What do you think?
Rate this book
The Math Gene: How Mathematical Thinking Evolved And Why Numbers Are Like Gossip
If people are endowed with a "number instinct" similar to the "language instinct" -- as recent research suggests -- then why can't everyone do math? In The Math Gene , mathematician and popular writer Keith Devlin attacks both sides of this question. Devlin offers a breathtakingly new theory of language development that describes how language evolved in two stages and how its main purpose was not communication. Devlin goes on to show that the ability to think mathematically arose out of the same symbol-manipulating ability that was so crucial to the very first emergence of true language. Why, then, can't we do math as well as we speak? The answer, says Devlin, is that we can and do -- we just don't recognize when we're using mathematical reasoning.
352 pages, Paperback
First published March 1, 2000
63 people are currently reading
1098 people want to read
About the author
Keith Devlin
85 books164 followersDr. Keith Devlin is a co-founder and Executive Director of the university's H-STAR institute, a Consulting Professor in the Department of Mathematics, a co-founder of the Stanford Media X research network, and a Senior Researcher at CSLI. He is a World Economic Forum Fellow and a Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. His current research is focused on the use of different media to teach and communicate mathematics to diverse audiences. He also works on the design of information/reasoning systems for intelligence analysis. Other research interests include: theory of information, models of reasoning, applications of mathematical techniques in the study of communication, and mathematical cognition. He has written 26 books and over 80 published research articles. Recipient of the Pythagoras Prize, the Peano Prize, the Carl Sagan Award, and the Joint Policy Board for Mathematics Communications Award. He is "the Math Guy" on National Public Radio.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 53 reviews
January 14, 2015
Listed on the back of this book were the following questions which claimed would be answered and explained in the text.
1. Are there things I can do to improve my mathematical skills? YES
2. Can new-born babies do mathematics? YES
3. Do Mathematicians have a key secret that enables them to do mathematics with apparent ease?
4. Do Chinese and Japanese children have a built-in advantage over American and European children when it comes to learning mathematics? YES
Then it follows with an non-credited Amazon.com quote 'Keith Devlin is trying to be the Carl Sagan of mathematics, and he is succeeding.'
This was one of the most deceptive blurbs I have ever read.
Most of the book was about how humans gained the ability of language and mathematics and how language and mathematics are related. Interesting enough if that's what you wanted to know. This was not exactly what I wanted to get out of the book but the author explained that he was going to be explaining this so I went along with it and decided to continue reading. It turns out that the things mentioned on the back of the book have only paragraphs worth of actual explanation or mention. I wanted to get a little bit of inspiration or even help from this book regarding mathematics and how to start to think like a mathematician. Unfortunately I read the wrong book.
The writing style is good, and overall the book is informative. Though I do find that the author spends so much time desperately backing up his arguments that I'm sometimes left wondering if he's certain about any of it himself. The book is more of an argument than an information-source. This is fine, but my expectations of the book as being helpful at all were completely wrong, instead this book is about basic linguistics and evolution and I feel I wasted my time here. I skipped and skimmed some sections and now I'm happy to start reading something else.
1. Are there things I can do to improve my mathematical skills? YES
2. Can new-born babies do mathematics? YES
3. Do Mathematicians have a key secret that enables them to do mathematics with apparent ease?
4. Do Chinese and Japanese children have a built-in advantage over American and European children when it comes to learning mathematics? YES
Then it follows with an non-credited Amazon.com quote 'Keith Devlin is trying to be the Carl Sagan of mathematics, and he is succeeding.'
This was one of the most deceptive blurbs I have ever read.
Most of the book was about how humans gained the ability of language and mathematics and how language and mathematics are related. Interesting enough if that's what you wanted to know. This was not exactly what I wanted to get out of the book but the author explained that he was going to be explaining this so I went along with it and decided to continue reading. It turns out that the things mentioned on the back of the book have only paragraphs worth of actual explanation or mention. I wanted to get a little bit of inspiration or even help from this book regarding mathematics and how to start to think like a mathematician. Unfortunately I read the wrong book.
The writing style is good, and overall the book is informative. Though I do find that the author spends so much time desperately backing up his arguments that I'm sometimes left wondering if he's certain about any of it himself. The book is more of an argument than an information-source. This is fine, but my expectations of the book as being helpful at all were completely wrong, instead this book is about basic linguistics and evolution and I feel I wasted my time here. I skipped and skimmed some sections and now I'm happy to start reading something else.
March 16, 2023
Nicht komplett gelesen geht viel um Muster Und Sprache. Hat mir nicht viel für Mathe Grundverständnis gebracht
December 30, 2017
I was enjoying the first half of the book. Nothing really new, but I was interested in the author's perspective. In particular, I was looking for two points promised by the blurb:
-How the brain features that make language possible are the same ones used in math and therefore everybody should be able to do math, and
-Proposals to improve teaching of math.
A minor annoyance was that the author misused the term instinctively. He used it in the common sense of a habit that is so thoroughly ingrained that it happens without conscious thought. This use has always seemed sloppy to me and especially inappropriate in a context where a distinction is being drawn between behavior that is inborn and that which is learned.
But then I got to the chapter on evolution of the brain. (Ch 8, I think, "Out of our minds") Having mentioned Stephen Jay Gould (a red flag to me) he went on to describe how the "fins" on the back of some dinosaurs could have evolved into wings and led to the ability of birds to fly. I wanted to throw the book across the room. Even the slightest familiarity with comparative anatomy would have eliminated this explanation. The bony structure of birds' wings (or those of bats) are similar to those of our human arms, and both wings and arms are likewise similar in underlying structure to the front legs of quadrupeds.
From that point on, though I finished the book, I was extremely skeptical of everything the author had to say.
I received the book for Christmas, but it's going to Half Price books (if they want it) else to the donation box at the grocery store.
Too bad. I wanted to really like this book.
-How the brain features that make language possible are the same ones used in math and therefore everybody should be able to do math, and
-Proposals to improve teaching of math.
A minor annoyance was that the author misused the term instinctively. He used it in the common sense of a habit that is so thoroughly ingrained that it happens without conscious thought. This use has always seemed sloppy to me and especially inappropriate in a context where a distinction is being drawn between behavior that is inborn and that which is learned.
But then I got to the chapter on evolution of the brain. (Ch 8, I think, "Out of our minds") Having mentioned Stephen Jay Gould (a red flag to me) he went on to describe how the "fins" on the back of some dinosaurs could have evolved into wings and led to the ability of birds to fly. I wanted to throw the book across the room. Even the slightest familiarity with comparative anatomy would have eliminated this explanation. The bony structure of birds' wings (or those of bats) are similar to those of our human arms, and both wings and arms are likewise similar in underlying structure to the front legs of quadrupeds.
From that point on, though I finished the book, I was extremely skeptical of everything the author had to say.
I received the book for Christmas, but it's going to Half Price books (if they want it) else to the donation box at the grocery store.
Too bad. I wanted to really like this book.
May 30, 2017
The main premise of this book is that everyone is capable of learning mathematics.
Pros: This book is intended for a general audience which makes it an easy read. This book can be good for people who believe they are not "math people" and could potentially help them.
Cons: Parts of this book gets away from mathematical thinking and goes into linguistic evolution which I believe takes away from the main points in the book. The author tends to repeat himself often and gets lost supporting his ideas. This book is mainly an argument on why everyone is a math person. So, if you are looking mainly for an informative book about genes or how to think like a mathematician, this isn't for you.
Pros: This book is intended for a general audience which makes it an easy read. This book can be good for people who believe they are not "math people" and could potentially help them.
Cons: Parts of this book gets away from mathematical thinking and goes into linguistic evolution which I believe takes away from the main points in the book. The author tends to repeat himself often and gets lost supporting his ideas. This book is mainly an argument on why everyone is a math person. So, if you are looking mainly for an informative book about genes or how to think like a mathematician, this isn't for you.
May 25, 2018
According to Devlin, there are two mental abilities that on the face of the earth are unique to humans: mathematics and language. And he wants to convince us that the ability to do mathematics is based on our facility for language. In fact, what he claims in this book is that the feature of our brain that enables us to use language is the same feature that makes it possible for us to do mathematics. Mathematical thought would be simply a somewhat specialized form of off-line thinking.
Calling this book The Math Gene, Devlin is simply adopting a common metaphor, by that he means "an innate facility for mathematical thought". He says it's a facility genetically determined (at least in part), but talk of a single "gene" for mathematics is purely metaphorical.
Devlin hopes to give us some idea of what he discovered in mathematics and why he fell in love with it, but that is not his main aim in this book. Rather, he wants to solve an intriguing puzzle: how did our ancestors acquire a mind for mathematics? And by answering this question, we may begin to understand why so many people find maths so hard. He shall be able to answer to:
- Can we use language to help us be better at math? (Yes.)
- Do mathematicians think in language? (No.)
- What does it feel like to a mathematician to do mathematics?
- Do mathematicians have different brains? (No.)
Devlin defines mathematics like the science of patterns (the phrase is not his, the earliest written source he found is by W.W. Sawyer in 1955), though he tries to explain what mathematicians mean by "patterns". In fact, numerical computations (basic arithmetic) almost never arise in modern mathematics, which is about abstract patterns, abstract structures and abstract relationships. Besides, he claims that the human mind is a pattern recognizer, and that human memory works by association, one thought leading to another.
There is one chapter devoted to a classical discussion: mathematics, invention or discovery. I like it when he says «in my own experience, doing mathematics certainly feels like discovery [...] my sense is that the solution or the proof is "out there" waiting for me to find it».
There are too several chapters dedicated to deepening in language, its structures and evolution. And others going into antropology, offering a picture of human evolution.
And yes, as the subtitle reads, Devlin compares in this book mathematics with gossiping and sopa operas, as a metaphor to explain how mathematicians work and how everyone could succeed in this subject.
Calling this book The Math Gene, Devlin is simply adopting a common metaphor, by that he means "an innate facility for mathematical thought". He says it's a facility genetically determined (at least in part), but talk of a single "gene" for mathematics is purely metaphorical.
Devlin hopes to give us some idea of what he discovered in mathematics and why he fell in love with it, but that is not his main aim in this book. Rather, he wants to solve an intriguing puzzle: how did our ancestors acquire a mind for mathematics? And by answering this question, we may begin to understand why so many people find maths so hard. He shall be able to answer to:
- Can we use language to help us be better at math? (Yes.)
- Do mathematicians think in language? (No.)
- What does it feel like to a mathematician to do mathematics?
- Do mathematicians have different brains? (No.)
Devlin defines mathematics like the science of patterns (the phrase is not his, the earliest written source he found is by W.W. Sawyer in 1955), though he tries to explain what mathematicians mean by "patterns". In fact, numerical computations (basic arithmetic) almost never arise in modern mathematics, which is about abstract patterns, abstract structures and abstract relationships. Besides, he claims that the human mind is a pattern recognizer, and that human memory works by association, one thought leading to another.
There is one chapter devoted to a classical discussion: mathematics, invention or discovery. I like it when he says «in my own experience, doing mathematics certainly feels like discovery [...] my sense is that the solution or the proof is "out there" waiting for me to find it».
There are too several chapters dedicated to deepening in language, its structures and evolution. And others going into antropology, offering a picture of human evolution.
And yes, as the subtitle reads, Devlin compares in this book mathematics with gossiping and sopa operas, as a metaphor to explain how mathematicians work and how everyone could succeed in this subject.
June 14, 2008
Devlin gives a hypothesis about how mathematical thinking evolved. He claims that the capacity for mathematical thinking is the same as the capacity for language (i.e., syntax), since syntactical thinking allows us to think "off-line" about objects, concepts, plans that are not in our immediate environment. Off-line thinking may be stimulated by non-environmental cues (e.g., thoughts), whereas on-line thinking is always stimulated by the immediate environment. Off-line thinking allows us to think about abstract ideas or objects, necessary for mathematical thinking.
Devlin also claims that doing math is like watching (or creating) a soap opera - it is all about relationships, but between mathematical objects instead of people. He likens mathematics to gossip.
Devlin's theories sound plausible to me, and it certainly seems that language and abstract thinking are related. It is interesting to read someone's ideas of exactly how they might be related. He gets into linguistics and archeology, too. It is also good to see someone describe, or attempt to describe, mathematical thinking for people who dislike or simply don't do math. I think this would be a worthwhile book for teachers of school math (arithmetic especially), since Devlin describes why arithmetic is difficult (his theory) and how it differs from true math. Anyone interested in math education should read it since it relates math to language and gossip, etc. Lots of good information, or at least some interesting ideas.
I don't like the way the book is written, however, neither the organization nor the writing style. For a mathematician, Devlin does not produce a neat, clean argument, although all the pieces may be there. He spends too much time saying what he will say and what he has said, and drags out what he says with extra words. Not concise. Maybe his publisher or editor wanted a long book. If one can get past the writing, organization, and repeated plugs for his other books, though, one will find an interesting, worthwhile theory.
Devlin also claims that doing math is like watching (or creating) a soap opera - it is all about relationships, but between mathematical objects instead of people. He likens mathematics to gossip.
Devlin's theories sound plausible to me, and it certainly seems that language and abstract thinking are related. It is interesting to read someone's ideas of exactly how they might be related. He gets into linguistics and archeology, too. It is also good to see someone describe, or attempt to describe, mathematical thinking for people who dislike or simply don't do math. I think this would be a worthwhile book for teachers of school math (arithmetic especially), since Devlin describes why arithmetic is difficult (his theory) and how it differs from true math. Anyone interested in math education should read it since it relates math to language and gossip, etc. Lots of good information, or at least some interesting ideas.
I don't like the way the book is written, however, neither the organization nor the writing style. For a mathematician, Devlin does not produce a neat, clean argument, although all the pieces may be there. He spends too much time saying what he will say and what he has said, and drags out what he says with extra words. Not concise. Maybe his publisher or editor wanted a long book. If one can get past the writing, organization, and repeated plugs for his other books, though, one will find an interesting, worthwhile theory.
January 29, 2014
Devlin presents an interesting, well-thought out, and insightful hypothesis about mathematical thinking. Although I would argue with some of the details, there is much to be appreciated in his presentation. I think the hypothesis should be reformulated and investigated by the appropriate disciplines. I was particularly captured by his suggestion that mathematics is like gossip -- and I can agree. This image, this similarity takes mathematical thinking and numbers out of the realm of cold, hard, distant things and makes them approachable friends. I find this idea quite freeing.
Recommended for those interested in brain evolution,thinking, mathematics, and for those who think they can't do mathematics -- it's just gossip.
Recommended for those interested in brain evolution,thinking, mathematics, and for those who think they can't do mathematics -- it's just gossip.
October 3, 2009
Was a good look at the differences of how regular folk and mathematicians approach math. The second quarter and parts of the first quarter of the book are very interesting and make you turn the pages. I was still reading with great interest the third quarter of the book, but became more and more impatient as the book became more of a history of linguistic evolution and less about the approach of mathematical thought. I skimmed the last quarter in advance of reading it; the ending left me wanting more. Mr. Devlin has a good look at patterns and some good ideas but I did not feel like he explained much to the effect of the evolution of mathematical thought.
August 2, 2014
OK I have to say, after all of the "Are girls inherently worse at math?" magazine covers and sketchy research I was very put off by the title of this book. I rolled my eyes. But I started reading. And I am so glad I did. I've been talking about this book ever since. Here are my two big takeaways:
1. Yes, the ability to do mathematics is genetic. Homo sapiens has it. It's the ability to use language.
2. What do we use language for? Gossip. What is mathematics? Gossip about abstract structures.
Devlin is (it seems to me) very careful and thorough. And a good writer.
1. Yes, the ability to do mathematics is genetic. Homo sapiens has it. It's the ability to use language.
2. What do we use language for? Gossip. What is mathematics? Gossip about abstract structures.
Devlin is (it seems to me) very careful and thorough. And a good writer.
December 23, 2013
Devlin argues that mathematical thinking evolved as the human brain developed the capacity for language, and spends a majority of the book discussing human evolution and linguistics. While starting off well, "The Math Gene" quickly turns into a long drawn-out discussion of language--beyond what is necessary to prove the point to the casual reader.
September 6, 2012
It's not what you think. This book will make the world of language and mathematics much more easy to understand. It will also instill in you the value of studying mathematics. Absolutely fascinating. It's a book I've found myself quoting and thinking about often.
August 27, 2015
Very clunky! But it's the interpretation of the results in the Riley report (p.262) that really tipped the scales. Complete lack of understanding of causality! And, coming just 5 pages after correctly explaining the same phenomenon in the different setting (Jewish men and mathematics on p.258).
December 29, 2020
eh. it's fine and somewhat interesting at parts but not super insightful. its 5x as long as it needs to be. Like he’s getting paid by the word or something. it's not really a math book but rather linguistics. the strongest sections were the ones about evolutionary biology.
September 16, 2008
I used some of this research in designing my Algebra 1 projects one year. Turns out the students don't really want to know what its good for.
April 23, 2022
Our math lecturer recommended this book and I decided to check it out. I didn't expect to learn so much about linguistics on the go.
Some interesting points I remember/learnt:
- babies can count (i.e. they have a number sense) but not beyond 3
- syntax is ingrained in all of our brains, language is just a flavour you put on top
- math is easier to understand if you frame it in language and stories instead of mathematical expressions since many people have an aversion towards math
- everybody can do math. if you can talk, you can also do math. the cognitive facilities needed for both are virtually the same.
- the reason why the point above might not seem to be true is because we have much more practice with language than we do with maths and numbers
Some interesting points I remember/learnt:
- babies can count (i.e. they have a number sense) but not beyond 3
- syntax is ingrained in all of our brains, language is just a flavour you put on top
- math is easier to understand if you frame it in language and stories instead of mathematical expressions since many people have an aversion towards math
- everybody can do math. if you can talk, you can also do math. the cognitive facilities needed for both are virtually the same.
- the reason why the point above might not seem to be true is because we have much more practice with language than we do with maths and numbers
July 28, 2017
Provavelmente o melhor livro que li em 2017.
Repleto de referências bibliográficas, bem escrito, linguagem acessível e poucas vezes foi chata.
Pra começar "Math gene" é um nome marketeiro. O autor não defende a ideia de um gene matemático, mas ele tenta fazer um exploração sobre quais fatores levaram o Homo Sapiens a desenvolver a matemática.
Ele apresenta muitas frentes diferentes e bastantes experimentos envolvendo adultos, crianças pequenas, macacos e outros animais.
Apesar de tratar do pensamento matemático, o livro passa maior parte do tempo discutindo teorias de como a linguagem e comunicação podem ter se originados na evolução da nossa espécie.
Repleto de referências bibliográficas, bem escrito, linguagem acessível e poucas vezes foi chata.
Pra começar "Math gene" é um nome marketeiro. O autor não defende a ideia de um gene matemático, mas ele tenta fazer um exploração sobre quais fatores levaram o Homo Sapiens a desenvolver a matemática.
Ele apresenta muitas frentes diferentes e bastantes experimentos envolvendo adultos, crianças pequenas, macacos e outros animais.
Apesar de tratar do pensamento matemático, o livro passa maior parte do tempo discutindo teorias de como a linguagem e comunicação podem ter se originados na evolução da nossa espécie.
May 19, 2019
I started this book with large expectations in terms of reasoning his hypothesis about how mathematical thinking of human beings. Despite I agree with nearly all of his reasons and hypothesis, I’m somehow disappointed about the way he argumented. This book sometimes seems a bit chaotic without a neat structure - not what I exptected from Keith Devlin.
Nevertheless I would recommend to read this book if you’re interested in the evolutionary development of the human species with a focus on mathematical thinking.
Nevertheless I would recommend to read this book if you’re interested in the evolutionary development of the human species with a focus on mathematical thinking.
March 23, 2025
Great first half about the mind of math, its intrinsic beauty, and ways to process different things. Then he started going into the “how we got here” theory, asserting many theories as facts, I don’t agree with (or particularly enjoy). Some interesting tidbits at the end which picked it up a little for me though. All in all, didn’t hate the time reading it and learned a little bit in the process, but wouldn’t study or advocate for the concepts much.
November 2, 2017
At parts fascinating, at parts dry, the book did, however, appeal to my English/Math self, especially as Devlin argues that our language gene and math gene are essentially the same and that the former enables us to think mathematically as well. This book is not for the faint-hearted. You'll need to love both language and math to appreciate the author's argument.
January 11, 2024
really interesting book! a lot less math-y than i expected, but the language/evolution stuff was more interesting than i thought it would be so i was fine with that.
HOWEVER i think that the title, comparing numbers to gossip, was a bad choice. that specific point was only brought up a few times (i think two?) and both towards the end of the book, so it feels a little false-advertise-y to me
HOWEVER i think that the title, comparing numbers to gossip, was a bad choice. that specific point was only brought up a few times (i think two?) and both towards the end of the book, so it feels a little false-advertise-y to me
November 5, 2017
There was a little more anthropology and linguistics than I was expecting from a mathematician and I ended up skimming through some of the middle chapters. Generally was entertaining and interesting though.
January 1, 2020
"Mathematics is not about numbers, but about life. It is about the world in which we live. It is about ideas. And far from being dull and sterile, as it is so often portrayed, it is full of creativity."
March 22, 2022
the first ~ half or so was pretty interesting, discussing the theory of how humans have an innate understanding of mathematics similar to language. by the second half, it got a bit repetitive and the author kind of lost me. not my favorite, but glad I picked it up!
September 5, 2019
Complete turn on the understanding of Mathematics
January 8, 2020
The author really takes some liberties with reality. If any of his thoughts were backed by any facts, it might have made for a better read. All in all, it wasn't anything more than fanciful.
June 23, 2023
Scrapes a three.
January 27, 2011
I was expecting a book more on certain people's ability to do mathematics better than others, but instead I got a very interesting thesis on how everyone has this ability. I actually found this to be a rather inspiring read as I am also thinking about tackling a degree in applied mathematics. Instead this book goes into an in depth study on the development of language and finally ends with his conclusion based on his evidence.
Devlin makes a very convincing argument about how mathematics is like gossip and he has definitely convinced me to agree with him on this subject. However, the only thing I think would make his argument stronger is if he didn't dismiss some language experts' studies as being wrong. Don't get me wrong, the studies and their relations could be wrong and Devlin could be right, but Devlin could also be wrong. Personally I thought his argument about interpersonal relationships and the vast amount of data we can remember about these things was the best he made. Basically doing mathematics is removing the "real" world people and assigning agreed upon variables to a wholly different society of mathematics. I'm not entirely sure how much of a fulcrum the development of language is for his point about gossip or his thesis overall, given that analogy. However, by the end, given some very important points, I happened to agree with him quite a bit.
One thing we happened to disagree upon was his opinion on how mathematics education should be conducted. I should say, I agree with him to a point, without flat out disagreeing. He suggested that we reform the current mathematics education to remove all the repetitive memorization exercises (please note arithmetic and mathematics are separate and we are not talking about arithmetic reform). This way the class can focus more upon the principles and what the subject is about rather than the absolute practice of the subject. Theoretically students should understand what is studied in that topic and won't feel the strain of having to actually put it into practice on a rigorous level. While this sounds like a novel idea, all I have to ask is what if a High School student wants to become a mathematician? Isn't just learning the "concepts" of a subject like Trigonometry, rather than practicing them, more of a detriment to this student. You can even make this same case for an engineer or any other major with a heavy mathematics background. Sure this will favor your non-mathematics majors greatly, but it will hurt the others, in my opinion. Also, I seriously think that in today's society students, at the bare minimum, should understand how to solve algebraic problems. Unfortunately Devlin doesn't really delve into any aspects to truly back up his point or answer my questions. This wasn't the purpose of this book, but they were some important questions I came up with when he was going over his opinion on this topic.
Naturally there's no such thing as a math "gene" that genetically predisposes one person over another to be better at math, so don't pick this up thinking this will explain anything on a genetic level. Instead if you're at all curious about how language and society's development could likely enable humans to do complex mathematics, then this book provides a very convincing theory to explain that.
Devlin makes a very convincing argument about how mathematics is like gossip and he has definitely convinced me to agree with him on this subject. However, the only thing I think would make his argument stronger is if he didn't dismiss some language experts' studies as being wrong. Don't get me wrong, the studies and their relations could be wrong and Devlin could be right, but Devlin could also be wrong. Personally I thought his argument about interpersonal relationships and the vast amount of data we can remember about these things was the best he made. Basically doing mathematics is removing the "real" world people and assigning agreed upon variables to a wholly different society of mathematics. I'm not entirely sure how much of a fulcrum the development of language is for his point about gossip or his thesis overall, given that analogy. However, by the end, given some very important points, I happened to agree with him quite a bit.
One thing we happened to disagree upon was his opinion on how mathematics education should be conducted. I should say, I agree with him to a point, without flat out disagreeing. He suggested that we reform the current mathematics education to remove all the repetitive memorization exercises (please note arithmetic and mathematics are separate and we are not talking about arithmetic reform). This way the class can focus more upon the principles and what the subject is about rather than the absolute practice of the subject. Theoretically students should understand what is studied in that topic and won't feel the strain of having to actually put it into practice on a rigorous level. While this sounds like a novel idea, all I have to ask is what if a High School student wants to become a mathematician? Isn't just learning the "concepts" of a subject like Trigonometry, rather than practicing them, more of a detriment to this student. You can even make this same case for an engineer or any other major with a heavy mathematics background. Sure this will favor your non-mathematics majors greatly, but it will hurt the others, in my opinion. Also, I seriously think that in today's society students, at the bare minimum, should understand how to solve algebraic problems. Unfortunately Devlin doesn't really delve into any aspects to truly back up his point or answer my questions. This wasn't the purpose of this book, but they were some important questions I came up with when he was going over his opinion on this topic.
Naturally there's no such thing as a math "gene" that genetically predisposes one person over another to be better at math, so don't pick this up thinking this will explain anything on a genetic level. Instead if you're at all curious about how language and society's development could likely enable humans to do complex mathematics, then this book provides a very convincing theory to explain that.
November 10, 2015
I like the argument that language is not so much a communication system, but rather a system for symbolic representation and logically structuring concepts, which is in turn a critical survival trait for humans and a necessary pre-requisite for mathematical ability. I have to take issue with the author's dismissive attitude towards - or lack of knowledge of - the stone tool-making evidence of early hominids (my edition of this book is 15 years old, but still). But that doesn't diminish his overall argument about the inter-related evolution of language and math ability in humans.
Good stuff, and a fun read. Made me want to read more on the subject. I had to laugh a bit at the last chapter, which reads so much like something a mathematician would write. It was actually pretty fun to see a mathematician writing on a topic so far outside of math. Kind of speaks to another theme of the book - that is, that the abstract vistas of the mathematical worlds we create in our minds can have substantial real-world impact on our lives.
Good stuff, and a fun read. Made me want to read more on the subject. I had to laugh a bit at the last chapter, which reads so much like something a mathematician would write. It was actually pretty fun to see a mathematician writing on a topic so far outside of math. Kind of speaks to another theme of the book - that is, that the abstract vistas of the mathematical worlds we create in our minds can have substantial real-world impact on our lives.
September 30, 2010
This book inspired me that maybe, just maybe I would be able to learn math enough to pass my first year graduate psychology statistics class. Years later, I am now studying quantitative psychology. The quote that really helped me get over my math phobia was that he said that the only difference between mathematicians and other people is that mathematicians spend so much time with numbers that the numbers become concrete...in other words, you can work hard to understand math. I did. So thanks in part to this book, I got over my math phobia and now plan to make a living using math. (Applied, but math none-the-less).
November 27, 2010
The concepts were interesting, and I enjoyed the additional introduction into language parsing. Most of the presentation and argument for our innate mathematical abilities I agree with. Unfortunately there was a big emphasis on evolution and natural selection for explaining why we are the way we are, and this became tiresome to me. (Let's just say there are a variety of reasons why I dislike those theories, and leave it at that.) However, our ability to explore imaginary worlds and map them back to reality does explain a lot of how mathematicians think, and is great ammunition for those people like me who tend to prefer that state of mind.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 53 reviews