Math and Nerds

[David Sklansky]

First here are three unfortunate but true statements regarding mathematics and to a lesser extent logic and physics.

1. A higher percentage of experts in these fields are nerds, than experts in other fields.

2. Deeply concentrating on these subjects at an early age has, on average, a deleterious effect on social skills.

3. How good you can get at these subjects is partially related to heredity and natural talent.

Some scientists and mathmeticians don't like to admit the truth of the above three statements. They point out that there are many socially adept people in their field. They stress that almost anyone can learn college math if they apply themselves. And they are right. But the three statements above are also right.

The PROBLEM here is that many people use those three facts (along with an erroneous opinion) to justify not studying math and formal logic. They point to the nerdy, only semi successful mathmeticians, and proclaim they don't want to be like that. They go on to say that they aren't talented enough anyway to get good enough in math where it will help them. Thus it isn't worth it and may even be deleterious to study the subject. But they are DEAD WRONG.

First of all if we are talking about people who have already developed social skills, learning math is obviously not going to hurt anything. Knowing the quadratic formula somehow makes you impolite? Even learning math at a young age is not bad for you unless you obsess over it. Its a simple syllogism error. Just because nerds are good at math doesn't mean getting good at math makes you a nerd.

As for the part where you need talent to get great at math, I say so what. That is only relevant if there was no value in getting merely good at math (and logic). But there most certainly is. Exactly how much value is open for debate. Perhaps there is not quite as much value as I think. Most people, on the other hand seriously underestimate the value. One of my big goals in life is to carry on my father's quest to show people their error regarding this. But even those who underestimate the value of studying math and logic have to admit there is at least SOME value. Most would admit that the value more than compensates for the few hundred hours of study. Yet they still don't do it. Their reason is often because of those three original statements above. Hopefully I have persuaded some to rethink that.

[Piz0wn0reD!!!!!!]

[ QUOTE ]
2. Deeply concentrating on these subjects at an early age has, on average, a deleterious effect on social skills.

[/ QUOTE ]

i think that the inclination to concentrate on said subjects is often directly related to poor social skills and vise versa. poor social skills are not a "result".

if you are from kenya, you are more likely to become a great distance runner. Becoming great at distance running doesnt make you more likely to be kenyan (sp?).

[mackthefork]

[ QUOTE ]


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Deeply concentrating on these subjects at an early age has, on average, a deleterious effect on social skills.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



i think that the inclination to concentrate on said subjects is often directly related to poor social skills and vise versa. poor social skills are not a "result".

if you are from kenya, you are more likely to become a great distance runner. Becoming great at distance running doesnt make you more likely to be kenyan (sp?).

[/ QUOTE ]

The sort of child that finds math interesting, useful or even easy to understand and use, is much more likely to have a lower level of emotional intelligence.

Mack

[TomCollins]

There are two schools of thought here-

1) Being a nerd and having the natural talent to succeed at math are not related directly. However, non-nerds are less likely to put the time into math, because of motivation (only nerds do it, I don't want to sit at a desk all day, I'd rather do something that impacted people on a day to day basis, etc...)

OR

2) Being a nerd directly has a correlation with mathematical talent. The "nerd gene" not only makes one anti-social, but also gives that raw talent that non-nerds don't have.

I'd be willing to stake it on a little of both. Where the breakdown lies is the question. It's probably around 25% 1, 75% 2.

But the real reason why more people don't learn basic math and logic isn't that they are afraid they will be nerdy or anything. It's that most people find it to be incredibly boring and uninteresting. Also, its taught in a terrible way that only makes it interesting for the nerds.

[TomCollins]

[ QUOTE ]
The sort of child that finds math interesting, useful or even easy to understand and use, is much more likely to have a lower level of emotional intelligence.


[/ QUOTE ]

Emotional Intelligence- a bogus term used by those with low intelligence to make up for their shortcomings.

[A_C_Slater]

NERDS!!! /images/graemlins/mad.gif

[mackthefork]

[ QUOTE ]
Emotional Intelligence- a bogus term used by those with low intelligence to make up for their shortcomings.

[/ QUOTE ]

Probably, it would be great if everyone was the same, however they are not. Some people make friends easy, some don't. Some have 160 IQs others have 105 IQs. Everyone has good points and bad points.

No one can do much about their intelligence level, you might say working hard will make a difference, but the difference is minimal, you just learn to parrot, the same thing applies to understanding people.

Mack

[David Sklansky]

"The sort of child that finds math interesting, useful or even easy to understand and use, is much more likely to have a lower level of emotional intelligence."

Mack

Do you include in your definition of "math" things like logic puzzles with no numbers involved?

Anyway you might be right about children who think math is interesting. There is a slight chance you are right about children who find math easy. But to avoid sounding ridiculous you should at least retract the "useful" part. The most non mathematical person in the world knows that there are many situations where it would be usefull to know math. Even some that apply to him.

Finally, even if you were right about everything, you did nothing to refute my statement that it is good to get better at math, if you can.

[Piz0wn0reD!!!!!!]

[ QUOTE ]

The sort of child that finds math interesting, useful or even easy to understand and use, is much more likely to have a lower level of emotional intelligence.



[/ QUOTE ]

thats my point. im saying that activley studying it doesnt result in poor social skills.

[BruceZ]

[ QUOTE ]
if you are from kenya, you are more likely to become a great distance runner. Becoming great at distance running doesnt make you more likely to be kenyan (sp?).

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually it does by Bayes' theorem, and if you understood math and logic you'd know that. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

It doesn't make it any more likely that *I* am Kenyan, because I already know that I'm not. But if all you know about someone is that he's a great distance runner, his chance of being Kenyan becomes substantially greater than before you learned that. Just consider how likely it is for a random person to be Kenyan compared to how likely it is for a random great distance runner to be Kenyan.

This principle is important. For example, "politically correct" people can't even admit that a young Arab man is more likely to be carrying a bomb in an airport than an 80 year-old grandmother from Iceland, and that a racial profiling strategy which makes it more probable for the young Arab man to be searched would, all else being equal, be more effective in catching bombers, even though this is (currently) indisputable, except by stupid people. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Piz0wn0reD!!!!!!]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
if you are from kenya, you are more likely to become a great distance runner. Becoming great at distance running doesnt make you more likely to be kenyan (sp?).

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually it does by Bayes' theorem, and if you understood math and logic you'd know that. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

It doesn't make it any more likely that *I* am Kenyan, because I already know that I'm not. But if all you know about someone is that he's a great distance runner, his chance of being Kenyan becomes substantially greater than before you learned that. Just consider how likely it is for a random person to be Kenyan compared to how likely it is for a random great distance runner to be Kenyan.

This principle is important. For example, "politically correct" people can't even admit that a young Arab man is more likely to be carrying a bomb in an airport than an 80 year-old grandmother from Iceland, and that a racial profiling strategy which makes it more probable for the young Arab man to be searched would, all else being equal, be more effective in catching bombers, even though this is (currently) indisputable, except by stupid people. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

i meant to imply that said person is NOT kenyan. my whole point was that becoming a great runner has no effect on your nationality.

[BruceZ]

[ QUOTE ]
i meant to imply that said person is NOT kenyan. my whole point was that becoming a great runner has no effect on your nationality.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, then I agree. No matter how fast I ran a race, I never came close to leaving my own.

[Piz0wn0reD!!!!!!]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
i meant to imply that said person is NOT kenyan. my whole point was that becoming a great runner has no effect on your nationality.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, then I agree. No matter how fast I ran a race, I never came close to leaving my own.

[/ QUOTE ]

now that i think aobut it, Bayes' theorem might not point a random great distance runner to being more likely kenyan than anything else. Being a world class marathon runner perhapse. But i think there are WAY more great distance runners who are not kenyan than there are world class marathon runners from kenya. I honelsty dont know the numbers, but i would estimate Bayes' theorm would state the probabilty of a great distance runner as either american, eurpoean or south american.

[BruceZ]

[ QUOTE ]
now that i think aobut it, Bayes' theorem might not point a random great distance runner to being more likely kenyan than anything else. Being a world class marathon runner perhapse. But i think there are WAY more great distance runners who are not kenyan than there are world class marathon runners from kenya.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not more likely than anything else, just more likely Kenyan, and less likely anything else, than he was before you learned that. For that it is irrelevant if there are more great distance runners that are non-Kenyan than Kenyan. All that matters is that there is a higher percentage of great distance runners from Kenya than the percentage of all people from Kenya.

Post hoc ergo proctor hoc was your original argument.

[BruceZ]

[ QUOTE ]
Post hoc ergo proctor hoc was your original argument.

[/ QUOTE ]

That this isn't true I mean.

[wmspringer]

[ QUOTE ]
Just because nerds are good at math doesn't mean getting good at math makes you a nerd.

[/ QUOTE ]

But what's wrong with being a nerd? /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[andyfox]

"Knowing the quadratic formula somehow makes you impolite?"

Apparently.

[andyfox]

"Most would admit that the value more than compensates for the few hundred hours of study. Yet they still don't do it.
Their reason is often because of those three original statements above."

I doubt that either the first sentence above is correct nor the third. Most simply don't think about it. Perhaps if you forced them to, and then explained why, they would so admit. But most people are too busy putting bread on the table and trying to enjoy the limited time they have here to worry about math that they hated to do when they were in high school.

People may joke about math nerds and think, when they think about it at all, which is seldom, that they couldn't be great at math because of their genes, but math simply isn't relevant to their lives. People just don't care about being logical to the extent that you do. I imagine your argument is that that's one reason, perhaps the main reason, why the world is screwed up. But one could also argue that the scientists and mathematicians, by falsely applying their theorems and proofs to situations where non-scientific or non-mathematical parameters are important, have also screwed up the world.

No doubt most people do indeed underestimate the value of mathematical competence. But Sklanskies underestimate the value of metis, or local knowledge.

[oneeye13]

[ QUOTE ]
The sort of child that finds math interesting, useful or even easy to understand and use, is much more likely to have a lower level of emotional intelligence.


[/ QUOTE ]

this comes from the theory that there are five or seven intelligences and their sum is constant?

[Jazza]

I agree, I consider myself a said nerd and embrace it

But I'm not a geek, I veiw nerds as cool. I just finished a physics degree and just started s masters in statistics, so I am evidence to support your theory.

btw though I am athletic, with good co-ordianition and reactions and average speed and strength, for what it's worth

[mackthefork]

[ QUOTE ]
Do you include in your definition of "math" things like logic puzzles with no numbers involved?


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes

[ QUOTE ]
Anyway you might be right about children who think math is interesting. There is a slight chance you are right about children who find math easy. But to avoid sounding ridiculous you should at least retract the "useful" part.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes that happens when I don't make myself clear, what I meant was the ones who consider math useful at a very young age, we all know its very useful, but its seemingly unnatural for a child to find it so.

Mack

[PairTheBoard]

I think this whole "Nerd" thing is a load of crap. It's a juvenile stereotype that stems from envy and a trashy bullying mentality. When I was in high school, those of us who were good in math were called "brains". I didn't like that term even then but it was at least better than Nerd. Most of the Brains included the most desirable girls and some of the most socially and athletically successful guys.

This ridiculous Nerd stereotyping should just be deconstructed. It is designed to allienate and bully. The last thing anyone who wants to promote the study of mathematics should do is perpetuate it.

When I was in graduate school I can't recall one fellow graduate student who in any way shape or form resembled anything you would call a nerd. I can't recall anyone on Faculty who fit that description either. The Math Faculty parties I went to had some of the most socially skillful and nicest people in attendance that I've had the privilege of knowing.

Now Nerdish Poker Players are another thing.

PairTheBoard

[Darryl_P]

100% agree with everything in the original post except the last bit ie. that it is worth the investment for most people. Modern society is structured to reward docility and obedience, two traits which are inversely correlated with original thought which, in turn, is highly correlated with skill at math and logic. People with lesser abilities figure (correctly imo) that they can outsource most math needs they have, making it more economically feasible to concentrate on their natural strengths. And if you look at the number of people who, for whatever psychological reasons, share their math knowledge for free on the internet and who devote their energies to teaching for very low salaries, you can't help but conclude that the market does not place a high value on mathematics knowledge.

Of course there's nothing wrong with fighting against these market forces, but the most effective way would be for those with the knowledge to not share it so freely...kind of like a woman who spreads her legs for everyone vs. one who plays hard to get. The second one will get much more attention from men in the long run, all else being equal.

[mackthefork]

[ QUOTE ]
btw though I am athletic, with good co-ordianition and reactions and average speed and strength, for what it's worth

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm better than average in every sport I ever played, never great at anything, the best thing I probably ever did was run a couple of 10 mile road races in just under an hour. I don't believe there is a correlation between high intelligence and lack of sporting prowess, lack of exercise and lack of sporting prowess is another thing entirely.

Mack

[mackthefork]

[ QUOTE ]
i meant to imply that said person is NOT kenyan. my whole point was that becoming a great runner has no effect on your nationality.

[/ QUOTE ]

Becoming a great runner, makes people less likely to be Kenyan. I get your point just trying to be difficult.

Regards Mack

[The once and future king]

I hate to repeat myself but:

[ QUOTE ]
Any notions of self, rights, liberty and freedom that you have are all results of philisophical thinking, as are all the political structures that control your life.

Non of the above concepts have any empirical truth and can not be proven in the labratory. God shmod who cares, philosophy has much bigger and much more relevant fish to fry.

As I said a calculator is great at computation but is dumber than a snail. However much you say my claims about calculators are ridiculous it is intresting to observe that after machines replace the role of the labourer they are now replacing the role of the mathemetician in the industrial crucible. It will of course take machines much longer to replace higher functions of the intellect such as creative and incisive thought and thought for thoughts sake.

The reason you should kill yourself is that you place no value in the thing that makes you unique, e.g. your subjectivity as you seek to render it pointless.

When a man thinks mathematicaly he is turning his mind into an object, an object that must conform to universal rules to reach correct conclusions. That is why an other object (calulator) can replace this function, indeed an object superior (faster) at reaching the necessary conclusions.

If you want to turn yourself into an object go for it, but objects are lifeless. So as I said might as well kill yourself.

Subjectivity is our uniqueness. Animals have it too one might suppose, so what sets us apart from them. The quality of our subjectivity.

That is why complex and subtle thought is the highest endevour of the human being, not for the result as in conclusions, but for the act itself. The act improves the quality of subjectivity. Whilst as you have said there are no transcendent purposes or truths (No god etc) the fact of our subjectivity is the reality of our existence. Being is the separation of thought and object.

What you do with that subjectivity is upto you of course but if you chose to set your will to negating it than why exist in the first place? If you chose to make the most of it you will quilckly see that thought is important for thoughts sake.

The purpose of existance is to exist but one does not do that merely by the act of drawing breath.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is why a study of Maths and science can turn you into a nerd. Do you see why?

[David Sklansky]

"But most people are too busy putting bread on the table and trying to enjoy the limited time they have here to worry about math that they hated to do when they were in high school."

OK. I'll give you that. The object of my post though wasn't really the whole human population, the majority of whom are doomed to lead lives of quiet desperation. I am talking about those people at a higher level who consciously DECIDE and may even DECLARE that math and more importantly formal logic is not worth learning, in spite of the fact that they are involved in endeavors where it would be.

[BluffTHIS!]

Since many studies on IQ show that intelligence in a family often regresses slightly toward the mean with each succeeding generation, I would assume that Matt has better social skills than you, even if you did make him study partial differential equations as a child while the rest of us were reading comics.

[pzhon]

[ QUOTE ]
1. A higher percentage of experts in these fields are nerds, than experts in other fields.

2. Deeply concentrating on these subjects at an early age has, on average, a deleterious effect on social skills.

[/ QUOTE ]
What is the evidence for these statements? I don't accept them, particularly if you add the word "significantly" to each.

The common wisdom is that these are true. However, the common wisdom is wrong about many things. "Tournaments are all about survival." "You just can't beat bad players."

What you may need for your argument is not that these statements are true, but that many people think they are true.

[pzhon]

[ QUOTE ]

As for the part where you need talent to get great at math, I say so what. That is only relevant if there was no value in getting merely good at math (and logic). But there most certainly is. Exactly how much value is open for debate. Perhaps there is not quite as much value as I think. Most people, on the other hand seriously underestimate the value. One of my big goals in life is to carry on my father's quest to show people their error regarding this. But even those who underestimate the value of studying math and logic have to admit there is at least SOME value.

[/ QUOTE ]
Many K-12 mathematics teachers do not believe learning mathematics is useful for most people. They confuse calculations with mathematics, and tell students they need to know mathematics in case their calculators break. This is not the point of teaching mathematics to the general population, and it is a shame many mathematics teachers do not understand this. (Most people should find mathematics useful for creating and analyzing mathematical models of financial situations, and for understanding statistical information.) If you want to change the bias against mathematics, you might want to target K-12 mathematics teachers and the K-12 curriculum.

[ACPlayer]

When I was in Grad School the Comp Sci department was full of Nerds. The professor with whom I started by Ph D there was a classic nerd.

When I worked in the Comp Sci department at Carnegie Mellon the school was full of Nerds. Specially the grad students -- the conversations were about nothing but software and systems. Of course those were very interesting times (circa 1980) with the various RFCs defining the Internet just coming out and a lot of computational theory still being worked on. Much better to talk about that then to discuss Carter's positions or the stock market back then.

It seems to me that once you leave grad school and become a faculty member, have a family etc, you start to develop more of a "personality". And with the subject group being highly intelligent the ability to discuss various topics comes easier than a group of "average" joes.

Now Business grad school was full of people who were always talking money. But in general a far more outgoing and varied group.

[jakethebake]

So where do brilliant mathematicians that also bang strippers for free fit into all this?

[David Sklansky]

To my knowledge only Richard Feynman is in that category. That is why you never hear me say that I am smarter than him.

[mslif]

[ QUOTE ]
To my knowledge only Richard Feynman is in that category. That is why you never hear me say that I am smarter than him.

[/ QUOTE ]

Dr. Feynman was definitely an "out-of-the-ordinary" scientist. I will never forget some of his quotes such as:

"Physics is like sex. Sure, it may give some practical results, but that's not why we do it."

[David Sklansky]

1. A higher percentage of experts in these fields are nerds, than experts in other fields.

2. Deeply concentrating on these subjects at an early age has, on average, a deleterious effect on social skills.


"What is the evidence for these statements? I don't accept them, particularly if you add the word "significantly" to each."

You might be right. I'm just using a debating trick. (One that Bossjj should learn). When an opponent comes to a conclusion that you dispute, because of several things that he asserts that lead him to that conclusion, you can grant him some or all of those assertions, (true or not) if you can show that they do not lead to his conclusion. I never argue debatable assertions if they are not necessary to make my point. I'm surprised that no one has noticed this.

[andyfox]

"'politically correct' people can't even admit that a young Arab man is more likely to be carrying a bomb in an airport than an 80 year-old grandmother from Iceland"

I don't think that's true. The "politically correct" probably admit that the Arab man is more likely to be carrying a bomb than the Icelandic woman, but they feel that the civil liberties violations which would ensue in profiling are more important than the unlikely chance that such profiling would catch a bomb-wielder. Strict cost-benefit analysis, I would think.

[andyfox]

Fair enough.

[ihardlyknowher]

[ QUOTE ]
I would assume that Matt has better social skills than you, even if you did make him study partial differential equations as a child while the rest of us were reading comics.

[/ QUOTE ]

How does reading comics not make you a nerd? /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[lehighguy]

People want to feel good. Feeling good is an emotional response. For some people, having to understand math or logic might invalidate worldviews that give them emotional satisfaction.

It is possible for someone to convince themselves of something that is false if doing so serves some other purpose. After all, people convince themselves of all sorts of things (I will be a football star, global warming doesn't exist) because they WANT to. Therefore, it is possible for someone to convince themselves math/logic is not important for a variety of emotional reasons (they don't want to put in the time to learn it, they don't understand its value, it invalidates thier worldview, it makes them feel bad, etc.).

Ignorance is bliss to some. I don't understand it myself, as logic brings me great joy. However, I think that a taste for logical inquiry is just like a taste for tea or coffee. Some people like the stuff, some don't. Similairly, some like logical inquiry, others don't. It is this predisposition that effects most peoples views on the subject.

[SL__72]

I'm just curious, but what qualifies someone as a nerd? Is it a lack of social skills? A pocket protector? Or a greater then average interest in math/science? Or is it when all of the above are true of the person?

[kiddj]

Stereotyping people who are good at math as "nerds" is just an attempt by the ignorant and/or less intelligent to disguise their own insecurity and project superiority over superior-minded people. /images/graemlins/mad.gif

Does it make any sense to chastise people (or group of people) who are better at something than you? Is Andre Agassi a dork because he's a superior tennis player? Do we have threads here about how Doyle Brunson has wasted his life playing a stupid card game? No. Even if we don't like tennis or don't play poker, we respect the skill of these talented people.

I get a little annoyed when I hear the "I don't need to be good at math" argument, although this by itself usually isn't far from the truth. One doesn't NEED to be good at anything except for maybe breathing or finding food. The skills that people should desire are problem solving, logical decision making, and basic financial mathematics. Studying/understanding mathematical concepts helps build the foundation for these skills.

Is it necessary to be able to do your own taxes, balance your check book, or figure out compounding variable interest on a loan? Can you think of a time in your life where NOT PAYING SOMEONE ELSE to do it would have been great? Yeah, those programs that do accounting and tax returns are magnificent. Do you know where the people who develop those programs spend their weekends? At their beach house, scuba diving from their boat with hot chicks (or families with a hot wife). Nerds?

I've seen the people (nerdish) that everyone seems to think that all mathematically inclined people are. They are actually few and far between. Their EQ is definitely low, but the correlation between EQ and IQ is not high (contrary to earlier posts). What would we think about someone with a low EQ AND no math skills (or low IQ)? Would it be right to negatively stereotype them?

As long as communication skills and EQ are equal, people with a higher math ability have an advantage over those who do not in every aspect of life. School. College. Business. Engineering. Financial markets. Even poker. Do you see why?

[kiddj]

[ QUOTE ]
I think this whole "Nerd" thing is a load of crap. It's a juvenile stereotype that stems from envy and a trashy bullying mentality. When I was in high school, those of us who were good in math were called "brains". I didn't like that term even then but it was at least better than Nerd. Most of the Brains included the most desirable girls and some of the most socially and athletically successful guys.

This ridiculous Nerd stereotyping should just be deconstructed. It is designed to allienate and bully. The last thing anyone who wants to promote the study of mathematics should do is perpetuate it.

When I was in graduate school I can't recall one fellow graduate student who in any way shape or form resembled anything you would call a nerd. I can't recall anyone on Faculty who fit that description either. The Math Faculty parties I went to had some of the most socially skillful and nicest people in attendance that I've had the privilege of knowing.

Now Nerdish Poker Players are another thing.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

Amen.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
I never argue debatable assertions if they are not necessary to make my point. I'm surprised that no one has noticed this.

[/ QUOTE ]

Some of us had noticed!

I'll make one. If you want to significantly improve the standard of maths in the general population then the only practical way is to improve the quality of maths teaching to kids.

chez

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
1. A higher percentage of experts in these fields are nerds, than experts in other fields.

2. Deeply concentrating on these subjects at an early age has, on average, a deleterious effect on social skills.


"What is the evidence for these statements? I don't accept them, particularly if you add the word "significantly" to each."

You might be right. I'm just using a debating trick. (One that Bossjj should learn). When an opponent comes to a conclusion that you dispute, because of several things that he asserts that lead him to that conclusion, you can grant him some or all of those assertions, (true or not) if you can show that they do not lead to his conclusion. I never argue debatable assertions if they are not necessary to make my point. I'm surprised that no one has noticed this.

[/ QUOTE ]

In that case, for the sake of the sales presentation I suggest you replace the Nerd assertions with the following, as I am using them to dispute your main point.

1. If you are a girl you should NOT do math because you may end up looking like this Mathematician:
Danica Mckellar (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Number=3030023&page=0&view=c ollapsed&sb=5&o=&vc=1)
2. If you are a guy you should NOT do Math because you will have to hang out with girls who look like this:
Prototype Female Mathematician (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Number=3026108&page=0&view=c ollapsed&sb=5&o=&fpart=1)


PairTheBoard

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
1. A higher percentage of experts in these fields are nerds, than experts in other fields.

2. Deeply concentrating on these subjects at an early age has, on average, a deleterious effect on social skills.


"What is the evidence for these statements? I don't accept them, particularly if you add the word "significantly" to each."

You might be right. I'm just using a debating trick. (One that Bossjj should learn). When an opponent comes to a conclusion that you dispute, because of several things that he asserts that lead him to that conclusion, you can grant him some or all of those assertions, (true or not) if you can show that they do not lead to his conclusion. I never argue debatable assertions if they are not necessary to make my point. I'm surprised that no one has noticed this.

[/ QUOTE ]

In that case, for the sake of the sales presentation I suggest you replace the Nerd assertions with the following, as I am using them to dispute your main point.

1. If you are a girl you should NOT do math because you may end up looking like this Mathematician:
Danica Mckellar (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Number=3030023&page=0&view=c ollapsed&sb=5&o=&vc=1)
2. If you are a guy you should NOT do Math because you will have to hang out with girls who look like this:
Prototype Female Mathematician (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Number=3026108&page=0&view=c ollapsed&sb=5&o=&fpart=1)


PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

Typical mathematician: "Have you got any nerd in you"
Danica Mckellar: "No!"
Typical mathematician: "Would you like some"

[ACPlayer]

I think it works both ways. Highly intelligent people exist who show little interest or aptitude for simple mathematics. Attempt to survive math class and then proceed to use any and all tools to avoid doing math. As you say, they should invest some effort in overcoming this gap.

Mathematical nerds typically end up with vast exposure to the subject that interests them but little exposure to the arts, philosophy, literature, history or psychology. Which is why many end up with few people skills and are loners. If they took a modest percentage of their intelligence and applied it to the study of the "liberal arts" they would emerge as better individuals, capable of leading people and influencing people.

[goofball]

[ QUOTE ]
To my knowledge only Richard Feynman is in that category. That is why you never hear me say that I am smarter than him.

[/ QUOTE ]

A colossal concession. AKAIK No one I know of living today is smarter than Richard Feynman. If his physics was able to even be barely understood by laypeople he would be immensely more popular.

[tek]

[ QUOTE ]
I think it works both ways. Highly intelligent people exist who show little interest or aptitude for simple mathematics. Attempt to survive math class and then proceed to use any and all tools to avoid doing math. As you say, they should invest some effort in overcoming this gap.

Mathematical nerds typically end up with vast exposure to the subject that interests them but little exposure to the arts, philosophy, literature, history or psychology. Which is why many end up with few people skills and are loners. If they took a modest percentage of their intelligence and applied it to the study of the "liberal arts" they would emerge as better individuals, capable of leading people and influencing people.

[/ QUOTE ]

You could get banned for insulting him like that /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

[pzhon]

[ QUOTE ]

Mathematical nerds typically end up with vast exposure to the subject that interests them but little exposure to the arts, philosophy, literature, history or psychology. Which is why many end up with few people skills and are loners. If they took a modest percentage of their intelligence and applied it to the study of the "liberal arts" they would emerge as better individuals, capable of leading people and influencing people.

[/ QUOTE ]
In my experience, almost all mathematics majors spend a lot of time studying the arts, philosophy, literature, etc. Few humanities majors take many substantial classes in mathematics or science. However, people still feel compelled to assume that any strength comes with a weakness. It's greatly upsetting to people to realize that someone may be better than them in every academic category. Luckily for them, a well-rounded intellect usually comes with a frail physique, or at least small genitals. Not. Stereotypes of illiterate engineers comfort insecure people, but they are not based in fact.

Quick: What is the average verbal SAT score of a Caltech freshman? Answer in white: <font color="white">About 730. </font> source (http://diversity.caltech.edu/dpg_reports/irvine06-04/Data.pdf)

[Dan Mezick]

David,

The math/logic types are majority left-brained processors. What this means in practical terms in most of what you stated, and alot more.

One somewhat tragic side effect is often a total inability to deeply experience feelings. Not emotions. Feelings.

This often means that, for these individuals, .5 of the greatest experiences a human can potentially have may not be fully available to those with a left-brain, math-logic skew.

It can also make approaching spirituality (not 'religion' per se) very frustrating.

[ACPlayer]

From my experience I must disagree. Although my education is not in mathematics but in engineering.

Given a choice of electives the math nerd takes a math related class, not a class on sociology. Given a choice of reading popular psychology or scientific american, etc, etc.

Now, it is true that highly intelligent "nerdy" people subject themselves to a lot of reading, because that is what they are good at. They are more likely, in my experience, to open a book then to head to a pub for pint. If the book happens to be a book on philosophy so be it.

In my school, we were required to take a number of liberal arts classes prior to graduation. That is a good thing. I however, believe that my personal education lacked enough of an arts background (though that could well just be the fact that at that time I was not interested in anything other than math and physics in particular). Despite that I scored in the 99th percentile in both quant and verbal categories in the GREs and GMATs. I was always a good test taker /images/graemlins/grin.gif

Do you know, if the liberal arts programs require math/science classes? If not they should.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
From my experience I must disagree. Although my education is not in mathematics but in engineering.

[/ QUOTE ]

There's what is causing your perception problem. Math and engineering cirricula are vastly different. Large universities generally have engineering spun off into a seperate college because of these differences.

[ QUOTE ]
Given a choice of electives the math nerd takes a math related class, not a class on sociology.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not true in my experience.

I'll just repost what I posted in the sub-thread that DS started (BTW, DS, bad form there).

[ QUOTE ]
This [Referring to pzhon's assertion that "almost all mathematics majors spend a lot of time studying the arts, philosophy, literature, etc."] is true in my experience (as a math major with an art history minor). The other people in my program generally took a wide variety of electives. Students in engineering or hard science programs were generally *much* nerdier than the math majors, and their electives tended to center around fields related to their majors (i.e. engineering students taking many math electives, biology students taking chemistry electives, etc.) Many of these programs don't give their students a lot of flexibility in the choice of their electives, though. Math, on the other hand, does not have any external requirements for the major.

Engineering is by far the worst in this regard, as the programs are so onerous that students have very little freedom to choose outside electives if they wish to complete their programs in four years.

[/ QUOTE ]

[pzhon]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In my experience, almost all mathematics majors spend a lot of time studying the arts, philosophy, literature, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]
From my experience I must disagree. Although my education is not in mathematics but in engineering.

[/ QUOTE ]

There's what is causing your perception problem. Math and engineering cirricula are vastly different. Large universities generally have engineering spun off into a seperate college because of these differences.
...
[Engineering] programs are so onerous that students have very little freedom to choose outside electives if they wish to complete their programs in four years.

[/ QUOTE ]
Thanks for making that point, pvn.

If I had been talking about engineering students, I would not have said "almost all." The requirements vary from school to school, but some engineering schools try to fit a 5 year program into 4 years. Some have moved toward making 5 years the standard time for completion.

Mathematics programs are the opposite. Even at elite universities, it is usually possible to finish the minimum requirements for a mathematics major in 2 years. Doing much more than the minimum still leaves a lot of time to study physics, music, karate, and beer.

Engineers are still far more literate than the general population. Sometimes this is because they were dragged kicking and screaming through required humanities courses that were substantial. Sometimes it is because a person who was prepared to do almost anything chose engineering.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
"Knowing the quadratic formula somehow makes you impolite?" Apparently.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, let's be precise: Jocks are impolite.

Nerds do not know the difference between polite and impolite.

[warlockjd]

IMO, Logic classes should be much more intensive, start in Kindergarten, and be the main course of study (as needed depending on the case) for 15-25% of all instruction in grades K-12.

Do any countries do this?

Japan? I know we don't.

[ACPlayer]

.