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."
people suck...
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.
... 9 more.
Yeah, well, I think there's 10 types of people in this world. People who are good at binary, and
The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
I think Tom Loveless is suffering from a variant of nominative determinism with that finding.
Really? Didn't anyone stop to think that maybe math is overrated?
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.)
$30 Off All Plans: Use code TRIPLESAWBUCK
and finally a study to prove it. Now all we need is one more and we'll have a happy three studies!!! wait, if they do another one after that it'll be seven wonderous studies!
When all else fails, try.
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.
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.
I have freaks! I did something right...
H1 = T_h * e^-re; 1 = R_e / (SPE)^c * t * f(u) + l^2 / y; |d|i s_a / g^2 * (r_e)^e; I(h, a) = v ~ e; e^x * c_e * l^2 / (e^n * t) + s^(-oci) / a^l + |s_k|i * l^2 / s!
I'll form my OWN solar system! With blackjack! And hookers!
If that were true I'd be much better at math.
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
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?
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.
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.
If one reads the actual article, it's not about overall happiness/enjoyment but happiness and enjoyment when doing math. This has really little to do with the overall happiness of the society, though it could be used, along with other more general studies, for that purpose.
I kicked the math habit, and got laid!
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
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
Sit back, relax, and let Darwin sort them out.
Obama likes poor people so much, he wants to make more of them.
They have numbers in bars?! I'm not sure about "turning it on" whatever that means, but I'd probably be able to factor it and recite it as a multiple of pi.
D6 63 0D 70 89 81 BB 8E 7B 7C 5F 5D 54 EA AB 73
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.
"(Man) tries to live his own life as if he were telling a story. But you have to choose: live or tell." --Sartre
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.
Good with Slashdot Titles Means Bad With Reading Comprehension
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.
Nothing great was ever achieved without enthusiasm
Lawrence Person (lawrencepersonh@gmailh.com (remove all "h"s to mail)
http://www.lawrenceperson.com/
I don't think the guy who posted this read the article very well. I think they actually mean that the students who are most confident in their math skills tend to score the lowest on math aptitude tests. That isn't really news at all, as ignorance is bliss. The headline on Slashdot completely misses the actual point of the article which has nothing to do with social skills. Maybe the submitter could actually try reading the article more carefully. Of course, the entire article is phrased in such ambiguous language that it's difficult to discern what is meant by "confident." It has nothing to do with social skills.
SRSLY.
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
Slashdot's done it once again - it's patently stupid to say that "good with math means bad with people". This is not what the study says at all. It establishes a relationship between enjoyment of math and math skills. It also concludes that the more you were taught math as a fun game the less likely you are to be good at it. It mentions nothing at all about social skills in relationship to math.
... of one of my calculus professors from college. The guy was so socially awkward that if a student went up and asked him a question, he'd get really nervous, back away from them, and - if he could - pack up and leave the room. He NEVER failed a single student, because he didn't want to have to see them again. He sure was good at math, though.
Oh, you're not stuck, you're just unable to let go of the onion rings.
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.
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.
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.
"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.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
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
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.
Too late for anyone to read this, and I've no doubt there are a load of "Bullshit, just look at me/some famous guy" posts, but... The Myers Briggs personality-type test (so often used in profiling people for managament) identifies the "ENFP" type or "Champion/Advocate" as being exceptionally good with people, while usually also having a curious propensity for maths, due to their intuitive tendency and ability to seek patterns and deeper understanding in all things. Since ENFPs account for about 3% of the population, this would seem to fly in the face of the article. Just a thought. See here for a profile break-down.
Meta will eat itself
From reading the article the bottom line is this. Countries that try too hard to make a subject fun, and make all their students feel good about everything tend not to do as well. The simple lesson to be learned here is to stop being wusses and telling little Johnny that he did a great job even though he screwed up the whole thing. Tell him he is wrong and work with him to learn how to do it right. Contructive critisism. It makes people less arrogant and hopefully better people. I sometimes think that most people in my generation and after never learned about constructive critisism. Personally I prefer it. If I screwed up, I want to know that I did, I want to know why I screwed up, and how not to do it again. Are we so afraid of hurting little Johnny's feelings that we don't give a damn if he hurts himself? And we wonder why we have stupid lawsuits about not having proper warnings that hot coffee is hot, etc, etc.
"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.
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.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
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.