saying to dumb down math for the sake of benefiting those who aren't good at it or that you can't learn math through studying your ass off until 4am every day. What I'm saying is the high school system doesn't reward you for showing an interest or proficiency in one topic over another and that creates this weird self-fulfilling prophecy of under-performing students who go on to become under-performing adults because they weren't given the chance to pursue and become further educated in their interests from an early age.

"If the measurement of success is a tree and you're a fish then it doesn't matter how well you can swim" sort of argument.

[Blacktop Cadence]

Dyscalculia is a real thing folks. I had a 504 plan in high school for it that put me in an LS class specifically for whatever math course I was taking. At the very basic level I'm unable to really grasp arithmetic. I really, really struggled with adding, subtracting, and multiplication tables as a kid. I actually did better in high school largely because we began working with different concepts beyond the basics, and the 504 would allow me to take a crack at a test problem a second time if my mistake was basic arithmetic and not the result of misunderstanding the material.

I also have the problem (another symptom) of being unable to determine left or right on the fly. I have to think about it for a second.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyscalculia

[Zmaniac17]

That isn't proving anything for two reasons. First, you need to establish that IQ tests measure intelligence. Because by doing that you make an IQ test define intelligence. Otherwise, it will be intent vs result. Second, we all do have a baseline intelligence, it doesn't actually mean no one can go over or under it. The 100 might just be too high for a baseline... I see intelligence as a bell curve, with a baseline being the median.

You're taking everything I said to literally. I'm not arguing the accuracy of iq tests. I'm claiming there is no minimum intelligence and there is no guarantee that people can learn at the same rate or in the same manner. Peoples brains are vastly different from each other. Usually people are just scared of math and don't practice enough. But some are actually bad at it compared to others.

[Zecora]

You're not bad at math...

People who say that they are naturally bad at math are the same people that claim they have a gluten allergy, and they are both complete BS.

Dyscalculia says you're wrong.