|
The Math Gene: How Mathematical Thinking Evolved And Why Numbers Are Like Gossip |  | Author: Keith Devlin
Publisher: Basic Books
List Price: $17.00
Buy Used: $0.55
as of 3/21/2010 19:27 CDT details
You Save: $16.45 (97%)
New (23) Used (42) from $0.55
Rating:  23 reviews
Sales Rank: 233264
Media: Paperback
Pages: 352
Number Of Items: 1
Shipping Weight (lbs): 1
Dimensions (in): 7.8 x 5.3 x 1.1
ISBN: 0465016197
Dewey Decimal Number: 500
EAN: 9780465016198
ASIN: 0465016197
Publication Date: May 17, 2001
Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days
| | |
| Editorial Reviews:
Amazon.com Review
For many, the mere word "mathematics" is enough to conjure memories of incomprehension at school, and fear and loathing ever afterward. Countless otherwise well-educated people see mathematics as the skeleton in their intellectual closet--the one key subject demanding a talent that they so obviously did not possess. Or so it seems to anyone who has felt very much on the outside of the subject. British mathematician Keith Devlin is certainly on the inside, and in The Math Gene, he has wonderful news for everyone: we can all join him there. For Devlin argues that we all possess the ability to cope with mathematics--if only we recognize what's required. While a number of recent books, notably Stanislas Dehaene's The Number Sense, have focused on numerical ability, the scope of Devlin's book is much larger. He examines the evidence that we all possess, if not literally a gene, then at least an inherent ability not just for arithmetic but for real mathematics: algebra, calculus, and the rest. Devlin even puts forward a Darwinian explanation for the origin of this ability, based on the idea that being able to handle abstract ideas and relationships confers key evolutionary advantages. Mathematics merely involves a relatively high level of abstraction--but one we can all cope with, if we work at it. "Doing mathematics is very much like running a marathon," writes Devlin. "It does not require any special talent, and 'finishing' is largely a matter of wanting to succeed." In its wealth of wonderful examples supporting the central argument, The Math Gene bears comparison with Steven Pinker's The Language Instinct, and its plain common sense about this most misunderstood of subjects is inspirational. Thoroughly recommended for anyone seeking to rid their intellectual closet of the skeleton of mathematical "incompetence." --Robert Matthews, Amazon.co.uk
Product Description
Why is math so hard? And why, despite this difficulty, are some people so good at it? If there’s some inborn capacity for mathematical thinking—which there must be, otherwise no one could do it —why can’t we all do it well? Keith Devlin has answers to all these difficult questions, and in giving them shows us how mathematical ability evolved, why it’s a part of language ability, and how we can make better use of this innate talent.He also offers a breathtakingly new theory of language development—that language evolved in two stages, and its main purpose was not communication—to show that the ability to think mathematically arose out of the same symbol-manipulating ability that was so crucial to the emergence of true language. Why, then, can’t we do math as well as we can speak? The answer, says Devlin, is that we can and do—we just don’t recognize when we’re using mathematical reasoning.
|
| Customer Reviews:
Showing reviews 1-5 of 23
 Absolute Drivel! March 4, 2009
Big Jim (Texas)
1 out of 5 found this review helpful
Had the author stuck to mathematics, his book might have been believable and maybe even enjoyable. The insights provided on fractals and wall paper patterns were much more interesting than his unabashed laud of evolution - a theory with no credible proof to back it up. He should definitely stay away from biology as a topic for his blatherings. His thesis is a waste of paper and if you choose to read it - a waste of your time and money. I'd give you my copy to save you the money, but the best use I can find for it is as a kindling for the fire place.
It was a little redeeming that he "slipped" and recognized that the human brain was the most complicated known object in CREATION. Perhaps subconsciously his complicated brain knows that evolution is a silly idea. He also acknowledges the possibility that all language came from a single source - the Linguistic Eve - and that all people came from a single source - the Mitochondrial Eve. He even supports the brilliantly named BIG BANG THEORY which from all accounts is just scientists trying to explain what happened when the Lord said, "Let there be light!" It seems to me the author inherently understands intelligent design - he just isn't intelligent enough to believe it. Sad.
 Not what I expected, but still an interesting read January 7, 2009
Adam (MA, USA)
1 out of 1 found this review helpful
I was expecting a book more on certain people's ability to do mathematics better than others, but instead I got a very interesting thesis on how everyone has this ability. I actually found this to be a rather inspiring read as I am also thinking about tackling a degree in applied mathematics. Instead this book goes into an in depth study on the development of language and finally ends with his conclusion based on his evidence.
Devlin makes a very convincing argument about how mathematics is like gossip and he has definitely convinced me to agree with him on this subject. However, the only thing I think would make his argument stronger is if he didn't dismiss some language experts' studies as being wrong. Don't get me wrong, the studies and their relations could be wrong and Devlin could be right, but Devlin could also be wrong. Personally I thought his argument about interpersonal relationships and the vast amount of data we can remember about these things was the best he made. Basically doing mathematics is removing the "real" world people and assigning agreed upon variables to a wholly different society of mathematics. I'm not entirely sure how much of a fulcrum the development of language is for his point about gossip or his thesis overall, given that analogy. However, by the end, given some very important points, I happened to agree with him quite a bit.
One thing we happened to disagree upon was his opinion on how mathematics education should be conducted. I should say, I agree with him to a point, without flat out disagreeing. He suggested that we reform the current mathematics education to remove all the repetitive memorization exercises (please note arithmetic and mathematics are separate and we are not talking about arithmetic reform). This way the class can focus more upon the principles and what the subject is about rather than the absolute practice of the subject. Theoretically students should understand what is studied in that topic and won't feel the strain of having to actually put it into practice on a rigorous level. While this sounds like a novel idea, all I have to ask is what if a High School student wants to become a mathematician? Isn't just learning the "concepts" of a subject like Trigonometry, rather than practicing them, more of a detriment to this student. You can even make this same case for an engineer or any other major with a heavy mathematics background. Sure this will favor your non-mathematics majors greatly, but it will hurt the others, in my opinion. Also, I seriously think that in today's society students, at the bare minimum, should understand how to solve algebraic problems. Unfortunately Devlin doesn't really delve into any aspects to truly back up his point or answer my questions. This wasn't the purpose of this book, but they were some important questions I came up with when he was going over his opinion on this topic.
Naturally there's no such thing as a math "gene" that genetically predisposes one person over another to be better at math, so don't pick this up thinking this will explain anything on a genetic level. Instead if you're at all curious about how language and society's development could likely enable humans to do complex mathematics, then this book provides a very convincing theory to explain that.
Good for math teachers. November 2, 2006
L. Portela (Fresno, CA USA)
1 out of 5 found this review helpful
The first several chapters are very interesting. It gets dull and slow and picks up again at chapter 9. It seems to contradict itself in a few ways. Readers need to remember it's just one person's theory.
Really an animal cognition book July 15, 2006
H. Hedrick
2 out of 2 found this review helpful
The only problem I had with this book was its title. I'm sure the title was chosen by someone in order to try and sell more copies. The book is really about why humans have the ability to do mathematics when there was no initial evolutionary advantage for a species to be able to do math. The hypothesis of the author is that humans evolved the ability to use language about 100,000 years ago and that a side effect of language is that we developed the ability to interact with a virtual world inside our own minds in addition to interacting with external stimuli as all animal do. By a happy chance, this means that we can interact with a self constructed world of mathematics. The book is quite solid and some people may find this boring or tedious, but a good argument is presented. I believe it might also be possible to read the book cover to cover and miss the main point.
Honestly, some people may buy this book based upon the title and not get what they expect. It is certainly fascinating to myself as a mathematician with an interest in animal cognition.
A review by Mike Christie explains what the book is saying very well.
 Gossip? April 19, 2006
Anne Hewitt (Steele's Tavern, Va)
2 out of 9 found this review helpful
It seems much more plausible that math developed strictly from hunger. People who couldn't plan ahead would die. Planning for carbs and protein means laying plots, seed saving, estimating yield, irrigation, predicting seasons etc. Projecting into the future is abstraction. The development of agriculture also means staying in one place and building permanent structures that fit together and last. You must estimate materials and they must be plumb and square, so tools for measurement develop. Navigation must have been another leap. Triangulation to measure everything from position to the height of a tree to be cut for a mast. Figuring time and distance traveled to know how much food and water to store and to figure if you'll arrive befor the monsoon season.
It seems that even today, primitive societies, mostly in the tropics, that are nomadic or based on hunting and gathering have only very basic mathematics. Maybe one to one correspondence, bring home enough food for each person, each day. Match the people to fingers. If more than 10 use a second person. (Base 10). This is a start that could be built on if they stopped, plotted the future and planned. That would be less likely with an abundant, year round supply of food.
I was looking for a book that explains why my family has great verbal SATS but poor math ability. (Even though we are descended from farmers and American Indians.) The gossip idea seems well, a stretch. I gave this 5 stars because the site requires a rating and I want to be generous but I won't buy the book after reading about this gossip theory. I have no math sense but I do have common sense. I mean, I think a farming family in an isolated log cabin 3 centuries ago would be using a lot more native math than local gossip.
There would be nothing to gossip about. Also most of the scientists and engineers I know, hate small talk and are very bad at gossip.
Showing reviews 1-5 of 23
|
|
|
|
Return to Math.com | |
