quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Resent it all you like. "Mathematical dyslexia" is just a fancy name for "can't do sums", which, sorry, is a form of stupidity. Intelligence is the ability to do intellectual tasks. Arithmetic is an intellectual task. Lack of ability with arithmetic is therefore a lack of intelligence, also known as stupidity. I apply the same reasoning to ordinary dyslexia - a euphemism for "can't read". Just because these forms of stupidity are not correlated with disability in other areas, as we would usually expect, doesn't mean they're not stupidity.
I resent that. I may suck at arithmetic, but I'm not bad at math. There's a huge mistake in treating them as the same. Arithmetic is the ability to perform simple additions, subtractions, multiplications and occasionally divisions effectively, which most students do by memorizing fact families.
Why do I suck at arithmetic? Because I never stored the multiplication tables in my head, a task that is NOT intellectual. I have to think about my arithmetic, which makes me very slow and ineffective at it. I don't memorize 5+3; I have to envision 5, envision 3, and, if I'm tired, with the help of my fingers, count them off. Most people look at 5+3 and think "8." I'm very dependent on my calculator whenever I need to use numerical equations.
I'm good at math because I'm very right-brained. I seldom need to study for math tests because I can deduce concepts and figure out ways to solve the problems without memorizing formulae, with only a few exceptions.
Tell someone who DOESN'T ace all his honors classes and at the same time program complex 3D geometrical functions for a 3D video game and still have time to enjoy a good Orson Scott Card book that he's stupid.
Posts: 1029 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, well, if you're just going to shout "Stupid! Outmoded!" instead of addressing the actual argument, I don't see much point in having the discussion.
I think we assign a moral value to intelligence because it's such a fundamental part of what we are. "I think, therefore I am", right? So if you're not good at thinking, presumably you're not good at being. Not to mention that intelligent people are generally more pleasant to be around. Sure, sure, mentally handicapped kids often have big smiles and are generous with the hugs, and that. But after a while you get to be wanting some adult conversation, and not to have to explain Sesame Street for the twentieth time.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I resent that. I may suck at arithmetic, but I'm not bad at math. There's a huge mistake in treating them as the same. Arithmetic is the ability to perform simple additions, subtractions, multiplications and occasionally divisions effectively, which most students do by memorizing fact families.
Very well, I am happy to acknowledge that you are mathematically intelligent while being arithmetically stupid. As you say, they are not the same. Nonetheless I would invite you to consider that even equation-solving and trig problems do rather depend on being able to do the arithmetic correctly.
Look, people, all I'm saying is that if you say "Intelligence consists of X, Y and Z" components, then for consistency you will have to acknowledge that stupidity consists of the lack of X, Y and Z. Arithmetic and math are surely two of the components in question.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Oh, well, if you're just going to shout "Stupid! Outmoded!" instead of addressing the actual argument, I don't see much point in having the discussion.
I think we assign a moral value to intelligence because it's such a fundamental part of what we are. "I think, therefore I am", right? So if you're not good at thinking, presumably you're not good at being. Not to mention that intelligent people are generally more pleasant to be around. Sure, sure, mentally handicapped kids often have big smiles and are generous with the hugs, and that. But after a while you get to be wanting some adult conversation, and not to have to explain Sesame Street for the twentieth time.
Ok, now to give up talking to you because I should avoid things that frustrate me. Intelligence isn't just a black/white thing. There are subtleties and shades to it, and a person just won't see them if they dismiss a person or entire group of people as stupid.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sachiko: You are assigning moral value to intelligence, that is, YOUR kind of intelligence.
Actually, I get the impression that he is doing exactly the opposite of what you think, that is, he's using the term without the moral value and significance.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang: Yep. Any syn continues to gloss over that in her search to be offended.
Gloss over that?
It's really not right to use the word stupid to describe a person not being good at a subject. Especially if they are good at other things. Everyone has some sort of weakness unless they are a total genius and even people like that aren't always good at being social for some reason... *gives up*
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
KoM, this is much easier to stomach than your other recent points in this thread:
quote:Very well, I am happy to acknowledge that you are mathematically intelligent while being arithmetically stupid
I think Syn and others object to describing an otherwise intelligent person who has difficulty with one particular intellectual task as "stupid". "Arithmetically stupid" might still be un-PC, but it's not nearly as offensive as "can't do math therefore stupid."
What if someone can't run to save his life, but can solve a Rubik's cube in 16 seconds? He's slow, and he's also damn fast. If I just call him slow without explaining at what I mean he's slow, I'm not being accurate. So, just be precise in how you describe people's intelligence, and there's not a problem.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
If a modifying adjective makes the overall point easier to swallow, then sure. Feel free to insert 'mathematically', 'arithmetically', or 'literally' in front of any 'stupid's in my posts. (The last is probably not the right adjective of 'literature', but I can't think of the right one.)
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
OK I have ADHD, and while posting this i am watching a movie and rereading The Shadow of the giant, I think its not real at all considering I am in honors chemistry, math, american history and honors american literature. But I believe that learning disability's are the way someone thinks. KoM you are stupid!
Posts: 1574 | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang: Yep. Any syn continues to gloss over that in her search to be offended.
Gloss over that?
It's really not right to use the word stupid to describe a person not being good at a subject. Especially if they are good at other things. Everyone has some sort of weakness unless they are a total genius and even people like that aren't always good at being social for some reason... *gives up*
For someone who claims to be good at words, your reading comprehension leaves a lot to be desired. Yes, gloss over that is exactly what you've done and what you continue to do. You're skipping his provisos and then getting offended at precisely the thing he's said he's not saying.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
OK everyone is good at something and bad at others, remember when bean is on his flight to battle school hmmm Posts: 1574 | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: literarily?
Oh, and it's an adverb not an adjective.
Right you are. But as we are dealing with writing rather than literature as such, perhaps 'graphically' would be better.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by T:man: I think its not real at all considering I am in honors chemistry, math, american history and honors american literature.
KoM is working on a Ph.D. in physics. I have a Ph.D. in Engineering and have been a professor for the past 16 years. Forgive us if we are not impressed by your credentials.
Based on what you have said, you do not even know what mathematics is. Perhaps that is because you a mathematically stupid or perhaps you are just young and uneducated. If the later is the case, then you should feel embarrassed about having made such sweeping condemning statements about a field of which you are clearly ignorant.
Arithmetic is not math. Mathematics is a system of logic which is elegant because of its precision and the ease with which it can be used to explore logical relationships. It has proven extremely useful as a way to state complex predictive hypotheses within fields that involve quantities, space, time, structure, and change. And is invaluable as a tool for modeling physical and chemical systems and solving complex problems within those fields.
To claim "Math is stupid because its all old and its all just addition" is as ludicrous as claiming that English literature is stupid because its all just the same words arranged in different orders.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I guess I am uneducated but its still hateful to call people with learning disabilitys stupid.
Posts: 1574 | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sachiko: You are assigning moral value to intelligence, that is, YOUR kind of intelligence.
Actually, I get the impression that he is doing exactly the opposite of what you think, that is, he's using the term without the moral value and significance.
And then KoM also said,
quote: I think we assign a moral value to intelligence because it's such a fundamental part of what we are. "I think, therefore I am", right? So if you're not good at thinking, presumably you're not good at being. Not to mention that intelligent people are generally more pleasant to be around. Sure, sure, mentally handicapped kids often have big smiles and are generous with the hugs, and that. But after a while you get to be wanting some adult conversation, and not to have to explain Sesame Street for the twentieth time.
Okay, then, KoM, please set me straight--what moral value DO you assign to mathematical ability?
Just out of curiousity. Posts: 575 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Let's all agree that my original comments where wrong and that I'm uneducated, yay, don't hate the (T).
Posts: 1574 | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
"Je pense donc je suis," (I think, therefore I am) was originally stated by René Descartes in 1637 in his Discourses on Method. He makes the same statement in latin "Cogito ergo Sum" in 1644 in his treatise Principles of Philosophy.
BTW, Descarte is the same philospher/mathematician who originated Cartesian coordinate system.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Okay, then, KoM, please set me straight--what moral value DO you assign to mathematical ability?
Ah, I see. I am not assigning a value to mathematical ability for purposes of this discussion. But I recognise that society generally sets a moral value on intelligence - this is why it's a difficult subject to discuss, with hurt feelings all over the page - and I was setting forth a hypothesis for why that might be, in response to scholarette's question. Different contexts.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Okay, then, KoM, please set me straight--what moral value DO you assign to mathematical ability?
Ah, I see. I am not assigning a value to mathematical ability for purposes of this discussion. But I recognise that society generally sets a moral value on intelligence - this is why it's a difficult subject to discuss, with hurt feelings all over the page - and I was setting forth a hypothesis for why that might be, in response to scholarette's question. Different contexts.
Alrighty. Then I agree with you.
Posts: 575 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by T:man: Latter not later
T:man, there is an edit function at the top of each post. If you are looking at a post you have made in a thread and want to correct something, then click on the pencil-on-a-sheet-of-paper icon at the top of that post (it's over to the right of your forum name, near the middle of the page -- just to the left of the quote marks).
This takes you to an edit page. You can make whatever changes you want to your original post there.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by T:man: Latter not later
T:man, there is an edit function at the top of each post. If you are looking at a post you have made in a thread and want to correct something, then click on the pencil-on-a-sheet-of-paper icon at the top of that post (it's over to the right of your forum name, near the middle of the page -- just to the left of the quote marks).
This takes you to an edit page. You can make whatever changes you want to your original post there.
But also remember that if you edit something after about 10 minutes of posting the original statement it's common courtesy to state why you edited your post. Some folks actually preface the edited comments with, "Edit: etc etc etc." Or simply put at the bottom, "Edited for spelling and clarity."
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Or, you know, you could just spell-check in the first place. As opposed to wasting everyone's time. It would help if you had anything interesting to say, too, but crawl before walking.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
For probably the first time ever, I am finding that I agree with nearly everything KoM has had to add to this discussion.
I fully recognize that I am smart in some areas and stupid in others. I think that most people are like that with different strengths and weaknesses and differing amounts of both. I enjoy learning in the areas where I need it and also enjoy the subject materiel. Other areas that I don't enjoy as much and I don't have a pressing need to be more educated on I can remain ignorant in, and I feel fine about that.
Also, I can sympathize with those people not mature enough to handle an accurate description of their abilities; tactfullness and kindness are key to encouraging more learning.
Obviously with any subject of learning and ability there will be a scale to measure how well a person does. Terms like "smart" and "stupid" while conveying the basic idea, are not exactly wrong, but are fairly inaccurate, non-specific and tend to push emotional buttons.
Posts: 369 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
Intelligence has very little to do with knowledge, or perhaps I mean it the other way around.
That is the fundamental problem with any attempt to measure intelligence: it is immeasurable, and any attempt to pinpoint it would be using circular logic. He has this IQ because he has intelligent. How do you know that he's intelligent, and not just well read? Well, because he has this IQ. Damn.
I know a guy who have more knowledge than the vast majority of people, but he isn't "innately intelligent", as most people would put it. He just happens to work very very hard. There are professors who obviously aren't the brightest people, but they managed to attain Ph.Ds for the same reason.
Then there are people who score very well on these "IQ tests", but don't perform. That was useful, to know that if they had a completely different personality that they might be a boon to society, rather than a drain on it.
The idea of objectively measuring intelligence is laughable. Maybe even the idea of the existence of intelligence.
Posts: 2705 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
You might as well doubt the existence of science fiction because you cannot define it satisfactorily. We can see that intelligence exists.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I doubt it exists the way folks think it does. That's the problem. Everything is bigger and more complicated than people think, including the brain. People haven't even discovered everything about it.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:He has this IQ because he has intelligent. How do you know that he's intelligent, and not just well read? Well, because he has this IQ. Damn.
IQ tests are generally designed to test cognitive abilities, not knowledge. Knowledge helps in some areas of some tests. Memory is a component of intelligence. But I don't think it's as circular as you seem to.
IQ has a positive correlation with SAT scores, grades, job performance, income, and other valued outcomes...it's not always the biggest factor, and it's never absolutely predictive, but I wouldn't call it a laughable measurement. It has some validity.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: You might as well doubt the existence of science fiction because you cannot define it satisfactorily. We can see that intelligence exists.
We can also see that it is not one-dimensional and therefore not identifiable by a single integer.
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
One reason I think many people have difficulty understanding math is because teachers rarely explain how the math concept he/she is teaching applies to the real world. I've never gotten less than an A in math my whole life, but just because I can see how Calculus applies in my everyday life doesn't mean everyone else in the class can.
Sure perhaps you as an individual may be able to function without math, but life is sure easier when you understand it. My boss at Lawn Care charges people by the square foot, but he measures only in squares. He said he tried to do triangles too, but could never figure them out.
Then my co-workers at Sonic: They often were short-changed because they could not figure change out correctly. That's just subtraction. Then I've had customers argue about my math skills, and time was wasted because they don't know math.
And then wouldn't it be nice if you are convicted of a crime to be able to prove to the jury mathematically that 10,000 gold coins could not possibly have been robbed by one man? Or by using distance rate and time, that you couldn't have robbed that bank either?
(insert thousands of other everyday examples I want to type here)
-------------
On .5*.5 : You only need two operations. Add and move. Move the decimals so that it is 5*5, which is 5+5+5+5+5 = 25, move the decimals back, and it is .25. My computer architecture teacher said that the only thing computers can do is add and move, everything else is in terms of that.
Higher operations build on lower operations, but why use the lower operations when you have the higher? Especially when the higher operations are given to make complex problems much simpler.
Posts: 172 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't remember "move" being a valid mathematical operation. I'll have to go look that one up.
Posts: 340 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's a division or multiplication by ten, or anyway by the base of the number system you are using. Duh.Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: You might as well doubt the existence of science fiction because you cannot define it satisfactorily. We can see that intelligence exists.
We can also see that it is not one-dimensional and therefore not identifiable by a single integer.
I do not disagree. I also do not think that this contradicts anything I have been saying.
quote:One reason I think many people have difficulty understanding math is because teachers rarely explain how the math concept he/she is teaching applies to the real world.
I think you have the causality backwards. People who understand calculus can see it working all around them. If you don't get it, though, it's just abstract symbols to you, and how many abstract symbols do you deal with outside of math class? You have to be able to think on two levels at once: One level is (to take an example I encountered in real life recently) the manipulation of lambda, f, and c to get f alone on one side of the equation; the other is the equivalence between f and frequency, lambda and wavelength, c and the speed of light. It is a bit like pointers in C++: Either you understand what they are and how they work, or you just combine the *s and &s until you get something that compiles.
Now, it is true that this ability to think in two levels at once can be improved by practice. But I don't think that explaining things in terms of wavelengths and frequencies is necessarily helpful; what is wanted is a map between concepts and symbols, plus a skill set in manipulating the symbols, plus perhaps the meta-skill of making your own symbol map when you encounter a new concept. Thinking about concepts is not going to help on its own.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
To take another example: Nobody complains about being unable to learn multiplication on the grounds that they don't see the relevance. But really, how often do you actually need to do hardcore multiplication and not have a calculator handy? But pretty much everyone understands what multiplication is about and how it works (provided they haven't been taught New Math, of course...), even though they may sometimes make mistakes in the actual operation. So if you asked someone to give an example of multiplication in the real world, they would think for a moment and say, perhaps, "Tax rate times income", or "price of gas times gallons bought", or something. But it has never been explained to them in those terms! They just learned quite abstract lookup tables - three times two is six, seven times two is fourteen - and then did some problems with it.
If you know the math, then you can see applications easily. But knowing the applications doesn't make learning the symbols any easier; to see this, consider a student with some degree of mental retardation, who struggles with multiplication. Is he going to have an easier time when you explain that "This is used for calculating how much you have to pay for gas"? I think not. Or similarly Synesthesia with her dyscalculia. Certainly she understands how arithmetic applies in real life! She's just missing the relevant circuit in her brain, so she can't do it.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wonder if the way I do math in my head is similar to anyone else's?
Say, for example, I wanted to figure out a 15% tip on a meal that cost $43.26. What I'll usually do is just round to the nearest 10, in this case 40, and figure that for every $10, I pay $1.5 in tips. So I take 1.5 and multiply by 4, which, in my brain is 1.5x2=3 and 3x2=$6.
Then it's $.15 for every dollar, or $.45; $.02 for every 10 cents, or .04. So I end up with a tip of about 6.49, which I'll usually just round up till I get an even dollar amount on the final charge.
This I figure by just taking the cents of the charge and adding enough so I get an even cent amount, in this case I add $.04 so that I'd get 43.30, then it's easy to see that I just need $.70 more to get to 44.00. So I leave a tip of 6.74 which leaves a total charge of $50 even.
Now to check my math on a calculator: 43.26x.15=6.489, or 6.49 rounded up. $50-43.26=6.74.
Sure, I could do long multiplication or division to figure this out, but that's hard to do in my head. By breaking it down, I can do the whole thing in my head and it doesn't require much effort.
Posts: 4753 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Monkeys]](graemlins/monkeys.gif)
![[Evil Laugh]](graemlins/evillaugh.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Taunt]](graemlins/taunt.gif)
