Categories
- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,010)
Recent Questions
- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
I would say that these differences in people are primarily due to the different development of two types of thinking – abstract and figurative. If a person has learned (or been taught) to think abstractly since childhood, then he is stronger in mathematics, and if figuratively – in “lyrical” subjects. Moreover, people do not always understand what type of thinking they bring up in a child.
As for change, it is a very difficult question, depending on two factors: the person's personal beliefs about it and their desire to develop a different type of thinking. But I think that with proper training, the right approach and self-belief, a person will be able to develop a different type of thinking, regardless of the opinion of others.
People aren't just divided into techies and humanitarians.
So who are geologists or botanists? Techies or humanitarians? And the medics? An engineer at a factory and an astrophysicist are also of the same mind?
Or, for example, a philologist and a film director are genuine humanitarians? What about artists, psychologists, and lawyers? And the archaeologists?
Rather, there are more inclinations. These are mathematicians, techies, natural scientists, and artists (in the broadest sense). And apparently more and more. Some people tend to theorize in the office ( a historian or a mathematician ), others travel and get into unknown corners ( archaeologists, geological prospectors).
The same talented mathematician can not do without a developed imagination. Historians have quite clear patterns, the formation of which is what real scientists do, and not just collect a set of dates and surnames. The same historians have to work quite routinely and scrupulously on sources, and not just grind their tongue or write piles of books and monographs. The same archaeologists need to have a baggage of applied knowledge from geology and biology, to include physics and chemistry for dating artifacts.
Artists need geometry, and musicians need mathematical thinking.
Historians, philologists, sociologists, and even poets have a lot of their own “matana”, often they are boring and reserved people. And many physicists, mathematicians or chemists are often romantic oddities in the clouds.
In short, there are no strictly humanitarians and strictly techies. A true professional, especially a scientist, should be able to think abstractly and have a developed imagination, but also use clear formulas and methodology, be a skeptic, and use all the research tools in their field.
This is a very hotly debated issue at the moment. For a long time, it was believed that success in mathematics requires a certain “talent”, and, in particular, that men have a greater “aptitude” for mathematics than women. Modern research, however, shows that it is very difficult, if not impossible, to catch and identify this “talent”, but it is very easy to find a lot of suggestions, autosuggestions and sincere delusions that make people attribute these very talents to each other and to themselves (and more often-the lack of them). For example, if you give women and men classical math problems, then women on average solve them worse. If you give problems that essentially require mathematical thinking, but are “disguised”, so that it is not easy to learn mathematics in them, then women solve them in the same way, or even better than men. This proves once again that many people are not so much “not talented” in mathematics as they are afraid of the very word “mathematics”, for various psychological reasons, and lose their composure and self-confidence every time they hear it.
On the other hand, there are researchers who believe that while the relative talents for mathematics and language are more or less evenly distributed, the “aptitude” for mathematics or language, from an emotional point of view, in terms of how much a person “likes” to do this or that, is not evenly distributed. And perhaps this is what leads to the fact that some people become “lyricists”, and others – “physicists”. Not because they have “talent”, but because some people like to play with words, and others, say, with numbers.