Part 1

Honing Your Math Brain

1.

Play math games. Math games are good tools for honing your math skills and are
designed to let you have fun while doing it. Some recommended online math games (that
are in line with the new Common Core standards) include:

o DragonBox 5+ which lets you gradually build your algebra skills until you’re able
to master more and more advanced equations.[1]
o Prodigy, a game targeted at elementary-school students, that integrates math
practice into a role-playing game that allows players to use math to make their
way through an appealing fantasy world.[2]
 o Many other productive games are available online and as apps, so do a little
looking around and find those best suited to your needs and goals.

2.

Make math part of your life. Incorporate math equations into your daily routine to help
keep your skills sharp and to help you recognize the many ways that math exists all
around you.[3]

o Take the time to apply math in common situations. For example, if, say, a sweater
that’s regularly $38 is on sale for 30% off, what is the sale price? Or if you need
to double a recipe that calls for 3/4 cup of flour, how much flour will you need?
o Also take the opportunity to put your math skills to work in new and different
situations outside your normal routine. For example, if you plan to hike a new
trail that’s 7 miles long and it takes you 20 minutes to walk a mile, how long
should you plan for your hike to take? Or if you need to drive 13 miles to pick up
 your friend at 1:30 and the average speed limit there is 45 mph (72 km/h), what
time will you need to leave to arrive on time to get your friend?

3.

Learn about the big picture. It’s easy to become frustrated with math when all you’re
doing is memorizing a formula that, at base, means nothing to you. But if you work to
truly understand the principles behind the formula, your understanding of math can
become deeper and more productive.[4]

o Start by doing some research. Say you’re learning the Pythagorean theorem. Who
was Pythagoras anyway? What does he have to do with triangles? How did he
discover the theorem that was named after him and why does anybody care?
Having a sense of the development and broader implications of a math concept
can turn it from something you simply have to memorize into something you
genuinely understand and can take an interest in.
 o Translate the math principle into everyday language. Staying with the
Pythagorean theorem, you know that the basic definition of the Pythagorean
theorem is a2 + b2 = c2, but what does that translate to in everyday language? Try
to figure it out. Translating it might result, for example, in this: the square of the
longest side of a triangle (c2) is the same as (or equal to) the squares of the other
two sides (a2 + b2) added together. Translating the principle into everyday, non-
intimidating language can help you more easily understand, remember, and apply
that principle.
o Explore with that new principle--in the Pythagorean theorem example, try
applying the theorem to other shapes than triangles. Can it be translated and
applied to other shapes like rectangles, hexagons, squares, etc.? Why or why not?
Understanding why a principle specifically applies to some instances and not
others will help you better integrate and apply that principle as you go forward.

Part 2

Preparing for Class

1.

Set up a well-organized binder or notebook. Designate a separate binder or notebook

specifically for math class (one binder or notebook per class if you’re taking multiple
math classes).

o Set up a section for in-class notes, a section for reading notes, and a section for
homework.
2.

<a href="http://us-

ads.openx.net/w/1.0/rc?cs=7f348626a2&cb=1462868677334&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.

wikihow.com%2FImprove-Math-

Skills&c.width=726&c.height=106&c.tag_id=21083&c.taglink_id=36306&c.scale=1.00275

48&c.url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wikihow.com%2FImprove-Math-

Skills&c.params=&c.impression_type=26&c.placement_id=ad0.4025574555816277"

><img src="http://us-
ads.openx.net/w/1.0/ai?auid=538150158&cs=7f348626a2&cb=1462868677334&url=http%
 3A%2F%2Fwww.wikihow.com%2FImprove-Math-

Skills&c.width=726&c.height=106&c.tag_id=21083&c.taglink_id=36306&c.scale=1.00275

48&c.url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wikihow.com%2FImprove-Math-

Skills&c.params=&c.impression_type=26&c.placement_id=ad0.4025574555816277"
border="0" alt=""></a>

Schedule study time. Set aside time in your schedule for math homework and study.
Otherwise you may be tempted to procrastinate, find yourself getting behind, or end up
studying at inopportune times (like when you’re tired or rushed).

o Make time each day to work on math. Even if you don’t have a homework
assignment every day, set aside at least 15 minutes to spend working on sample
problems and reviewing your notes. Studying every day will help cement your
math knowledge in place and make it easier to access when you need it.
o At the university level, you can plan to need approximately 2-4 hours of studying
per week for each hour of class instruction.
o Remember that studying math, unlike some other subjects, is about doing math,
so your study/practice time is the most important to your success.
3.

Read ahead. Read ahead in the book to the chapter that will be covered in the next class.

o Knowing the main idea and general precepts of the chapter before going to class
will help you better understand and keep up with the material in class.
 4.

Review notes before class. Read back through the notes from the previous class before
your next class so you’ll be up to date and prepared for the new material.[5]

o Reading your previous notes will help you make necessary connections between
the old and new material and give you a more solid foundation on which to build
new skills.

Part 3

Learning While in Class

1.

Go to class and get there on time. It should be obvious, but it’s hard to do well in a
course if you don’t show up to learn the material.

o Try to sit near the front and center of the classroom. It will be easier to see and
hear and harder to get distracted.
2.

Develop good note-taking skills. Though it may seem like all you need to take notes is
to write down what the instructor says, successful note-taking has as much to do with
how you write them as what you write in them.

o If the material covered in the class is closely related to the material covered in the
textbook, you can use what’s called the “2-3-3-2 technique”: Make a two-inch
column down the left side of the page for “recall clues,” make a three-inch
column down the center of the page for lecture notes, make a three-inch column
down the right side of the page for text notes, and make a two-inch horizontal
space at the bottom of the page for your own observations and hints.[6]
o If the material covered in class is not closely related to that covered in the
textbook, use two different sheets of paper, one for class notes and one for reading
notes, and use what’s called the “2-5-1 technique” for each. Make a two-inch
column down the left side of the page for “recall clues,” make a five-inch column
 down the middle of the page for lecture notes or reading notes, and make an inch
column down the right side of the page for your own observations and hints.[7]
o Your “recall clues” should be key words or phrases that label the kind of
information in each part of your notes. These should be cues rather than extensive
or repetitive notes so that you can easily glance through your notes and associate
them with the relevant concepts.

3.

Ask questions. Don’t be afraid to ask questions when you have them!

o If you’re intimidated by the idea of asking questions during the instructor’s

lecture, write down your questions and speak to the instructor after class or during
in-class work time.

Part 4
Practicing after Class

1.

Make studying math a priority. Set aside time to work on math at the same time and in
the same place everyday. Doing so will help you avoid procrastinating and make it easier
to get into “math” mode (rather than sitting and staring blankly at the math book for 10
minutes).

o After putting in your study time, reward yourself by doing something you enjoy.
It will motivate you to get through your math work and help you associate it with
something pleasurable.
o Take a break every hour. Don’t try to slog through four unbroken hours of math
problems--you won’t be able to maintain necessary focus and you’ll quickly tire
yourself out.[8] Instead, take a quick break to stand up, stretch, get a drink, or use
the bathroom every hour.
2.

Create good study habits. Your study habits have a huge influence on your success in
math. And it’s not just about the quantity of study time, it’s about the quality.

o Work with a tutor or study-partner. Having someone to whom you can address
questions and who can help point out mistakes is often crucial to effective
learning.
o If you encounter questions neither you nor your partner can answer, write them
down and bring them to the instructor.
o Make note cards. Write out important concepts and formulas on note cards so that
you can easily refer to them while doing problems and use them for study guides
before exams.
o Study in a quiet place. Distractions, whether aural or visual, will detract both from
your ability to pay attention and to retain information.
 o Study when you’re alert and rested. Don’t try to force yourself to study late at
night or when you’re sleep-deprived. You won’t be able to concentrate
sufficiently, which leads to unwitting mistakes and frustration.

3.

Read purposefully. When sitting down to read a math section in the textbook, read
strategically.[9]

o First gather an overview. Read the title and headings, then read the introductory
remarks and summary paragraphs to give yourself a global view of the topic.
o Look for main ideas. Next, look over the section to gather the main ideas: look for
and read bolded or italicized words, bulleted lists, pictures and tables.
o Read the full section. Next, read the section in full from beginning to end--this
should move comparatively quickly because you already have an idea of the point
and main ideas of the section.
 o Read with a pencil in hand. Write down and complete each sample problem
given. This will help you actively absorb what’s being demonstrated and help you
recognize problem concepts early on.
o Set the section aside and write down the main idea and key ideas. Recall tends to
fade immediately after reading, so taking the time to recall what you’ve just read
after reading will give you a significant memory advantage.
o Make connections. Think about how the new material you’ve learned relates to
and builds on what you’ve previously learned. Making these connections will help
you better understand and integrate the new material.
o Review. Finally, after reading, reflecting on, and completing the new material,
you’ll need to return to it as time goes on and you get closer to taking a test or
exam.

4.

4
 Master one concept before moving on to the next. In math, each topic builds upon the
next, so, much like reading, it’s difficult if not impossible to make forward progress if
you haven’t mastered all of the necessary steps.

o If you’re struggling with a particular idea or concept, don’t skip it and move
ahead. Instead, seek help from the instructor or a tutor until you’ve mastered the
idea.

5.

Do problems neatly and completely. Avoid trying to solve math problems in your head.
Instead, write out each step of the solution without skipping steps.

o If you don’t write out each step as you go, you may miscalculate without realizing
and be unable to retrace your steps when trying to fix and learn from your
mistake.
 o Don’t do math problems in pen and work out problems vertically and neatly, with
only one step per each line.[10]
o Not only will working neatly make it easier for you to systematically solve a
problem and avoid mistakes, but many teachers also grade math exercises based
on the completeness of the steps to the solution, not just the solution itself.

6.

Have a plan to tackle each problem. It can be easy to freeze up when confronted with a
math problem to solve, but having a basic strategy of attack can help get you through.[11]

o Understand the problem. Start by reading the whole question and determining
what problem it’s asking you to solve.
o Identify which skills and concepts you’ll need to solve the problem. This will give
you an overall sense of what you’ll need to do to find the solution.
o For word problems, sketch out the scenario rather than try to picture it in your
head. Even if the problem includes a sketch, make your own--it’s important that it
makes sense to you if it’s going to help you solve the problem.[12]
o Review your solution. Look over your work and check that you’ve answered the
question and that your solution to the problem makes sense. If it seems off, go
back over your work and look for mistakes or missteps.
Less Wrong is a community blog devoted to refining the art of human rationality. Please visit our
About page for more information.

How my math skills improved dramatically

21 Post author: JonahSinick 05 March 2014 08:27PM

When I was a freshman in high school, I was a mediocre math student: I earned a D in second
semester geometry and had to repeat the course. By the time I was a senior in high school, I was
one of the strongest few math students in my class of ~600 students at an academic magnet high
school. I went on to earn a PhD in math. Most people wouldn't have guessed that I could have
improved so much, and the shift that occurred was very surreal to me. It’s all the more striking in
that the bulk of the shift occurred in a single year. I thought I’d share what strategies facilitated
the change.

I became motivated to learn more

I took a course in chemistry my sophomore year, and loved it so much that I thought that I would
pursue a career in the physical sciences. I knew that understanding math is essential for a career
in the physical sciences, and so I became determined to learn it well. I immersed myself in math:
At the start of my junior year I started learning calculus on my own. I didn’t have the “official”
prerequisites for calculus, for example, I didn’t know trigonometry. But I didn’t need to learn
trigonometry to get started: I just skipped over the parts of calculus books involving
trigonometric functions. Because I was behind a semester, I didn’t have the “official”
prerequisite for analytic geometry during my junior year, but I gained permission to sit in on a
course (not for official academic credit) while taking trigonometry at the same time. I also took a
course in honors physics that used a lot of algebra, and gave some hints of the relationship
between physics and calculus.

I learned these subjects better simultaneously than I would have had I learned them sequentially.
A lot of times students don’t spend enough time learning math per day to imprint the material in
their long-term memories. They end up forgetting the techniques that they learn in short order,
and have to relearn them repeatedly as a result. Learning them thoroughly the first time around
would save them a lot of time later on. Because there was substantial overlap in the algebraic
techniques utilized in the different subjects I was studying, my exposure to them per day was
higher, so that when I learned them, they stuck in my long-term memory.

I learned from multiple expositions

This is related to the above point, but is worth highlighting on its own: I read textbooks on the
subjects that I was studying aside from the assigned textbooks. Often a given textbook won’t
explain all of the topics as well as possible, and when one has difficulty understanding a given
textbook’s exposition of a topic, one can find a better one if one consults other references.
I learned basic techniques in the context of interesting problems

I distinctly remember hearing about how it was possible to find the graph of a rotated conic
section from its defining equation. I found it amazing that it was possible to do this. Similarly, I
found some of the applications of calculus to be amazing. This amazement motivated me to learn
how to implement the various techniques needed, and they became more memorable when
placed in the context of larger problems.

I found a friend who was also learning math in a serious way

It was really helpful to have someone who was both deeply involved and responsive, who I could
consult when I got stuck, and with whom I could work through problems. This was helpful both
from a motivational point of view (learning with someone else can be more fun than learning in
isolation) and also from the point of view of having easier access to knowledge.

Article Navigation
Comments (25)

 CC Licenced

Comments (25)
Sort By: Best

Comment author: byrnema 06 March 2014 12:26:24AM * 5 points [-]

Maybe.

When something very similar happened to me (failing Algebra in 9th grade, aptitude suddenly
surfacing in 11th), I also thought motivation was really important, but I also noticed my brain
working differently. Algebra went from being semi-confused symbol manipulation to
understanding what a variable was actually about.

In a simultaneous psychology course, I learned about Piaget's "formal operational stage" and
that's what I attributed it to. I think it happens when you're 17 or 18. (Consider/compare with also
this data point). So I agreed, it felt like it was a physical difference in development. What do you
think of this as an explanatory hypothesis? (Any way to tell them apart?)

 Reply
 Permalink

Comment author: JonahSinick 06 March 2014 12:36:06AM * 5 points [-]

Good point. I think that there was in fact a physiological shift. But that doesn't account for my
dramatically improved performance relative to my classmates.
  Parent
 Reply
 Permalink

Comment author: Kaj_Sotala 06 March 2014 04:49:15PM * 4 points [-]

Criticism of Piaget's theory

What is “developmentally appropriate practice”? For many teachers, I think the definition is that
school activities should be matched to children’s abilities—they should be neither too difficult
nor too easy, given the child’s current state of development. The idea is that children’s thinking
goes through stages, and each stage is characterized by a particular way of understanding the
world. So if teachers know and understand that sequence, they can plan their lessons in
accordance with how their students think.

In this column I will argue that this notion of developmentally appropriate practice is not a good
guide for instruction. In order for it to be applicable in the classroom, two assumptions would
have to be true. One is that a child’s cognitive development occurs in discrete stages; that is,
children’s thinking is relatively stable, but then undergoes a seismic shift, whereupon it stabilizes
again until the next large-scale change. The second assumption that would have to be true is that
the effects of the child’s current state of cognitive development are pervasive—that is, that the
develop mental state affects all tasks consistently.

Data from the last 20 years show that neither assumption is true. Development looks more
continuous than stage-like, and the way children perform cognitive tasks is quite variable. A
child will not only perform different tasks in different ways, he may do the same task in two
different ways on successive days! [...]

The problem is not simply that Piaget didn’t get it quite right. The problem is that cognitive
development does not seem amenable to a simple descriptive set of principles that teachers can
use to guide their instruction. Far from proceeding in discrete stages with pervasive effects,
cognitive development appears to be quite variable—depending on the child, the task, even the
day (since children may solve a problem correctly one day and incorrectly the next). [...]

These experiments tell us that there is not a rapid shift whereby children acquire the ability to
understand that other people have their own perspectives on the world. The age at which children
show comprehension of this concept depends on the details of what they are asked to understand
and how they are asked to show that they understand it. This pattern of task dependence holds for
other hallmarks of Piagetian stages as well. The implication is that stages, if they exist, are not
pervasive (i.e., they do not broadly affect children’s cognition). The particulars of the task
matter. [...]

Until about 40 years ago, most thought of children’s minds as a set of machinery. As children
developed, parts of the machine changed, or parts were discarded and replaced by new parts. The
machinery didn’t work well during these transitions, but the changes happened quickly. Today,
researchers more often think that there are several sets of machinery. Children have multiple
cognitive processes and modes of thought that coexist, and any one might be recruited to solve a
problem. Those sets of cognitive machinery undergo change as children develop, but in addition,
the probability of using one set of machinery or the other also changes as children develop.

This conclusion doesn’t mean that there is no consistency across children in their thought, or in
the way that it changes with development. But the consistency is only really evident at a broader
scale of measurement. A geographic metaphor is helpful in understanding this distinction
(Siegler, DeLoache, and Eisenberg 2003). If one begins a trip in Virginia and drives west, there
are very real differences in terrain that can be usefully described. The East Coast is wet, green,
and moderately hilly. The Midwest is less wet and flatter. The mountain states are mountainous
and green, and the West is mostly flat and desert-like. There is no abrupt transition from one
region to another and the characterization is only a rough one—if I tell you that I’m on the East
Coast and you say, “Oh, it must be green, wet, and hilly where you are,” you may well be wrong.
But the rough characterization is not meaningless. Similarly, all children take the same
developmental “trip.” They may travel at different paces and take different paths. But at a broad
level of description, there is similarity in the trip that each takes.

Obviously, the description of multiple sets of cognitive machinery rather than a single set
complicates the job of the developmental psychologist who seeks to describe how children’s
minds work and how they change as children grow. Worse, it negates the possibility that teachers
can use developmental psychology in the way we first envisioned. There is a developmental
sequence (if not stages) from birth through adolescence, but pinpointing where a particular child
is in that sequence and tuning your instruction to that child’s cognitive capabilities is not
realistic.

 Parent
 Reply
 Permalink

Comment author: byrnema 06 March 2014 09:32:35PM * 1 point [-]

What I summarize from the above is that educators have decided that Piaget's theory is not
helpful for deciding 'developmentally appropriate practice'. Perhaps because the transitions from
one stage to another are fuzzy and overlapping, or because students of a particular age group are
not necessarily in step. Furthermore, understanding of a concept is 'multi-dimensional' and there
are many ways to approach it, and many ways for a child to think about it, rather than a unique
pathway, so that a student might seem more or less advanced depending on how you ask the
question.

I think the real nail in the coffin would be if a young child does not understand a particular
concept (say, volume conservation) and it is found that you can teach them this concept before
they are supposed to be developmentally ready. This because I think the crux of Piaget's theory is
that certain concepts are physically possible only after a corresponding physical development?

 Parent
 Reply
  Permalink

Comment author: Kaj_Sotala 06 March 2014 10:32:12PM 4 points [-]

I think the real nail in the coffin would be if a young child does not understand a particular
concept (say, volume conservation) and it is found that you can teach them this concept before
they are supposed to be developmentally ready.

The article doesn't discuss conservation of volume in detail, but it talks about an experiment
that's said to be "conceptually similar". And while it's hard to say from the quote, it seems to
imply that when children are given feedback on the similar problem, their performance improves
(I've bolded that part):

The child is shown two rows of objects, say, pennies. Each row has the same number of pennies
and they are aligned, one for one. The child will agree that the rows are the same. Then the
experimenter changes one row by pushing the pennies farther apart. Now, the experimenter asks,
which row has more? (Pennies might also be added to or subtracted from a line.) Younger
children will say that the longer line has more pennies.

When Piaget (1952) developed this task he argued that children go through three stages on their
way to successfully solving this problem. Initially they cannot process both the length of the
rows and the density of coins in the rows, so they focus on just one of these, usually saying that
the longer row has more. The next stage is brief, and is characterized by variable performance:
children sometimes use row length and sometimes row density to make their judgment,
sometimes they use both but cannot say why they did so, and sometimes they simply say that
they are unsure. In the third stage, children have grasped the relevant concepts and consistently
perform correctly.

Robert Siegler (1995) showed that children’s performance on this task doesn’t develop that way.
Ninety-seven 4- to 6-year-olds who initially could not solve the problem were studied, with each
child performing variants of the problem a total of 96 times over eight sessions. After each
problem, children were asked to explain why they gave the answer they did, so there was ample
opportunity to examine the consistency of the children’s performance and their reasoning. The
experimenter found a good deal of inconsistency. Children used a variety of explanations—
sophisticated and naïve—throughout, even though they became more accurate with
experience (the experimenter provided accuracy feedback, which is a big help to learning).
It was not the case that once the child “got it” he consistently used the correct strategy. If the
child gave a good explanation for a problem, there was only a 43 percent chance of his
advancing the same explanation when later confronted with the identical problem.

 Parent
 Reply
 Permalink

Comment author: byrnema 07 March 2014 02:16:44AM * 0 points [-]

I agree that while not exactly 'volume conservation', this addresses the exact same skill.

If the child gave a good explanation for a problem, there was only a 43 percent chance of his
advancing the same explanation when later confronted with the identical problem.

Would you interpret this as meaning the children had not acquired the concept, after all? It seems
that if the child actually truly understands the concept that moving things around doesn't change
their number, then they wouldn't be inconsistent. (Or is the study demonstrating what I found
unintuitive, that children can grasp and then forget a concept?)

 Parent
 Reply
 Permalink

Comment author: Kaj_Sotala 07 March 2014 02:42:49PM * 1 point [-]

I interpreted it as indicating that there are multiple ways of thinking about the problem, some of
which produce the right answer and some of which produce the wrong answer. There's an
element of chance involved in which one the child happens to employ, and children who are
farther along in their development are more likely but not certain to pick the correct one on any
single trial.

"Acquiring a concept" is a little ambiguous of an expression - suppose there's some subsystem or

module in the child's brain which has learned to apply the right logic and hits upon on the right
answer each time, but that subsystem is only activated and applied to the task part of the time,
and on other occasions other subsystems are applied instead. Maybe the brain has learned that
this system/mode of thought is the right way to think about the issue in some situations, but it
hasn't yet reliably learned to distinguish what those situations are.

Not sure how analogous this really is, but I'm reminded of the fact that IBM's Watson used a
wide variety of algorithms for scoring possible answer candidates, and then used a metalearning
algorithm for figuring out the algorithms whose outputs were the most predictive of the correct
answer in different situations (i.e. doing model combination and adjustment). So it, too, had
some algorithms which produced the right answer, but it didn't originally know which ones they
were and when they should be applied.

That kind of an explanation would still be compatible with a sudden boost in math talent, if
things suddenly clicked and the learner came to more reliably apply the correct ways of thinking.
But I'm not entirely sure if it's necessarily a developmental thing, as opposed to just being a
math-related skill that was acquired by practice. Jonah wrote:

Because there was substantial overlap in the algebraic techniques utilized in the different
subjects I was studying, my exposure to them per day was higher, so that when I learned them,
they stuck in my long-term memory.
And if there is a specific "recognize the situations that can be thought of in algebraic terms and
where algebraic reasoning is appropriate" skill, for example, then simultaneously studying
multiple different subjects employing the same algebraic techniques in different contexts sounds
just like the kind of thing that would be good practice for it.

 Parent
 Reply
 Permalink

Comment author: byrnema 07 March 2014 04:01:33PM * 1 point [-]

I appreciate your responses, thanks. My perspective on understanding a concept was a bit

different -- once a concept is owned, I thought, you apply it everywhere and are confused and
startled when it doesn't apply. But especially in considering this example I see your point about
the difficulty in understanding the concept fully and consistently applying it.

Volume conservation is something we learn through experience that is true -- it's not logically
required, and there are probably some interesting materials that violate it at any level of
interpretation. But there is an associated abstract concept -- that number of things might be
conserved as you move them around -- that we might measure comprehension of.

There are different levels at which this concept can be understood. It can be understood that it
works for discrete objects: this number of things staying the same always works for things like
blocks, but not for fluids, which flow together, so the child might initially carve reality in this
way. Eventually volume conservation can be applied to something abstract like unit squares of
volume, which liquids do satisfy.

Now that I see that the concept isn't logically required (it's a fact about everyday reality we learn
through experience) and that there are a couple stages, I'm really skeptical that there is a physical
module dedicated to this concept.

So I've updated. I don't believe there are physical/neurological developments associated with
particular concepts. (Abstract reasoning ability may increase over time, and may require
particular neurological advancements, but these developments would not be tied with
understanding particular concepts.)

Seems kind of silly now. Though there was some precedent with some motor development
concepts (e.g., movements while learning to walk) being neurologically pre-programmed.

This seems an appropriate place to observe that while watching my children develop from very
immature neurological systems (little voluntary control, jerky, spasmodic movements that are
cute but characteristic of very young babies) to older babies that could look around and start
learning to move themselves, I was amazed by how much didn't seem to be pre-programmed and
I wondered how well babies could adapt to different realities (e.g., weightlessness or different
physics in simulated realities). Our plasticity in that regard, if my impression is correct, seems
amazing. Evolution had no reason to select for that. Unless it is also associated with later
plasticity for learning new motor skills, and new mental concepts.

 Parent
 Reply
 Permalink

Comment author: Kaj_Sotala 07 March 2014 09:29:24PM * 1 point [-]

I appreciate your responses, thanks.

I appreciate hearing that you appreciate them. :)

Boaler 1993 is another interesting discussion about the rules that people might use in order to
decide what kind of skill or mental strategy might apply to a situation.

It argues that, because school math problems often require a student to ignore a lot of features
that would be relevant if they were actually solving a similar problem in real life, they easily end
up learning that "school math" is a weird and mysterious form of mathematics in which normal
rules don't apply. As a result, while they might become capable of solving "school math"
problems, this prevents them from actually applying the learnt knowledge in real life. They learn
that school math problems require a mental strategy of school math, and that real-life math
problems require an entirely different mental strategy.

Lave [1988] has suggested that the specific context within which a mathematical task is situated
is capable of determining not only general performance but choice of mathematical procedure.
Taylor [1989] illustrated this effect in a research study which compared students' responses to
two questions on fractions: one asking the fraction of a cake that each child would get if it were
shared equally between six, and one asking the fraction of a loaf if shared between five. One of
the four students in Taylor's case study varied methods in response to the variation of the word,
"cake" or "loaf". The cake was regarded as the student as a single entity which could be divided
into sixths, whereas the loaf of bread was regarded as something that would always be divided
into quite a lot of slices - the student therefore had to think of the bread as cut into a minimum of,
say, ten slices with each person getting two-tenths of a loaf. [...]

One difficulty in creating perceptions of reality occurs when students are required to engage
partly as though a task were real whilst simultaneously ignoring factors that would pertinent in
the "real life version" of the task. [...] Wiliam [1990] cites a well known investigation which asks
students to imagine a city with streets forming a square grid where police can see anyone within
100m of them; each policeman being able to watch 400m of street (see Figure 1.)

Students are required to work out the minimum number of police needed for different-sized
grids. This task requires students to enter into a fantasy world in which all policemen see in
discrete units of 100m and "for many students, the idea that someone can see 100 metres but not
110 metres is plainly absurd" [Wiliam, 1990; p30]. Students do however become trained and
skillful at engaging in the make-believe of school mathematics questions at exactly the "right"
level. They believe what they are told within the confines of the task and do not question its
distance from reality. This probably contributes to students' dichotomous view of situations as
requiring either school mathematics or their own methods. Contexts such as the above, intended
to give mathematics a real life dimension, merely perpetuate the mysterious image of school
mathematics.

Evidence that students often fail to engage in the "real world" aspects of mathematics problems
as intended is provided by the US Third National Assessment of Educational Progress. In a
question which asked the number of buses needed to carry 1128 soldiers, each bus holding 36
soldiers, the most frequent response was 31 remainder 12 [Schoenfeld, 1987; p37]. Maier [1991]
explains this sort of response by suggesting that such problems have little in common with those
faced in life: "they are school problems, coated with a thin veneer of 'real world' associations."

 Parent
 Reply
 Permalink

Comment author: itaibn0 06 March 2014 11:41:32PM 1 point [-]

It's interesting that you found Piaget's "formal operational stage" so applicable. I remember when
I learned about it (also in a psychology course at around the same age) I found the claim that
people only develop abstract thought at the age of 12 completely ridiculous. This is probably
related to how my own development was very anomalous.

 Parent
 Reply
 Permalink

Comment author: byrnema 07 March 2014 02:20:44AM 2 points [-]

Were you precocious?

 Parent
 Reply
 Permalink

Comment author: Emily 06 March 2014 08:57:05AM 1 point [-]

I think 17 or 18 would be considered pretty outlyingly late for the onset of a formal operational
stage... but it is supposed to be an ongoing stage of development from something like 11-13 or so
onwards, so I guess there could still be some sort of qualitative change around that age.

 Parent
 Reply
 Permalink
Comment author: Gunnar_Zarncke 06 March 2014 10:06:22AM 1 point [-]

Piagets formal operational stage overly simplifies things. It doesn't go the same way for all
people. The basic capability for formal operations sets in much earlier. But using it or
recognizing the applicability of specific instances is something else. Some people never get
algebra, but that doesn't mean they can't do formal operations. I think what is missing is the
intuition behind the formal operations. Just doing the formal operations without intuitively
understanding why kills motivation. That is the reason DragonBox works so well. You need to
train both. I once draw an ascii art about this:
http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?FuzzyAndSymbolicLearning

 Parent
 Reply
 Permalink

Comment author: Emily 06 March 2014 11:19:03AM 2 points [-]

Yeah, agreed. I think a lot of Piaget's work is considered pretty outdated anyway.

 Parent
 Reply
 Permalink

Comment author: byrnema 06 March 2014 03:39:37PM * 0 points [-]

The basic capability for formal operations sets in much earlier.

I think it depends. The wikipedia page says that the onset is between 11 and 20 years or so.

My aptitude in mathematics was a bit above average when I was 11 years old. Maybe I had
already met the criterion for the formal operation stage, despite not doing well in math the first
couple years of high school. But something significant happened when I was 17, and it seemed to
be a qualitative change in the way I understood mathematics. I also seemed to be developed the
ability to excel in Algebra (with motivated effort) later than my peers. Perhaps it wasn't a
specific stage identified by Piaget, but it felt physical/neurological.

I do think Piaget is considered outdated. He might have gotten some of the details wrong or its
not the whole story. (For example, I'm skeptical that babies ever lack object permanence.)
Nevertheless, Piaget is likely correct that certain concepts develop in stages that are timed with
physical development.

 Parent
 Reply
 Permalink

Comment author: Qiaochu_Yuan 14 March 2014 01:01:31AM * 4 points [-]

I find this post slightly disingenuous. My experience has been that mathematics is heavily g-
loaded: it's just not feasible to progress beyond a certain point if you don't have the working
memory or information processing capacity or whatever g factor actually is to do so. The main
conclusion I draw from the fact that you eventually completed a Ph.D. is that you always had the
g for math; given that, what's mysterious isn't how you eventually performed well but why you
started out performing poorly.

 Reply
 Permalink

Comment author: JonahSinick 14 March 2014 03:04:44AM * 3 points [-]

Nope, not disingenuous :-). Yes, I had unusual mathematical potential, but many of those who do
don't realize it, and even those who have average mathematical ability could learn much better.

Based on the Less Wrong survey results, my IQ isn't substantially higher than the average
LWer's, but I know a lot more math than the average LWer. Whether or not this is significant is
in part a value judgment, but my story is relevant to those who would like to improve their
mathematical knowledge and ability.

 Parent
 Reply
 Permalink

Comment author: Stabilizer 06 March 2014 12:09:33AM * 3 points [-]

Thanks for writing this. This puts some of my experience in perspective. When I was in 11th
grade, I was doing very poorly in math: I was barely scraping through the exams and my math
teacher told my parents that I would not be cut out for college in engineering or physical
sciences. But come 12th grade, I was on top of the class without even breaking a sweat; even
though the math got much harder and the math teacher was the same. Now, I'm doing a PhD in
physics.

I think an important factor in my case was finding friends who were also genuinely curious about
math, instead of just wanting to get through the exams.

But I still think there were a lot of hidden variables that governed this transition that I'm still
unaware of. For example, friends cannot explain all of it as I had many of the same friends in
12th grade as well. "Increased motivation" is not really an explanation. Learning more deeply---
from different sources and in interesting contexts--- are significantly causally linked with more
motivation.

 Reply
 Permalink

Comment author: Punoxysm 05 March 2014 09:38:48PM * 3 points [-]

I would break out a sub-header from the first one: It sounds like you tried to actively ignore
official prerequisites and prescribed orderings when you felt it would benefit you. You were
actively choosing to risk biting off more than you could chew (which makes plenty of sense: it's
pretty safe in an academic context, but it's still more bold than most people).

As shminux says below, your story could have turned out poorly if you'd done the same and
found yourself constantly mired in confusion. Your motivation would have warn out quickly.
This is why those prescribed orderings, even if they have more baby-steps than some people
require, are so popular in pedagogy.

Congratulations

 Reply
 Permalink

Comment author: shminux 05 March 2014 09:08:55PM * 5 points [-]

Good for you. It's quite satisfying to discover one's hidden aptitude to what is widely considered
(in the US, at least) a difficult subject. I had a similar, if not as dramatic, experience with
Physics. Unfortunately, your experience does not generalize to those who are not natural at math
(which you only discover by trying hard, of course). I have observed several people who were
just as motivated to learn math deeper, but gave up after realizing that math just doesn't make
sense to them as much as to others, and settled for a B-grade knowledge. The same story applies
to nearly every subject area: music, language, biology, art, programming, electronics, HVAC,
you name it... Hence my standard advice to try as many different things as possible before
picking one or two to spend the proverbial 10k hours on.

 Reply
 Permalink

Comment author: Gunnar_Zarncke 05 March 2014 09:34:24PM 2 points [-]

The relatively quick transition from D to A could also result from changes in brain 'wiring'.
Freshmen year seems to coincide with puberty and your changed motivation and abilities may(!)
stem (partly?) from changes in your brain. You semm to have made the best out of it.

 Reply
 Permalink

Comment author: ChristianKl 06 March 2014 11:56:20AM 2 points [-]

The relatively quick transition from D to A could also result from changes in brain 'wiring'.

Every change in learning is a change in brainwiring. That term doesn't explain anything.

 Parent
  Reply
 Permalink

Comment author: Gunnar_Zarncke 07 March 2014 01:16:00AM 5 points [-]

With wiring I didn't mean the 'normal' means of learning and brain plasticity (some of which
doesn't involve any rewiring but 'just' changes of weights and creation of proteins; see e.g.
memory consolidation). I meant large scale brain reorganization like the Brain changes at
puberty 'help to develop intellectual machinery'.

 Parent
 Reply
 Permalink

Comment author: John_Maxwell_IV 08 March 2014 07:13:23AM * 1 point [-]

Because there was substantial overlap in the algebraic techniques utilized in the different
subjects I was studying, my exposure to them per day was higher, so that when I learned them,
they stuck in my long-term memory.

Counterpoint: this paper seems to indicate that this sort of "overlearning" doesn't work:

As shown in Figure 1, overlearning provided noticeable gains at 1 week, but these gains were
almost undetectable after 4 weeks.

One thing I've often wondered: it seems like the people who like math the best are often also the
people who are really good at it. There don't seem to be many people who are bad at math who
like it. I wonder if that's because the way math is taught in school, if you're not one of the top
few kids in the class, part of your experience in the class is developing an identity as a person
who isn't the best in the world at math and feeling intimidated by those who are really good.
Perhaps the fact that you were just auditing classes, or the fact that you were self-studying,
allowed you to escape this identity and thus grow to like math.

 Reply
 Permalink

Comment author: Qiaochu_Yuan 14 March 2014 01:03:57AM * 0 points [-]

it seems like the people who like math the best are often also the people who are really good at it.

This doesn't seem specific to math to me. I think it's true of any activity where, if you're bad at it,
it's really obvious to you that you're bad at it. Based on a quick mental tally, it seems like
activities that people can like while being bad at them (e.g. singing) are activities that don't
necessarily have this property.

 Parent
 Reply
 Permalink