How intrinsically numerate are you?
The NY Times reports on research that shows a correlation between mathematical ability and a form of mental reflexes. A Johns Hopkins newsletter article on the same research is here.
Where it gets fun is that the NYT included a link to a version of the test. Blue and yellow dots of diverse sizes flash on the screen, and you have 0.2 seconds to determine which color predominates (in number, not total area). I got 14 correct in 15 trials.
The abstract of the actual article in Nature reads, in part:
Competence in some domains of mathematics, such as calculus, relies on symbolic representations that are unique to humans who have undergone explicit teaching. More basic numerical intuitions are supported by an evolutionarily ancient approximate number system that is shared by adults, infants, and non-human animals—these groups can all represent the approximate number of items in visual or auditory arrays without verbally counting, and use this capacity to guide everyday behaviour such as foraging. … we show that there are large individual differences in the non-verbal approximation abilities of 14-year-old children, and that these individual differences in the present correlate with children’s past scores on standardized maths achievement tests, extending all the way back to kindergarten. Moreover, this correlation remains significant when controlling for individual differences in other cognitive and performance factors.
Comments
3 Responses to “How intrinsically numerate are you?”
Leave a Reply
Interesting test and article. I found it odd that the NYT piece focused on the researchers’ sense that this result strengthened theoretical psychological commonality between rats and humans. I believe that is referred to as a Skinnerian view of people, professed by researcher BF Skinner. And not coincidentally, I think, the name of the prinicipal of Bart and Lisa Simpson’s school on the animated show.
Hrmph. I was right there with you through 15 (I got 13 out of 15) then for some reason fell apart between 16-20, finishing with only 16 out of 20. Weird.
I haven’t read the study, but I wonder how the results would differ if they used different colors…
There’s an issue of concentration. If one isn’t concentrating, it’s easy to be distracted by which color shows the greatest total area, which isn’t the question.