Great story, hatwoman!

As a teacher I often notice that spatial ability and numerical ability are not necessarily related. A child very good at algebra may be rubbish at shapes/spatial stuff, and vice versa.

does now concede...

reminds me of one of dd1's champion strops aged about 4. I said something about the postcard she was writing being a rectangle. she was adamant it wasn't. she got crosser and crosser. the postcard, as she wrote it, was of course landscape-oriented. everything became clear to us when she picked it up, rotated it 90 degrees so that it was portrait and screamed "^THAT'S a rectangle". she was beside herself with rage.

funny, actually, it's just occured to me that 5 years later she did some cognitive ability tests - the teacher said she did fantastically in maths - except for the more spatial stuff. maybe her brain has got a couple of mis-firing neurons...(although she does not concede the point about rectangles...)

I think you underestimate the pervasiveness of mathematical thinking. Basic ideas like pattern, shape, number etc.

If you had a 16 year old (or indeed a 6 year old) who couldn't recognise the difference between a triangle and a square, you would think something seriously wrong. If you had a teenager who thought you could take a large glass of water and pour all of it into a smaller glass of water, you would think they were a 'freak' too. If they couldn't understand place order and distinguish between 19 and 91, you would think that strange. If they couldn't understand the idea of something 'matching' - by shape or colour or number or otherwise - you would wonder what was wrong. If they had a map and didn't understand that it is representing a real life, much larger object on a smaller scale, then they would be weird... All of these are mathematical ideas that we take for granted in normal development.

Mathematical thinking is just as innate as language, and the fact that you have missed this only indicates how much we take it for granted. Yet English and Maths both develop these intuitive understandings and are rightly proper 'subjects'.

Bloss

English as a school subject is far more than spoken communication but nevertheless starts from precisely that pre-existing knowledge.

It is arguable whether or not count and shape awareness is taught or innate but, basically, maths starts as an entirely virgin - and therefore entirely taught, subject.

In even the most non-intellectual societies, a child without medical reasons who started school without that basic knowledge of his mother tongue - the basic knowledge that goes onto form the basis of "English" (or its equivalent in other countries) as a taught subject - would be a freak and perceived as such by peers. A child who started at the same point with no basic knowledge of mathematical concepts would not be so judged by peers and may, depending on the society, be able to function as an adult.

As a result - I suggest - society judges differently an admitted weakness in the two "subjects" that grow out of that basic knowledge.

" "English" as a subject is based on a knowledge that is expected of us as active members of the community. Of course it goes further but a minimum is essential to participate in the community."

Beyond merely the ability to speak and communicate - which you have said is not what you intend - I honestly don't get what you're saying.

No, what I mean is that "English" as a subject is based on a knowledge that is expected of us as active members of the community. Of course it goes further but a minimum is essential to participate in the community. To say "I'm rubbish at English" comes dangerously close to saying "I am not willing or able to work socially with my peers."

Maths, on the other hand, is, as hatwoman rightly points out, identified with adulthood and responsibility.

In other words, not to be able to do maths (though of course few people who say that mean that they cannot actually count or deal with concepts of quantity) is a self-deprecating admission that one is not fit for management or leadership.

Not to be good at English (though, again, most people who said that would not mean they struggled with their mother tongue on a communicative level) would be an admission that one is not willing to participate in society - far more subversive and dangerous!

<falls in love with Hatwoman>

MIFLAW - I don't agree that you'd have no concept of maths if you'd never been taught it. You might not call it maths but there would still be stuff you did all the time that would basically be maths. although admittedly quite basic.

I'm also not sure that the modern world demands more maths than a medieval rural community. you could be right - but if you think about a peasant life it involves maths - if you own livestock, and you own a scrap of land, understanding how much food you'll get out of it all - depending on if you plant stuff to feed your animals, or to feed you, whether you breed them, sell them, eat them - all this involves quite complicated arithmetic. and when it makes the difference between feeding your family and not feeding them - you'd better get it right. I reckon people have been doing maths for as long as they've been using language

It's probably more important to look at what the difficulties and strengths are really and to look at what are good strategies to use to help you to do the things you need to do. Useful link, thanks.