Asperger's and the math stereotype

Post Reply New Topic

I used to love math, but now that I've gotten to math with problems that have many steps, I can't keep all the different steps straight, but I think I'm doing well, but then I end up getting the wrong answer many times.

What I consider basic math is basically any math that can be understood at a high school level. This includes algebraic equations



What I'm saying is that being able to design something requires greater insight than being able to repair something. That's all. It has nothing to do with theory versus practical use. As a programmer I'm very much aware of the fact that many people who understand the theory suck at execution.



It's called incompetence. You encounter people at almost every field at every level of the hierarchy. Just because you have a higher degree and/or you make more money than someone else, they doesn't mean you're more competent. In fact, in my experience it's more often than not the other way around these days...



You can say what you want about Himmler's SS, but one thing they had figured out was that to be a good officer you first need to have been a regular SS man. As such, officers had to live the life of a regular SS man for a few months before they were allowed to take up the rank of officer and command other SS men. Here in Belgium, there's a chain of department stores that applies more or less the same concept. People who want to work as a manager in one of their department stores first need to work as a regular employee for a while to understand what that job is all about.

IMO this should apply to all companies in all sectors. I've seen so many incompetent managers in my life I'm starting to genuinely hate corporations in general. Anyway, I'm just saying I understand where you're coming from. I understand that many engineers lack a certain kind of knowledge when they're supposed to design things for air planes while barely having seen an airplane for real. My uncle, who was an operator in a steel company, had the same complaints about some of the engineers he encountered.

Now, I wouldn't say this has anything to do with what we were discussing about, though. These people simply lack some knowledge, some hands on experience. It doesn't mean they aren't very logical. Logic is pointless when you don't have the right knowledge to use it for.



I can only say that the US education system is looked down upon here in Belgium. From our perspective, most Americans are very poorly educated. A while ago, ABC actually did a special on the poor quality of American high school system and even did a comparison with Belgian students. Check it out here :

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bx4pN-aiofw[/youtube]

I've always been terrible at math, and very good with language.

Which still falls firmly into the realm of opinion.

There's no way to "prove" one type of understanding is more "insightful" than the other. You prefer "theory" to execution, so you personally define "theory" as being more "insightful" than execution; however, there's no standard, objective way to measure "insightfulness."

I disagree that anyone who is good at "theory" can become good at "execution." That's simply an assumption. I've seen too many examples to the contrary, and if you wish to define "theory people" as inherently more "insightful," that's your choice, but it's still subjective. If you can define and demonstrate a concrete definition for what constitutes "insightfulness," then have at it, but, until then, it's just your opinion, and I've observed that most people have a propensity to define things like "insightfulness," "giftedness," and "intelligence" in such a way where it most resembles their own set of abilities. Jusy sayin'.

I've dealt with many math students who couldn't figure out basic cause and effect relationships, or decipher abstract symbolism, believed in fairies and unicorns, ect. They were "good" at math because they had good heads for sequences and could memorize long chains of rules for how to move numbers around. They weren't "logical" by default, just decent "number generators." Likewise, I don't think much of the supposed "logic" of a "theory person" who repeatedly installs components backwards, or who can't figure out how to tighten down a coupling despite repeated attempts at instruction. There's definately a "logic" to practical execution, but whether it's less "insightful" than supposed "theory logic" remains to be seen.



Or they're simple illogical people. You obviously define "logic" in a particular way, namely that anyone who is good at theory is "logical" and anyone who isn't is "illogical," and if a "theory person" does something "illogical," then you'll simply define whatever vthey did as not being "illogical."



In the U.S., "math" is memorizing equations and long reams of rules that govern how numerical symbols move around on paper. Whether you're allowed to use a calculator depends on the testing authority you're dealing with.

No I don't. Theory gives you an overview but let's you easily lose sight of the details. Execution gives you insight in the details but let's you easily lose sight of the overview. To become an expect imo you need both a decent knowledge of the theory and the execution.

What I WAS saying, is merely that if you can design something you can usually fix it but not the other way around. The reason for this is because there are faaaaar more criteria to think of when designing something than when repairing it.



Maybe not, although I'm sure such a standard can be developed in the form of a test... something like an IQ test but specific for a particular field of knowledge, which in your case would be air plane mechanics.



True. However, that's not what I'm doing. I recognise there are many different kinds of intelligence and many different perspectives to look at the same problem. What I consider true insight is a culmination of as many as possible different perspectives... Someone who truely understands air plane mechanics imo would be able to do both your job as well as that of the engineers.



I doubt these people would have been able to get any decent grades at an average Belgian high school, let alone a scientific college course. Out here it's insight that matters, not a good memory. The people you're mentioning don't understand anything about maths. All your example shows us that in the US it's possible to get good grades at maths without understanding maths.



Some people are just incompetent. Others are lazy. Yet others are just good at a few things. Just because they have a degree in engineering that doesn't mean they're any more logical and just because they're more logical that doesn't make them better mechanics. You're thinking way too linear.



In high school, maths involves only fairly little memorization out here. It's mostly about insight and I can assure you that memorization alone doesn't get you very far. Unfortunately in college you need to memorize endless numbers of long reams of rules as well, which I never understood and which is actually one of the reasons I stopped studying for a Master's in Civil Engineering or Computer Science and went for a simple Bachelor's degree in IT instead. Although I do think the underlying theory is essential to understand what the **** you're doing, I'm more of a practical person myself.

I never liked math. I was and is my worst subject. I'm sure there may be others that are worse at math than I am but my skills in this area are very lacking. I can add and subtract for the most part but it works best on paper than trying to do it in my head (though some equations I do do in my head. Like - 6+6=12 12=12=24 24+24=48 48+48=96. 48+48 is hard as I have to mentally carry numbers over and I rarely get much farther than that when adding in my head). I know bits of the times tables mainly the 5s, 10s, 0s, 1sand 11s. Since I can't multiply very well I can't divide much as it depends on knowing how to multiply (or the way I was taught to do it does) and most math above dividing is stuff I can't do.

However I have always been good at reading and understanding what I read. Which is good but not so helpful when people talk as I can't 'read' talking like I can read writing. .... There was something else I was going to add but it left my mind so I can't write it. It may come back to me later or it may not.

I love maths I remember my 11+ test scores were in the top 2% of the Borough, in my maths exams I scored A* however in my coursework I only got a C so it brought down my grade to a B which is not very impressive. I feel I was better when I was younger but I still really love algebra for fun.

My son fits the stereotype too - at aged 4 he knew all his times tables up to 15, He had one of the highest 11+ scores in the school for maths & sciences & he is predicted A*s in his GCSE maths & sciences and As in everything else.

Math was my worst subject in school. My dyscalculia held me back from so many things in life so naturaly when someone suggests that it is written in stone for all people with AS to be good at math, I want to strangle them.

My skills are with abstract theory and creative work, not with numbers at all. Then again, I'm diagnosed as NVLD, not AS. On my ACT tests, I tested in the upper 1st percentile in the nation on English and Humanities, and at like like 70th percentile on math.

I'm pretty good at maths.

If I change career in the direction that I'm considering at the moment, I may be about to find out just how good (or not).

Do all Aspies have problem with light, sound, being touched, etc?
- I don't think I have any of these problems. In fact, I like being cuddled or tickled, like I found out one Princess, an aspie, her name was Queen Catherine de Medici, also likes being tickled. I can also bend my fingers backwards.
When I was young, I met an accident. I thought all my many different and weird problems was all because of the accident. Now only I know it's actually because of the asperger which I knew only last year.

No. In fact, some Aspies actually enjoy intense light, sound, being touched. I think it depends on the processing speed of your brain. Some Aspies can't process a lot of data at once and others get nervous when they don't have enough data to process.



Same here...

Which would still be subjective. "Intelligence" is just as subjective as "insightfulness." It boils down to what you personally view as "insightful." Nothing more.

There is no objective, physical, concrete standards for "insightfulness" any more than there is for "intelligence." It's a human construct based on human opinions. Deciding to arbitrarily create a "standard" doesn't make it any less subjective.



If that's the way you personally choose to define "true insight" and "understanding," that's your choice, but it doesn't have much to do with anyone else.



Without any actual evidence I can't say if they would or would have not been able to succeed at a "Belgium University." You seem to be simply assuming that these people "don't understand math" because they don't think they way you think they should think.

Of course, that doesn't say anything to me about whether they "truly understand" math....whatever the "understand" means in this context.



Precisely.



As am I, which is why I'll most likely be going into an actual trade.

"In high school, maths involves only fairly little memorization out here. It's mostly about insight and I can assure you that memorization alone doesn't get you very far."
- Maths is not really about memorizing numbers but the technique to use. When some of my schoolmates asked me to teach them because I was so damned good, I just tell them the technique involved, and it took me only a few minutes to tell them that, and they were able to improve a lot. I won't say I'm proud because in book-keeping, I failed! This involves a lot of reasoning I suppose.

Dyscalculiac also.

Most people with AS are not good at Maths, a few are outstanding.

Maths is logical.

I learn by example

I live in the UK, I got an A in Maths A Level. I found university harder because I did half Maths, half Computer Science. I found the change to Maths at university harder because I studied a joint degree from Birmingham university. I have a Postgraduate qualification in Actuarial Science, a Professional Qualification in Statistics. The more advanced the material at university, taught by (sometimes) taught by crazy lecturers.

I like computer programming, learning new programming languages. I want to be a Statistician/Data Analyst. I am learn SAS. I want to learn R programming, I know SPSS.