English v. Math

I'm not sure that this won't devolve into a Great Debate, but what the heck. It seems to me that people I know who are "good" in math and science are generally smarter (in the most cerebral, intellectual sense) than people who are "good" at, say, English or history. (And I say this as an English/History major, so please do not accuse me of trolling.) My question is two-fold: Do others get this same sense, or is it just my general stupidity in the math/science areas that make it seem that way to me? And is there any evidence on the subject, either way?

The differences between the Arts (English, History, etc) and the Sciences (Math, Physics, etc) are so extreme that I'm surprised we still teach them both in the same schools! One is objective and one is subjective.

If you wish to succeed in the Sciences, there's no way to fake it. Either you know what you're talking about or you don't. If you don't, there are objective ways to prove that you are a fraud.

The Arts on the other hand are often the santuary for the Bulls**ter. If you can talk a good game you can get past the fact that you don't know what the hell you are talking about. I should know! BSing served me better than study in the pursuit of my degrees in History!

PapaBear writes, "The Arts on the other hand are often the santuary for the Bulls**ter"

That's my opinion too. I was an engineering major in university, but of course had to take the requisite humanities courses. Not all of them were "easy" per se - for instance, French class was a challenge, and enjoyable. I placed out of English and took various other liberal arts classes as requirements.

But by and large, the level of BS involved in "liberals arts" was staggering, and not only that, but I could just make sh*t up and pass things with flying colors. "The relationship between the audience and the buildings in so-and-so-'s paintings is symbolic of blah de blah de blah" - I eventually got good at just spouting this crap, and it got me A's in humanities classes!

By way of comparison, the information content in science, math, and engineering courses was staggeringly higher. When one gets deeply into various such areas, it's not unheard of to spend hours understanding a single paragraph of text and it's associated formulas in a textbook, and like PapaBear said, one can objectively determine who's real and who's BS'ing.

Then there were the "physics for poets" type classes, which were science classes aimed at liberal arts majors so they could get their requirements in. Most of them were just a shadow of the real thing - all the calculus was left out, the theories were over simplified, etc.

k0myers

Gross generalization: there is a certain amount of rational, logical, straight-line thinking to the sciences; while the arts tend to involve mosaic (non-linear) thought.

On the other hand, there are documented phenomenon, like the way that mathematically-inclined people also tend to be musically-inclined, that make it difficult to draw any conclusions (that's the math part of my brain speaking.) On the other hand, why not, shrieked the Duchess (that's the art part of my brain speaking.)

Well, the flip side of this is that it has also been my observation that math/science people (and EXTREMELY intelligent people in general) may be . . . how to put this . . . less gifted in such areas as, ah, social interaction. (Translation: they sometimes can be a bunch of geeks.) Again, no real insult intended; maybe this is how I nurse my wounded ego when some physics discussion leaves me going "huh?".

This sort of question intrigues me personally since I'm a sick and demented person who achieved their B.Sc double majoring in ... Mathematics and English. Yes, there are arguments to be had for the sciences being strictly logical and rational (and maybe, on second thought, this does belong in GD) but as any properly written history of sciences will tell you, a lot of scientific discovery is of the flash-of-inspiration type, without a real reason until later. Strict adherence to scientific method has allowed us to document what goes on, but it's still the flashes of intuition (such as the one that allowed Fermat's Last Theorem to be solved) that make the discoveries.
And this is where the English part comes in, IMNSHO. The English department from whence I spring doesn't tolerate BS well. If you want an A, you have to make your point relevant to the text, explain yourself clearly and coherently, and rationally develop your argument. In this way, my mathematical training was a huge asset when writing essays (does this make logical sense? was a question I consistently asked myself). And the intuition, the ability to feel and grasp concepts, was also an asset for interpretation of English texts, especially 20th century poetry. Doing the course plan I did left me with a rather well-rounded undergrad experience, I think, where I got a smattering of just about everything. BTW, I placed first in my class in Physics, too.
And, I play two instruments, guitar and trombone.
By way of comparison, the information content in science, math, and engineering courses was staggeringly higher. When one gets deeply into various such areas, it's not unheard of to spend hours understanding a single paragraph of text and it's associated formulas in a textbook, and like PapaBear said, one can objectively determine who's real and who's BS'ing.

I have a sneaking suspicion that part of the problem is that scientific textbooks are not well-written on the whole. They are certainly informative, but often the method of expression is lacking just a little bit that would make the aforementioned hour-long paragraph 20 minutes. Understanding something is facilitated by a clarity of expression, easily obfuscated by technical verbiage. ;)

So that's my 3 cents (which converts to 2 cents US).
Alex

CK saidOn the other hand, there are documented phenomenon, like the way that mathematically-inclined people also tend to be musically-inclined, that make it difficult to draw any conclusions.That reminds me of an MS fundraiser dinner I went to. After introducing myself to the guy sitting across from me, he asked me what I do for a living. After I told him that I'm an engineer, he asked me if I was involved with music in anyway. I told him that I sing in Choral Union and occasionally play trumpet, then asked how the hell he knew. His reply was that just about everyone he knows who is an engineer is also musically inclined. The thing is, in my profession, I meet a lot of engineers. While many of them are musically inclined, I'd have to say that a majority of them are not.

jodih saidmath/science people ...sometimes can be a bunch of geeks. Hey, I'm insulted by that remark! And just when I was about to invite you down to Phoenix to see my Star Wars action figure collection too! :)

Jeff
Engineer/musician
SAT Math score: 800
SAT Verbal score: 560

What about people who are good at both Mathematics and Sciences and Literature and Grammar and Languages?

By the way,

15(soon to be sophmore)
Upcoming Calc student
Drama Queen
Jane Austen Fan
"Evil Witch of Grammar"(ask the kids who go to school with me)
and Geek

I brought this up in an earlier post. In Dead Poets Society, Robin Williams says, I can't remember the exact quote, but it's something to the effect of: "Mathematics, science, and engineering, these are the things we need to live. Literature, art, music, these are the things we live for. I always remember this, although I don't know the exact quote.

I agree with many of the posters here. It's good to be well rounded. Jodih, you seem like a very intelligent person. Your posts are very logical and well thought out. I think that if you get past all the math/science jargon, you will find that many of these concepts you already know and use.

As for the social aspect, I believe that time and age can take care of this. I'm a very introverted person, but get a few drinks into me and I can be the loudest person in the room. Alas, I still have much to learn of social interaction.



------------------
¾È ³ç, ÁÖ µ¿ ÀÏ

If you wish to succeed in the Sciences, there's no way to fake it. Either you know what you're talking about or you don't. If you don't, there are objective ways to prove that you are a fraud.

I used to have a USEnet .sig that said "Why am I an art major? Because you can't fake calculus."

That said, I don't know if one group is smarter than the other since, as has been pointed out, it's not a cut and dry thing. Math/Sci majors seem to be less abstract in their thinking which is good for some things but not others. English, History and other liberal arts majors tend to pick up more of an ecclectic knowledge and are commonly much more interesting to talk to than someone who knows math and only math except for the bit of Pascal he also knows. Then you have your fun cross-over types like the Botony majors at my old school who were technically studying science, but were really a bunch of twig eating earth people playing guitar in the quad ;)

------------------
"I guess it is possible for one person to make a difference, although most of the time they probably shouldn't."

English is a subject that needs lots of experience to be good at. However, lots of sciences also demand great amounts of memorized knowledge, such as medicine and the natural sciences. Math is just a tool for most of us!

Well, the way I look at it is that different people are gifted at different things. For example, I (an engineer/science type dweeb) recently saw a friend of mine paint. By which I mean, they took a paintbrush, and paint, and paper, and after some 30 minutes had created the most amazing nature scene.

Now, there's no way I could ever do that, even if I dedicated my life to learning. The old neurons just aren't hooked up that way. I can barely draw stick figures :-)

OTOH, when I try to explain to this person the physics behind something or another they're wondering about, they're as befuddled as I would be if handed a paintbrush and a canvas.

Good thing we have different sorts of folks around I guess!

k0myers

I have to side with the mathematical contigent on this. I'm a genetics major and while the majority of liberal arts people that I meet are much more interesting than myself, they still couldn't calculate an integral to save their life. English and other liberal arts are required classes for my major in order to (and I quote) "make me a well-rounded individual" What i see them as are easy A classes that help my GPA. I find it hilarious when a liberal arts major ends up in one of my calculus or chemistry classes. They get this deer in the headlights look and start enlisting private tutors and still get D's and F's. As for sciences requiring a large amount of memorization, well, yes, you need to know the formula. But you can't just know the formula, you need to know how to apply it and manipulate it. That's what stifles most non-science people. But last semester my physics prof allowed us a notecard with all the formulas and the class average on the exams was still around a 45-50. Some people just can't do science or math. Of these people, some admit it and go into a liberal arts major, while other just keep trying and keep failing.

"It seems to me that people I know who are "good" in math and science are generally smarter... than people who are "good" at, say, English or history. ... My question is two-fold: Do others get this same sense, ...? And is there any evidence on the subject, either way?"

I don't know about evidence on the subject other than hearsay. I'm a math/gear and think that we are generally seen as , umm, having less of a social life :). I've noticed that my classmates and I are usually the ones staying home and studying on the weekends. I'm a very quiet person and probably perpetuate the stereotype of the reclusive math major...I also know several musical engineers (and am one of them).
Somewhere in our education we learned math=geek, arts=cop-out. It's a shame. I've enjoyed my humanities classes, but my fellows and I get strange looks whenever we venture into the conversation (whoa, the gears have opinions).

it's not unheard of to spend hours understanding a single paragraph of text and it's associated formulas in a textbook"

Isn't that the truth. Sometimes it seems like the authors simply can't express their ideas in plain english. I mean, we're students for gosh sakes, not PhD's.

As for BS-ing. I hated high school english because people were always reading too much into a story (IMO). Yes, stories have morals and life lessons, but picking at every detail just ruins the joy of reading. Please don't force me to take some profound meaning from it.

$0.02 (give or take)

I'm another one of those oddities that ended up with both mathematical and verbal skills, with a twist -- the utter, total inability to remember facts such as names, dates or places (ever have to go look up your own age on your driver's license because you've forgotten it? -- been there.)I think that probably contributes more than anything to my personal geekiness (of the absent minded professor type)...hard to make creative small talk when you can't recall the plot of movie you saw two days ago. That confessed to, I think the perception of mathematical/spatial/reasoning ability = intelligence comes in part from a circular definition -- it's what intelligence and other standardized tests measure, as opposed to the ability to absorb and catalog factual knowledge or the creativity needed to create some wholly new work of art or literature (as opposed to the critical skills used in commenting on an existent one). I've got a friend that had to be dragged through calculus twice before barely passing, but can tell me the common and scientific names of any plant I point to, as well as the conditions needed for their care and feeding, and I'm continually amazed by this, particularly because I can't do it. So if what we call intelligence is defined by math/space/reasoning ability, sure, anyone who can do these things appears intelligent. However, anyone who can do something you can't do appears remarkable!
Second, when you hear people in a math or physics discussion tossing around specialized jargon and it goes over your head, keep in mind that most disciplines (medicine in particular comes to mind) have just as much specialized language, and it CAN BE TAUGHT. Part of the problem with math in particular is that it's inflicted on everybody (and I think it should be)and then taught very poorly. Of course mathematical terms and concepts make little sense if the person presenting them can't be bothered to break them down into accessible english, and then build up from there. (Personal gripe coming up, watch out!) I've seen quite a few teachers/profs fail to realize that just because the subject was immediately obvious to them, it might not be to the rest of the world. They've never been in the position of having to analyze their own thought processes -- to sit back and say "I see how this works, now WHAT is it that I'm seeing? And how do I explain that?" Worse, I've known one that I far as I can tell actually enjoyed talking over his students heads, and refused to even attempt clarification. Some kind of ego thing (ooh, I'm smarter than a bunch of sophomores), and the existence of a small minority that did understand what was going on annoyed him to no end (heh heh heh). And yeah, you'll run into those people occasionally too, not just in a school setting, but the ones who just can't be bothered to explain anything "at your level". They might be intelligent, but hey, they're still jerks.
[Oh, the reason for the personal gripe? No one failed the freshman calc class I taught last semester. And it was calculus for non-engineers. Anyone else out there understand the enormity of just how bad a thing that is?]

I've had both experiences with profs, too. What really gets me is professors who really really try to break it down to the basics but people still can't get it. Their answer is then to chastise the professor. I'm of the opinion that not everyone can be taught, because my fiance is hopeless in math. We're talking basic, non-calculus math. I've tried to tutor him, given up, he's paid an ungodly amount of money to tutors, still nothing. He's just bad at math. I don't care what people say, he is an example of someone beyond hope.
As for profs who talk above you, I had a molecular genetics prof who loved to do that and tell everyone how great he was. I went in once to express concern on an exam and he told me how I would never make it anywhere, etc etc, that in medical school I would be competing with the top students from Harvard and so on. I left almost in tears, only to look him up in the faculty guide and discover his Ph.D came from a second rate school in genetics. So the best way to deal with these people is to check their background. A lot of their pomposity drains away when you casually ask about their stint at a junior college or their 1.5 GPA.

As for the no-failures in that calc class, i believe it may be a sign of the end of the world.

Disclaimer: I freely admit to having a strong preference for math/science vs. all that fuzzy stuff ;)

I think the difference between arts/social science & "hard" science is seen in the different ways people who excel in one view the other... The English/History crowd don't/can't get problem-solving; the Math/Science crowd can't be bothered with "that crap".

I think the crux of the issue is which gives you the greater satisfaction - solving a problem in which the answer will be the same 1,000 years from now, or seeing different things in the same picture/story at different times depending on what has happened to you recently.



------------------
Sue from El Paso
members.aol.com/majormd/index.html (http://members.aol.com/majormd/index.html)

Comments on Memorizing facts vs. "you need to know the formula."
Sometimes an applied science field requires looking at facts, recognizing a pattern and drawing a conclusion based on experience.It's much more intuitive than using a formula. Still, you need some theoretical science for a foundation in that field.

I have to reply to the "solving a problem in which the answer will be the same 1000 years from now" That may be true in the introductory levels of science, but the higher you get, the less they really know about things. The lure of science is the unknown. I've asked many questions to professors who have had to answer "there are many theories on this, but there is no conclusive proof" The excitement comes in being the one to prove something.

Lynne writes, "...the utter, total inability to remember facts such as names, dates or places..."

You mean I'm not the only one??? That's a relief! Half the things I say in real life come out along the lines of, "Err, take the whichamicallit and put it on top of the other thingy that's next to the green deal over there... no, no, the OTHER green deal!"

Lynne also writes... "I've seen quite a few teachers/profs fail to realize that just because the subject was immediately obvious to them, it might not be to the rest of the world."

Like the old joke goes, "It's immediately obvious that..." in prof-speak means "a team of graduate students working on the problem for a week can demonstrate that..."

k0myers

KO, off-topic, but in a recent grad-level math course, I had the pleasure of seeing a prof lose it (under the provocation of one very bright but highly annoying student)and utter the phrase "and it is immediately obvious TO ANY REASONABLY NON-STUPID PERSON that..." From that point on, if I needed to gloss over a point in a proof I couldn't quite get, I just dragged that one out. (prof fortunately had a sense of humor)

Well, im one of those who finds English, Arts, and Languages easy, but i suck so badly at math. I remember my SAT score. I got something like a 930, 630 in English, and a 300 in the math part.

In my courses here at my University, you cannot BS many of the liberal arts classes. For instance, in language classes you are made to apply the language. This means you have to visit facilitators, and to get out of the class you have to asess out, meaning you have a conversation with the professor and they know if you know your S*** or not. Art classes you can probably BS them. For many non language people this is sheer terror, but i enjoyed doing all of that because i got to practice using the language.

I did love being in chemistry though. The professor made it very fun and she explained things well (or at least i thought so =) ). I got a C because like i said i suck at math.

OK, I did two years of college as an art major. Never went near science. Finally took an earth science class just to get the requirement out of the way... yadda, yadda, yadda... I just finished my dissertation and I'm now teaching geology and astronomy.

I've decided that I don't buy the left/right brain stuff 'cuz among the most creative people I've met are scientists. You can't come up with research ideas and figure out how to test hypotheses in the field without having an active imagination.

Math is a language. Plain and simple. It is a language with a ten symbol alphabet and a very specific, logical grammar. I avoided it like the plague for over ten years, until I chose a discipline that required I understand it. Imagine you've fallen in love with someone and she/he lives in Germany. You can't bear to be apart from her/him so you move there and you have to learn german. Once you're immersed and you've got a compelling reason to learn it, you'll become fluent in no time.

I tell my students that there are two skills they should take away from college: (1) communication, both verbal and written; and (2) problem solving, symbolic and applied. If they don't have these two down they have failed (or their college has failed them).

Now we are getting somewhere.Even a team of nerds needs a person to act as communicator to first solve the problem and then report it properly to the boss or to someone who needs to apply the knowledge.
Like, a tech writer, for example!

Speaking as someone who started in pure and applied sciences and switched into creative arts (focussing heavily on literature), I have to say this. When I switched, the amount of effort I was putting in didn't change by very much. What did change is that I enjoyed the subjects more; I was less frustrated; the import of the work didn't seem as trivial; the whole field in general just appealed to me more. I think it's more a matter of how well you're suited for a given field than how smart you are. (Not to brag, but I skipped grade 2 and graduated high school and CEGEP [Quebec junior college] with honours.)

In the way of bullshit, admittedly if you bullshit convincingly you can pass. With maybe a 65%, at least in Mr. Peters' and Ms. Rothman's classes. I passed with 92% and 98%. I did not bullshit.

Besides, you must admit in our culture the usual definition of how smart someone is has to do with how good they are in technical fields such as math and science. So all you're really asking is, is it true that someone who's good at math and science is better in math and science than someone who's not? It becomes a tautology.

It's a pernicious thought. Who comes to mind when you think of smart people? Scientists. Rather, unfortunately, than brilliant philosophers, linguists, authors, and other brilliant liberal artists such as Chomsky, Atwood, Saul, etc.

I for get who said it, but the quote goes something like: "Everyone is ignorant, just on different subjects". Cecil excepted, of course. We tend to have a high degree of admiration for experts - those who have a very thorough knowledge of a (usually) limited field. Math and science lend themselves to this kind of specialization where language and history usually require a more general knowledge over a broader spectrum.

Another factor is that math and science tend to be ongoing discoveries. Languages are invented and history is merely recorded. It is much more impressive in the mind of society to discover a new scientific principle or math proof than to invent a new way to diagram a sentence.

I don't think it is a matter of "thinking better than you"; more a matter of "thinking differently than you".

------------------
The overwhelming majority of people have more than the average (mean) number of legs. -- E. Grebenik

Short and to the point.

While teaching and advising at the University level, I have seen many students drop out of the physical sciences to be successful in the liberal arts; but, I have yet to meet a student who failed out of english to become a chemist.

------------------
"If you stick your finger in a pie, whatever is in the pie will be on your finger, and whatever is on your finger will be in the pie...unless you wear a rubber glove"----some demented old lady

"If you wish to succeed in the Sciences, there's no way to fake it. Either you know what you're talking about or you don't."

Maybe not in some Sciences, but have you ever talked to a software engineer/programmer lately? Let me assure you, you can fake it. There's so much new technology mumbo-jumbo around that I've often worked at places who hired people based on the fact that they know some nifty new technology, but six months down the road it's proven they don't. And that's the best case scenario - I've worked with many an engineer who just doesn't know what he/she is talking about. Most of the time, it's my manager.

I, for one, consider the sciences the "easy" stuff. With enough work and motivation, just about anyone can learn a science. It's just a matter of studying. However, there's no guarantee that you'll be able to paint a gorgeous painting, or write an amazing book, no matter how hard you try.

There's a weird juxtaposition going on. In general, it's easier to enter into the arts than the sciences. It's easier to become a moderate-to-good "artist" (for lack of a better word) than it is to become a moderate-to-good scientist. However, it's MUCH harder to become an expert artist than it is to become an expert scientist. An expert scientist is grown through hard work and dedication; an expert artist requires a stroke of genius.

Of course, these are generalizations, and there's plenty of good scientists display strokes of genius akin to that of artists.

Count me as another one of those "good at both" types. Well, sort of - depends on what you call "humanities". I tested out of science at college, so the only true science class I ever took was Geology. However, I hated English and Language classes - I couldn't analyze a book to save my life.
Economics and government, however, were doable. I can write a paper analyzing the European Union, I just can't write one analyzing Shakespeare. And I went into the very math-based econ - the kind that required multivariable calc to even begin to get it. However, I admit I'm a math geek at heart. :) I think that like everything else, there are different levels of understanding for math and English. I don't understand abstract physics, but I can use calculus to compute economics trends. Just my $.02.

Oh, and sunbear? Tech writers rule. :)

I'd say that the better responses on this topic simply reinforce my opposition to tests such as the Stanford-Binet. Intelligence is not some "thing" that different people have in different quantities. Intelligence is the collection of abilities to bring knowledge/memory, imagination, and an organizing methodology to bear on a problem. The problem may be one of tracking bodies in motion in space or it may be one of communicating an emotion in a way that allows others to recognize and deal with feelings in their own lives.

I suspect that Liberal Arts courses are easier to bluff one's way through in school, not because the Liberal Arts are easier, but because they are not taught as rigorously. Notice the posts by Jrepka and Matt_mcl. People who have actually invested energy on both sides of the fence do not tend to play down the effort of the other side.

Too often, when the word intelligence is used in our society, it indicates an ability to master "book l'arnin'" with the implication that the harder the book, the greater the intelligence. There is some truth in that, but it is hardly the only truth. My father-in-law is a farrier. He often has veterinary doctors come to him with questions regarding the health of a horse. His intelligence (knowledge/memory of horse anatomy and equine pathology applied in an orderly way to imagine what the horse is feeling and thinking) is not simply gathered from books (although he reads on the subject, constantly). The vet has several years of formal education. My father-in-law teaches horse-shoeing in a twelve-week course. Of course, after 50+ years he has experience, but it is the application of that experience (intelligence) that brings doctors to consult with him. Someone has developed a certification program for Farriers that requires an exhausting written test. My father-in-law has not yet been able to pass that test--but the vets still come to him for advice.



------------------
Tom~

Well, after reading all the very thoughtful responses (thanks, y'all), I think the best points are those made by those of you asking, essentially, what is "smart"? To use, oh, me, for an example (and not attempting to brag but just to make a point): I'm a lawyer and I consider some of my greatest strengths to be the ability to communicate well, in writing and orally, to structure logical arguments, and to think on my feet (crucial in trials). My brother-in-law is scary-smart in physics, working on a PhD in something so esoteric and beyond me that I can't even tell you what it is. But he is very uncomfortable speaking in public, being put on the spot in terms of argument, and he is not a very good writer because he can't translate his ideas (clear to him) into prose that is clear to a reader. So which of us is "smarter"? Well, actually, I still think he is, but you see my point.

Another thing: My experience in college was that I could get As in English and History without trying too hard, and Cs in Math and Science without trying too hard. The difference was that I didn't try harder in E/H because it wasn't required of me, and I didn't try harder in M/S because I wasn't interested in those subjects. It was only when I went to law school that I was actually challenged to do my best work, and it wasn't because the subject matter had changed radically, but because the expectations (of myself and the school) had been significantly raised. But my experience as an undergrad was that, if all you wanted to do was pass (as opposed to excel) you could B.S. your way through math and science pretty easily too.

As a computer programmer who's also a semipro opera singer (and who scored in the mid-700's on both halves of the SAT), I suppose I ought to try to offer some kind of perspective.

The first thing that comes to mind is that, except in the various divisions of History, the liberal arts rarely offer cases of one answer being "right" and the rest "wrong". It is entirely possible to find defenders of almost any position, so that by that standard, it is easy to say that one can bullshit ones way through a course. But this is a shallow analysis. When one looks into how these opinions are justified, one often finds irrelevant tricks of fancy, or, worse, mere fashion. (As C. S. Lewis says, "Tell me the date of your birth and I can make a shrewd guess whether you prefer Hopkins or Housman, Hardy or Lawrence. Tell me that a man despised Pope and admired Ossian, and I shall make a good shot as his floruit.")

Genuine intelligence, on the other hand, shows itself. Read the literary essays of -- well -- any of the Inklings, and you will find yourself engaged with as firm a mind as you are ever likely to encounter. Start with the work, I just quoted, An Experiment in Criticism.


------------------
John W. Kennedy
"Compact is becoming contract; man only earns and pays."
-- Charles Williams

"You can't fake science." Sure you can, just look at all those people lining up to go live in radium mines, buying crystals, or better yet, C#3 or Art Bell. Couch it in enough technobabble and you can find all sorts of people who will believe it is science. You might not fake out people with a scientific or logical mindset, but you can fake the people, alas.

------------------
>>while contemplating the navel of the universe, I wondered, is it an innie or outie?<<

---The dragon observes

Well, Lynne said pretty much what I was gonna, so now I have to say something else. Interesting thread.

I remember when I took the GREs I recieved a report of the scores which included how the group of test takers did, broken down in various ways including college major. Not surprisingly, the people who did best on the quantitative and analytical part were, in order: mathematicians, physicists, chemists and economists (tied), biologists, .... I forget after that. Interestingly, in the VERBAL part the order was almost the same, with math, physics, (I think biologists were a little higher here) Bio-Econ-Chem,....

Inasmuch as verbal skills can be measured on tests like this, it is interesting that it seems to correlate very well with quantitative skills. Yet Gosensgo said I have a sneaking suspicion that part of the problem is that scientific textbooks are not well-written on the whole and I have to agree with HimHerIt. Why is this?

I used to think science people were brighter than humanities folks, based on my experience in college where, to be frank, they WERE. Then I went to grad school and met so many incredibly intelligent people studying fascinating things in the humanities that I had to reevaluate that opinion and drop it as a general observation. Every field offers space for great intellect, if it is taken far enough. And that's the catch. I think it's easier to get to a point in science where you are dealing with the edge of the subject. It becomes more challenging earlier on. This is partly because of science's insistence on abstracting everything to its simplest basic level. In humanities, you have to learn a whole LOT of stuff just to discuss any issue intelligently at all. But I have to disagree with whoever said humanities people are more broadly focused in general than technos: I live with two historians, and if you think the "political implications of water-rights in medieval Spanish Valencia" is more broad based than what I worked on in grad school (protein design), you're crazy.

Away from what an overworked or lackadaisical professor might require of undergrads, you CAN'T fake science, NOR can you fake humanities. Each field has its standards, and any field of firmly established scholarship inevitably has high standards.

Two final observations, though. Math/Sci is a central part of what constitutes modern knowledge and thought. In this sense, I think a lot of humanites (to coin a term) are lacking in breadth. I still continue to meet more technos who are interested in areas of the humanities than I meet humanites who are interested (in any serious way) in science.

Last, technos are less socially skilled, at least in college. They spend more time studying and in lab (Cursed lab! Hated lab! Damned lab!). They are also more introverted. This all changes with time, though. But wait, there is a third category! In the grad school I went to, there was a "school of politics and public policy". The people who went there were frighteningly socially graceful. It was spooky in a way I can't explain, but it was really just creepy being around them. They were all pursuing careers in the diplomatic corps, of course. They all knew how to dance, they all never misspoke or said anything that could be construed as offensive, they all dressed very sharp - but casual of course, so you wouldn't feel underdressed. They all could make conversation on any subject and give the illusion of actually being interested. I tell you, it freaked me out. It was like one of those sci-fi movies where the girl next to you seems perfectly normal - only incredibly attractive - and then you notice that she only blinks with the LOWER eyelid. Where do people like that fit in the grand scheme?

PLEASE let us not sully this wonderful discussion with personal attacks.
-----
Nickrz
GQ Mod

Huh? What personal attacks?

I believe that he is refering to my post, and I appologize, I could have made it without the reference that I did.

But the basic idea still stands, which is; You can fake science to the masses. In fact it is easier to fake science to the masses, then it is to do real science to them, because the people who want to pass of such 'sciences' need only know a little science jargon, and be able to write in a good discriptive manner. People are all to ready to believe a well written lie, than a dry truth.

------------------
>>while contemplating the navel of the universe, I wondered, is it an innie or outie?<<

---The dragon observes

I remember when I took the GREs I recieved a report of the scores which included how the group of test takers did, broken down in various ways including college major. Not surprisingly, the people who did best on the quantitative and analytical part were, in order: mathematicians, physicists, chemists and economists (tied), biologists, .... I forget after that. Interestingly, in the VERBAL part the order was almost the same, with math, physics, (I think biologists were a little higher here) Bio-Econ-Chem,...

It's been 9 years since I took the GREs, but I remember that. As I recall, astronomers were first and geosciences were 2nd. I don't remember where math folks were.

I have to agree with HimHerIt. Why is this?

Just so you know, I'm a him. :)

Interesting where this thread is heading. Personally, I think scientific textbooks are on the whole not well-written because the belief is that it can't be both informative and well-written. In the interest of concision, style is often thrown out the window. Yet some writers (I'm thinking of Ivars Peterson, the mathematical writer, for one) are able to take the topics, and without too unnecessarily inflating the quantity of the text, are able to improve the readability (and, thus, the comprehensibility) of the text simply by writing in a 'stylish', for want of a better word, way.

Alex
who just got home from a poetry circle where we were discussing Billy Collins' poetry.

Quote:
"I remember when I took the GREs I recieved a report of the scores which included how the group of test takers did, broken down in various ways including college major. Not surprisingly, the people who did best on the quantitative and analytical part were, in order: mathematicians, physicists, chemists and economists (tied), biologists, .... I forget after that. Interestingly, in the VERBAL part the order was almost the same, with math,physics, (I think biologists were a little higher here) Bio-Econ-Chem,...."


Are you all referring to the "Interpreting Your GRE General Test & Subject Test Scores" that came with the results? I have one listed as being for 1998-99. According to this, humanities students did far better on verbal skills (mean of 538). They were followed by the physical sciences group (499). The engineering group did best on quantitative (691) and they were followed by the physical sciences (665). Physical sciences did best on analytical (614). Looks like physical science people kick on the GRE :).

Interestingly, if you look at the chart on the inside, it has the majors broken down more but it only covers mean total score and not specific (verbal, quantitative, or analytical). The math people cleaned up. My group, sociology, did the worst..heh :) In my own defense, according to this chart, I did over 200 points higher than the average Soc major. I rated right up there with the engineering and biology students. Woo woo!

I can go through the list from highest to lowest but I figure it's probably not that interesting to everyone so, unless I get a request for it, I'll stop there.

I'm really successful in humanities, social sciences...hell, I'm even pretty darn good in math (although I don't enjoy it) and the astronomy dept was trying to recruit me into becoming a astronomy major. However, aside from history (I'm terrible with dates and names) and economics, one subject I'm really bad with is foreign language. Overall, I've noticed that people who are good with foreign languages are also good with math and computer science. Anyone else notice this?

In one of Asimov's nonfiction books, he's talking about how things have changed over the past 200 years. One of the points he makes is that the fields of knowledge that are most commonly thought of in conjunction with intelligence are different now than they were at the time of the American Revolution.

The example he specifically gave was himself: since he knew a great deal about math and science, but only a bit of latin and almost no greek, without changing a single neuron he would be considered terribly smart in 1976 and woefully stupid in 1776.

You all are confirming my suspicions, which are that math/science people are probably generally more intelligent (in the strictest sense of the word) than us arts/humanities/literature/language types. This doesn't offend me, though, because I have also observed that smart only gets you so far in life -- especially when you have to deal with the rest of us, the unwashed masses, the un-smart (or less smart).

Well, I think there's still alot to say about being able to understand and work with people. There's the whole "emotional quotient" theory.

Perhaps the math and engineering students are better with test measured intelligence but it takes people with other skills to keep the world running smoothly...err, well semi-smoothly. For example, I know a couple of violinists who are married. Todd is clearly a better violinist than Joan. Joan's a good violinist, no doubt, but she keeps the business side of their careers organized and she gets the gigs booked. Todd would be in trouble without her. I think it's a rare person, even if they are a math or engineering genius, who can do everything without anyone else's expertise.

I'm a lawyer and I consider some of my greatest strengths to be the ability to communicate well, in writing and orally, to structure logical arguments, and to think on my feet (crucial in trials).My brother-in-law is scary-smart in physics, working on a PhD in something so esoteric and beyond me that I can't even tell you what it is. But he is very uncomfortable speaking in public, being put on the spot in terms of argument, and he is not a very good writer because he can't translate his ideas (clear to him) into prose that is clear to a reader.

Sorry for the long quote but its needed to explain my thoughts :). Anyway, at my University, one of the goals (its a new University, only 4 years old) is to make everyone a better communicator. We all have to take courses that teach us how to communicate effectively, and to critically think (You would think this weren't necessary in college, but many people cant analyze a book to save their lives). The science majors also have to take courses that teach them how to explain science to the general public. In practically every class we have to do presentations, and a part of the grading for presentations is how well we communicate to the class our ideas and research.

On Science books: I think the reason they aren't well written for the novice is because many of the writers of these books just do not know how to effectively explain the concepts on a level the general public would understand. As i said above, one of the goals at my University is to make it so the science majors CAN in fact effectively explain science to the general public.

I'm really bad with is foreign language. Overall, I've noticed that people who are good with foreign languages are also good with math and computer science. Anyone else notice this?

Well i must not fit this because im bad at math, but seem to be one of the few people in my Spanish class who doesn't need too much explaining of grammar, etc. before i understand it (i've breezed through Spanish with A's so far). Perhaps im terrible at math because i can see where i would use Spanish, but not Calculus (normally :) ) in my daily life. I think it also helps if you enjoy the subject. To me, math is boring and takes up time i could be doing something else. Language on the other hand is interesting, and something i find useful for me.

jodih writes at the opening of this thread: It seems to me that people I know who are "good" in math and science are generally smarter (in the most cerebral, intellectual sense) than people who are "good" at, say, English or history. I think this is largely a question of the origin and size of the "pool" from which such acquaintances are drawn.

I'm a software designer and engineer with a life-long fascination with the natural sciences, and I generally share the critical and "reductionist" view of things often associated with "hard" science. However, I also love philosophy and literature, so I fall somewhere in the middle of the spectrum you describe. Although most of my friends are either working physicists, chemists, or engineers, nearly as many studied (and often graduated with advanced degrees in) things like anthropology, world literature, and law. Along with all of my programmer friends, the people who fall into the latter group have never come across any use for a familiarity with advanced mathematics, either in their work or in their intellectual or personal lives. Would any fair-minded person honestly think that this makes them any less "smart" (in the most cerebral, intellectual sense that you describe) than the physicists and chemists?

All I can say in reply is that we certainly wouldn't think so!

On those (alas, rarer and rarer!) occasions we're able to get together, it is the often the physicists and engineers who stand in awe of the erudition and breadth of knowledge of the "mathematically uninclined" members of our merry band. Their lack of mathematical perspicacity certainly hasn't kept their knowledge and intellects from soaring! (Which is hardly to suggest that the scientists and engineers are "ignorant", of course.)

True, the more scientifically oriented among us might be mistaken as being "smarter" by an outside observer, but I believe this is primarily due to one thing above all else: JARGON. While jargon is a necessity in these days of exponentially-increasing specialization, it can unfortunately make it appear to the uninitiated that deep and esoteric topics are being discussed which are far beyond the ken of ordinary mortals. Mathematics and the sciences (not to mention technology!) all float in a vast ocean of jargon that's easily deep enough to drown any hapless English major. Shakespeare himself wouldn't have stood a chance, even with his paramount skill in treading verbal "water"!

So, in partial answer to your question, jargon is probably one factor that contributes to your perception that math- and science- oriented people appear to be smarter than others.

A larger factor is probably pure "math bigotry". I don't know if you read the "Why is calculus required?" thread, but this particular flavor of unrepentant prejudice abounded in there. When I tried to suggest that calculus simply wasn't generally useful enough in my field to be a rigid and absolute requirement for a C.S. degree (just as it wouldn't be even for a PhD in Philosophy or Law or History), some posters (who shall remain nameless) treated me like a low-brow, anti-intellectual Neanderthal who should never have bothered to attend a "real" university in the first place! (The smug condescension in there was finally too much to bother continuing to rail against.)

It is easy to see how blatantly overt or even unrecognizably subtle pro-math biases might lead someone who isn't interested or oriented towards mathematics or the physical sciences to unjustly underestimate others' or even their own intellectual accomplishments and abilities. Again, in my circle of friends at least, this kind of bigotry would be seen as a petty and parochial distortion of what it means to be intelligent and well-educated. Knowledge and skill in advanced mathematics is no more inherently superior or essential to being "well-educated" than fluency in a foreign language or an intimate familiarity with the classics of English literature. All of these things can be highly rewarding and enlightening and all have their places, but none are absolutely essential to be considered "intelligent" or "well-educated".

While the contributors here seem to acknowledge that "value" comparisons between the various "types" of intelligence are misleading at best and narrow-minded and prejudicial at worst, others tend to implicitly or explicitly suggest that one cannot be "truly" intelligent or educated without a strong familiarity (some would seem to require substantial fluency) with advanced mathematics.

But let me ask: Which is more central or important to an intelligent and well-educated person outside the narrow confines of their professional career?

A: To be able to derive accurate mathematical formulae for complex calculations, such as determining the precise number of miles or road-hours left on the tires on your car given the wide variation of temperatures and coefficients of friction for different surfaces? [Sorry, I couldn't think of a more practical example of the use of calculus outside of a specific profession], or

B: To be able to reason honestly and carefully about what you think, read, and hear, and to recognize subtle logical distinctions and flaws in matters of importance to you, your family, and the larger society around you?

(And before someone objects to these two examples I've come up with off the top of my head, please be aware that I'm only trying to make a point, and I'm certainly NOT downplaying or overlooking the incalculable utility of advanced mathematics to various domains of human knowledge, OK?)

All I'm saying is that "B" would generally be held to be a far more important and persuasive indicator of high intelligence than "A", and that you don't need advanced scientific or mathematical knowledge or skills to excel at "B".

Consider Philosophy. Would anyone outside of a few arrogant math bigots from the "calculus" thread even suggest that the great Western philosophers weren't exceptionally "cerebral"? Or that even with their remarkably astute and powerful intellects they were less "smart" than their more mathematically oriented peers? Was the co-formulator of The Calculus himself -- that bizarre mystic, alchemist, and superstitious crackpot Isaac Newton -- more "intelligent" than some of his rough contemporaries such as Hume or Goethe?

So I was saddened when jodih wrote:You all are confirming my suspicions, which are that math/science people are probably generally more intelligent (in the strictest sense of the word) than us arts / humanities / literature / language types. Speaking as more or less a "math/science" person, I honestly think you should revise your opinion towards a more balanced point of view. Please don't let the fact that The Straight Dope seems to cater primarily to those of us with a skeptical and scientific orientation lead you to question the intellectual depth and discernment of which people in other areas of study are fully capable.

And don't be misled by those of your acquaintance who may be -- or may only appear to be -- not quite as "smart" as those who focus instead on mathematics or the sciences. I strongly believe that as you continue to extend your circle of acquaintances to include more "humanities" people, you'll see a better balance of intellectual abilities and erudition --

... as long as you manage to avoid post-modernist criticism, anyway!

In older days, of course, the division wasn't there. I will never regard it as mere coincidence that Utilitarianism followed so hard upon the invention of the integral calculus.

------------------
John W. Kennedy
"Compact is becoming contract; man only earns and pays."
-- Charles Williams