Mathematical ineptness among generally capable people

[Sprinal]

Personally, I am a whiz a math. I am 2 grades ahead in math, and still keeping an A.

Well that is alright but when you get to the higher levels (Like University entrance [and University in general]) I would like to see if you can keep that up {unless you already are in which case I cannot see that on your profile and am sorry}. But when you get to those levels the speed at which you work at moves considerably faster (assuming that you arn't doing "Vegie" maths).

I for one have spent half of my total maths classes asleep in middle school (and still got the top marks). But in my final years I miss about 5 minutes and I might as well be dumped in a non-english speaking plase with but a phone with a flat battery trying to get home.

 

[El Poncho]

I'm good at maths, sciences etc. but I find English difficult, it makes me want to tear out my eyes so I can't do it any more.

 

[arrow_storm]

Most importantly for me, is that rote memorisation does not work. When I learn maths, I need to distill it to it's core, to work from absolute first principles and build from there.

Also, I think a lot can depend on the Maths teacher. I had one teacher who taught us our forumalas by making us recite them as fast as possible. Also, say I tried solving a problem in a different way, but got the right result, she'd give out because I wasn't doing it the way I was supposed to at that time. That maths teacher is an abject failure.

I agree.

I am naturally a very logial and methodical person. I've always been good at maths, but mostly because I try to understand how it works. Pythaagoras was all greek to me (no pun intended) until, like the first poster, I saw a diagram using squares. All that said, I suck at trying to communicate this knowledge. What I see and understand in minutes, I have witnessed people taking months to get.

People learn different ways and people think in different ways to. I instinctivelyy break problems into their basic components and solve each component in order. That's what makes me great at maths (and programming). I realise that not everybody thinks in that way and thats fine, I'm just not good at converting my thought process into meaningful explanations.

For the record, I'd like to mention that all of this goes out the window when I see logarithms. I hate the bloody things. For someone who got strait A's I have never answered a logarithmic question ccorrectly without significant teacher assistance. We're like oil and water, no matter how hard you try, we just don't mix.

 

[CactiComplex]

I always wondered whether or not it was just me thinking this...

Yeah, I'm more creatively inclined than anything else and I suffer from dyscalculia. Funnily enough, no one ever thought anything of it, even when I could barely tell the time at age twelve and couldn't grasp even the simplest mathematical theory or times tables, or tell left from right. Even now I can only even tell left from right with any certainty when I'm driving. The indicators work wonders.

Heh, I should have known it was all down to a stereotype.

 

[Spacelord]

I think OP got it exactly right. For me anyway. In retrospect the reason I never really got the hang of maths due to a combination of 'because it says so' teaching style and implicit intimidation (my statistics book has a foreword that says something along the lines of "I know you're all dreading this but hopefully this book will make it as painless as possible").

It's a shame really because I feel like if things would've gone differently I'd be quite adept.

 

[smithy_2045]

I have 0 apples. I owe you 2. That means I have -2 apples. If I owe you twice that, that means I have -4. If I owe 2, 2 times how did I end up with 4 things I didn't have in the first place?

Because your breaking down the sum -2x2 not -2x-2, if you owe me two lots of -2 apples then you have 4 apples

The way you're explaining it makes it sound like you're adding -2 and -2, I'll have a go :3

Ok so we know that "-2 x 2 = -4" because you have 2 lots of -2 apples. The presence of that "-" means you're going to get a negative answer.

With "-2 x -2" though the 2 "-" signs are going to negate each other, making the answer "= 4". To put it into words you'll have -2 lots of -2 apples.

[spoiler = To recap:]
No "-" symbol gives a positive answer : "2 x 2 = 4"
One "-" symbols give a negative answer : "-2 x 2 = -4"
Two "-" symbols give a positive answer : "-2 x -2 = 4"
Three "-" symbols give a negative answer : "-2 x -2 x -2 = -8"
Four would give a positive, etc...
[/spoiler]

I still don't get it. This is why I study language and not math.

I now declare that I am the perfect poster boy for this thread.

Proving to us that you didn't want to understand in the first place so you could continue being a stereotype.

I have a friend who simply can NOT understand Discrete Mathematics. A natural in everything, but when he went to university, he needed it for his whatever-the-fuck-he's-trying-to-get.

He failed it horribly. I haven't done it, so I won't judge, but does anyone here have any experience with Discrete Mathematics? It's really made me curious.

Personally, Discrete Maths was by far the easiest subject during my first year of uni (Stats degree).


Also, my personal experience at high school was that if you're pretty smart at Maths but suck at English or vice versa, it's because you weren't putting in enough effort to the one which you weren't as good at. The stereotype is bullshit, and only exists because you don't want to try at something.

 

[ConnorTheRed]

I've always been pretty good at Maths and English. One year in secondary school I was awarded the Academic Awards for both. I guess it could be because I read a huge amount, and I have a really good memory, allowing me to think logically and draw from ideas I already have. But I can understand how people can have trouble with one if they excel at the other. For instance, I can write really good creative pieces, but I suck at all areas of Art except basic technical drawing, the least creative part.

 

[Deleted]

There are many types of intelligences, and many ways to learn them.

Something like mathematics pretty much has to be taught by someone else, so I (and lots of other average joes) don't see it as admirable as something that involves exploration and discovery like art. (i'm talking calculus and others with limited use in every day life). They see it as a display of skill, but an actual talent? Ehh maybe.

I'm not saying math is stupid, I'm actually not so good at it. I'm not good at it because I don't like it and therefor did not put in effort to learn it.

 

[The Unworthy Gentleman]

I'm pretty darn good at both English and Maths. I got an A in maths and a B in English. However I got an A in History and that's half English so it has something to do with subject content.

I think you just don't enjoy maths, it's the way your mind works so you prefer doing things with words. I enjoy using words but not poetry or books I find boring so I'll not do well at that but I will do well at something I enjoy, like History. I just like every part about maths so I do really well at that.

 

[Booze Zombie]

Pretty much the same for me, I come across as your normal sentient being but I can't do maths... except algebra; that's easy.

 

[2xDouble]

*snip*

I still don't get it. This is why I study language and not math.

I now declare that I am the perfect poster boy for this thread.

But... math IS language. English, Mathematics, Spanish, BASIC, French, Chemistry, Literature, Physics, et al... they're all the same; it's all in your perspective. Simply apply your skills in one to the other. If imagery confuses you, use different imagery. If an equation confuses you, decipher what each symbol really means and read it like a sentence (...paragraph, short story, or novel, in some cases. heh).

OT: I think a major contributor to the problem is many people consider math to be "very hard" or "nerd stuff" or "for super smart people only" (redundant much? heh). These people teach/show children these misconceptions and thus sustain the stigma. (further proof of my "people suck" theory, but that's off on a tangent. /rimshot)

Another factor is, as was stated in the OP, poor educators. The subject gets stigmatized by society, whereas the children who show lesser aptitude are stigmatized by the education system. Poor grades reflect poorly on schools. To combat this, instead of tutoring the children and helping them understand (which costs both time and money), schools will often simply reassign the child to an "easier" class. The system gives up on teaching them, the child gives up on learning the subject matter ("why should I work hard to learn if I'm too dumb to understand?"), and nothing is accomplished. All for the sake of saving face in front of parents and contributors, and letting children feel better about themselves by getting higher numbers without actually achieving.

A third possibility, also alluded to in the OP (and earlier by me), is the myth that mathematical and artistic (for example) aptitude are mutually exclusive. i.e. "If you're good at math, you won't be as good in literature". This implies that a student will have to give up one to excel at the other, and this is a difficult choice for young students. Why would someone want to give up listening to and enjoying music just to stare at a bunch of numbers? The fact of the matter is, as I said earlier, this is a myth.

All subjects, Science, Math, Art, Language, even Physical Education, dovetail in some very intriguing ways, and this can be harnessed rather simply (I won't say easily, because it isn't). Students who show an aptitude for something can then view all other "more difficult" subjects through that lens. I suppose that, again, points to failures in education... but this time, I'm aiming squarely at the parents. Even the best school teachers can't give every student the personal attention this requires, but the child's parents can (even if all they can do, for whatever reason, is find the child a tutor).

[sub]heh, so much for keeping this short...[/sub]

/rant

 

[UberNoodle]

I really don't any problem with mathematical 'ineptness' - that's me! But a great of many of my maths loving friends lack strong artistic talent or imagination. Brains are never wired quite the same and people don't all learn and perceive the world in the same way. I sure hope that I'm never called 'inadequate' because I struggle to recall multiplication tables or formulas, when the converse situation can be just as easily misconstrued the same.

 

[UberNoodle]

*snip*

I still don't get it. This is why I study language and not math.

I now declare that I am the perfect poster boy for this thread.

But... math IS language. English, Mathematics, Spanish, BASIC, French, Chemistry, Literature, Physics, et al... they're all the same; it's all in your perspective. Simply apply your skills in one to the other. If imagery confuses you, use different imagery. If an equation confuses you, decipher what each symbol really means and read it like a sentence (...paragraph, short story, or novel, in some cases. heh).

OT: I think a major contributor to the problem is many people consider math to be "very hard" or "nerd stuff" or "for super smart people only" (redundant much? heh). These people teach/show children these misconceptions and thus sustain the stigma. (further proof of my "people suck" theory, but that's off on a tangent. /rimshot)

Another factor is, as was stated in the OP, poor educators. The subject gets stigmatized by society, whereas the children who show lesser aptitude are stigmatized by the education system. Poor grades reflect poorly on schools. To combat this, instead of tutoring the children and helping them understand (which costs both time and money), schools will often simply reassign the child to an "easier" class. The system gives up on teaching them, the child gives up on learning the subject matter ("why should I work hard to learn if I'm too dumb to understand?"), and nothing is accomplished. All for the sake of saving face in front of parents and contributors, and letting children feel better about themselves by getting higher numbers without actually achieving.

A third possibility, also alluded to in the OP (and earlier by me), is the myth that mathematical and artistic (for example) aptitude are mutually exclusive. i.e. "If you're good at math, you won't be as good in literature". This implies that a student will have to give up one to excel at the other, and this is a difficult choice for young students. Why would someone want to give up listening to and enjoying music just to stare at a bunch of numbers? The fact of the matter is, as I said earlier, this is a myth.

All subjects, Science, Math, Art, Language, even Physical Education, dovetail in some very intriguing ways, and this can be harnessed rather simply (I won't say easily, because it isn't). Students who show an aptitude for something can then view all other "more difficult" subjects through that lens. I suppose that, again, points to failures in education... but this time, I'm aiming squarely at the parents. Even the best school teachers can't give every student the personal attention this requires, but the child's parents can (even if all they can do, for whatever reason, is find the child a tutor).

[sub]heh, so much for keeping this short...[/sub]

/rant

That's all well and good, but understanding of maths is not always shown in obvious ways. For example, a great many artists who do not excell in the formal study of maths are actually very good at it, as it pertains to their art. Musicians are the same. Geographers, cartographers, draftsmen, statisticians, etc, may all have differing strengths in relevant maths, sometimes overt and sometimes inert. There's no requirement that one must master a formal maths education, just as there's no requirement to learn painting, fiction writing, dance, political science, ancient history or anything for that matter. You appear to be arguing for a view in which all differences in minds, brains, opportunity, interest and passion, etc, are irrelevent. If that's so, I must say that nobody should ever be made to feel inadequate or be blamed for what paths of experience and knowledge they followed.

Sure, maths is a language like many others. It doesn't matter though, because there's no rule saying that one must learn it. What makes maths so special that it is to be placed ahead of other forms of knowlege? One's knowlege directs one's path in life. Somebody weak at maths won't enter a life that favours it. He'll invariably forge a life and role in which his strengths can be exploited. And it should be noted that if maths is a language, as you define it, then what it describes must therefore exist independent from it. Just as a French and an English speaker can describe a flower in their own way, because they understand that flower, an understanding of mathematics need not be communicated in only one language. This connects back to what I said above.


Of course, I'm not saying that the propensity for maths or not denotes some kind of genetic difference. However, mathematics does occupy a side of the brain that not everybody neurologically favours. Again, you seem to be arguing in a direction that equates a weakness in maths with either personal or educational failure. I understand what your saying, that maths can be learnt like any other disclipine, and I agree with you, but not all disciplines suit everybody, and they are all mastered at the sacrifice of mastery in other areas.

 

[Marbas]

He failed it horribly. I haven't done it, so I won't judge, but does anyone here have any experience with Discrete Mathematics? It's really made me curious.

Discrete mathematics MAY have been his first proof based math course in a long time, in which yes it would cause him some trouble if he's uncomfortable with that sort of thing. The other thing is that Discrete math is a bit different, it's mainly about counting problems, induction, things like graph theory, etc.

It's a bit wonky.

 

[Knusper]

I like to think that I an all-rounder. I was terrible at Art and I'm not so good at music, but I am good at English Language and Literature. I am also good at History and Geography. I often struggle to see why everyone hates maths so much, I like it. I recently got my GCSE result for maths back. I got 94.5%

The only problem is that I am good at my subjects, but I am never the best.

 

[Atmos Duality]

I try to embrace maths at the conceptual level, and I recognize that it's pure logic yet the damn subject matter never sinks in.

It's infuriating to be able to visualize what a specific problem or concept means and be unable to do complex algebra when it's boiled down.

Having just started College-level Calculus, I imagine these classes will be the end of me.
Can't wait for Differential Equations...

 

[Stoic raptor]

Personally, I am a whiz a math. I am 2 grades ahead in math, and still keeping an A.

Well that is alright but when you get to the higher levels (Like University entrance [and University in general]) I would like to see if you can keep that up {unless you already are in which case I cannot see that on your profile and am sorry}. But when you get to those levels the speed at which you work at moves considerably faster (assuming that you arn't doing "Vegie" maths).

I for one have spent half of my total maths classes asleep in middle school (and still got the top marks). But in my final years I miss about 5 minutes and I might as well be dumped in a non-english speaking plase with but a phone with a flat battery trying to get home.

I am a sophomore, so I am not yet in a university.

And I have to ask, what is vegie math?