<p>
For what it’s worth, I think this is a silly topic that should have been allowed to rest in peace. There are in fact high-paying fields that do not require a great deal of mathematical expertise - I gave the example of accounting in #37. I do not agree that Sergio’s argument is entirely ridiculous (maybe just somewhat ridiculous), but even if it is true it is not a useful piece of information. It does not present any useful course of action.</p>
<p>Psychology-Just my two cents. Don’t take my word for it, but as far as I know it requires little to no math and falls under the category of Social Studies. </p>
<p>Or you could go for anything to do with History (Except maybe archiving) and writing.</p>
<p>As a student of languages and literature, I must agree with many of the posters that math is very important, probably the seminal measurement of intelligence in the modern age. A person who fails at mathematics is most likely a person who can’t handle a certain level of sophistication. So far as my studies of language and literature go, it seems that great novels and writings are, like complicated mathematical equations, governed by strict rules. The myth of creativity for poets, then, originate in the fundamental technological and scientific incapabilities of existing methods in describing these seemingly random human artifacts. Maybe we will never be able to describe literature in terms of symbolic formulas due to the language’s fundamental metaphorical nature, that is, to lie. Language lies, whereas math does not. </p>
<p>Math, like any other forms of human languages, is fundamentally a set of operations made by human brain to process and to communicate certain ideas that are suitable for that particular situation. In a very narrow sense, mathematics communicates and detonates to a specific group of people who happens to share similar mind set and who understands each other based on rules of mathematics. These people we call them mathematicians.
Other forms of human languages: French and English, for instance, tries to process and to communicate ideas about their particular historical circumstances. Similar to math, french and english are governed by syntax, grammar, and semantics. But mathematics fundamentally presupposes its existence within its described subjects prior to its existence, that is to say, the language of math: 1,2,3 are properties presupposed to be existing within any subjects before they come into existence; thus, math could be used on any subjects, physics social science or linguistics, but it cannot convey the posterior status of these subjects; that is to say, math cannot and will not convey the subjects proper. A simple example of this would be the sentence two apples plus two apples equal four apples, 2+2=4, math conveys the PROPERTIES of these subjects when added together, but 2+2=4 by no means expresses that there are four apples. Simply put, math does not validate the existence of anything. It is a purely metaphysical language.</p>
<p>This, I think, marks the fundamental distinction between math and other human languages. English for instance conveys a certain set of usable ideas both existing prior and after the coming-of-existence of certain things in reality. It does not seek to measure the metaphysical, or properties relationship between these things. But it does a wonderfully good job to convey the things as they appear in reality, whatever that terms might mean. Due to its metaphysical ambiguity, language seems to be the proper medium to convey obscure ideas that give certain groups of people power, which is why we have law and lovely lawyers. You can think about this in terms of computer languages: say, Python vs. C. The former could be used to create creative programs, interactive interfaces that would delight software designers, whereas the latter, while being inferior in terms of its applicability on higher level interfaces, remains the de facto computer programming languages in many software’s algorithms, compliers, and operations due to its pure efficiency. We cannot, however, say that Python is better than C or C is better than Python. What we can say, however, is that it depends on where you use it. It would be ridiculous for a lawyer to talk about Bayesian Statistics in U.S constitution; while it would be equally ridiculous to see a mathematician trying to compose a modernist free verse using Gaussian distribution curves. </p>
<p>So, do people who understand math have a higher level of intelligence than people who excel at writing crappy novels? Not necessarily. It depends on the context and the standard for measuring such intelligence. Novel writing, like math, is governed by a set of rules, conventions, and tropes that you must follow. There is no such thing as outside-the-box thinking for novel writing or poetry. All is always inside a case, there can be pretension that there are something out there, but eventually, your writing is just a permutation of ideas, a semantic filed in linguistics, that detonates to your particular reality. </p>
<p>I hope this disenchants the myth of literary creativity.</p>
<p>For starters, you’re comparing literature and language to math, as if language is somehow the ultimate determinate of intelligence.</p>
<p>Secondly, your entire argument is riddled with one logical fallacy that leads to another. “In my studies…it seems…”. Right, because you’re the divine expert on language. Psh.</p>
<p>Thirdly, your comparison between Python and C++ relies on your definition of the purposes of said language. Since you’re such a “student of literatures and languages” I’m wondering how you have time to be an expert of programming languages at the same time.</p>
<p>That said, I’m failing to see how mathematics being more efficient relates whatsoever to intelligence or “being incapable of sophistication.” So math and language are bound by certain rules…so what? The ability to recognize and follow rules proves nothing other than the ability to recognize and follow rules. The world doesn’t fit neatly into a little box, so I really don’t understand what the advantages are.</p>
<p>The language of math and the language of literature are all linguistic mediums that make mathmatics and literature communicable. The ability to manipulate and improvise these linguistic mediums determines one’s intelligence. </p>
<p>Please express to me an intelligence which cannot be otherwise expressed by language. For instance, express “this is an apple” to me in things other than language. No, you can’t. Even if you show me an apple, it doesn’t mean anything. It could mean “I want to eat this apple.” To be able to express this is an apple, you either need to say the aforesaid sentence, or pointing your finger at your apple, which already is a form of body language. It is the sole medium by which we measure a person’s intelligence. </p>
<p>But whereas math could only demonstrate to you that apple’s inherent quality, an apple is an apple, 1=1, it could not tell you about the object at your hand, that is, it could not tell you about the apple as it exists in reality. It is the job of the english word “apple” to signify the object apple on your hand. </p>
<p>Secondly, you criticized my argument on the complexity and the need to explicate linguistic mediums such as mathmatics or English. First of all, what marks the difference between a tyranny and a democracy is that the former consists of people of extraordinary “feelings” or literary geniuses, who would worship such books as Chanson de Roland and Holy Bible solely based on their superior “literary merit” without understanding a cent about its fundamentally replicable, scientific, and in fact, plebeian nature; the latter consists of people who believe that everything could be explicated via rigorous scientific methods, inferences, and observations. I’m not your Harold Bloom type who would sit on a pedestal and curse at the world’s various dysfunctional fetishes on “minority literature” simply due to its lack of Romanticist “taste” or “soul.” Literary cannon should be demolished a long time ago, together with the whimsical believe on the idea that reading moral literature somehow make you a moral person. It doesn’t. </p>
<p>Third, on the issues of following rules, we live in a box. Unfortunately. To be able to make the statement “this is an apple,” I already am putting me and you inside a box called Standardized English, because otherwise, it wouldn’t make sense. Mathematics then is much more efficient than English and French in expressing the property relationship between things, such as counting their numerical relationships, and ultimately explaining the seemingly mechanical nature of the universe. English, on another hand, is better at expressing my daily activities. If I need to give an executive summary to an American Company about my breakfast, it is better for me to use English rather than using mathematical proves or Chinese. </p>
<p>Fourthly, my comparison of Math v. English to C v. Python is essentially a form of simile. It is very much literary as it is technical. What I was trying to say is that linguistic expressions such as Math or English are depended on the context by which you use them.
HOWEVER, math is a SUPERIOR language to EXPRESS the PROPERTIES of THINGS. It SAVES a huge chunk of TIME and CONCENTRATES solely on the PROPERTIES of THINGS. English, however, is AMBIGUOUS, FUNDAMENTALLY IRRATIONAL, and SOCIALLY CONSTRUCTED. It follows RULES that are ARBITRARILY DETERMINED by social and historical circumstances, but nevertheless RULES. </p>
<p>If we can’t follow these rules, then that person is inevitably put into either a mental asylum or be termed autistic. The inability to follow, to recognize, and ultimately to creatively improvise these rules illustrates that person’s alienation from the rest of the universe. So what, you might say. Well, it means that that person will probably live in his mother’s basement and play World of Warcraft when he is 30 years old. </p>
<p>The world is not a box, but to be able to communicate, we must fit it inside a box. And if that box doesn’t exist, we need to invent it. I study literature, so I invent boxes for people to live in. I hope one of these boxes will propel many other to create more boxes that will make this life a more livable place. “So what?” Well, if you want to go outside of people’s boxes, well, I suggest God and his Paradise. Amen.</p>
<p>Multiple intelligence is a BS politically correct theory that redefines intelligence.</p>
<p>I see that creativity isn’t a familiar concept. I truly pity you and your narrowminded view of the world</p>
<p>People who have difficulties with math, such as myself shouldn’t be considered moronic. It is moronic to say that someone’s intellegence can be only measured by his mathematics skills. Math is a field of study, just like any other field. My friends who are doing math as a degree are not necessarily good in writting essays, debat class, physcology, and etc… so are they ■■■■■■■ because they are not good in other fields??? explain that to me pls. Many athletes who really winged their college carrers have been proven to be extremely smart, with a high IQ. I really believe that you haven’t taken the time to understand people who are just simply not good in math, nor have you understood the simple fact that their brain proccesses is different but yet excel in other fields. Sorry to say this but you are maybe not stupid nor moronic, but extremly ignorant or misinformed and think very highly of yourself for some selfish reason.</p>
<p>^
“May be your not intellegent”
“good in writting essays, debat class, physcology, and etc…”
“brain proccesses is different but yet excel in other fields”</p>
<p>Obvious ■■■■■ is obvious.</p>
<p>It is worth ignoring the arrogantly short-sighted people who mistakenly assume that if a person does not understand or enjoy mathematics they are not intelligent, wise or capable of higher insight and knowledge.
It often simply is a sign that they have at least equally valuable, worthwhile knowledge, abilities and understanding in one or more of the many other valuable realms of being such as creativity, compassion, artistic abilities, healing abilities, empathy, emotional intelligence, kinesthetic intelligence, spiritual insight or others. </p>
<p>Refreshingly insightful talks on this topic -</p>
<p>[YouTube</a> - Sir Ken Robinson: Bring on the learning revolution!](<a href=“Bring on the learning revolution! | Sir Ken Robinson - YouTube”>Bring on the learning revolution! | Sir Ken Robinson - YouTube)
[YouTube</a> - Sir Ken Robinson - Changing Paradigms](<a href=“Sir Ken Robinson - Changing Paradigms - YouTube”>Sir Ken Robinson - Changing Paradigms - YouTube)
[YouTube</a> - Sir Ken Robinson: Do schools kill creativity?](<a href=“Do schools kill creativity? | Sir Ken Robinson - YouTube”>Do schools kill creativity? | Sir Ken Robinson - YouTube)</p>
<p>Mathematical aptitude correlates strongest with IQ than any other statistical or academic subject/skill.</p>
<p>Why are we debating this? Humanities, management, social sciences, physical sciences, and engineering majors all have their places in the world.</p>
<p>Its those useless garbage bio majors that are human scum along with voodoo magic “doctors” and cartel based “nurses” who are nothing more than highly paid maids. Most advances in lifespan, nutrition and health have nothing to do with a single doctor. If we rounded up everyone with a medical degree and shot them, excluding those shot, the average life expectancy of humans will NOT decrease. Most advances in lifespan are due to ENGINEERS who designed water treatment plants/sewers/indoor plumbing, mathematicians who correlated proximity to dirty water with disease and the economists that calculated the financial feasibility of civil projects.</p>
<p>So please, don’t be angry, liberal arts majors. Bio is the real scum. If you know a bio major, beat the s*t out of them for trying to join something worse than a drug cartel.</p>
<p>Uh-huh. And who ****ed in your drinking water today?</p>
<p>@ LastThreeYears:</p>
<p>Are you for real? >_<</p>
<p>So guys how about those majors that don’t require much math…</p>
<p>Accounting</p>
<p>Well I also know some low-paying majors that require some math (more than humanities at least). Chemistry is one of them.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not to join the fray, but I remember reading many times that verbal aptitude has the strongest correlation with IQ. If I come across a good source, I’ll share it.</p>
<p>“Not to join the fray”, and then you join the fray. Come on.</p>
<p>(This whole math v. humanities thing is ridiculous and contrived. Intelligent, well-rounded people are Renaissance souls: they can do both. If you’re good at only one that you have only one kind of intelligence.)</p>
<p>I’d actually argue, though, that this question is somewhat flawed. Many math-intensive majors pay well upon graduation just because they are fairly specialized, technical jobs that require a specialized, technical degree to fulfill them. I feel a lot of humanities and liberal arts degrees don’t prepare you for a specific field, but rather give you many soft skills that help in different areas. They’re a little more abstract, though. Many humanities degrees don’t correspond precisely to the field that person later goes on in, so it’s hard to say that X major will give you a $60,000 starting salary because people with that major will go on and do so many different things!</p>
<p>I kind of want to say cognitive science, because it’s a pretty interdisciplinary field that’s relevant to many hot areas (AI and computational stuff mostly). It’s also fantastically interesting.</p>
<p>How about just not getting a college degree and then becoming a governor like Scott Walker. (Governors can get paid pretty well)
Now that is a career plan that requires little to no math.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I feel like you misinterpreted my motivation. I was wondering if anyone had a source for the claim that mathematical aptitude had the best correlation to IQ (scores), because it conflicts with what I’ve heard. At no time did I claim the verbal aptitude was more important or even a better indicator of intelligence. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I agree with you. Unless you’re a savant, extremely high scores in one area tend to compensate for lower scores in another. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I agree with you here too. Employers don’t higher majors; they hire individuals who are able to perform a job.</p>