> At 01:22 AM 9/26/96 -0500, zaimoni@ksu.edu wrote:
> >On Mon, 26 Nov 1956, David Leeper wrote:
> >
> >[CLIP]
[CLIP]
[I agree with your reply to point 2]
> >3) Only a small proportion of the population has the combined physical
> >endurance and physical capability to understand it.
>
> Seems to me that you overestimate the difficulty of mathematics and/or
> the appeal of it. Someone recently posted a missive stating that
> people tend to do the easiest things... watching tv is easier than
> studying philosophy (or studying abstract math), so it tends to
> get done more.
>
> Same thing can be applied to tennis, chess, etc. Not that people
> are incapable, just not motivated. (Of course, PHYSICS *is* different,
> you have to have tremendous intellect, incredible physical stamina,
> a good sense of humour, and lots of sex appeal ;-)
>
> ken
I don't know what you read, regarding this point. Its content seems to
be the exact negation of the original content.
If a particular human lacks hardware support for mathematics, he's going
to have a hard time at it. And this lack of hardware support is fairly
widespread. I am talking about intelligent people, without any
identifiable learning disabilities! [This is the point of my reference
to Piaget.] I have no experience with it, of course--but the
self-norming principle IS a fallacy, even though it's core human psychology.
My comments about physical endurance minimize the appeal of
mathematics--I didn't mention any positives about it, did I? I think
that's _underestimating_ its appeal.
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
/ Kenneth Boyd
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////