/sci/ - Science & Math

Nope. Math can be only practiced by a really small amount of people.
There is Talent, there is Hard Work and there is help from outside (like proper teachers). All three and probably some other secret ingredients are required :D

It's just a cope to help him sleep at night. Sure, even the prodigies need to work hard in math, but the naturally gifted people will almost always outperform those of average intelligence. Chances are that even if an average person practiced math intensively they'll be at best grade school teacher material. To understand some of the complex theories you need to have natural smarts.

>>10408166
With the exception of child geniuses, all fields are supplemented by hard work. Also, even child geniuses are supplemented by hard work, they just have it slightly easier.

Someone who just took up intro to algebra in college won't able to compete with someone who has studied algebra since grade 12 and up.

>>10408166

That's dumb as shit. Everyone has a biologically determined maximum aptitude for any skill, and hard work can only bring close to your full genetic ceiling, but never raise that ceiling.

>>10408166
Not only it's true, it's also applicable to most of the skills like languages, music, painting, etc. Now, there might be some sort of "affinity" and some people may be able to catch up significantly faster, but for all practical purposes you can consider yourself as being capable of "doing math".

Source: am a mathematician who knows several languages, drawing, playing a musical instrument, and plenty of other stuff. It irritates me more than everything when people look at me and say "oh, you are talented". No you fucker, I spent literally years practicing. Am I gifted for understanding etale cohomologies? No, just in uni I spent all my free time reading books while you were playing MMOs or banging chicks.

There was a guy who was pretty bad at math at school and sucked at all the tests in uni. He was in a separate department (humanities) but we were good friends. So around the 2nd year when I got better at math myself I decided to teach him. It was so difficult and very demoralizing because I didn't want to let him down but also it hurt my ego. I made him actually do the exercises himself, and it was very clear why he sucked at math - he gave up very quickly at the simplest problems and he lost attention very quickly. I taught him how to learn rather than how to math, and he actually got straight 4s in stats and linear algebra (I guess it translates into B in murica).

Later, to graduate I had to teach for three semesters and it only further proved my view of "talent". Again, some sort of affinity or predisposition may exist, but it is more likely you suck at learning and lack fundamentals.

>>10408166
>Is this true?
Largely, yes. Natural talent plays a small role but working hard every single day is what is most important. Your professor sounds wise, you should listen.

>>10408215
This. Without amphetamine I would not be studying engineering.

>>10408204
>Someone who just took up intro to algebra in college won't able to compete with someone who has studied algebra since grade 12 and up.

>>10408249
Less party and girl friends, more math exercises/

>>10408204
That comparison doesn't even make sense, you are not comparing like with like. The right question would be "take two people and have them study 1000 hours each, will their skill be the same?"

>>10408270
The question isn't are two people exactly the same, but rather would a person who studies 1000 hours of math will have capable skills to a person who has a supposed "talent" in math? The answer is obviously yes. The mythical "talent" doesn't exist, its a way invented by the lazy to not do any work.

People may be born with certain affinities that give them slightly better memory or slightly better fingers that don't tire or eyes that dont water quickly or brains that are slightly larger, but none of that matters if they don't study.

A brainlet isn't someone who studies 1000 hours of math. Its someone who doesn't study 1000 hours of math.

>>10408166
>Does that mean if I took a kid and made him practice mathematics as much as Terrence Tao, he'd grow up to be as good as him?
the kid would have to actually be extremely interested in math. honestly just having a passion for a given field is a large part of what people think of as 'talent'

>>10408290
Passioned is learned through activity/interest that give the brain the dopamine rush.

>>10408215
>maximum aptitude
No such a thing. It's logarithmic

>>10408166
Modern leftish philosophers tend to dismiss reason, science, objective reality and to insist that everything is culturally relative. It is true that one can ask serious questions about the foundations of scientific knowledge and about how, if at all, the concept of objective reality can be defined. But it is obvious that modern leftish philosophers are not simply cool-headed logicians systematically analyzing the foundations of knowledge. They are deeply involved emotionally in their attack on truth and reality. They attack these concepts because of their own psychological needs. For one thing, their attack is an outlet for hostility, and, to the extent that it is successful, it satisfies the drive for power. More importantly, the leftist hates science and rationality because they classify certain beliefs as true (i.e., successful, superior) and other beliefs as false (i.e., failed, inferior). The leftist’s feelings of inferiority run so deep that he cannot tolerate any classification of some things as successful or superior and other things as failed or inferior. This also underlies the rejection by many leftists of the concept of mental illness and of the utility of IQ tests. Leftists are antagonistic to genetic explanations of human abilities or behavior because such explanations tend to make some persons appear superior or inferior to others. Leftists prefer to give society the credit or blame for an individual’s ability or lack of it. Thus if a person is “inferior” it is not his fault, but society’s, because he has not been brought up properly.

>>10408166
The university intellectuals also play an important role in carrying out the System's trick. Though they like to fancy themselves independent thinkers, the intellectuals are (allowing for individual exceptions) the most oversocialized, the most conformist, the tamest and most domesticated, the most pampered, dependent, and spineless group in America today. As a result, their impulse to rebel is particularly strong. But, because they are incapable of independent thought, real rebellion is impossible for them. Consequently they are suckers for the System's trick, which allows them to irritate people and enjoy the illusion of rebelling without ever having to challenge the System's basic values.

Because they are the teachers of young people, the university intellectuals are in a position to help the System play its trick on the young, which they do by steering young people's rebellious impulses toward the standard, stereotyped targets: racism, colonialism, women's issues, etc. Young people who are not college students learn through the media, or through personal contact, of the "social justice" issues for which students rebel, and they imitate the students. Thus a youth culture develops in which there is a stereotyped mode of rebellion that spreads through imitation of peers—just as hairstyles, clothing styles, and other fads spread through imitation.

>>10408204
>studied algebra since grade 12 and up

>>10408428
based uncle ted

Until I graduated from high school I was absolutely terrible at math. When I started college I had to start in remedial math, learning the number line and integers. I was majoring in geology and had to take a physics class. I fell in love with physics but it demanded a rigorous amount of math. Through dedication, passion and lots and lots of hard work I took and passes pre-cal, then cal 1, followed by cal 2, cal 3, linear Algebra, Differential equations, etc.

I'm now a math major persuing a PhD in Mathematics with a focus in statistics and big data.

Terence is a genius but he also spent a lot of time doing math.
Even if you're a genius, you're gonna have to work.

>>10408166
natural talent exists lets rephrase it as effortlessly exceptional at math the problem is that that person will be beating by others who in the long run grind / put in the work to surpass them but that is if that person actually didn't study many say they don't but put in hours

>>10408473
>I was absolutely terrible at math.
>I'm now a math major persuing a PhD in Mathematics
>with a focus in statistics and big data.

>statistics and big data
so you are the can't-build-brain version of me?

>>10408673
"beaten"

>>10408215
>Everyone has a biologically determined maximum aptitude for any skill
There is no consensus on the validity of that statement. Tao may have had experiences early in the development of his brain that made him what he is. His parents may have raised him in the same way their parents raised them.

>>10408166
he's right, because mathematics is mainly just repetition and memory

>>10408684
Not him, but there are legit things to do in that area. You just need to filter out the bottom 99% of the shit big data research, but you can use analytics for that.

>>10408166
in a room full of child geniuses who is the smartest?

>>10408166
Your math teacher saw a group of students struggling with basic mathematics and overheard some thot saying how she "doesn't have a math brain". Your mathematics teacher then told the class that there is no innate ability for mathematics, and that hard work will allow you to do mathematics. Your teacher was trying to inspire the thots to pass their calculus class.

Not every person can be a pure mathematician, but most people can learn enough mathematics to pass their stats course for psychology, or math for bio, chem, blabla.