March 05, 2008
Are our brains wired for math?
Jim Holt in The New Yorker:
Dehaene has spent most of his career plotting the contours of our number sense and puzzling over which aspects of our mathematical ability are innate and which are learned, and how the two systems overlap and affect each other. He has approached the problem from every imaginable angle. Working with colleagues both in France and in the United States, he has carried out experiments that probe the way numbers are coded in our minds. He has studied the numerical abilities of animals, of Amazon tribespeople, of top French mathematics students. He has used brain-scanning technology to investigate precisely where in the folds and crevices of the cerebral cortex our numerical faculties are nestled. And he has weighed the extent to which some languages make numbers more difficult than others. His work raises crucial issues about the way mathematics is taught. In Dehaene’s view, we are all born with an evolutionarily ancient mathematical instinct. To become numerate, children must capitalize on this instinct, but they must also unlearn certain tendencies that were helpful to our primate ancestors but that clash with skills needed today. And some societies are evidently better than others at getting kids to do this. In both France and the United States, mathematics education is often felt to be in a state of crisis. The math skills of American children fare poorly in comparison with those of their peers in countries like Singapore, South Korea, and Japan. Fixing this state of affairs means grappling with the question that has taken up much of Dehaene’s career: What is it about the brain that makes numbers sometimes so easy and sometimes so hard?
More here.
Posted by Abbas Raza at 04:35 AM | Permalink






Comments
Fascinating, unsettling and far from conclusive...
Posted by: Felix E. F. Larocca MD | Mar 5, 2008 6:08:09 AM
offtopic, but I cringe when I read sentences like 'The math skills of American children fare poorly in comparison with those of their peers in countries like Singapore, South Korea, and Japan.' While it may be true that we do a poor job as a country of instilling broad mathematical competence according to some metrics, in fact, the goals of our educational systems are in some ways very different - particularly in terms of their perceived social purpose and degree of centralization. I would argue that the American system, while profoundly less democratic in some ways, is in fact much more successful at training children to do things that Americans value. The wisdom of this should not be easily dismissed.
As far as real Mathematics is concerned, is it possible to find a field in which the work of those professionally employed (other than in teaching the subject at primary level) is more disjoint with how and what is taught about the subject to children? To this end I think we might reasonably ask: why don't our peers in the middling-tier of mathematically competent nations, the Hungarians, aspire to rise to the level of Singapore, Hong Kong, Japan and China as measured by fourth-grade test scores?
Posted by: jb | Mar 5, 2008 1:03:19 PM
Post a comment