Study Shows Good With Math Means Bad With People

Sylentmode writes "A recent study by Brookings Institution's Brown Center shows that students who are good with math are less likely to be happy, and are likely to have low confidence. From the article "In essence, happiness is overrated" says study author Tom Loveless. I wonder if Loveless is just a nickname, because he is so good with math."

Comments

Overrated

[nine-times]

...students who are good with math are less likely to be happy, and are likely to have low confidence. From the article "In essence, happiness is overrated" says study author Tom Loveless.

Really? Didn't anyone stop to think that maybe math is overrated?

Re:Overrated

[Bamafan77]

..students who are good with math are less likely to be happy, and are likely to have low confidence. From the article "In essence, happiness is overrated" says study author Tom Loveless.

Really? Didn't anyone stop to think that maybe math is overrated?

From a purely economic standpoint, it definitely is as Philip Greenspun shows. So we should absolutely let these foreign kids move over and take the science and math jobs. The pay (mostly) stinks.

However, as I'm sure many will point out, there are other uses for math too, but unless you had some special teachers or mentors, you won't find out about them in the typical public schoo. Of course with guys like Tom Loveless dictating education policy and believing things like "happiness is overrated" and associating that with math, the negativity surrounding math comes as no suprise.

Re:Overrated

[PatriceVignon]

If you want to read the actual study you can find it here (PDF warning). Included are such gems as "American students are much more confident about their math abilities than Singaporean students" and "But even the least confident student in Singapore outscores the most confident American student!"
Food for thought.

Re:Overrated

[mikapc]

Success at the math at the price of everything else? There is a lot more to life then math and having self confidence is crucial to being able to get through the difficult times in life.

Re:Overrated

[WilliamSChips]

Not having an inflated sense of self-worth is pretty important too.

Re:Overrated

[danpsmith]

People kept focussing on making kids feel good and increasing their self-esteem, but they're finding that making kids feel good about math doesn't help them do well at math.

That's because math, like computers, functions on logical operations. Math doesn't care how you feel just as the computer doesn't hate you. In cases where people say things such as that, a lot of tech support people mutter PEBKAC under their breath. Some people are naturally inclined to be logical, and some aren't. Maybe it is something that can be taught, but if the pupil is uninterested, telling them they are doing well when they can't add 2+2 isn't going to make their wrong answer right.

Now it's time for my editorial take:

Unfortunately most people who are logical are less emotional and therefore have less of an understanding of others' emotions, emotional IQ or whatever they call it these days. Fortunately, I believe that part is easily educated. But it does require the math nerd to get out and mingle with people on a day-to-day basis. It all comes down to what I used to find to be a fact: it's difficult for a logically motivated person to understand people who are primarily motivated by emotions. Illogical decisions seem to be foreign and something not worth understanding, or not able to be understood. I think people who are on one side or the other tend to become embittered that not everyone is like them and so the two parties divide.

It's a common thing to say that people are stupid, most people are stupid, etc. But, honestly, we make up these "people." I would personally argue that someone who rides entirely on logic their whole lives are missing a great part of the picture and therefore are probably very unhappy. This is coming from a person who has always been good at logic, math, computers and used to hold the attitude that people are stupid. I'd argue that thinking that way makes you stupid as well. Understanding emotions, irrationality at times and freak events in life gives you a better understanding of people in general.

In short, math nerds need to condescend and stop trying to make every conversation they have revolve around complex mathematical or philosophical terms. A smart, logical, person can engage in a ten minute conversation about ice cream flavors and it can be emotionally stimulating. Stop being so stuffy and mingle with fellow humans: because you aren't always smarter than the rest of us even if you think you are.

Quite True

[Sqwubbsy]

I do a bit of work with folks from the Netherlands. Great folks. Great country.
One guy turned to me and said "I wish we could be as confident as you Americans are."
Struck me dumb. This is a bright guy who I highly respect and yet his focus, despite his strengths, was on confidence.

So I kicked his ass.
(Just kidding.)

Completley misleading summary

[jpardey]

All the article says is that students who are less confident and less happy with math are more likely to do well, in relation to how they feel about it, and how it is taught. Even the article seems to be misreading what it seems the study says. Sounds to me that harder, more complete math classes lead to better math skills.

That's easy...

[FlatCatInASlatVat]

One of the things it takes to be good at math is compulsiveness to complete tasks and to pay attention to detail. Those same drives are the ones that make you unhappy in the real world, which is by its nature messy, illogical and incomplete. Seems like in most arenas, the people who succeed are the ones who are internally driven and thus never really satisfied. Isn't that why most of the people at the top are off the bell curve in one or another aspect of social behavior?

RTFA

[Anonymous Coward]

The article says that people who are confident in their math ability or enjoy math tend to not be as good at math as student's who hate it. This relates entirely to math and not the person's confidence overall. The point of the article appears to be generally that classes that teach math without trying to sugar coat it or make it more enjoyable for students produces better math students.

Common Sense?

[imaginaryelf]

They asked 8th graders whether they enjoyed math and whether they feel they did well in math, and saw that those who enjoyed it more or were more confident in it scored the least well in math tests.

So what?

I used to think I was pretty good at tennis, until I got my butt kicked by someone who can play against me sitting in a chair, and then I saw that guy get his butt kicked by someone else who competed on a national level

And then I saw the light: I suck at tennis and I will have to put in a lot of time to get better, then I got kind of depressed for a while and enjoyed the game less.

QED.

Re:What nonsense

[xenocide2]

That's because they've found a place filled with people who think just like they do in the important ways. Perhaps future studies can show that people good with math surrounded by those who aren't will be unhappy ;)

Re:according to my calculations...

[paeanblack]

I think the actual point of the article is:

Ignorance is bliss.

Re:What nonsense

[Zenne]

Isn't the article talking about students who don't do good at math, but enjoy it (rather than the kind of students who grow up to be math professors)? "The eighth-grade results reflected a common pattern: The 10 nations whose /students enjoyed math/ the most all /scored below average/."

Re:If you thought New Math was bad...

[megaditto]

Sit back, relax, and let Darwin sort them out.

Blurb misrepresents the actual study

[foonf]

What this study found is that students from countries with higher average math scores have lower average enjoyment of and confidence in math than those from countries with lower scores. This does not actually imply that people who are more proficient in math enjoy it less than those who do not, in general, much less that they are less happy overall. What it does suggest is that educational systems that produce students who are more capable may be less enjoyable or result in less confidence, which actually makes a good deal of sense considering how math is taught in many countries that tend to perform well in these international comparisons.

Re:The more you know the more you don't know

[Anonymous Coward]

First RTFA because the poster was off. The article said students that were confident about math tended to do worse at it.

Actually, the FA didn't even say that. The study found that countries with higher average confidence levels in mathematics tended to have lower average performance levels in mathematics. Within each country, the correlation was positive: the better students tended to have higher confidence, and vice versa.

My suspicion is that the country-by-country correlation is a result of differences in how ambitious their curricula are. To be precise, I hypothesize that students exposed to more challenging mathematical curricula would tend to be both less confident and more skilled.

Correlation v. Causation

[descil]

Correlation does not equate causation.

How many times do I have to say this? Slashdot keeps making this mistake. Just because two things happen at the same time doesn't mean that one causes the other.

Re:Correlation v. Causation

[Scrameustache]

Correlation does not equate causation.
How many times do I have to say this? Slashdot keeps making this mistake. Just because two things happen at the same time doesn't mean that one causes the other.

What part of that: "A recent study by Brookings Institution's Brown Center shows that students who are good with math are less likely to be happy, and are likely to have low confidence." states a causation?

What is stated as the cause, and which is the effect? I only see a statement of correlation here.

Re:Correlation v. Causation

[descil]

Actually, the article is pretty good. I have some complaints about the validity of their study because of these statements:

"Nations that try to teach math in terms of daily life have the lowest test scores."
"Countries reporting higher levels of enjoyment and confidence among math students don't do as well in the subject"

Which seem to indicate a broad-level study ignoring individual people - in fact they are studying the entire country, and saying, "Okay well US students have high levels of confidence and enjoyment, and they do badly at Math. Chinese kids are less confident and happy, and they do well at math." Well okay yes, perhaps, but maybe US kids are just more confident because they don't get lambasted so often. And maybe Chinese kids are good at math because of the high pressure. At least, that's the explanation I've been given to understand. As another reply to my original comment says, there's not even necessarily a correlation here. Statistics lie, especially when you use such broad brush strokes, and ignore the statistics of individual people. For instance, in the US alone, do students with higher math skills correlate to lower confidence? The study does not say.

The causation problem I have is this:
"Study Shows Good With Math Means Bad With People"

Which indicates causality. It's not a problem with the article, but a problem with slashdot. Unfortunately, slashdot postings do not imply editor comprehension. There is absolutely NO sense of journalistic integrity on slashdot. Sure, it's a news re-posting site, but the blurbs are very important, since most people don't RTFA. I admit, I didn't until you complained at me ;)

Re:Correlation v. Causation

[siufish]

I hate it when this is repeated whenever the results of scientific experiments are posted on Slashdot.

In almost all fields of study (except pure math), it is unnecessary to prove causation. For example, F = ma quantifies the observed correlation between force and acceleration, but it does not prove that the force "causes" acceleration or the other way. Furthermore, philosophically speaking, real-world casuality can only be probablistic.

Showing correlation is a constructive way to advance science. Shouting "correlation does not equal causation!!" every time is not.

content

[Scrameustache]

If they're happy and confident, then they are content.

Let's look in the dictionary...
Main Entry: 2content
Function: transitive verb
1 : to appease the desires of
2 : to limit (oneself) in requirements, desires, or actions

They're content, so they're not pushing themselves.
The ones that are unhappy about their math skills are still striving to improve them.

it's a learned disability

[fishdan]

Children (especially girls) who show aptitude at math are treated as if they are social misfits, and their social missteps are toerated more than in "normal" children. Kids who are good at maath are frequently "taught" via positive reinforcement to be social misfits by society.

Re:it's a learned disability

[misanthrope101]

I always hear that, but I don't see it around me. Girls score higher than boys in most subject areas in school. Women make up more than half of all college students. A high percentage of law and medical students are female. Women are not penalized socially for being smart or articulate. What I have seen is that women who want to date a particular type of guy, the type who happens to be the jock alpha-male, have to try and fit in with the likes/dislikes of that type of guy, and they find themselves being someone they don't want to be, and resenting men for it.

But I don't think many perl hackers want dumb women. Speaking as an English major, I don't like dumb women. I have met women who pretended to be dumber than they were, but without exception these women wanted to date a type of guy who wanted that in a woman. They ignore all the men who like strong, intelligent women, and then conclude that society painted them into a corner. It's sort of like men who date strippers--it's not that women are that way, but that women you like are that way. A woman having bad taste in men doesn't make me a pig. And all the smart women I know are respected by those around them. Yes, some are called "the B word," just as some rude, pushy men are called assholes. People are people, and no one gets a free pass.

Re:it's a learned disability

[misanthrope101]

But heaven forbid I offer an opinion on a topic such as the current political climate, or the economy when I go home for a weekend. They don't want to hear it, not from me.

Everyone who isn't in step with O'Reilly and Coulter is shouted down in this political climate. I feel like a pariah just for saying something as obvious as "torture is wrong." Our culture is dominated by people who think that contempt and derision qualify as valid arguments. It's not as if these same people are all calm and logical when they aren't talking to women, and then break into the "how dare you" tone when someone with ovaries comes in the room. They're assholes with the rest of us, too.

People that have not lived in a situation where it is just easier to act dumb cant understand.

It's easier for anyone to act dumb. Doesn't matter if you're male or female. I get made fun of for having a decent vocabulary, for reading, for not watching TV and sports, and so on. I'm not saying "guys have it worse," only that much of the flak women think they're getting because they're female isn't really because they're female--we get it too.

Re:What nonsense

[javaxjb]

I was thinking the same thing, but when I RTFA (I know, shocking!) and came away with an entirely different impression that is more in line with my experience. The article isn't about how people feel in general, but how they feel about math. I absolutely detested the subject. I complained bitterly about the teachers, the subject, the requirements, etc., yet went on to major in physics and was one course short of a double major in math. Nevertheless, I am optimistic and fairly sociable. Said one colleague to a client she wanted me to help diagnose a problem (I'm now a programmer), "He's the most technical geek I know, but he talks like a normal person so you'll be able to understand him." But I really don't find that to be all that unusual about either the brighter students I knew in college or the current programmers and tech support staff at our company.

Good at Maths and with Women?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm posting anonymously for modesty's sake - but I happen to be very good at mathematics. I have a BSc in mathematics and comp sci, and a BE in electrical engineering. I also LOVE mathematics as a subject - I have continued my mathematics education privately since I've left University, and I'm rarely happier than when I finally understand a new mathematical concept.

I'm fortunate enough to be fairly attractive to the opposite sex. I can hardly take any credit for that, I guess I was lucky in the genetic lottery. I'm also very much at ease with women. I'm in my late 30s now - and since the age of 15 I've pretty much have never had to sleep alone unless I've wanted to, and many times I've pretty much had to knock back offers from attractive girls with a stick. I'm not a model or anything, and I can hardly call myself irresistible, but I've never really known what it's like to abstain for any length of time. Yeah, I'm also reading Slashdot - so what? I'm a geek at heart.

So why am I saying this? Because at times I've tried to bring up the fact that I love mathematics with some of the women I've known. I've learnt that that is the WRONG thing to do. I've found the hard way that I must keep my love for mathematics private. Whenever I'd talk about mathematics I've had eyes glaze over, and quickly had to hear that people had something urgent to take care of.

I consider myself to be a relatively happy individual, but I've learnt the hard way that I've had to keep my social life and mathematics separate. The fact that this study links maths ability with unhappiness is probably more a function of social attitudes to mathematics than a propensity to be unhappy. How can you be happy if you're rejected by society for your abilities, and have no other means to be appealing socially?

Good with Headlines: Bad with Reading?

[Cataleptic]

There seems to be a slow, inexorable trend in Slashdot headlines to misrepresent their content. Whether that's because the editors prefer a 'shocking' headline to an accurate one, or because no-one Rs TFA anymore, I guess we'll never know. Moreover, the survey compares countries, not students. The actual article (ZOMG!) seems to say that in countries where the average student enjoys their maths lessons and thinks they have a good handle on the content, their actual proficiency is sub-par. Presumably because their lessons are focused on entertainment and not content. Also, note that the article refers to grade 4 and grade 8. In most countries, maths education at this level still primarily consists of a lot of rote learning, in several disparate areas. I was a relatively competent maths-geek at school, and even for me maths only really stopped being a chore at about 10th grade.

"FUD" does not mean "bullshit"

[foreverdisillusioned]

I don't know why I bother to mention it anymore, but would you people please stop using "FUD" as a synonym of "bullshit"? Just because you disagree with the assertion doesn't mean that the study's authors are purposefully and maliciously spreading "fear, uncertainty, and doubt" about math geeks.

Re:Um, yeah?

[TapeCutter]

"If you want to mingle with people with high IQs, then try Menza."

It's "Mensa", and smart people don't pay Mensa to tell them they are smart.

Re:What nonsense

[raduf]

  The study is correct, it's just what it means is misunderstood. There is no correlation between good/bad happy/unhappy students, only between averages on nations. If a nation is successful in math and has the best students, the overall level will be higher but also most students, for which that level is a bit too much, will be unhappy with it. And since worse students make the majority (gauss curve), the average will be "unhappy".

American confidence

[slashdotmsiriv]

As we all suspected,

the overfed confidence of americans is an artifact of their education system.

this article talks about the special case of math education and associates math failure
with high confidence.

I guess it applies to many other fields, like politics, e.g. ppl feel confident about their great country and dont feel the need to sit down and think what their leaders may be doing wrong.

Also this whole attitude creates the PHB corporate culture. Since confidence is such a highly valued attribute, the more confident u are, the more likely it is that confident ppl end up in important positions. But confidence, especially in the US, is not positively correlated with actual skill. As a result, idiots become managers and CEOs.

I have a gut feeling that the Americans who created the first parliamentary democracy, won the WWII and sent ppl to the moon, drew confidence only from achievements not by having teachers or psychologists teaching them how to be confident. It may be time that America went back to the basics ...

you have it bassackwards

[misanthrope101]

No, I think you have it backwards. Women do have that certain something that men want, but that isn't the reason they aren't penalized for being smart. That's why they aren't penalized for being stupid. A smart, articulate woman has overcome not a conspiracy to keep her dumb, but a collective willingness to let her get away with being less smart than a man, because of that thing she has that the guys are after. It works against her in the long run, because expecting less of you is holding you down, but they can still get away with more if they happen to fill a sweater niceley.

An attractive woman can be a dunce and someone will still laugh at her jokes, hang on her every word, carry her luggage, and give her a job. For the wrong reasons? Absolutely. I sometimes think that's part of the reason that some men do find intelligent women frightening. Add the power they already have via their sex to their intelligence, and it can be daunting. The guy can be left wondering if she's thinking "I could sleep my way to the top and beat you anyway, but I'll play it your way just because I find this way more amusing for now." Even when a person has too much character to win that way, the fact that they have the option can be irritating.

Re:Um, yeah?

[Lumpy]

Actually Mensa is only for meeting self worshipping prima donnas that are high IQ. IF you have any social skills you get pretty pissed off at the dripping self love at mensa events.

I was invited to join Mensa and attended an event to meet others in the Ann Arbor area.. I lasted 2 hours before I found an excuse to leave. These people were social misfits for the social misfits! blatent rudeness, strange behaivoir, to the point that I was extremely uncomfortable around these people. Most of the men were busy trying to one up each other, high IQ football locker-room behaivoir is all it was, there were some that are simply way out there because genius and insanity are the opposite sides of that blade edge...

I did get one good thing out of that meeting though. A neo pegan libririan that was the wildest nymphomaniac I have ever met, smarter than hell and an appitite for sex that was mind blowing.

So yeah, if you are looking for freaky-deaky... Mensa is a good place to go looking.

Poor Presentation of a Silly Study

[MBCrawford]

Whoever posted this article they way they did at Slashdot should be ashamed to call themself a nerd. First, there is no mention of isolating the causes of unhappiness -- just the most broad kind of correlation. Second, math is work. Achievement in math is hard work. Anyone expecting short term happiness (happiness achieved during the school years) from hard work is just plain unrealistic. But, the study doesn't even answer the question as to whether or not those math students are happier later in life. I've personally always believed that smart people face tougher childhoods and easier adulthoods, and that the tradeoff of the effort is worth it. Why promote this article the way you're promoting it here? It's terrible science and headlined in much the way newspapers headline studies in ways that get people to read the headline, say "uh huh", then never read the article or think about whether or not there's something to the story. A better headline would have been "Another Researcher Gets Paid for Useless Study". This whole mess would have made a better Onion article.