old battle of the lovees was: PDP1 3559

May not be that surprising.

I recall a series of studies in the '80s (or 70's?) about how humans handle math. The argument was that a certain level of mathematical skill is almost (but not quite) intuitive in a large number of people. A little training and it kicks in. The problem is, because these people do math largely without thinking about it, they tend to not learn the techniques (especially learning skills) needed to advance to more complex maths. Thus, when faced with the jump from sort of math needed to handle money, cut wood and position furniture they don't know how they're doing what they're doing so the jump is difficult. Many just give up. On the other hand, those who don't get this intuitive math kick in really do have to learn how it all works in order to do it. Thus, when they encounter the learning curve to go to the next level, it's more of the same to them. Time to learn another series of skills, and they already know how to learn how it works. The studies claimed that early prowess at math was actually a bad sign as to how far a person could go.

I take this with a shaker of salt, however, because as I recall the result of this research was the basis of "the new math."

On the other hand, my #2 son displays this characteristic. He can do anything of a basic actuarial sort without any effort. Balance books, make change, and all that. But there's a wall for him beyond that. He has not clue one how it does what he does so he can't extend it to other areas.

- Bill