As an answer I would like to give a quotation from the famous "Cat's Cradle" by Kurt Vonnegut : " Everyone has the same number of thoughts> Only the way of thinking is different.

In other words: Everyone has an ability to learn/acquire some profession according to his abilities.

Best regards,            Leonid

@George Stoica I watched the video, but not sure what you mean. Are you saying that we don't have the same genetic abilities to a learn math?

@Leonid Vladimirov I like your quote and my own perspective goes the same way.

And thanks for both replies. But what I hope to find, is some sort of neuroscience research that can clarify whether some people are not disposed to make sense of math or any other subject.

Nature is not fair - does not endow all the same.

Hi George,

I recognise the image of some people reacting with repulsion towards math. Especially with regards to their old math teacher or the method by which they must have been taught math.

But doesn't the word repulsion indicate that the reason stands with the teacher, method or some other external factor (most likely a bad experience), rather than a lack of capabilities?

I've also heard the same argument about learning German, being a Dane. Some kids are just not meant to learn German - But that must be due to external factors since all children living in Germany learn German. If 'it just wasn't meant to be' is a true argument,wouldn't some German kids fail ever to learn German?

Tommy, I have to believe that it's more than just how you were taught math in school.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/03/140317095843.htm

Many questions, such as yours, are more (politically) easily answered by saying no, it's just upbringing, or teaching methods, or peer pressure. In other words, just the environment. But we're finding, in the past 30 years or so, it's not always that simple.

Dear Tommy!

I think that both differentiation in abilities of students towards math and quality of teaching matter. I know people who are perfect in languages but hardly can calculate their budget (I mean arithmetic), nothing to speak about trigonometry or differentiation. It happens also in a class with a good teacher, where 90% of students understand math to some extent.

But I have also observed that not all school teachers are equally good to explain in a simple way. Also math programs differ across countries. Some professors in university teach math in a very "esoteric" way (as if it is secret science so that only most smart should be able to pass though it) and enjoy putting "fails".

P.S. Regarding learning German or other native language. Well, all natives can speak native, but not all are able to write without mistakes. Methodology for learning languages can also fail, but it is more visible for foreigners.

Dear Tommy

your question is very very difficult but, fortunately, it is an old one. Therefore it could be possible to review the old answers to this question (let's say the ones from the 20th century): predisposed ability, intelligence, social context, family context, teaching method, motivation, metacognitiion, etc. As far as I know, all these answers failed to provide a good and simple explanation of academic achievement in math. I think that there is the following consensus, from the psychology of expertise: a simple and general answer is the time spent learning mathematics. But this one does not answer why: why some people spend time learning mathematics? To answer this second question we need motivation, teaching method, education system organisation, etc. The other problem with this simple and consensual answer, is that two different students who spend the same time learning mathematics will not perform at the same level! We then need prior knowledge, metacognition, and, maybe, with very young pupils, predisposed ability. After few years in school, the domain specific knowledge they learnt in mathematics is much more predictive of their performance than any other predictive factors.

Best regards, Andre 

Dear Tommy

Your question is a genuine one that would require answers through research.  The old educational psychology explanation was that both inheritance (genetics) and the environment (exposure, school curriculum, teaching methods/skills, teacher character/competence in teaching math, etc.) contributed to the development of their mathematical abilities and their liking/disliking of math.  So my advice is that though it is a good research question, developing the relevant research instruments to answer the question may pose difficulties.

Maybe there is some kind of predisposition: an affection for objective answers.

This is what makes mathematics (and some natural sciences) so unique: it is right or wrong - no shades of grey or discussing.

Those seeking objective answers may be tempted by these subjects. And where passion comes into the game, the results are significantly better than average.

Dear Tommy,

I'm afraid that there is quite a huge predisposal for learning maths, etc. I know this from my own experience as I was tutoring different pupils/students in maths and physics (also the same predisposal holds for me in music in a negative way - I couldn't sing properly if I had decades of training but that's fine, not everyone has to be good in everything).

Secondly, you will pretty easily observe that not every human is able to solve a given problem in a given time (if they can solve it at all) some are really quick and some need more time, which is also a strong indication of predesposal in form of intelligence (and, I admit, in some cases pure practise).

Thirdly if your theory is true, it would indicate that everyone is equally good in everything (because: why would that hold just for maths and not artistic talent, language, ... as you already state in your header here). And you see every day that some people just outperform most of their peers in certain fields, while they are outperformed by their peer in other ones.

Here is a quite recent paper from nature, which might help you with your question (it actually underpins the claim that the ability to do maths and readings has a very strong genetic predisposal):

http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/140708/ncomms5204/full/ncomms5204.html

Hi Tommy,

I believe there are aspects of aptitude that make some people better at science and others better at languages, or arts, or all of them. The article Albert referred to (the original scientific article) with its references seems like a good starting point to look further into the matter.

I've focussed on this subject from the viewpoint of linguistic aptitude, i.e. why some people are better at learning languages than others. Scholars such as Peter Skehan (2000) and Leila Ranta and Diane Sawyer (2001) suggest that such aptitude should not be viewed as monolithic, but rather consisting of several components; for example it has been proven that successful foreign language learners have exceptional memory abilities and are also efficient at allocating their attention, but this latter ability can also be trained and improves with practice and experience. Some excel at phonetic discrimination, some have outstanding rote learning abilities, so it's really quite impossible to provide a simple answer to what a "talent for languages" is.

It might also be useful to consider a concept used in Dynamic Systems theory, namely that of superposition. This occurs when a phenomenon is characterized by two (apparently) incompatible properties at the same time. The example van Geert and Steenbeek (2008) provide is that of intelligence, which is "at the same time (almost) completely determined by the environment and (almost) completely determined by genes" (p. 5). This contradiction can be explained when a person is viewed as a complex system that interacts with its environment: "genes and environment are locked in a complex chain of steps over time and that they cannor be conceived of as variables that make mutually independent contributions to development". This way, it might be impossible to separate genetic predisposition from environmental factors because they evolve in interaction with each other.

I won't bother you with other references, but the van Geert and Steenbeek article might be of interest to you, even if it's not on math precisely:

van Geert, Paul and Henderien Steenbeek (2008). „A complexity and dynamic systems approach to development assessment, modeling and research.“ In K.W. Fischer, A. Battro, & P. Lena (Eds.), The educated brain. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (pp. 71-94). http://www.paulvangeert.nl/publications_files/van%20geert%20and%20steenbeek%20chapter%20MBE.pdf

Cheers,

Mari

I partly concur with Johannes: not everyone can learn everything to the same level of expertise (I will never become a superleague soccer player, even if I want to). There are two parts: the base ability that can be improved and the interest for improving/learning in that area. For the second you can look into research of personality types, specifically that of Kahler (Process Communication Model).

On top of that, to support part of your claims, we know there are fundamental differences in people (especially between boys and girls) in the way they want to learn. And Math is certainly not always brought in a stimulating way for all groups.

Math teachers' maths content knowledge and maths pedagogical content knowledge influence the way they teach, or in better terms, the way they assist/inspire learners learn.

No teachers can make their students learn, but only inspire them.  That is, teachers need to be trained on how to teach, and that they way different subjects are taught are different. Hence, specific training on how to teach maths should be given to teachers. Rather teachers shsould master skills on how to students engage themselves in maths learning through interesting learning activities.

Dear Mr. Otzen,

I recommend you John Anderson's Learning and Memory, where you will find out that learning happens due to practice and Chomsky's book Society and Cognition where you will find some pro thoughts about innate abilities related to language. At the end you have to consider that innate abilities have not been proven 100% accurately, and that the predisposition comes only because of the environment and the stimuli that humans received from infancy, meaning that the predisposition a human may seem to have is in fact something given from the environment.

Best,

Prof. Pablo. 

Dear Tommy,

I am in total agreement with your hypothesis.

A random selection of music teachers were asked a similar question regarding musical ability. A large percentage agreed that the single most important factor in determining whether a child might develop musical excellence was opportunity.

I think that the age at which the concept of arithmetic is introduced to the child is crucial:- But, how do you introduce the concept of abstraction to a very young mind?

Another crucial component is an understanding of how the child learns. As it happens, I was not a very good mathematics student. However, subsequent to leaving school I became fascinated with number theory as a consequence of a close friend who was a mathematician.

I remember being taught maths at school and instead of following the class I would become pre-occupied with some minor logical inconstancy implicit in what the teacher was saying. I realised subsequently, that the reason for this was that often the teacher was teaching by rote and that they had never really considered if the way they were teaching an idea might actually confuse the brighter students - I am on the autistic spectrum.

My own research asks the question as to whether we may be able to 'offload' a great deal of the teaching burden into the environment. In this respect we may ask, how does the modern architecture also structure the human mind. Are squares and oblongs good for learning subtle geometric relationships.

Of course, the environment may also be small.

How about this for an idea for teaching kids - it's simple and I would be surprised if someone had not come up with it before.

We could design some child's magnetic building blocks. All of the individual building blocks would have the number 1 clearly shown. If the child touches the building block a friendly voice says "One building block." If the child sticks two building blocks together then the number on each block changes from "1" to "2", accompanied by a voice that says "Two building blocks"...…….

Chris