English v. Math

Factual Questions
21

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

22

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)

23

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.

24

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).

25

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!

26

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.

27

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.

28

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

29

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

30

“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.

31

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. :slight_smile: 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. :slight_smile:

32

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~

33

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.

34

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

35

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.

36

“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

37

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

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?

38

PLEASE let us not sully this wonderful discussion with personal attacks.

Nickrz
GQ Mod

39

Huh? What personal attacks?

40

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