What if saying "I can't do math" had the same stigma as saying "I can't read"?

[Extragorey]

Not sure if this is entirely relevant here, but on the internet I treat everyone I talk to like they're a genius - until proven otherwise - but at the same time acknowledge that there are hordes of fools out there.
But on topic, innumeracy isn't such a big deal because everyone CAN do math to some degree. I've never met a person who doesn't know 1+1 (even uneducated folk), so when/if someone were to say "I can't do math" they simply mean they can't do it WELL. As opposed to, "I can't read" - meaning, more often than not, they can't read at all.

 

[BanicRhys]

Depends what you mean by maths, if you mean basic addition and multiplication etc then I thought it already did. I think of illiterate people and those who are that bad at maths in the same way.

But if you're taking about algebra and geometry etc, I don't see why it should, it's not like most people even need that stuff in everyday life.

 

[Lt_Bromhead]

It's MATHS!! That really gets on my tripe.

I take it you're British, good sir?


OT: I'm of the mind that if it had the same stigma, we'd treat it completely differently.
I mean, I constantly warn people I "can't do maths" or "can't handle numbers", and I do take about five minutes to work out basic times tables. But I do get there eventually, however. I assume this is similar to a lot of people who claim to have total maths inability. Which is NOT on the same scale as illiteracy, however, where people genuinely cannot read. If you genuinely cannot understand the source material, then there's no method of progression despite how much working out you do.

As it stands, when people say "I can't do maths", they can usually at least master basic calculation, as we all know that 1 + 1 = 2, 2 + 2 = 4 etc.
Mathematical illiteracy would constitute not knowing such basic combinations. But someone illiterate with words would be unable to read or understand words just by looking at the patterns, as they wouldn't be able to use a dictionary to help them understand. In consequence, mathematical illiterates would need to struggle so much that they couldn't even figure out that 1 + 1 = 2, even with a list of numbers before them, as they couldn't understand what "1" was. Which means you'd be disadvantaged far more than not being able to read, in my opinion.
If you go to a foreign country with, say, picture writing (e.g. Russia, Greece etc) then there's a good chance that you, a perfectly literate person in English, would be unable to even guess what the words meant (this is assuming you're not Russian/Greek fluent ofc), but you can still count. There's so much of our basic lifestyle that revolves around subconsciously using mathematics every day that we don't even realise is happening. Simple motor functions often require a little bit of calculation on the brain's part...

tldr : Yes. I think if they were considered in the same scope then there would be quite a hoo-ha about it.

 

[Logodaedalus]

The main reason that innumeracy is much more subjective where the line is drawn, unlike illiteracy where you can either read what I'm writing or not.

This is not strictly true as there are definately various layers to how you read something, but this is not as clear when you don't have these skills (e.g. on can understand the words behind Animal Farm, but that doesn't mean you've taken in its underlieing message).

For mathematics it is much easier to realise that you are not getting it, as you simply won't know what the answer is. We are fine with people not being good at maths as there is no easy break point that everyone can agree on.

All in all, being able to understand the words is a simple low goal that everyone can aspire to and since it is an easy goal not achieving it gets you a lot of stigma.
Innumeracy has no easy to establish milestone for everyone to get past, and such no stigma for not reaching them.

just my 0.02$

 

[Kermi]

Learning to read is a matter of memorising a basic alphabet and a few rules. Once you attach the words you're reading with words you know, you can write. This is the equivalent of arithmetic, which I think most people can handle.

When I say I'm bad at math, I mean calculus and so forth. Maybe if I had to solve a quadratic equation or polynomial function to buy a train ticket or do my shopping, it would be a different story. You could apply the same reasoning to why I don't know chemistry, or physics, or special relativity.

 

[smithy_2045]

People who "can't do maths" are making excuses so they don't have to put in the effort to learn it.

 

[Carboncrown]

I'm pretty sure "I can't count" might get a few funny looks.

Isn't "do maths" kinda like "do literature"? I'm pretty sure people have no trouble admitting that reading books is, like, totally gay...

 

[SilentCom]

If it had the same stigma then the majority of people will have the stigma applied to them. The truth is that most people don't need high levels of mathematics as opposed to literacy. Some mathematical skills are pretty much necessary such as the ability to add, subtract, multiply, and other arithmetic. Beyond this, mathematical skills are pretty much a specialized skill meant to be applied toward particular fields.

Basic literacy is not a specialized skill and is essentially required so people can actually communicate with each other. Without literacy (and typing skills) I could not be telling you all of this here.

 

[Gwarr]

i can do advanced integrals , calculate the square root of numbers of up to 10 zecimals in my head , but I just cannot be arsed to calculate in my head when I am buying something in the store. Seriously , what's wrong with me :/

 

[surg3n]

I found it really difficult to learn maths, advanced maths I mean - calculus etc. I would still say that I'm not good with maths, even though I'm a programmer and use some crazy maths every day. Its the 'deep' maths that I can't get on with, if you know what I mean. Some math follows very logical routes, like geometry, trig and algebra - I can eat that stuff up. But then you have things like calculus which requires a less logical approach, or maybe it requires faith!.

I think that the most valuable teaching aid is necessity. Basic maths is a necessity, you have to be able to count, you have to know when you've been short changed, so people tend to learn that quite quickly once they can see the benefits. Myself, well I started programming before I could spell, so dealt with algebra and trig at quite an early age, long before I was taught it in high school. Programming and algebra are like pancakes and syrup, so for me necessity took over. The problem with advanced maths is that it's harder to see the necessity - I appreciate calculus and what it can do, but it tends not to affect me, or even anyone I know. I'm guessing that there a decline in people learning advanced maths, either they aren't grasping it quickly enough, or they don't see the point. Really though, they might be right - do we really need advanced maths when we all have devices to do the hard thinking for us?

Personally I get better results when I bypass convention and go by gut instinct and trial and error, at least when I can get away with that. My math teachers hated when I found a different way to solve a problem, but maybe that should be encouraged - people should learn maths without seeing it as some sort of geek religion that they have to follow to an exacting standard. Leave the hardcore math heads to their squigly symbols and elaborate algorithms... understanding the problem is the first step in finding a solution, for general everyday problems there are quicker ways to arrive at a solution.

A good teacher will present a problem and give students a chance to arrive at a solution, how else would teachers ever learn! - how else would students get that eureka moment when they properly learn and appreciate what maths can do.

 

[UnknownGunslinger]

My math teachers hated when I found a different way to solve a problem, but maybe that should be encouraged - people should learn maths without seeing it as some sort of geek religion that they have to follow to an exacting standard.

I remember our teacher used to bump the grades every time somebody derived a solution in a way different than the material we've been studying.
Which made most of us to always be a few chapter ahead of the books just in case
And that was in an Arts School mind you!
You should send a heartfelt message to your teacher saying that he/she sucked!
Because it sounds like they did.

P.S. I'm now really bad at maths, I forgot almost everything the instant I graduated from high-school. I simply have no practical application for the material!