clong@topaz.rutgers.edu (Chris Long) (04/08/88)
I'm posting this as a favor. I take no responsibility for the content
of the following.
_________________________________________________________________________
From osborn@nswitgould.oz Tue Mar 29 20:37:49 1988
Path: nswitgould!osborn
From: osborn@nswitgould.OZ (Tom Osborn)
Newsgroups: sci.psychology,sci.math,sci.philosophy.tech
Subject: Personality of Mathematicians.
Keywords: Is this fair?
Message-ID: <7864@nswitgould.OZ>
Date: 29 Mar 88 10:37:49 GMT
Organization: Comp Sci, NSWIT, Australia
Lines: 67
Posting
________________________________________________________________________
What are the dominant characteristics of mathematician personalities?
I am aware of work by the (US) President's Commission on Women in Mathematics
(chair: Prof Carol La Champagne) which identified a number of relevant factors.
[This work was in relation to relative self-selection of teenage boys to
identify with 'being good at mathematics']:
Externalisation of failure (wrong - it's not my fault)
and internalisation of success ('I did it my way');
Relative assertiveness in classes, to present (potentially
incorrect) views and methods;
Differential response from teachers;
Parental and peer pressures (stereotype approval);
Slightly narrower IQ distribution for females (test bias?);
Role models (existence and interactions with).
Most mathematics education is problem based (including theorem proof
and modelling as problems to be resolved). Typically, you get things
wrong and you get things right. Learning progresses when either a wrong
leads to a clarification or a right leads to a confirmation (of ones
understanding of the problem or structure or methods,...). The
proportion of right and wrong depend on many factors like experience,
fluid ability (yes, red wine, as well as carefree but intelligent
play), 'face', enthusiasm, confidence to draw analogy ...
Your attitude to 'success' and 'failure' determines the extent of
effort and enthusiasm. Hard work doesn't seem to be sufficient (and
as we've all seen, sometimes not even necessary).
Ultimately, most students drop-out of maths! There's some sort of
'survival of the fittest' going on. I'm curious of this fitness.
Tight reasoning has not a lot to do with doing maths, but a lot to do
with mathematical knowledge. (Flames here => your work's too easy).
Also, I draw a distinction between scientific discovery and mathematical
learning. Apart from consistency questions, 'lack of available data'
is not a problem in maths, 'lack of clarity' is.
I get the impression that most really good mathematicians were self-taught
a lot and teacher-taught only a bit. Is this so? Is extra teaching of much
use? Does an independent attitude protect from damaging critical 'pedagogy'?
[When I am a mathematician I sometimes find a 'superior' and arrogant
attitude in my (presumed) ability to understand all manner of things
better than less mathematically au fait collegues. I wonder if Hilbert
was humble.]
I would like to follow up this area. Can anyone point me to significant
works on personality and psychology of mathematicians. [By the by, can
anyone point to differences between mathematicians who go strongly into
military work and those who don't - funding aside!?]
Tomasso.
PS. Example of weak link in superior mathematicians theory:
Have you ever been on a committee which has
a majority of mathematicians?
--
Chris Long
Rutgers University
RPO 1878 CN 5063
New Brunswick, NJ 08903
(201)-932-1160
clong@topaz.rutgers.edulaura@hoptoad.uucp (Laura Creighton) (04/11/88)
>What are the dominant characteristics of mathematician personalities? Question -- why do you care? Is this simple curiosity, or do you have some hidden agenda? >I am aware of work by the (US) President's Commission on Women in Mathematics >(chair: Prof Carol La Champagne) which identified a number of relevant factors. >[This work was in relation to relative self-selection of teenage boys to > identify with 'being good at mathematics']: > > Externalisation of failure (wrong - it's not my fault) > and internalisation of success ('I did it my way'); It may be that this is true for some people, but does it ever ring false for me. The really cool thing about studying mathematics in high school for me was that if I was wrong, it was *my* fault. (Or, of course, that the answer in the textbook was wrong. But it was fairly straightforward to *prove* that the book was wrong to anybody's satisfaction in that case.) This was in contrast to other studies where, if I got a lousy mark on an essay, I knew that I hadn't presented what the teacher wanted to hear, but still often believed that I was right, and that the teacher was wrong -- but there wasn't a thing I could do about it. Somewhere along the line you are going to have to address the fact that mathematics is so incredibly beautiful. Somehow or other, the fact that there are relatively few women in mathematics is considered a grave social problem, whereas the fact that certain people are very interested in art, whereas others are not is not seen as such a one. I get the distinct impression that the bulk of humanity, who understand that mathematics is incredibly useful, thing that this must be the reason that mathematicians like mathematics. Is there any room for math for math's sake in the minds of the sociologists? -- Talk is cheap because supply exceeds demand. Laura Creighton uunet!hoptoad!laura utzoo!hoptoad!laura sun!hoptoad!laura toad@toad.com