Pzhon's Post about Math and Nerds

[David Sklansky]

"But I would guess that there are many more people who score 800 on the verbal and only 550 on the math portion of the SAT, than score 800 on the math and only 550 on the verbal."

"Probably not, because getting an 800 on the Verbal is so much rarer than getting an 800 on the Math."

The moment I read the first post I said to myself "That captures my points pretty well. But I can't use it because the much greater rarity of Verbal 800's, at least in my day, probably is enough of a factor to make the statement untrue. (It would be true if you said something like "top one percent" of scorers.) So I'll leave it alone. No one will notice."

But MMMMM did. So he is out of the doghouse after three years after being put there concerning his gambler's ruin post. He goes back above Mark Glover on the 2+2 rating scale. Next stop, El Diablo.

[Jazza]

[ QUOTE ]
"But I would guess that there are many more people who score 800 on the verbal and only 550 on the math portion of the SAT, than score 800 on the math and only 550 on the verbal."

"Probably not, because getting an 800 on the Verbal is so much rarer than getting an 800 on the Math."

The moment I read the first post I said to myself "That captures my points pretty well. But I can't use it because the much greater rarity of Verbal 800's, at least in my day, probably is enough of a factor to make the statement untrue. (It would be true if you said something like "top one percent" of scorers.) So I'll leave it alone. No one will notice."

But MMMMM did. So he is out of the doghouse after three years after being put there concerning his gambler's ruin post. He goes back above Mark Glover on the 2+2 rating scale. Next stop, El Diablo.

[/ QUOTE ]

damn, where am I? average unknown? where is this list and how do i get on top of it?

[andyfox]

I'm afraid to ask where I am.

[erby]

[quote
"Probably not, because getting an 800 on the Verbal is so much rarer than getting an 800 on the Math."

[/ QUOTE ]

The SATs are scored on a bell curve. While I had to answer every math question right to get an 800 on my test, my roommate got an 800 by missing 3 on his test. Another roommate of mine got a 780 by missing 1. Every test is different, and some may be harder than others. To counter this, they score on a curve. While it may be "harder" to get an 800 in verbal (because the average nuber of correct answers is higher), it certainly isn't "rarer".

ERBY [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]

[David Sklansky]

Unless they changed things, the curves are different. 780 is, or was, a higher percentile in verbal than math. Don't ask me why.

[fnord_too]

[ QUOTE ]


But I get the point. As I posted in the other thread: I agree that if you can do the math, you probably have the ability to do anything. But just knowing the math is not enough.

[/ QUOTE ]

One of Phzon's points, and this is consistent with my experiences, is that people who know the math also know the other stuff because they take the time to consider it. Your assertion that "math types, or scientists all too often neglect the other aspects of life" is just not consistent with what I have seen. (I am reading "all too often" to mean that it is, if not the norm, a reasonably high percentage, and not that if even 5% negelect those areas that is all to often.) I would say that math types and scientists are more likely than average to be aware of the other aspects of life, quite possibly because they are less apt to be gulled by sophistry (though they are certainly prone to make their share of stupid mistakes, and Tversky and Khaneman, et al, have cataloged many of them for us.)

[ QUOTE ]
And thinking that just knowing the math is enough is as bad as not knowing the math.

[/ QUOTE ]

This statement is very vague and I am not sure of the context you are assuming. In many cases, just knowing the math IS enough, and not knowing the math, even if you are attuned to all the other aspects of the situation, will hurt you more than knowing the math and being oblivious to the other considerations.

On the hubris bit, Shakespeare wrote "The fool doth think he is wise, but the wise man knows himself to be a fool." Most 'math people' I know resonate with that quote.

[ACPlayer]

Reflecting on this last night (see I can be categorized as a nerd --- I could have been drinking on the beach instead) the thought occured that it is far easier for a math person to delve into liberal arts fields on his/her own than vice versa.

There are two reasons that I identified: first is that the math vocabulary is different. IN order to understand calculus, even at a very basic leven one cannot simple pick up a calculus text and start reading it. While to for example to get a superficial knowledge of philosophical thought one could read and at least understand the words and sentences immediately a book by any philosphers.

The second is that math learning may be more sequential. Again a philospher on hearing about the relationship of quantam mechanics and philosphy would be hard pressed to understand much unless he first went through many layers of learning more basic math principles. A person schooled in quantam mechanics can make the reverse leap a lot easier.

None of this is to deny the value of formal education in either. It is only in a formal education setting, IMO, that the ability to critically think and separate the important from the unimportant comes in. It is in the interaction with others who share similar interests and the formal critique of your work that brings understanding.

That aspect of "arts" education, for me at least, is something that in retrospect I could/should have had more of. Just as, DS correctly identified that the non-mathematician should have had some more formal math education.

[Jazza]

i agree with phzon about studying other things besided just maths, but i still reckon there is a correlation between a lacking of social skills, and math majors (i'm about 80% certain)

[Dan Mezick]

Verbal processing very much engages conscious mind/left brain neurological hardware.

It is therefore no surprise that first-rate engineering minds are adept at such processing.

What is a surprise is how much subjective experience informs so-called rational decision making. Recent experiments and research in neuroscience confirm this. The conclusions are that the processing of emotion neurologically generates "a feeling" which is typically body-based in terms of outputs from the thinking (processing) of emotions. These feelings when accessed can substantially improve decision-making. The process of accessing feelings for use in decision making is mostly a right-brained facility.

I suspect many math-logic types are typically not found in the performing or visual arts precisely for these reasons. Such individuals may study these topics but never actualize what is studied logically. The way this probably works has to do with the absence of feelings as inputs in overall processing of the material. Right-brained types process feelings automatically while "lefties" must work at it.

I suspect that the arts are not overpopulated with math-logic adepts. It's interesting that the post here makes reference to assumed stereotypical "sub-par" body characteristics of (math-logic, left-brain processing) nerds.

While math-logic types certainly have typical human bodies, they do not typically process the bodily expression of emotion-- which every human experiences. What this leads to is a relative absence of feeling in decision making.

It is interesting that the post here makes reference to the stereotyped sub-par physique supposedly typical of "nerds". It is as if the poster understands that from the viewpoint of most observers, left-brained math-logic people do NOT appear to fully leverage the body in intellectual processing.

Those who may be interested in the root of these ideas may like to read the books at Antonio Damasio, a brilliant neurologist. A true scientist, he breaks new ground in describing how body-based emotion coupled with logical processing generates feelings. And feeling turns out to be an important key.

He cites several examples where various subjects have various kinds of accidents, or diseases, which damage specific regions of the brain. From there he uses logic to draw conclusions about the neurological basis of logic, emotion, feeling, and decision making. It turns out the body plays a central role in 3 of 4 of these items.

It appears that feelings can rapidly reduce the set of probabilities to consider in decision-making, improving decision speed without degrading overall decision quality.

I currently believe that math-logic types (if they like) can deliberately choose to focus attention towards body-informed, right-brain processing, to develop it further. A math-logic adept who chooses to examine Damasio and incorporate some of his work would be someone I would prefer to completely avoid at the poker table. (Especially no-limit.)

Whether artsy-feeling types can deliberately develop strong facility in math-logic is a completely open question.

The key book from Damasio on this topic is
Descartes Error: Emotion, Reason and the Feeling Brain

[ QUOTE ]
The idea that the mind exists as a distinct entity from the body has profoundly influenced Western culture since Descartes proclaimed, "I think, therefore I am." Damasio, head of neurology at the University of Iowa and a prominent researcher on human brain function, challenges this premise in a fascinating and well-reasoned argument on the central role that emotion and feelings play in human rationality. According to Damasio, the same brain structures regulating both human biology and behavior and are indispensable to normal cognitive processes. Damasio demonstrates how patients (his own as well as the 19th-century railroad worker Nicholas Gage) with prefrontal cortical damage can no longer generate the emotions necessary for effective decision-making.

[/ QUOTE ]

His other books are also great.

[fnord_too]

[ QUOTE ]


I suspect many math-logic types are typically not found in the performing or visual arts precisely for these reasons. Such individuals may study these topics but never actualize what is studied logically. The way this probably works has to do with the absence of feelings as inputs in overall processing of the material. Right-brained types process feelings automatically while "lefties" must work at it.

I suspect that the arts are not overpopulated with math-logic adepts. It's interesting that the post here makes reference to assumed stereotypical "sub-par" body characteristics of (math-logic, left-brain processing) nerds.

While math-logic types certainly have typical human bodies, they do not typically process the bodily expression of emotion-- which every human experiences. What this leads to is a relative absence of feeling in decision making.



[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that math-logic types (MTypes) have typical human bodies, but I don't agree with most of the other suspicions you express. Certainly, my experiences represent a small sample size, but I have not seen the things you hypothesized.

MTypes may or may not populate the performing or visual arts with any appreciable force, but I do not think that there is an inherant unnaturalness to it. That sentence is pretty horid, let me give some examples to illustrate what I am trying to say:
I am an MType, and when I took acting as an elective, or did contact improv for fun, I got into character quicker than just about anyone else there. It felt quite "natural" to me.
Most MTypes I know spend a lot of time and effort on artistic pursuits, beit drawing, writing, playing an instrument or what not.
Of the people I know, the MTypes are much more likely to actually take the time to enjoy the arts and will go farther out of their way to enjoy the arts (there may be a correlation to means there.)

In short, and I may have anomalous experiences, the MTypes I know do not display an "absense of feelings as inputs." Most are pretty tuned in to their own feelings and emotions. I certainly know some who are not, and I am not saying that non MTypes are lacking in these areas, just that I don't aggree with the notion that feeling and understanding feelings is somehow more difficult for MTypes. (Also, you may define math-logic types differently than I do. There was a poet who sentimentized that all arguments dwindled to definition. I wish I knew who that was (a professor once mentioned it in passing) since that notion has had a profound influence on how I think.)