Dear all, I discussed the idea of “being Math person” many times with my colleagues, physicists. The problem is that most of physicists claim that some people are dedicated to math and other people are not. So mathematicians think themselves different, different from others not “Math people”. In such discussion my main argument is always the same: plasticity of a brain. If one can acquire new abilities and skills during the personal development like language skills, artistic skills, it means that our brain is very “plastic” and can change during our life. Constantly.

There is many examples that some people can do completely new things, which were out of their area before. The question is about the limitations of our brain, when the brain finishes its progress and begins to reduce its space for new things. Mathematics is not only a numeric way of perception, but also kind of abstraction, like a new language.

In very beginning of human development a rain is more plastic, so the getting of new abilities is much easier, that in a later stage. In a middle age, we need more time to functionalize our brain, we need to train more to developed new skills, but we can do it. So the second limitation is a time.

Concluding, everyone can be a Math person. However, the theoretic mathematicians and physicists probably disagree with me. They use different scale to define mathematics skills, this kind of numeric perception which is for other people like a “secret knowlage”.

Dear friend: I do not think so: in my opinion, the habilities and skills of people are based on several situations throughout life, which, by chance, by choose, or environment, or circumstances, or social reasons, or economic or policy ones, or interest, or jobs, or family influence, or by influence of friends, leading the individual to one area or another.

I disagree slightly with Cecilia use of "numbers" as synonym of mathematics (I actually agree with her point, as I state below). I mention it because that simplification is one of the two reasons I want to mark as the causes of the phobia of society in general to maths. Mathematics are not numbers. Mathematics are the science of abstraction (If you allow me this ingenuous definitions of maths for the sake of argumentation), so it ranges a universe of forms and colors and ways to think abstraction in an organized, axiomatic, and scientific way. So, some people probably hate numbers, but certainly for a lot of number-phobics there could be other fields of maths that are attractive: as the mighty Probability, or the beautiful Graph Theory, or the elegant Set Theory, etc etc. Which (as actually done in the past in many countries) could be taught since elementary education.

So, in summary, I think that the "I'm not a math person", as the "I never were good in maths", clichés used actually as socialization lubricants, are signs of the failure of educational systems and societies to embrace the most powerful and influential of sciences. Of course there should be a genetic component in the abilities of people to deal with any type of abstraction, but I think that 90% of the "I'm not a math person" are talking about their failures in primary, secondary and college (high school), and not talking about their failure to understand the maths behind the string theory. So, my hypothesis is that most of math-phobics were built by deficient education systems, and more deficient attitudes of society to "hard" sciences. The last thing, specifically by alienation of intellectuals and intellectual life in general and use of bizarre and offensive stereotyping in the media (think in the scientists of a movie like "Pacific Rim").

Have a nice day.  

I think mathematics is a field which builds on itself.  My rather subjective impression is that the people who say that they are not "Math people" often did not get a very good grounding in math when they were young (either because of poor teachers or pedagogy, moving, or other social or familial reasons).  Without that degree of ease and confidence in basic math, advanced math becomes more challenging, but definitely not impossible.  

Dear all, I discussed the idea of “being Math person” many times with my colleagues, physicists. The problem is that most of physicists claim that some people are dedicated to math and other people are not. So mathematicians think themselves different, different from others not “Math people”. In such discussion my main argument is always the same: plasticity of a brain. If one can acquire new abilities and skills during the personal development like language skills, artistic skills, it means that our brain is very “plastic” and can change during our life. Constantly.

There is many examples that some people can do completely new things, which were out of their area before. The question is about the limitations of our brain, when the brain finishes its progress and begins to reduce its space for new things. Mathematics is not only a numeric way of perception, but also kind of abstraction, like a new language.

In very beginning of human development a rain is more plastic, so the getting of new abilities is much easier, that in a later stage. In a middle age, we need more time to functionalize our brain, we need to train more to developed new skills, but we can do it. So the second limitation is a time.

Concluding, everyone can be a Math person. However, the theoretic mathematicians and physicists probably disagree with me. They use different scale to define mathematics skills, this kind of numeric perception which is for other people like a “secret knowlage”.

Numerical intelligence:

A certain amount of numerical intelligence, can always greatly change how intelligent one is.

Objective : To convince a group of poor minority junior high school students that intelligence is highly malleable and can be developed by hard work…that learning changes the brain by forming new…connections and that students are in charge of this change process.

Result : Convincing students that they could make themselves smarter by hard work led them to work harder and get higher grades. The intervention had the biggest effect for students who started out believing intelligence was genetic.

http://pejmanyousefzadeh.net/2013/10/29/everyone-can-be-good-at-math/

Dear Cecilia Lewis Kausel,

your point of view is, as usual very interesting. Thanks a lot!

Dear C. Haetinger,

don't you think that it is too much leave to the power of case?

Thanks a lot, Mariano

Dear Edson Sandoval-Castellanos,

I agree totally with you.

Thanks a lot!

Dear Professor Ewa Stepien,

you conclude: However, the theoretic mathematicians and physicists probably disagree with me.

I'm a mathematician, and never agree with a physicists as in this time...

Thanks a lot!

mariano

Mathematics should be at least as fundamental as language, perhaps a little more than language (our brains are calculating machines) although it seems to be not as natural as language (due to language being learnt informally at a very early age). 

The fact that math methodology is being developed for target groups, e.g. math through music or math for women, means that learning can occur in various forms, and that to some extent how we teach and how we learn (the psychology and philosophy of education and learning) are now changing the concept of math fluency.

We know that family background, early exposure and gender are factors that usually weigh in but we don't know yet whether there are specific genes facilitating math learning. Unlike math, spoken languages have a sound dimension and people who are music-gifted are much more privileged than the rest. In music and language pronunciation you can't force yourself into singing or speaking no matter how hard or long you try unless you have certain genes. But what is the pattern in math? 

I hope that methodologists and neuroscientists will shed some light on these issues - to what extent we are all apt to learn mathematics, at what age, methods, which branches, etc. For instance, while it may be true that it is easier to learn math in childhood, age in combination with our learning paths, could also be regarded as a strong driving force for math fluency.            

I like math. I think we realize it or not everyone is always connected and require math every time.....