Xref: utzoo sci.psychology:200 sci.math:3298 sci.philosophy.tech:605 Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!bloom-beacon!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mailrus!umix!umich!mibte!gamma!ulysses!thumper!faline!bellcore!rutgers!topaz.rutgers.edu!clong From: clong@topaz.rutgers.edu (Chris Long) Newsgroups: sci.psychology,sci.math,sci.philosophy.tech Subject: Psychology of Mathematicians Message-ID: Date: 8 Apr 88 05:04:13 GMT Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J. Lines: 95 I'm posting this as a favor. I take no responsibility for the content of the following. _________________________________________________________________________ From osborn@nswitgould.oz Tue Mar 29 20:37:49 1988 Path: nswitgould!osborn From: osborn@nswitgould.OZ (Tom Osborn) Newsgroups: sci.psychology,sci.math,sci.philosophy.tech Subject: Personality of Mathematicians. Keywords: Is this fair? Message-ID: <7864@nswitgould.OZ> Date: 29 Mar 88 10:37:49 GMT Organization: Comp Sci, NSWIT, Australia Lines: 67 Posting ________________________________________________________________________ What are the dominant characteristics of mathematician personalities? I am aware of work by the (US) President's Commission on Women in Mathematics (chair: Prof Carol La Champagne) which identified a number of relevant factors. [This work was in relation to relative self-selection of teenage boys to identify with 'being good at mathematics']: Externalisation of failure (wrong - it's not my fault) and internalisation of success ('I did it my way'); Relative assertiveness in classes, to present (potentially incorrect) views and methods; Differential response from teachers; Parental and peer pressures (stereotype approval); Slightly narrower IQ distribution for females (test bias?); Role models (existence and interactions with). Most mathematics education is problem based (including theorem proof and modelling as problems to be resolved). Typically, you get things wrong and you get things right. Learning progresses when either a wrong leads to a clarification or a right leads to a confirmation (of ones understanding of the problem or structure or methods,...). The proportion of right and wrong depend on many factors like experience, fluid ability (yes, red wine, as well as carefree but intelligent play), 'face', enthusiasm, confidence to draw analogy ... Your attitude to 'success' and 'failure' determines the extent of effort and enthusiasm. Hard work doesn't seem to be sufficient (and as we've all seen, sometimes not even necessary). Ultimately, most students drop-out of maths! There's some sort of 'survival of the fittest' going on. I'm curious of this fitness. Tight reasoning has not a lot to do with doing maths, but a lot to do with mathematical knowledge. (Flames here => your work's too easy). Also, I draw a distinction between scientific discovery and mathematical learning. Apart from consistency questions, 'lack of available data' is not a problem in maths, 'lack of clarity' is. I get the impression that most really good mathematicians were self-taught a lot and teacher-taught only a bit. Is this so? Is extra teaching of much use? Does an independent attitude protect from damaging critical 'pedagogy'? [When I am a mathematician I sometimes find a 'superior' and arrogant attitude in my (presumed) ability to understand all manner of things better than less mathematically au fait collegues. I wonder if Hilbert was humble.] I would like to follow up this area. Can anyone point me to significant works on personality and psychology of mathematicians. [By the by, can anyone point to differences between mathematicians who go strongly into military work and those who don't - funding aside!?] Tomasso. PS. Example of weak link in superior mathematicians theory: Have you ever been on a committee which has a majority of mathematicians? -- Chris Long Rutgers University RPO 1878 CN 5063 New Brunswick, NJ 08903 (201)-932-1160 clong@topaz.rutgers.edu