The Truth About People Who Are Good at Math
Are you a “math person” or do you avoid calculators like the plague? Research reveals the truth about math skills and may explain why women are underrepresented in STEM fields.
It’s tempting to revere legends like Thomas Edison, Michael Jordan, and Yo-Yo Ma for talents that seem like magic, while ignoring the practice and failures that paved their journey to stardom. The same is true in school: it’s easy to assume you’re born with a talent for some subjects and not others. Especially for math.
Math a divisive subject: people tend to think they’re either good at it or not, and that’s just how they were born. But it turns out that for high-school math, practice, education, and preparation is as important as natural talent.
Girls may be particularly susceptible to the “good at math” myth, and even though high-school-age girls have the same standardized math test scores as boys, there is still a gender gap in fields that rely on mathematics.
Researchers like Carol Dweck have shown over the last few decades that this may have a lot to do with their individual, underlying beliefs about what basic ability and intelligence is. In Dweck’s 1984 study, she tested a class of fifth-graders learning new material to see how they coped when they were (intentionally) confused at the beginning of the task — a common feeling when learning math, which relies on brand-new concepts, symbols, and skills. Even though the girls in the class outperformed the boys in all subjects, they performed more poorly on these confusion-riddled tests than the boys did. In fact, the higher the girl’s IQ, the worse she did. Presumably, she felt helpless and gave up earlier than her high-IQ male classmates, who were more likely to double down their efforts and learn more until they mastered the material.
An explanation for this phenomenon is innate theories model, which says there are two ways of looking at your own abilities. People who are entity theorists believe that their abilities are a gift they’re born with. They either “have it” or they don’t, so their skills are relatively fixed. People who are incremental theorists, on the other hand, believe their abilities, intelligence, and skills can be developed with effort.
A student with a fixed-mindset (entity) orientation would notice her confusion during Dweck’s test and come to the premature conclusion that she must not be good at this subject, end of story. She might react to early failure by giving up (“I don’t stand a chance anyway”). A student with an incremental orientation would simply interpret early failure as a sign that she needs to work harder to learn the material. Many studies have shown that a belief in fixed abilities (for both boys and girls) leads to lower effort and performance, while a malleable orientation leads people to find resourceful ways to overcome setbacks.
Research supports this model as an explanation for the math divide. Scientists tested college-aged women to determine whether they believed traits were innate or malleable. Then, they issued a math test, told all the women they failed (how cruel), and surveyed them about their interest in the subject. The women with fixed mindsets distanced themselves from the failed test, reporting that they enjoyed math less and were less likely to pursue a mathematics major or career compared to the women who believed traits are malleable.
This belief in fixed abilities may drive the gender gap at the highest levels of academia and in advanced professions. Researchers at the University of Illinois surveyed 30 disciplines across STEM, humanities, and social sciences, and suggest that disciplines that placed an emphasis on “innate brilliance” produced fewer female PhDs. This orientation toward fixed genius predicted female representation in both STEM and non-STEM fields.
So why do some students believe they’re stuck with the gifts they received at birth, while others believe they’re in control?
The cause may come in a deceptively sweet package: praise.
When children are praised for traits instead of “process” (effort and strategy), they respond to failure by displaying helplessness, self-blame, lower expectations for themselves, and poor performance. Any feedback that focuses on intrinsic characteristics, even if it’s positive, leads to a fixed mindset that leaves students vulnerable to perfectly natural struggles. Dr. Heidi Grant Halvorson, Ph.D., argues that girls receive more trait-based praise about their “goodness,” intelligence, and beauty, while boys receive “a lot more feedback that emphasizes effort (e.g., ‘If you would just pay attention you could learn this,’ ‘If you would just try a little harder you could get it right.’).” The wrong kind of praise encourages entity theory and squanders the potential of both girls and boys in math and other challenging projects throughout life.
Luckily, fixed mindsets are reversible with a bit of education and myth-busting (thanks for reading ;-). We can also prevent them by selecting our words carefully. Next time you’d like to compliment your child or friend for their math genius, chess talent, or knack for telling jokes, consider acknowledging the hard work that got them there.
