# the culture of math



## Chaska Ñawi

In Canada, I regret to say, it's perfectly for an adult to say, "I just can't do math", "I don't have the genes for math", "I was never any good at math", etc.  This is said, even by elementary teachers, in tones of resigned indifference.  We live in a culture where not doing well in math is perfectably acceptable, whereas you would never hear somebody announce in the same tone that they were functionally illiterate.

I don't know whether so many Canadians believe we're bad at math because too many incompetent teachers told us so, because we were never assessed properly, because we associated math with long agonizing periods at the board in front of the entire class, or what happened to us.  

It isn't just limited to Canadians.  Ten years or so ago in the U.S. Matel launched a new line of talking Barbie, who said, "Math is so hard!".  We in North America seem to be resigned to this myth that we can't do math, and that it isn't important that we can't.

Is this true anywhere else?


----------



## alexacohen

> Originally posted by *Chaska Ñawi*
> We in North America seem to be resigned to this myth that we can't do math, and that it isn't important that we can't.
> Is this true anywhere else?


Yes. Here.


----------



## sureño

alexacohen said:


> Yes. Here.


*" Do not start or answer threads*
*that could be answered by a simple yes or no"*
Well Chaska… according with cultural guidelines, seems to me you should close your own thread. 
But don’t worry; I’m going to save you to do that with a longer answer.
In Argentina there are a lot of people saying the same. I think on certain aspect, they feel if they declare their incapacity with math, people automatically will think they are very good for literature and others subjects like that. It seems there is a sort of non declared rule in this sense. 
Another subject that (at least here) many adult people assume they are completely and irremediably ignorant (in similar way they do with math) is about computer issues.


----------



## bibliolept

There was a bit of an outcry when that doll shipped: many people thought it sent the wrong message, patronized girls, etc.

There are many tasks and skills which people claim are beyond them; auto maintenance, is one example. There are others that are more regrettable: the appreciation of art or poetry, simple arithmetic, politics and international affairs, critical scientific issues, economics....

These admissions, that people cannot cope with this world, are unfortunate. A democracy assumes that people can understand the real issues to some substantial degree. Of course, governments work very hard to simply things for us...


----------



## divina

Chaska Ñawi said:


> Ten years or so ago in the U.S. Matel launched a new line of talking Barbie, who said, "Math is so hard!".



I literally laughed out loud when I read this, because so many people protested and complained about how it was sending a message that females by default aren't good at math, that Mattel actually changed the Barbie so that she would say "Math is so much fun!" instead.


----------



## Forero

I have heard it all here, including children being taught that math is not womanly and/or that reading is not manly and statements of pride at being functionally illiterate or unable to understand logic.

The other thing that happens is that people sometimes become proud of arcane knowledge of something that no one else knows, and they want to be sure no one else has the opportunity to learn it.

I am afraid these attitudes really are difficult for me to cope with sometimes, especially when I encounter people with them in positions of power.


----------



## Carolina Rocío

I think for my country the answer is yes, we see this too a lot (guilty here).  But thinking a little bit more, I remember this was not like that many (many) years ago.  I don't know, maybe as a kid I didn't listen to those statements (that could have been around without I noticing them), or maybe the world seemed more perfect in that aspect to me ...


----------



## divina

Chaska Ñawi said:


> We live in a culture where not doing well in math is perfectably acceptable, whereas you would never hear somebody announce in the same tone that they were functionally illiterate.



It probably appears that way because to a lot of people, being able to read is more important than being able to do math. Because you have to be able to read instructions on how to do the math problems. Also, in the elementary schools here kids up until about the 3rd grade (age 8-9) learn to read; in 3rd grade and beyond kids are expected to "read to learn". Point being, math is just one subject while reading covers everything. If that makes any sense.

Another thing, maybe it's not so much the not doing well in math part itself, but the _bragging_ about not being good at math, that is acceptable and sometimes even encouraged. I don't know about other countries, but here in the US bragging about some of the stupidest things seems to be a popular hobby. I've had quite a few teachers growing up, who would tell the class that they couldn't do math. They said this as if they were trying to be funny or something.


----------



## Forero

The old myth (from the 1950s) was that math is very painful to learn, except for exceptional people, but worth learning.  The new myth is that math is hard to learn and not worth it.  I think that education under the old myth probably helped to create the new myth.


----------



## divina

Forero said:


> The old myth (from the 1950s) was that math is very painful to learn, except for exceptional people, but worth learning.  The new myth is that math is hard to learn and not worth it.  I think that education under the old myth probably helped to create the new myth.



The old myth must have had some truth to it then. Because myths wouldn't exist if there weren't some truth to base them on.


----------



## alinapopi

This doesn't happen in Romania. At least it didin't happn in my school times. Maths was the most difficult and important subject (together with Romanian Language and Literature) and everybody had to study hardly, because all the exams (for registering in highschool, etc.) included a Maths one.


----------



## bibliolept

Forero said:


> I have heard it all here, including children being taught that math is not womanly and/or that reading is not manly and statements of pride at being functionally illiterate or unable to understand logic.



I wish I knew the root of the anti-intellectualism that seems so pervasive; even after the changes in the last thirty years the only "virtues," as a country, that we still seem to hold in any regard are the exercise of power and the ability to make money.


----------



## cuchuflete

Here is a slightly different angle on this "pride in ignorance" discussion.  I was once a language teacher.  I still tutor and teach _pro bono_ once in a while.  I meet many people of all ages who declare, with some slight sadness, "I'm no good at languages".

My immediate reaction is to say, "How are you at arithmetic?"  Usually the answer is positive.  Next question:  "Do you like music? Play an instrument or sing?"  Often I hear a 'yes'.  I then paraphrase something I may have read decades ago, or perhaps invented on the spot to deal with a quaking, inhibited language student.  I tell the person who is "no good at languages" that the same mental processes are used for math(s), languages and music.  I recount stories of my days in various university symphony orchestras, in which I, a student of the humanities, was outnumbered by the folks from all the science departments.  (I withhold the fact that I not only liked math, but was fairly good at it. The concept of a comparative literature student who enjoyed engineering courses might have proved too confusing...)

Once people accept  (the fact?) that the ability to do simple arithmetic and sing in the shower is a "scientifically demonstrated" sign of linguistic ability, they loose many fears, and can often learn the basics of a second language without pain.  

The point of all of this is that self-declared inabilities in math or another subject can often be overcome with some simple questions.  Many people who are "no good at math" are, in fact, capable of doing it, once they are helped to escape their fears and preconceptions of inferiority.  

Back towards the topic others have raised, cultural pride in ignorance, yes, my culture does seem to celebrate it.  Both major political parties attack one another's candidates as "elitists" if they show overt signs of education or thoughtfulness.  That is consistent with the widespread, matter-of-fact assertions that one is no good at math, with the implication that this is somehow a sign of normalcy, much like being right-handed or just a bit overweight.


----------



## aleCcowaN

Well, I've seen the same problem in USA, France, Spain, and of course in my country, Argentina, where this issue is extremely serious and has a tendency towards getting even worse. This seems to be quite different in East and Central Asia and maybe _foreros_ from those countries would share here their experience. Basically, a country that is developing in the fast lane, no matter it is now poor or pretty rich, has an education with lots of math and a high percentage of graduates in engineering and sciences, no matter they believe in reincarnation, Nirvana or the Prophet.

As a teacher, my job includes helping university students that are at the end of a 6 year career to overcome math related troubles. I only can "patch" them so they can achieve their degrees. Part of my job is explaining them why they are so bad at math.

First I explain that math and logic are technologies, the same way reading and writing is. Do they have distressing memories about them learning to read and write? The answer is no. Why? Because education always started teaching this and there are centuries of experience that detects and manage any symptom of distress before it becomes worse. Most teachers are not aware of this; they simply teach the way they were taught and all goes well. Besides, kiddies learning reading and writing (with the wrong spelling) are very flexible and "designed to learn".

Secondly I explain that teaching math in our education system lacks of similar "built-in mechanisms": they begin to learn arithmetics, simple geometry, etc. The system didn't tolerate one single student who can't read and write (present times, hmmm! ... I'd better shut up), but always considered a victory that 95% of children learned the fundamental ways of thinking behind any math content, the indispensable input of the next stage. 95% percent means that inevitably one student in a class gets irremediably lost each semester, and this way you came up with K12 graduates with just a few of them with enough math skills. The bulk of graduates has developed an anguish towards math. They don't blame math or are saying math is bad, maybe they blame their teachers or the system, but they simply can't cope with math: it triggers their anxiety at once, the Pavlov's conditional reflex they were trained at.

Young groups build a culture around this: Math is not fashionable. That pretty guy that reads in class like a moron is king dork; this pretty guy that reads OK and gets 2-s (4-s or E-s) in math is a charming rebel. If king dork gets a 8 (17 or B) in math, beware of him, he surely is also nuts. Math is not fashionable because they didn't succeed at it and no the other way 'round. Parents and role models, often victims themselves of the same situation, reinforce that vision. Parents and keepers also foster their children to learn things that show off and favor an image of their social progress: My boy's team got this trophy in basketball; my girl got this medal in swimming; my cutie plays "Für Elise" in the piano, please dear, play it to us; my peanut speaks French, say something, sweetheart. Ah! Did your daughter proof Pythagorean theorem in an elegant way? Al least she wouldn't get pregnant at 15!

That's the way we end up with the strangest outcome: People hearing a math-like problem and immediately thinking that if they don't instantly come to the answer, they surely won't, no matter they had a year to do it. Amazingly, people have a lot of data about math, for instance, I found two thirds have in their memory this (Spanish version): "menosbemásmenosraízcuadrada-debealcuadradomenoscuatro-acesobredosa"; they don't remember what that is but they remember it. Gee! They learned the phone directory by heart but they don't know what a phone is!

My task becomes then quite easy because all the data are there. I only have to help students to rewire it. I could write page after page with this, but maybe the main question is why this continue to happen. Well, I hardly ever let my mind to be seduced by conspiracy theories, but I'm sure that "teach the horse to reason and horse riding will be completely over".


----------



## ernest_

Same here. The usual saying is "sóc de lletres" ("I am a man of letters"), as opposed to being a man "of science". When someone says he is "of letters" they mean that they studied philosophy or linguistics or something that is not math-related, and by implication they mean that you can't blame them for not being able to do a simple sum or multiplication.


----------



## Martina.M

As it's been said, in Spain is the same.

Me too, I'm not ashamed of not being able to add 17 + 36 in public without my mind going blank, and then using my cellphone calculator. But when somebody talks about a book I haven't read, I feel miserable and keep quiet so nobody will notice.

I think it has to do with maths not being that fashionable, as aleCcowaN said. The rolemodels of our culture - at least mine - are good at writing, painting, dancing, acting, playing soccer, playing the piano, or even doing nothing and partying all week long (see Paris Hilton - well that's not one of my rolemodels, but I'm in that culture even if I don't like it. oh well) but who, at high school age, imagines to seduce a girl by explaining them how they solved a math problem? Or a boy (much worse, a girl nerd!!)

We need a math hero of our time.


----------



## Grop

Hello,

(I don't feel people here would say "I just can't do math" that easily, but I don't have a solid opinion on this topic - now "I'm not very good at math" is more likely).



Chaska Ñawi said:


> We live in a culture where not doing well in math is perfectably acceptable, whereas you would never hear somebody announce in the same tone that they were functionally illiterate.



I wonder in which context people would say they can't do math - especially when compared to illiteracy. Is it when actually talking about math, or when facing a real-life problem? Does real-life arithmetic qualify as math?


----------



## xqby

Martina.M said:


> Me too, I'm not ashamed of not being able to add 17 + 36 in public without my mind going blank, and then using my cellphone calculator.


 
I think this reliance on calculators might be part of the problem. Math, in the modern view of things, is a strictly utilitarian field. Those who need to know it, do, and those who don't either rely on those who do, or on their high-powered doodad. Being able to mentally ballpark 15% of $47.40 isn't so much a sign of general erudition as of just being good at mathematics. My little sister is a fairly bright kid and made decent marks on her calculus exam, but couldn't give you (6)(7)/3 without a calculator. No one seems to find this odd, because she's still able to get results.

In more confined cultures such as within hard science departments at universities it's not at all acceptable to be ignorant of the stuff. I recall a classmate from one of my physical chemistry classes being grumpy that the professor had used a Taylor polynomial to expand an equation without showing his individual steps. There, the prevailing opinion was "why are you here, then?" instead of the "yeah, what was he thinking?" which would have been standard in a group of more normal citizens.


----------



## danielfranco

I can multiply, divide, add and substract using my fingers. No, really, there are ways. But, anyway, people still think it's odd, or that you might be showing off, if you can calculate percentages, or if you can do the future value of one dollar on the thirty-sixth month without using a calculator or at least a scrap piece of paper. I think that most normal adults CAN indeed do mental math, but are actually ashamed to be thought of as nerds or geeks, or worse: "neeks".

But it depends on your personal context. I remember knowing people at the University that could remember a large portion of the logarithm tables, and could use the sliding ruler to "guesstimate" logarithms without looking at the tables. But, yeah, they (we?) were pretty nerdy.

If you're actually running for prom queen or prom king, then you better hide your crazy maths skills, you know?

And, by the way, I'm sure Barbie thought Maths was hard, but even so she could figure out how many dates she needed with Ken before she got him to pay her rent, I think…


----------



## Outsider

My impression is that most people have some respect for those who can find their way in math, but feel that they just can't do it, themselves. Perhaps this view is naive and biased, though. Judging from the evolution that math education, and education in general, has had recently in this country, I am forced to conclude that too many people simply don't value either.

When I went through school some years ago, things were a bit better. I remember thinking that in most subjects I hadn't learned anything of substance, _except_ for math, physics, and the foreign languages -- because in those no one could get away with not teaching. More recent events have convinced me that I was wrong. You can indeed get away with fake teaching in math, too (now). 



> The reason many people have problems with mathematics is quite obvious. Mathematics teachers are impatient, supercilious control freaks who refuse to explain anything twice.


It's interesting how everyone complains about moody or bad math teachers. Given any average-sized education system, some teachers are _bound_ to be bad. But no one ever seems to be hurt by tyrannical teachers in other subjects. I don't often hear "I don't like reading because I had a nasty 6th grade English teacher", or "I can't find my way around computers because my 7th grade teacher was incompetent". You either like it or you don't like it already, and the bad teachers you may have met along the way won't make much difference.

At least, this was my experience. I generally had dreadful history teachers, with one exception, and even she was stuck with a dull curriculum that I didn't enjoy, but that never stopped me from liking history, as I always had, since before I had any of them as my teachers. I just concluded that teaching history in an appealing way is not very easy, and that the way the curricula were organized didn't help the teachers much to overcome this.


----------



## sokol

In Austria the excuse of "I am not good at maths" also is made very often by people who either _really _are not good at maths or don't _want _to try really hard.

If you say that you aren't frowned upon - most people just accept that maths just isn't "your thing" (except for your maths teacher who will insist on you learning maths anyway ;-).

But there are also other excused made, and frequently - like "I am not good at languages", or "I just can't sing" or "My painting skills are inferior to that of a 5 year old one" and so on.
All in all, mathemathics is more valued herearounds than the arts, with languages it is not so easy: nowadays probably many people think already that languages are more important than maths - this was not so say 30 years ago.

So I would say that mathematics are _not _considered unimportant here - but that nevertheless society accepts if you choose to not do maths.


----------



## aleCcowaN

I'm not good at languages at all, but this has not prevented my postings here. I only need 5 times the effort the average fellow needs.

¿Is it the same about math? No, as far as I know. Sometimes I think people doesn't learn it because all goes so slow. Math is a technology, history is not. You can become verbose with almost any topic at school without any real knowledge. You can't do this with math.

I became a teacher because I learned to explain math to my mates during all my education, starting when I was 8. I learned math is a technology, not simple knowledge, when I was thirty something. The teacher's "impatience" some describe here is the same impatience you would show having to teach your granny how to use a computer and Windoze and she wouldn't -predictably- understand.

Bearing this in mind I tried to teach my 79 years old aunt to navigate Internet. She had never used a computer before, just regular at typewriting. I explained her what is the client area first, what are menus, what are bars, I focus in what part may she pay attention each time and in learning first to ignore most of the screen previous to learn how to find her way using a program. It worked instantly. We were looking some genealogy and looking for relatives, something she likes a lot; well, she started to click the proper links and use the back button and even tried the search field though became confused. I was surprised with such performance. It's not the way you teach. It's whether you communicate or not the nature of what you intend to teach.


----------



## chics

Hello.

As it's said before, in Spain only literature and history is considered "culture", and it's frequent to hear people saying things like "you know, I'm a _letters_ person" with pride, to say they can't make a sum by mind. Most people would consider more cultivated a person that has read _El Quijote_, even if she didn't create anything and she can't think of a sustraction a kind of sume. However, creating, arts, ciences, tecnologie and even economie, politics, psicologie and some humanities are only seen as a group of techniques needed to learn and office and to work, and to work... you know, real needness to work is not very class. Culture here is only some useless things, if not, it's not culture.

Having said that, of course, as in all the word (I imagine!) there're some people that have studied sciences, art or technology and who dare consider as ignorants (and other) that people proud of being illetrated in maths. But here they are alone and not very well seen.

Sorry for my so bad English, you know, I'm not made for languages.
Thank you to correct my aberrations.


----------



## Ynez

Contrary to what my compatriots have said, I think mathematics has a great consideration in Spain. It's just not a typical topic for a conversation, like history, literature or music could be. Anyhow, there are mathematicians expert at making anecdotical and entertaining comments related to some math field.

I'm a _letters_ one, but can count a bit maybe because I like playing cards


----------



## Fred_C

danielfranco said:


> I mean, as an adult, how many maths skills do you need to make it through the day?
> Addition and substraction, for sure.
> Multiplication and division,


Hi,
Having read through this thread, I noticed something that may be particular to the French language, or at least to France:
There are two concepts that translate into English as Maths;
The first one is called "calcul", (general computation), and it includes, addition, substraction, multiplication and division, some basic percentages.
The second concepts ("maths" in French) includes everything else.
It may or may not be acceptable to claim that you are "nul en maths" (bad at maths) in French, but this will automatically exclude what is called "calcul" in French.

Phrases like "how much is it? I do not know, do the maths" do not use the word "maths" in French, rather "calcul".


----------



## chics

Hello.

_Calculation_ (_calcul_ in French_)_ also exists in English, and in all languages. 
It's the part of mathematics that allow you to solve (mathematical) operations. It's a bit more wid than addition and multiplication... when you solve a problem, you create a set of equations, restriccions and conditions. That's the ingenious part, after, to have the precise answer (_yes, it's possible to do that / we need to buy five litres of painture / I'll be there in an hour_ /etc.) you only have to do operations... most computers can do most of it, and people. In Spain, when we don't have enough time in exams and there's only calculations to do, we write the famous sentence "se hace y sale". Of course, there're also very difficult calculations, simulations, etc. than ay person can do (we need a machine) and others that any machine can do, because we need to apply knowlegde, tricks, aproximations against theorie, etc. In real live, maths applications are almost always mixed with other sciences, techniques, technologies, experience, "intuition", "cheating", etc.


----------



## aleCcowaN

I think _Innumeracy: Mathematical Illiteracy and its Consequences _(1989), by John Allen Paulus, is a good start. I often read "Who's Counting?", his column in ABC News. The book was a best seller in many languages, but I think most people have it in their libraries gathering dust.

What I regard as the most common mistake is thinking that you need math specific techniques for your daily life. That's rarely true. You simply need math as it is the foundation of common sense. And sure, people show daily their lack of mathematical skills. The downside of teaching math in schools is that math contents (not mathematics itself) emphasizes the analytical thinking, thus math because a sort of forensic practice. The math you are taught at schools, once you learned how to control your grocer's bill or balance your check account, seems like a sharp scalpel that let you make an autopsy of reality or hurt yourself. Besides, it's a crass mistake teaching math independently of the content areas where math is needed. Even more, it's almost preposterous to have teachers that teach math and just math. That is OK for science high level careers but not for general education. Having only-math teachers is the key ingredient of the self fulfilling promise of math dissociated of daily life.

Math is a technology, one of the basics technologies common sense is made. You don't agree, do you? Well, you can study the history of architecture from a book; it only takes a good vocabulary and whatever you remember of general history. You won't excel in this new field doing this, but surely you'll do well. Have you ever tried to learn a higher level or a more specific mathematical subject just by reading a book? Didn't all the letters and words and formulas suddenly become inextricable logographs?

Daily life is full of little tragedies that a good background in math would have prevented: car crushes, people unjustly sent to jail or set free, low quality officials elected, just to point out some tragedies and not the zillions of little inconveniences this carries. Innumeracy is behind many absurd things in modern life.


----------



## Hulalessar

When teaching some small children how to add and take away adults may use objects. They set out five objects and ask the child to count them. The child counts five. The adult ask how many objects there are . The child says five. The adult moves two objects behind his back and asks the child to count the objects remaining. The child counts three. The adult ask how many objects there are. The child says five. The adult insists there are three. The child knows there are five - three in front of him and two behind the adult's back.

The adult has forgotten, if he ever realised it, that mathematics is an abstraction and only exists in the mind of humans.


----------



## chics

Sorry, but not all mathematics are abstract. It's showed that a six month's child can disinguish betwen one, two and three, but he can't talk about it yet. Our brain is disgusted when we hear one harmonic that's no well, however, most of people doen't know what it's mathematicaly an harmonic or how to calculate it. We are made for mathematics.

"Abstract" mathematics began with the pytagorics, a kind of secret mouvement of thinking (philosophy!) that discovered that the diagognal of a square was an "abtract" number, not a whole chose countable, not a fraction, but what they called an "irrational" number. This was the first division in "abstract" mathematics and "not abstract" mathematics... But before that, we had used maths for thousands of years in astronomy (so navigation, orientation, war, commerce, etc.), architecture, sculpture and painting, laws, agriculture, astrology (so religion), music, etc.


----------



## Hulalessar

It is one of the characteristics of human beings that they seek patterns in the world. Mathematics is the science of patterns. Patterns have no real existence - they cannot exist apart from the things that form the patterns.


----------



## Chaska Ñawi

Donning my special moderator vest for a moment, could I remind all contributors that discussions in this forum are supposed to maintain a _cultural _perspective?  You know, the one which hasn't been in much evidence lately.... slightly like the original topic.

Thanks to everyone for their contributions.


----------



## banalstory

Grop said:


> Hello,
> 
> (I don't feel people here would say "I just can't do math" that easily, but I don't have a solid opinion on this topic - now "I'm not very good at math" is more likely).
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder in which context people would say they can't do math - especially when compared to illiteracy. Is it when actually talking about math, or when facing a real-life problem? Does real-life arithmetic qualify as math?



I agree. I think that being able to do basic addition and subtraction is completely different from knowing Calculus, and most people, as was said earlier, would be ashamed to say that an 8-year-old could outshine them on reciting multiplication tables. 

Culturally, it seems laziness (i.e. reliance on a calculator) plays a large part in not being able to do math on command. But people are similarly lazy when it come to politics, literature, etc., correct? Stephen King or Danielle Steel have more currency (in the US at least) than Shakespeare or William Faulkner because they're easier to get through. Sorry to use Anglophone examples, but it's what comes to mind first. 

I think also, the dork/nerd/dweeb factor plays into the mathemophobia seen all over. People tend to fear what they don't know, and ridicule what they don't understand. Being in a culture is to conform to a group, and if non-conformist means math genius...


----------



## Nanon

While it is not socially acceptable to be unable to read and write, it is easy to explain that you suffer from dyslexia or spelling disorders. Once you put a word on the problem, everything is better. But _dyscalculia _is less known and not well understood. 
Despite the fact that mental arithmetic is a problem, some dyscalculia sufferers can be pretty good at logics and analyse facts well and they can even do well in science, at least if they can use calculators or computers. However pupils who can't count (or can't do it fast) are always considered as either lazy or mentally challenged. Are? Were? I hope this is changing, at least gradually .

(...)

Switching to more general matters:

One of the things that has been said is that counting always comes third in basic skills. Reading comes first, writing comes second. Then comes counting, hence the misperception that counting is the least important of the three, while it only should come last in chronology.

Besides the "math is for boys, literature is for girls" prejudice, there is also a common understanding that people who are good at math and science in general may have access to other areas (music, art, language, literature) but it doesn't seem to work _backwards_: you can't go from literature to math, from soft to hard sciences. Is that so in your culture? Or maybe it is transcultural?
NB - This is _not _my personal opinion. What I would like to ask is how common this prejudice is.


----------



## sokol

Nanon said:


> Besides the "math is for boys, literature is for girls" prejudice, there is also a common understanding that people who are good at math and science in general may have access to other areas (music, art, language, literature) but it doesn't seem to work _backwards_: you can't go from literature to math, from soft to hard sciences. Is that so in your culture? Or maybe it is transcultural?
> NB - This is _not _my personal opinion. What I would like to ask is how common this prejudice is.



I think in Austria the most general prejudice is another one (also, this is _not _my personal opinion at all - it is what I _think _is common opinion in Austria): that is, you are *either *good at maths (or other 'hard', 'male' sciences - physics, chemistry, computers even, etc.) and then have no real access to the arts and languages, *or *you are good at arts and/or language (prejudice has it that both these usually go together) and that you are of not much use in maths.

Further I think that this question of yours gives a whole new dimension to this thread.


----------



## chics

Nanon said:


> One of the things that has been said is that counting always comes third in basic skills. Reading comes first, writing comes second. Then comes counting, hence the misperception that counting is the least important of the three, while it only should come last in chronology.


Well, in my country children learn to count up to ten before beginning to learn how to write a single letter. They learn to writre letters and numbers at the same time. In primary school the most important subjects are language (writing and reading, at first) and maths (counting, easy operations and logical relationships). After, subjects like history, physics, chemistry, biology, etc. and last (and least) arts and gym. 

Students know that it's necesary to study maths in other to learn them, while learning to write well, speaking, etc. it's more a personal thing that, if we are interested in, we'll learn at home. 

Who can't give his opinion about music? Nobody. But few of us is able to play music. In Spain we aren't ashamed if saying that we don't know anything of music, that we haven't made for it. In the same line, _letters _people are even pride to say that they have no idea of a minimum of maths, some sciences and technology; nor a minimum bases or concepts. Of course they can't talk about it neither but, _as it's boring, so useless_... But, as music, one thing is talking about it (as for example we talk about languages in WR) and other one very different is to understand it and be able to create.

In Spain, we like more to talk about football, cinema, tv, fashion, food, the others, etc. not maths, history of maths, neither words (we are a bit of freaks here ).

But some_ letters_ people are pride of being completely analphabets in maths and anyway socially considerated very cultivated, whereas _sciences_ people can also be proud to also speak some languages, know lots about literature, write very well, etc. (but they're not specially proud about knowing maths of other things, because for they it's _normal_) unless they are seen as not cultivated (it doesn't matter if they're doctors) people by our society.

Sorry, but considering maths as simple numbers and sums shows that. I think that nobody would considerate language as writting isolated letters and knowing to spell some isolated words.


----------



## Nanon

Hi Chics, and All,

Just to clarify something - when I said that "reading comes first, writing comes second, counting comes third", I was talking about the usual order in which this trilogy of basic skills is enumerated, but "reading and writing" do include letters and numbers, simultaneously. But in pedagogy, at least as far as I can remember from primary school (far away, alas), pupils are taught to read and write letters and numbers in order that their other skills, including math, can be evaluated afterwards.

What you say about having conversation about maths and about words being boring may be true in many countries other than Spain, too! How we can spend so much time here in this forum must be puzzling for anybody else than us!...

However, from the point of view of business, industrial companies, and many professions, math is more important than language and a person "who can't do math" is likely to have trouble getting a job. And then you see the same people doing courses to "improve their communication skills", i.e. getting back to matters of language after having considered that a literary background provides no usable knowledge in a company...

Sorry about bringing so many "new dimensions" but there are so many aspects to the importance of math in culture, in work, in our respective countries... that I am just jotting ideas and maybe some of them would justifiedly have to turn into separate threads.


----------



## chics

Nanon said:


> "reading and writing" do include letters and numbers, simultaneously.


Oh, thanks, it was logical... 



Nanon said:


> But in pedagogy, at least as far as I can remember from primary school (far away, alas), pupils are taught to read and write letters and numbers in order that their other skills, including math, can be evaluated afterwards.


Yes, that's different to us, we do it at the same time. We don't need great speaches to draw sets and write numbers, lines ans symbols as +, -, x, etc. And it's one of the things that make our professional culture in France and Spain different. 

We have sometimes the impression of that the French are better in talking without saying anything (_pipoler_), and explaining an ordinary thing as if it was extraordinary, thinking that they are technically very good at something when they're normal, etc. whereas French think that Spaniard are _nulls_ at marketing but also bad in everything, because the Spanish can't sell them as well their ideas. I warn that's only a simplification but it's just to show that there're practical consequences of these differences.


----------



## Nanon

Maybe I have not expressed myself right - children _do_ count or have math-related activities even before primary school, in kindergartens etc. But I do not remember having felt that we were evaluated, that we were actually receiving marks, for these counting activities before having started to write. This is however entirely based on my memories, and of course a teacher would say that children are observed and evaluated in other ways too.

About talking without saying anything, I wonder if that perception is _cultural_ or if you have any concrete example in mind, Chics?... 

Spaniards are _"nuls"_ in marketing because they are not verbose? But I have never felt that the French were considered marketing geniuses overseas. I must say that I work mostly overseas. 

It is however true that in the self-perception of the French, language skills (not _foreign_!) are very important, probably more than practical and technological knowledge including math (I'm struggling not to sway off-topic). But the supremacy of the French language as the supposedly _perfect_ vehicle for communication and diplomacy is a _myth_ that dates back to the XVIII century, and your average Frenchman (I'm not talking about your average WR poster) is probably not quite aware of that.


----------



## aleCcowaN

Chaska Ñawi said:


> In Canada, I regret to say, it's perfectly for an adult to say, "I just can't do math", "I don't have the genes for math", "I was never any good at math", etc.  This is said, even by elementary teachers, in tones of resigned indifference.  We live in a culture where not doing well in math is perfectably acceptable, whereas you would never hear somebody announce in the same tone that they were functionally illiterate.


I go back to the original question because because we do agree that every country is plenty of people claiming "I can't do math", some of them without a shadow of shame, but the question is, how deeply innumerate are they really?

An answer like "I was never any good at math" is given as an excuse when the person shows what degree of ignorance?

I'm positive that math is an fundamental subject taught in East Asia and they probably much apt at it than the average "us", but in a culture that consider math to be important I suppose to be also the general rule having people saying "I was never good at math" when they can't find the imaginary roots of a twelve degree polynomial -they only find the real ones- when asked in the supermarket line.

So, we'll be told from every corner of the planet that the masses are not "mathworthy", but are they disabled for serving in their jobs and offices? I'm sure the answer varies in different countries.

As for Argentina, the issue here is, like I said, extremely serious and is getting worse each day. If you ask a typical High School graduate about how much gets each family when you distribuite 10,000$ among 100 people, average family of four, most of them will say "a division is needed" and nothing more. Even worse, in many college and university careers, 3 to 6 years of high level education, where math is not a core discipline (like first years of engineering or hard sciences), but math is still important (architecture, foreign trade, business management, etc.), not only they massively ignore basic "math hygiene" (for instance,  5 divided by 21 can't be 2.15 because 21 is greater than 5) but also ignore relations between proportionality, cross-multiplication and linear functions. When I ask "2 is to 1 so is 7 to..." I get an answer of 14 from 60% of my students, close to graduate as architects (a 6 years study here). In this cases the poor excuse of "I didn't get a good math foundation at school" is true and pathetic at the same time.

And don't dare here to ask a judge about how much is the 10% of 1,000 unlike you want to be found in contempt for ridiculing "His/Her Honor". With a bit of luck the time in jail will be a negative number.


----------



## Cheesee = Madness

I can still hear my Math teacher saying"I'm not good at art."  Our math courses are divided so I don't hear all the complaining about it that I used to but "I'm no good at X (Math in this case)" is becoming far too common for my taste.


----------



## Athaulf

aleCcowaN said:


> Daily life is full of little tragedies that a good background in math would have prevented: car crushes, people unjustly sent to jail or set free, low quality officials elected, just to point out some tragedies and not the zillions of little inconveniences this carries. Innumeracy is behind many absurd things in modern life.



This is sadly true. Innumeracy and mathematical ignorance among members of certain professions definitely cause lots of problems, and sometimes even horrible human suffering. For example, "scientific" evidence presented to criminal courts is often based on plausible-sounding, but fallacious statistical inferences, and judges (let alone jurors) are rarely capable of correct reasoning in such cases. This isn't some paranoid fantasy -- see e.g. this article from a law professor at UT Austin:
http://www.mccombs.utexas.edu/faculty/jonathan.koehler/articles/2007_trial_consulting_handbook.pdf

_This chapter identifies nine misconceptions surrounding statistical evidence and arguments at trial [...] [that are] important for two reasons. First, each misconception arises with some regularity in trials, particularly criminal trials. Second, many talented judges, attorneys and experts will insist that some of these misconceptions are not misconceptions at all._​ The author also concludes that _"the unfortunate reality is that attorneys, judges, jurors and other legal actors have limited knowledge of how to reason with quantitative evidence."_


More relevant to the main topic of these forums, mathematical ignorance sometimes causes damage even in linguistics. I have seen papers by reputable linguists containing terrible errors that reveal elementary mathematical ignorance, which means that not only did the authors commit these errors, but the reviewers and editors were also incapable of spotting them. (I referenced some concrete examples in this old post of mine.)


----------



## Forero

Many people, including judges and jurors, actually believe that the simplest explanation is always the most likely one, where simplest is defined in terms of being "understandable" without the use of mathematics or logic.

I have seen a lawyer disparage an eyewitness account of an auto accident because the lawyer (apparently) misunderstood the mathematics of physics.  The lawyer "won"; truth lost.

Logic itself, which is both a topic in philosophy and a branch of mathematics, suffers  because people in power seem to prefer to appeal more to emotions than to what ought to be common sense.

What I have seen of the _voir dire_ process quickly eliminates whatever prospective jurors are most able to confine conclusions to what is supported by actual evidence.

Lawyers ask all the prospective jurors several loaded ambiguous questions. If any of them gives a qualified answer or asks for clarification, no clarification is forthcoming, and that person is paid for showing up but not allowed to serve on the jury.  Those that simply say "yes" to everything comprise the jury.

Computer programmers, engineers, and college professors all tend to be eliminated early by lawyers on both sides of any question (prosecution or defense, plaintiff's side or defendant's side).


----------

