Skip to main content

Is it more socially acceptable to be bad at math than it is say to be bad at English or reading?

Unless you socialize primarily with mathematicians, physicists, or any other profession for which the routine application of mathematical principles is an integral component, it is difficult to imagine one being socially ostracized for being deficient in math. After all, many learned professionals struggle with math, yet do not find themselves socially-isolated or looked-down-upon by their peers at cocktail parties or at formal events. One of the websites to which a link is provided below, in fact, lists six prominent scientific figures from modern history who struggled with math, including Charles Darwin, Alexander Graham Bell, and Thomas Edison. Nobody would suggest that such figures were unwelcome at social events or were bad at socializing on account of their inability to perform advanced calculus. In short, it was and remains socially-acceptable to bad at math.


The question, then, is whether those who are not well-read or speak poorly are more or less likely to be deficient in social settings or be socially-accepted than those who are bad at math. Again, unless one is immersed on a routine basis in an environment dominated by mathematicians or physicists, it is difficult to believe that being deficient at math would be socially unacceptable. And, it is difficult to imagine a social gathering dominated by mathematicians would be particularly exciting, anyway, although, it is possible that such a gathering could be entertaining. Outside of a gathering of mathematicians, therefore, there would be a premium on being well-spoken and well-read. People at a gathering are far more likely to discuss sports, current affairs, movies or their favorite books than they are quantum mechanics. Being inarticulate and ignorant of literature and the fine arts, or of issues of national or local importance will almost certainly result in one being more socially-isolated than if that individual struggles with mathematical equations.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Is there a word/phrase for "unperformant"?

As a software engineer, I need to sometimes describe a piece of code as something that lacks performance or was not written with performance in mind. Example: This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. Based on my Google searches, this isn't a real word. What is the correct way to describe this? EDIT My usage of "performance" here is in regard to speed and efficiency. For example, the better the performance of code the faster the application runs. My question and example target the negative definition, which is in reference to preventing inefficient coding practices. Answer This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. In my opinion, reads more easily as: This coding style leads to unmaintainable and poorly performing code. The key to well-written documentation and reports lies in ease of understanding. Adding poorly understood words such as performant decreases that ease. In addressing the use of such a poorly ...
Post a Comment
Read more

A man has a garden measuring 84 meters by 56 meters. He divides it into the minimum number of square plots. What is the length of the square plots?

We wish to divide this man's garden into the minimum number of square plots possible. A square has all four sides with the same length.Our garden is a rectangle, so the answer is clearly not 1 square plot. If we choose the wrong length for our squares, we may end up with missing holes or we may not be able to fit our squares inside the garden. So we have 84 meters in one direction and 56 meters in the other direction. When we start dividing the garden in square plots, we are "filling" those lengths in their respective directions. At each direction, there must be an integer number of squares (otherwise, we get holes or we leave the garden), so that all the square plots fill up the garden nicely. Thus, our job here is to find the greatest common divisor of 84 and 56. For this, we prime factor both of them: `56 = 2*2*2*7` `84 = 2*2*3*7` We can see that the prime factors and multiplicities in common are `2*2*7 = 28` . This is the desired length of the square plots. If you wi...
Post a Comment
Read more