Slashdot Mirror
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."
I know this is just anecdotal, but maths professors and those who are doing pure maths tend to be some of the most well rounded and happy people I know. Its actually struck me before, since I never really applied myself to in depth mathematics, but I always noticed how those guys seem to be fairly relaxed about life.
What he can't kill, he has sex on. Trent.
I don't know if it's cause or effect, but I'm not surprised those with intense, focused pursuits have problems with human interaction on average. Interacting with people is a subtle and complex skill and it takes practice to be good. "Non-specialist" people have more time to interact with a wider spectrum of people, and as a result they are better at interaction. No surprise there - intense subjects like mathematics take lots of time to master and are not very social in nature. It's all about what people devote their time and energy to. (Insert usual caveot that statistical summarizations of trends are never binding or even useful when considering individuals.)
"Happiness" is a bit hard to make quantitative, so studies will be a little hard to evaluate or reproduce, but since human beings are designed to be social I would expect that a lack of social interaction would have a negative impact on their "happiness." There are fairly good survival reasons for people to prefer being with the group, although that is less true now than throught most of human history (where being the odd loner would most likely earn one the title "Box Lunch.") Modern civilization opens up opportunities for specialization, and in doing so also introduces relative isolation into the human social framework. How this will play out is not clear, but it's not surprising that there will be changes - human social controls and group socializations depend on knowledge of individual people and personalities. They don't scale well to cities of millions of people.
"I object to doing things that computers can do." -- Olin Shivers, lispers.org
Good with Slashdot Titles Means Bad With Reading Comprehension
They don't teach it without limits or continuity, at least in a more current edition of that textbook (circa 2002). What they do is just give you a very vague notion of limit and continuity that makes it seem haphazard. It wasn't until my advanced calculus (fourth semester in the sequence, supposedly junior level) course in the sequence that we actually really discussed the definition of a limit, the definition of continuity, the definition of the derivative.
:P
I understand why they do it. You can "do calculus" without knowing the formal definitions -- I mean, the definitions weren't even formalized until the late 1800s if I recall my mathematical timeline. But a lot of the rules for why you can and can't do things will just seem rather arbitrary and have to be taken as axioms that work until later on. I remember tutoring someone who took Calc II and it was really tough explaining why she couldn't do all the crazy things she wanted to do with limits like splitting them over arbitrary quotients and stuff. Hell, I had some problems on that front until I learned them in a rigorous way
Logic is mostly processed in the left hyppocampus. This part of the brain also processes depression. The two are neurologically linked.
The right hyppocampus processes joy, and also images/visualization.
Usually, both hyppocampi cannot be active at the same time. When one is dominant, the other is dormant.
Of course there are no absolutes, especially in the brain. No single brain organ is responsible for something like logic or happiness, and it is possible to train your brain to switch between them quickly and have them both active simultaneously (to some degree).
However, in general, people with well-developed left hyppocampi will be very good at logic and depression. The traditional personality stereotype is simply the path of least resistance for someone with this neurological emphasis. Changes to that are chemical in nature, and as such will require energy, time, and repetition.
DISCLAIMER: I am not a professional psychologist or neurologist..I just read all this stuff online.
You obviously have the priveledge of being educated, and surrounded by educated people.
:)
:P
I grew up in a small rural town. I was IQ tested in kindergarten because I was 'different', and after that was told to just deal with the work that I was given, cos I was too smart for the underfunded rural school system to deal with. (And my mum is a single mum, on welfare, and my younger brother is intellectually disabled. You wonder where the money went?)
Primary school was pretty good. I sat in the library and learnt about whatever I wanted to. I did activities with the other kids, but mostly I was self-directed.
High school things changed. I was put into the top stream for all the classes, but very soon I was confronted with the idea that 'Boys are Smarter', in particular 'Boys are Better at Maths'. Math wasn't my strong point in comparison to English and Science, so I was coming second. The person coming first was another GIRL.
In the 10th grade I was the ONLY Student in the school to get an A (between 90-100%) on the school certificate state exams for Science.
When I tried to enrol in Chemistry for year 11, I was told that Biology is the 'Girls Subject', and that I shouldn't study Chemistry because it was too hard for me. (None of the boys I asked had been warned off studying chem).
I went to the principal who happened to be a woman, and she had me enrolled anyway.
Since I left that little town and enrolled in University, I haven't dealt with that sort of crap. My boyfriend loves intelligent women, my friends love intelligent women, I know other intelligent women.
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.
People that have not lived in a situation where it is just easier to act dumb cant understand.
Even educated men can expect a woman to be stupid. My Boyfriend and one of his friends did their MBA together, and they used to love setting up some arrogant twat in an argument with me, and then pounce on him the moment I won.
Ah, good times, good times.
But with out the support of those guys telling my opponent not to talk over me, because I know what I am talking about, I would never have had the confidence to argue down men a decade my senior, with half an MBA under their belts.
Or maybe they just think I am dumb cos I am young and cute and blonde.
Maybe being female has very little to do with it.
Some women don't get that support.
I think this is true. Had I only gone to highschool, I probably would have thought I was one of the smartest people in the world. However, when I got to university, I saw that there were many people who were even much smarter than I was. I didn't have a problem with that. I think that a lot of people need to learn that they aren't the best person in the world at whatever is is they are good at (unless of course, they are). Some people have it so ingrained in their brain that they are better than everyone else, that they can never see anyone else's point of view. I think it's important for people to be aware that sometimes they can be wrong, and that some things in life are hard, and that you may have to work at it.
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
"It's" means "it is." That aside, which herd are you herding me into? Accusing me of hyperbole might have been warranted, but I'm honestly puzzled at your assessment of herd mentality. I actually do get shunned and ridiculed for saying "torture is wrong." Or is that very sentiment the "herd" mentality to which you object? I'm unclear on whether you're objecting to my opposition to torture, or to my perception that such opposition puts me in a rather unpopular (in certain circles) minority.
I don't mind people disagreeing with me, but you could have the common decency to say something. Your post is just contempt, but with no content to give me a reason to consider your viewpoint. You don't even present an argument, a premise, an allegation of fact, nothing. You haven't said anything. This is actually the very thing I referred to earlier in the thread. You seem to consider contempt and derision to be valid arguments. You are a strange creature.