Many types of Brain-Math masses, and located differently
This is an intuition that can be experimented rather straightforwardly, sort of observing the areas in the brain that fire up when resolving a math problem. My hypothesis is that saying: “I’m a nullity in Math” is far from the truth.
There are different kinds of math and doing math.
You may feel null in one kind of math and be brilliant in another kind.
What is important is that we expose kids and students to various ways of thinking mathematically so that you don’t dump All math in the waste bin, believing that math thinking is out of reach to your brain.
I’ll discuss just two kinds of math processes. The algorithmic kinds and the abstract kinds of groups, spaces…
1) The algorithmic type of math is what is involved in basic arithmetic and manipulating numbers, like multiplication, divisions… These rules were discovered initially by trial and error and the procedures have led to resolving practical daily life problems before taking a higher dimensions. Theorems are actually short-cuts to bypassing lengthy phases in the procedures.
Various cultures have devised different kinds of algorithms for these purposes. For example, the Chinese have a different way of memorizing numbers, thinking and doing basic arithmetic
Actually, coding is mainly within the algorithmic type of following the stages and conditions for resolving a difficulty. Sub-programs are equivalent to theorems that would short-cut exhaustive procedures.
2) The abstract type in math involve setting rules, axioms, conditions and limitations for thinking out a problem. Whether having any application or Not. Differential, partial differentials and integrals were developed to account for the physical experimental data and acquired a life of their own in other disciplines
An experiment can consider two groups of kids who are familiar with the two kinds of thinking math: algorithmic and abstract.
One group will be handed a set of algorithmic exercises as the experimenter would prompt this group that they are solving abstract math. And vice versa for the second group.
I can predict that the prompting or pre-emptive guidance or advice of the researcher will slow down resolving the problems, kind of lengthening the normal or average duration.
People have confidence in the role of accredited Authority, and the kids will activate first the region in the brain that the researcher guided them toward it.
Usually, routine solving can take over and I suspect the first group will recover from erroneous prompting faster than the second group.
A major factor to seriously control in these experiments is the kinds of math the kids were exposed and trained at home before attending school and learning variants of thinking and doing math.
Controlling the teaching methods and credibility of the teacher is another important factor to control in order Not generate confounding results