Mathematical Intelligence vs. Linguistics and the Arts

[perpetual_liar]

I find that Intelligence in maths and science, logical intelligences, are valued much more than skills in linguistics and the Arts. I want to know why!
I admit that I am somewhat biased, having little to no skill in maths or sciene, and a fair bit of it in music and a knack for picking up languages. This however, only adds to the respect I have for people skilled in the areas where I am not, i.e maths and science. I see how maths is neccessary for making the world go round, but why do people seem to be under the delusion that language and the Art are any less important, particularly when it comes to teaching it?
Opinions and reasoning please!

 

[Matariki]

Yes, this was the problem with me when I was at school as a child. My tutors had very little appreciation for the arts, which made life for me at school hell.
My favorite subjects at school that I excelled in and received top marks for was; art, writing, music, drama and PE. However I was one of the worst in my school at maths, science and spelling.
Because of that I didn't get past elementary/primary school. Maths and science never appealed to me, and my spelling was terrible because of my dyslexia.

A genius is typically associated with science and maths because its practical and fits better with the minds of people which resemble cement. Growing up we were taught that the smart asses in life were Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein, which left people such as Leonardo Da Vinci out of the picture.
The study of medicine, engineering, mechanics, chemistry, accounting, physics etc. have their foundations generally in science and maths. These are the fields of study that most of the worlds civilians depend the most on, and its practitioners gain the most profit from overall.
The field of art is a dangerous ground to build on because of the lack of potential success, this could be the reason behind why it is not as encouraged as a study in schools. Unfortunately it is us poor artists that suffer from this discouragement. By all means intelligence in maths and science is important and should be encouraged, but it shouldn't need to an absolute requirement and the only way to gain a few bucks in life. More people require medicine over a painting which they can stick on their wall or a CD they can listen to while driving the car. This is even more of a mission when you try to stand out and be unique with your art works. Many artists are not appreciated for their works until they have passed on. This could be because of the shift in the way how society sees things and what they consider acceptable and understandable.

That's my take on it anyway.

 

[Galileo]

For most people, the LOTE experience is a few years at school of being forced to learn French or other european languages, and most people I know gave their language teacher a hard time. Hell, our class gave our language teacher a hard time.

I think for many people also, respect for other cultures does not come easy, though thankfully this is changing. For those of us who live in english speaking countries, most of us expect new immigrants to learn english when they arrive, and many get angry if a person spends time in a country without bothering to make the effort to learn the language. For the most part, people are ignorant about the need for other languages in society, they wish that the world would just get smaller and everyone would hurry up and accept english as the universal language. apparently more than 100 languages fall into disuse every year. For those of us trying to preserve a minority language, for example Cornish, in my case, we're up against people on all sides asking the one question 'what's the point?' this question is most often asked by people who have no understanding of the need for cultural identity.

As for music, our experiences of this in school are usually full of a lot of noise and not much music appreciation. Most people take it because they think it will be a bludge with no work. I took music and it was exactly the opposite, it was time consuming and hard work.

There are relatively few avenues into the music industry, and pretty much the only other option is teaching, and the world only needs so many music teachers, and the industry only needs so many session musos.

I have no opinions on any other arts, as I didn't take them, but I imagine the perception of those would be similar to music.

Worth, unfortunately, is measured by how much a person contributes to society these days. And overall, it's just more preferable to people that we go for a career that will give us good job prospects. it's not about enjoyment anymore.

 

[NeverAmI]

School has seemingly always had a very pragmatic left-brained approach to education in the western culture.

Technology is the driving force behind our society. Math and sciences have more emphasis because they serve very practical purposes for advancing technology.

Logical positivist and empirical philosophical stances have been pretty widely accepted in society. Both often throw out anything that cannot be deductively reasoned. I think, to an extent, the culture saw how the scientific method worked so well for advancing knowledge that it was inferred that the method could be applied to all aspects of life.

Seems insane to me, and I think science is finally starting to deductively understand how much of an impact aesthetics has on the psyche.

 

[whytiger]

Our high school curriculum required 4 years of English but only 3 of math. I'd say that's good emphasis. It was a good thing too because English was my best subject.

 

[magister343]

I never noticed this so much growing up. What I did notice is that too many people associated art and creativity with emotionality and irrationality. Mathematical intelligence is correlated with thinking preferences and creativity with intuitive preferences, but most people seem to assume that creativity is instead associated with feeling (especially introverted feeling) preferences. Art teachers often complained that I was thinking myself out of creativity, but to a rational they are intimately linked and creativity cannot be expressed without at least a little logic. I remember one fellow student complaining when she saw a couple of my paintings that it was not fair for someone like me to have more artistic talent as I obviously did not have the capacity for the emotions such talent is meant to express.


If anything I'd say that my high school had an Fi bias, whereas college has a Te bias. In both places writing assignments seem to important, and too tailored towards those who just BS such assignments.

 

[whytiger]

I tend to associate creativity with the right brained processes like Ne, Ti, Se, and Fi, but those with a thinking preference tend to express thoughts while those with a feeling preference express feelings. The humanites, language, and arts tend to contain both, but, when I got to college my thinking preference was not appreciated in English classes where the emphasis was on passion rather than logic, and I stopped taking humanities courses.

 

[orangeappled]

In regards to the OP, I believe language may actually be a left brain associated strength, BTW. I think right brain thinking tends to be "non-verbal". I have heard women are supposedly better with languages; so maybe that is why it's devalued. That does imply some connection to Feeling to me....possibly Fe.

I never noticed this so much growing up. What I did notice is that too many people associated art and creativity with emotionality and irrationality. Mathematical intelligence is correlated with thinking preferences and creativity with intuitive preferences, but most people seem to assume that creativity is instead associated with feeling (especially introverted feeling) preferences. Art teachers often complained that I was thinking myself out of creativity, but to a rational they are intimately linked and creativity cannot be expressed without at least a little logic. I remember one fellow student complaining when she saw a couple of my paintings that it was not fair for someone like me to have more artistic talent as I obviously did not have the capacity for the emotions such talent is meant to express.


If anything I'd say that my high school had an Fi bias, whereas college has a Te bias. In both places writing assignments seem to important, and too tailored towards those who just BS such assignments.

Explain creative xSFPs then & why they often make talented artists. Not to mention, Fi is a rational function anyway....

Creativity is not linked to any one function. However, introverted feeling often does spur creative expression, as it is VERY difficult to communicate these feelings accurately in ways that others can grasp them.

According to Jung:

Everything, therefore, that has been said of the introverted thinking refers equally to introverted feeling, only here everything is felt while there it was thought. But the fact that thoughts can generally be expressed more intelligibly than feelings demands a more than ordinary descriptive or artistic capacity before the real wealth of this feeling can be even approximately presented or communicated to the outer world. Whereas subjective thinking, on account of its unrelatedness, finds great difficulty in arousing an adequate understanding, the same, though in perhaps even higher degree, holds good for subjective feeling. In order to communicate with others it has to find an external form which is not only fitted to absorb the subjective feeling in a satisfying expression, but which must also convey it to one's fellowman in such a way that a parallel process takes place in him.

According to Lenore Thomson (well-known Jungian typology author) & Jonathan Niednagel (some other typology specialist ), "right brain" thinking is associated with P types (people who prefer extroverted perceiving & introverted judging), and "left brain" thinking is associated with J types (people who prefer extroverted judging & introverted perceiving). This would make SPs & NPs the stereotypical creative types & SJs & FJs the stereotypical systematic types. However, that does not mean Js are not creative though or that Ps don't know how to create structure. That's oversimplification & it creates false dichotomies, IMO. It just means the approach can be different because it stems from a different mindset. There are many ways to be creative, and it's noted that people use both hemispheres of their brain, they just prefer one more (just as we use all 8 functions, but prefer some to others). Besides, cognitive preference does not equal strength of skill, and certainly not intelligence. I personally can see preference leading to inclinations in behavior which may lead to becoming good in an area, and that's where you have types associated with skills. It's a bit of a jump though....

And yes, this right/left brain connection to MBTI is just a theory, but there is some evidence to support it.

http://braintypes.com/brain.htm

http://www.personalitypathways.com/thomson/type2.html

 

[LoneArcher86]

I wouldn't say that Art and Languages are any less imposrtant. Simple that in this age of technology, math and sciences are valued for being able to perpetually push the limits. While art and languages fill how these new technologies are used.

 

[IndigoSensor]

Art and Language are just as important as math and science. I am a little bias due to me being a science person by trade, but I will say that after a certain age, art in particular should not be a requirement. The fact of the matter is that art has very little practical application in the real world and that needs to be taken into consideration. I think in elementery school and middle school art should be required. In highschool, only one year of it. By that point students should be aware of if they want to focus on an art style course or not. For me, I took 4 year of art in highschool because I enjoy it and I learn a lot from it. It worked for me because I did ceramics, and there is a very heavy element of problem solving to it, much more so then the 2D arts. Not everyone is going to get nearly as much out of it as I did though, because you need a certain style of thinking in order to excell and do well with it. Once again it also has very little practical real world applications by the amount you would have already learned up to that point.

Math and science are very important. Along with english, I think 4 years of each should be required. Biology and chemistry being two of the sciences that are needed (physics I do not see as a nesscarry requirement for high school). Math, up to geometry. I say that with an extremely level of hesitation. I think that highschool should require up to precalculus, but that is an unreasonable standard, because there are some people who do reasonably struggle with math and can not grasp it.

 

[Raccoon Love]

I have noticed this bias, in fact it is emphasized throughout my high school curriculum. When people hear the word intelligent, they automatically assume math geek or ''enrolled in AP Calculus'' Little credit is given to the arts and languages which can also achieve higher levels of thinking. In my opinion, students should be able to be given the opportunity to explore their passions and talents since an early age. All types of intelligence are important, to claim one is of more value is rather ridiculous. Reason being is that they all fit a specific role or niche, without the balance there would be no progress. It is true that some are needed more in quantity than others, but I guess mother nature took charge in that due to the fact that a lot of studies show that right-brain people tend to be outnumbered by left-brained people.

Also to associate MBTI functions with specific intelligences is also rather ludicrous, specially since so many have the misconception that feeling processes are irrational. The irony is that people claim that creativity, art, and languages are not correlated with the feeling functions and that this are misconceptions of the people who believe they are irrational. Well to make the claim that Fi and Fe are irrational due to their way of judging is applying the same flawed argument.

 

[bamf]

This bias very much exists because of the way our schools are run. They run on the lines of convergent thinking rather than divergent thinking. We are trained from a young age as to figuring out why one answer is right rather than how all of the answers could be right. It very much destroys creativity and creates a boxed thinking pattern. We all have to think the same way because the education system is set up to create individuals that will progress what has already been started (maths, sciences, and technologies) and little time is needed in the arts to advance these.

How we ever got to the point where math and science are more important for everyone than dance and painting are is beyond me. Math and science are important to a capitalistic gains society, but we would be horribly lost without the arts. Kids at a very young age show tremendous amounts of creativity and ingenuity, but by the time they are in high school the levels drop substantially because they've been told for 10 years that there can only be one answer, everything else is wrong! The arts aren't focused on, and are the first thing to go, because they aren't needed by a capitalistically driven society where monetary gains=more monetary gains. The arts, however, are very much needed to fully experience being human.

I'm not trying to say that all people should become dancers, heaven knows I can't, but if all people don't have to learn music why do all people have to learn math? Why do we have to teach kids that only one way of thinking results in only one right answer?

 

[enfp can be shy]

Frankly, all human skills are useless. I hope we won't be making huge fuss about it, and just enjoy it.

I also don't believe that this is fixed. You can learn anything, I guarantee you you can learn math. Think about being born in a world without arts and languages, only math - you would learn math then, guaranteed. It's all about approach and the influences. But there's the right approach for anyone to learn something different than what they think is their only capability.

Here, in my case for example, I used to believe i SUCK at languages (except my native one, which I kinda over-perfected), and that I'm only good at other stuff like math and logic. But then, these days, I found out that I can learn languages like Korean, Japanese and even Chinese, which are considered hard. And it's fun. So I guess it's all about finding the way that you can actually enjoy the learning process, and you will be able to break through.

While we are at math topics, and since it's MBTI-oriented forum; I was wondering why people associate T with logic and math, F - not. That's false, most T-dominant people I've met aren't very good at logic and math. I think the functions for scientific reasoning are S (rules) and N (invention), with T and F being different ways to choose and pick directions of interest. Being within science-related circles for some time, and surveying people's MBTI, i concluded that the F-people are not less represented than the T-people, or less successful.

I used to believe that F are more likely to be found in teaching departments, and T are more likely to be in research, but that's also not true. For their own specific reasons, Fs can be attracted to research, and T to teaching, and be very good at what they've chosen.

Similar with arts, more often than not people assume Fs are better there, and that Ts struggle and avoid arts, and that's again false.

p.s. last note, math so far is still very primitive in representation and information access. It has a long way to go, still, to improve its own dogmatic representations, while it already has gone a very long way, compared with the past. Ideally, it will just become more accessible and easy to understand with time, without losing any content value (in fact, while improving the content value). So people mistake obscurity for depth. Don't fall for that.

 

[Faye]

Money.

Because all they care about is taking your money.

 

[NeverAmI]

The fact of the matter is that art has very little practical application in the real world and that needs to be taken into consideration.

Very little practical application in the western world. Music, dance, and art have been one of the most important aspects of many cultures throughout time. Just not ours. Instead of dancing, we make bombs.

 

[Faye]

Very little practical application in the western world. Music, dance, and art have been one of the most important aspects of many cultures throughout time. Just not ours. Instead of dancing, we make bombs.

You could make the case that if it wasn't for the developments in art in Italy that the west would not have advanced the way it did. Art is a way of communicating ideas that is unparalleled.

But yes you will make less money doing it. The reason they love math and science is that it is associated with a big paycheck. Logic is too because it is a basis for computer science and associated with law.

 

[Wyote]

The reason they love math and science is that it is associated with a big paycheck.

You get such a big paycheck for it because it is more highly valued.

I believe it is because our growth in the last hundred years has been largely dependant on the development of new technologies, and those technologies require math and science to progress forward.

It seems as though progress is dependant on technology, but this is not necessarily the case for all things and once there is a shift in our current ideologies, other pursuits will gain more value.