Owning the four-letter "M" word
(New journal, lots of new posts. Lots of thinkyposts like this one.)
There are very few things in this world that I have consistently claimed to be terrible at - not because I'm fishing for compliments, not out of any sense of modesty, but because I feel I am honestly terrible at them. One of these things is sports. My parents tried to get me into sports for the longest time, but the only thing I showed any aptitude for was martial arts (which I went on to get a black belt in). I don't like playing team sports; I haven't got the best hand-eye coordination, I can't run fast, I can barely catch something. Put all that together and I'm a disaster on a sports team.
The only other thing in my life that I have said I was terrible at for years is something that you will hear most people claim to be absolutely terrible at as well - Math.
It's almost cool to hate math. No matter what the conversation you're having is, usually you can find common ground simply by saying "I hate math," "I'm terrible at math," or some permutation thereof. Even some of the science majors I know are prone to saying this - "I'm a bio major and I'm terrible at math. What's wrong with this picture?"
What's wrong with it is that I've discovered, at least for me and probably for a lot of other people, that it simply isn't true. And I can tell you the exact moment I realized it. Hold on to your hats, because this is a convoluted ride.
I work as a bartender at a small dive bar about a mile and a half from the college. We get a lot of older regulars, a few drifters, and a few people who I consider to be "my" regulars - people who started coming in on my shifts and who drop by the bar when I'm working. One of these guys is a writer, like myself, and we tend to get into some pretty severely theoretical discussions about world-building.
Last night, I broke out the pen and paper, and we started drawing diagrams. What were we drawing diagrams of? Well, theoretical physics.
But wait, I thought I said I was terrible at math?
Sure I said that, but physics isn't math... is it? It is - it certainly is, especially when the particular theory we were discussing was a possible megaverse theory, about how our own universe may seem infinite in the dimensions we operate in, but there's no reason why it can't be finite in further dimensions. When we travel through our space and our universe, we travel in the third dimension (space), and to an extent through the fourth dimension (time). It's possible that by really comprehending travel in the fourth dimension we may discover the properties of the theoretical fifth dimension.
I am not a physicist, so I don't know how probable any of this theory is. What I do know is that the thing that lets me know all this is theoretically possible is the very thing that I claim to be abysmal at - math. Mathematically, it makes logical sense that dimensionality doesn't stop with the fourth. Dimensionality works on the properties of squares. The first dimension is a line. Square the line and you get two dimensions, a square. Square the square and you get a cube, three dimensions. Square the cube and you get a hypercube. Square the hypercube and you get... we don't know yet, but that's the theoretical fifth dimension. You can barely even model a hypercube in three dimensions (it ends up skewed, just like modeling a cube in two dimensions skews it - and that's Geometry, look we're doing math!).
We took a brief break in our debate while more customers came in and I served them... and during that break, I started to wonder - how is it I can do that? Why am I so easily able to debate theoretical physics when I claim to be terrible at math?
And then I remembered - I actually did fairly decent in math. In fact, there really weren't many times I can honestly say I didn't grasp the concepts involved and I wasn't able to implement them. I got a little lost with calculating matrices, but math theory has never really been a problem for me.
I'm not bad at math. I'm actually fairly decent at math. In fact, if I tried, I could probably really excel at math.
So why do I treat math like a four-letter word? Does it have to do with the fact that I'm a writer? During most of my years at school, I was consistently told that it was okay if I got B's in math, because I consistently got A's in English. And if one was good at English and the humanities, one was generally not that great in math and science.
Does it have to do with the fact that, like I said earlier, almost everyone you meet is going to say they're "bad at math?" Being good at math is an anomaly, admitting that you're good at math is an even bigger anomaly. People who are good at math seem to be almost resented by the rest of the population - how is it they're good at something I can't do, and why can't I do it?
I think, now that I back off and really look at it, that I think I'm terrible at math because I always thought I was terrible at math. I presumed I would be terrible at math. It was and is a definite self-fulfilling prophecy, and I don't think I'm the only one who suffers from it. People who claim to be bad at math could say so for a variety of different reasons: Maybe the people around them say the same thing. Maybe they feel that what they enjoy isn't compatible with math, and therefore there's no use for it. Maybe they were told when they were young that they wouldn't be good at it.
In some cases, people might be bad at math because they actually have numerical dyslexia and math is more difficult for them than it is for other people. I feel that those people are often an exception to the "I suck at math" rule. I have never heard someone with numerical dyslexia, or dyslexia of any kind, say that they "suck" at math. They will say "I have numerical dyslexia." The statement implies that while they may not be as good at math as other people, it's because of factors outside of their control that they recognize and attempt to overcome.
In fact, those people make me ashamed to say that I'm bad at math. Some people actually have physical troubles reading the order of numbers and letters. I don't have this problem, and yet I go around proclaiming that I suck at math like it's some kind of badge of honor? How crass of me.
So I think over the course of the next year I might turn this around. I want to understand astrophysics. I want to understand string theory. Theoretical physics and sciences absolutely fascinate me - maybe it's time I went back and dug up the bare bones, built my foundations.
I'm not bad at math. I never was. And I need to stop saying I am.
This entry was originally posted at http://farasha.dreamwidth.org/90424.html. Please comment there using OpenID.
There are very few things in this world that I have consistently claimed to be terrible at - not because I'm fishing for compliments, not out of any sense of modesty, but because I feel I am honestly terrible at them. One of these things is sports. My parents tried to get me into sports for the longest time, but the only thing I showed any aptitude for was martial arts (which I went on to get a black belt in). I don't like playing team sports; I haven't got the best hand-eye coordination, I can't run fast, I can barely catch something. Put all that together and I'm a disaster on a sports team.
The only other thing in my life that I have said I was terrible at for years is something that you will hear most people claim to be absolutely terrible at as well - Math.
It's almost cool to hate math. No matter what the conversation you're having is, usually you can find common ground simply by saying "I hate math," "I'm terrible at math," or some permutation thereof. Even some of the science majors I know are prone to saying this - "I'm a bio major and I'm terrible at math. What's wrong with this picture?"
What's wrong with it is that I've discovered, at least for me and probably for a lot of other people, that it simply isn't true. And I can tell you the exact moment I realized it. Hold on to your hats, because this is a convoluted ride.
I work as a bartender at a small dive bar about a mile and a half from the college. We get a lot of older regulars, a few drifters, and a few people who I consider to be "my" regulars - people who started coming in on my shifts and who drop by the bar when I'm working. One of these guys is a writer, like myself, and we tend to get into some pretty severely theoretical discussions about world-building.
Last night, I broke out the pen and paper, and we started drawing diagrams. What were we drawing diagrams of? Well, theoretical physics.
But wait, I thought I said I was terrible at math?
Sure I said that, but physics isn't math... is it? It is - it certainly is, especially when the particular theory we were discussing was a possible megaverse theory, about how our own universe may seem infinite in the dimensions we operate in, but there's no reason why it can't be finite in further dimensions. When we travel through our space and our universe, we travel in the third dimension (space), and to an extent through the fourth dimension (time). It's possible that by really comprehending travel in the fourth dimension we may discover the properties of the theoretical fifth dimension.
I am not a physicist, so I don't know how probable any of this theory is. What I do know is that the thing that lets me know all this is theoretically possible is the very thing that I claim to be abysmal at - math. Mathematically, it makes logical sense that dimensionality doesn't stop with the fourth. Dimensionality works on the properties of squares. The first dimension is a line. Square the line and you get two dimensions, a square. Square the square and you get a cube, three dimensions. Square the cube and you get a hypercube. Square the hypercube and you get... we don't know yet, but that's the theoretical fifth dimension. You can barely even model a hypercube in three dimensions (it ends up skewed, just like modeling a cube in two dimensions skews it - and that's Geometry, look we're doing math!).
We took a brief break in our debate while more customers came in and I served them... and during that break, I started to wonder - how is it I can do that? Why am I so easily able to debate theoretical physics when I claim to be terrible at math?
And then I remembered - I actually did fairly decent in math. In fact, there really weren't many times I can honestly say I didn't grasp the concepts involved and I wasn't able to implement them. I got a little lost with calculating matrices, but math theory has never really been a problem for me.
I'm not bad at math. I'm actually fairly decent at math. In fact, if I tried, I could probably really excel at math.
So why do I treat math like a four-letter word? Does it have to do with the fact that I'm a writer? During most of my years at school, I was consistently told that it was okay if I got B's in math, because I consistently got A's in English. And if one was good at English and the humanities, one was generally not that great in math and science.
Does it have to do with the fact that, like I said earlier, almost everyone you meet is going to say they're "bad at math?" Being good at math is an anomaly, admitting that you're good at math is an even bigger anomaly. People who are good at math seem to be almost resented by the rest of the population - how is it they're good at something I can't do, and why can't I do it?
I think, now that I back off and really look at it, that I think I'm terrible at math because I always thought I was terrible at math. I presumed I would be terrible at math. It was and is a definite self-fulfilling prophecy, and I don't think I'm the only one who suffers from it. People who claim to be bad at math could say so for a variety of different reasons: Maybe the people around them say the same thing. Maybe they feel that what they enjoy isn't compatible with math, and therefore there's no use for it. Maybe they were told when they were young that they wouldn't be good at it.
In some cases, people might be bad at math because they actually have numerical dyslexia and math is more difficult for them than it is for other people. I feel that those people are often an exception to the "I suck at math" rule. I have never heard someone with numerical dyslexia, or dyslexia of any kind, say that they "suck" at math. They will say "I have numerical dyslexia." The statement implies that while they may not be as good at math as other people, it's because of factors outside of their control that they recognize and attempt to overcome.
In fact, those people make me ashamed to say that I'm bad at math. Some people actually have physical troubles reading the order of numbers and letters. I don't have this problem, and yet I go around proclaiming that I suck at math like it's some kind of badge of honor? How crass of me.
So I think over the course of the next year I might turn this around. I want to understand astrophysics. I want to understand string theory. Theoretical physics and sciences absolutely fascinate me - maybe it's time I went back and dug up the bare bones, built my foundations.
I'm not bad at math. I never was. And I need to stop saying I am.
This entry was originally posted at http://farasha.dreamwidth.org/90424.html. Please comment there using OpenID.