English and Maths

Like I said it's consensus reality. Lots of peoples have few numbers, probably the amount they can count on one hand and then "lots". They may use proportions to work out how much livestock they have just like modern farmers do, if you have one black sheep for every ten white sheep, then you don't have to count individuals, just are there roughly the same proportion of black sheep to white ones.

TheCatWoman said:

why does 2+2=4

Because they defined it that way, like PixieFox describes. In the same way they defined symbols for the sounds that make up words and called them letters. It takes something concrete, like apples, to show how addition works, to explain a theoretical concept of counting.

It is just another science, built up from hundreds of years of learning and exploration.

TheCatWoman said:

they don't explain what they want from you properly

Modern teaching attempts to do this by having learning objectives for each class and course. The teachers don't know that your way is valid unless they have been taught it. They might see it as coincidence. They have been taught there is only 1 way to get the correct answer, because they haven't studied the subject enough to know that other ways are equally valid. In effect, you were penalised for their lack of knowledge? 

A lot of Maths didn't make sense until I got to quite a high level - which didn't help me much at school, but I wanted to know more. I always liked the applied, rather than pure, Maths, as that explained the mechanics of pendulums, springs and forces acting on objects like bridges, the calculus of ratios and putting a rocket to the moon, the different counting systems, electromagnetism and how magnets/MRI work. The pure/theoretical stuff was like arguing about belly button fluff... number theory, topology (fantasies in dimensions greater than the 4 we live with), and many other things I learned to pass exams but forgot afterwards.

I'd say the most important thing to learn from Maths, is that there are usually many ways to solve a problem, but often this is not what is taught.

Martin said:

I was taught English grammar and punctuation through a very 'old school' method.

I'm not saying you are one, but I have nothing but contempt for 'Grammar ***'. Most things can be understood despite not being written in subjectively good grammar. If a person's losing the plot over a perfectly understandable comment that subjectively is less than grammatically perfect , then that, IMO, says far more about the cognitive shortcomings of the person losing the plot than  the author of the comment.

Hi Cat Woman, so why does 2+2=4?

Numbers are used to count, measure and calculate.  The actual numbers are just symbols. So for instance, if you see this amount of people in a room:   we use the symbol 2

If this many people then join them:    there are now this many people in the room:      which we call 4.

So that's why 2 + 2 = 4, because 2 and 4 are symbols used to express how many there are of something.

I remember hearing many years ago about a tribe who only used a small amount of numbers, after which they just used "many".

Oh yes, why does 2+2=4? I guess the answer is because all our buildings would fall down if it didn't, but I do wonder how much of maths is consensus reality? I don't see any internal logic to maths, but then my brain glazes over at the mention of the word, so much so that I'm finding this thread hard going and I started it!

I don't  think I've ever knew Pythagoras had a theorem? Let alone that I had to learn it or them?

One of the things that bugs me about so much teaching and the teaching of maths in particular is they don't explain what they want from you properly. If I'd have known my teachers wanted me to do it their way rather than my way, I would of struggled but done it, I still don't see why though. I was really fed up on finding out that  the reason I got a fraction wrong because nobody had ever told me that the fraction sign basically meant of, I had years of hell because of this.

I always need to know why and some NTs don't understand that. I think it helps to remember things. Just facts don't work.

I like watching Countdown. The word bit has helped me remember more words. The number bit is good because like your explanation above you can find the answer any way that gets to the result.

TheCatWoman said:

I still don't understand why I should be marked as wrong even though I had the right answer.

Because they are assessing you on how you work out the answer. Not that the answer is correct. 

If you show your calculation and make a simple arithmetic error, you will get most of the marks for the answer, because you are regurgitating the method or procedure that you have been taught to calculate it. They don't really care if you get the right answer, just that you learn the method they were teaching. 

Getting the right answer is only important in primary school, when you are learning the basics of arithmetic. It is important at that stage that you can add 9 and 16 to make 25. By the time you get to secondary school, it is more important that you remember what Pythagoras' theorem is, what it is for, how it is used than it is that you simply say 25 because you forgot to say the equation x2 + y2 = z2.

This is clearer in education these days, because the learning objectives are stated. in my day, we didn't have them so struggled to figure things out for ourselves. I learned the wrong things, until this was pointed out to me (at uni).

TheCatWoman said:

are we teaching it properly

In my opinion, no.

No I don't mind, google points it out to me on autocorrect every time I write it, but it's how I speak, may be its part of why I write well. I do have a massive vocabulary, thats what doing cross words does for you! I still have to be reminded of what verbs, nouns and adjectives are, let alone the more complicated stuff, but also when to use punctuation.

I'm not sure I would have been any better with functional maths that I am with any other kind of maths.

My class at school learned more maths from our science teacher than we did from our maths teacher, she started every lesson with 10 or 15 mins of maths, because we were all so bad, she also complained about the maths teacher, not that it did any good.

I still don't understand why I should be marked as wrong even though I had the right answer. If all the maths you've done at school dosen't start making sense until part way through a degree then are we teaching it properly? Should we be testing maths skills so much? Couldn't the courses be adjusted so as to make it make sense at an earlier age?

I can't speak about English, but part of the problem with Maths is that the teachers simply do not (most of them) know enough Maths to explain it well.

I have a Maths degree, 4 years studying at uni. Only one of my teachers in secondary school had a Maths degree, the other 6 or 7 didn't. I really struggled with Maths until I was taught by her. She could answer all my 'but why' questions, and helped me make sense of things I couldn't 'join up' in my mind. She explained to me that many Maths teachers have degrees in other science subjects, Chemistry, Physics, but they can't get a job teaching their subject. Since there are so many vacancies for Maths teachers, and it is a core subject so there are plenty of classes to teach, it is easier for them to get a job teaching Maths. In this case, the teachers don't have to be too far ahead of what they are teaching to be able to teach the class.

This is important, because it's not until you are near the completion of your studies that it all starts to make sense. After 4 years studying at uni, the reason WHY you learn stuff in secondary school makes sense. So if you only complete the first year or second year courses at uni (the minimum required to teach it) you don't have the big picture and haven't made sense of it all. So how can you explain it to others in a way that makes sense to them?

This is why, in TheCatWoman's post below, she was marked 'wrong' by doing 6 X 9 as 6 X 10 - 6. The teacher simply knew the method they were taught, or were expected to teach from the textbook. Someone with a Maths degree will know there are many ways to solve any problem in Maths, so if you manage to unlock a method sooner than the educational system 'expects' you to achieve it, you wouldn't be marked wrong, the Maths teacher would explain that your method is correct, however the rest of the class are learning a different method because it is how most people 'do' it - i.e. keep adding 9 six times. They would encourage you to try and use both in written examinations to ensure you don't lose marks. Autistic people would (I guess) find these methods quicker than NTs simply because of the difference in wiring in our brain.

There are maths courses available that teach maths from a practical point of view, such as calculating amount of paint needed,  rolls of wallpaper,  understating bus timetables etc.  Functional skills is one of them and is supposed to be equivalent to GCSE.  

I was the same. Subjects with concepts - good. Subjects with facts - awful.

I was taught English grammar and punctuation through a very 'old school' method. Any mistake was met by a rap over the knuckles with a ruler from the teacher - who was known as "Bulldog" Taylor.

I was better at school with Maths as you learnt by practising. The subjects you had to learn facts for and write about were the ones I didn't do well on. However I am not sure I could do the things they do now at GCSE. In regard to English we did do grammar, but I was not good at making up stories and have no creative ability in that or poetry.

I get by in my job with my level of English, but much of it is Maths calculations and problem solving. I think I have heard of some Maths exams being based on every day Maths. I think it might be called Functional Maths. I do think that is the best idea for those who aren't going on to a Scientific or Engineering career.

My son will now be doing Maths and English in college. One of the difficulties in school in respect of Maths and English seems to be the difficulty in getting permanent staff. I don't think in 5 years he had one English teacher for a whole year. 

In your post you referenced feeling as though you had to love Literature as an Autistic person.  I was responding to that part of the  post and that part of it only.

I wasn't taught English grammar at school either, even though I was in the top English class, although I learned what a verb is in French classes. When I trained as a teacher of English as a second language I basically had to learn grammar from scratch.

You write well Cat Woman and have a wide vocabulary. I hope you don't mind me pointing out that it is correct to say "should have", not "should of". This is a common mistake, because "should of" sounds like "should've", which is short for should have.

I wasn't taught English grammar at school either (even though I was in the top English class) and I only learned what a verb was from French classes. When I trained as a teacher of English as a second language I had to learn grammar and it was a steep learning curve!

You write well Cat Woman, and have a wide vocabulary. But I hope you do not mind my teacher brain pointing out that it should be "I doubt if I would have passed maths". It's a common mistake - lots of people use "would of" because it sounds like "would've" (which is short for would have)

I didn't sit any exams at school, I doubt if I would of passed maths anyway, I might of scraped a pass at a couple of others.

I still don't understand it, I got to be quite good at mental arithmatc when working in a shop, but it took a while and even then my mind would just go blank, it still does. I don't really remember doing anything like algebra or geomentry, I remember something to do with triangles and angles that I didn't understand. I think I learnt more about angles doing hairdressing than I did at school. Most people don't realise that a good hair cut is all about angles. I remember being asked to do a sum and write out how we'd got the answer, I did and was wrong even though the answer was right, I think that was the point when I stopped even trying. Yeears later I found out that Nobel winners like Einstein and Feynman used the same method, add 6 10's then take off 6=54, rather than doing some complicated thing. I felt vindicated that I was right and my teachers stupid.

I was never taught grammar, I think it was part of thinking at the time that if exposed to books and reading we'd pick it up by osmosis! The books we were given at secondary school were old and awful, some horrid tale of nuns crossing mountains or some such rubbish, I dont' remember anything else, certainly not Shakespeare or Dickens, I think they were reserved for the top group and the rest of us made do with the left overs in the book cupboard.

Do any of you think there are some systemic failures in the way we're taught these subjects as national attainment seems to have remained quite stable despite repeated attempts to raise standards? Mind you when I did an access course and had the first compulsory maths lesson, I'd never seen the sums we were given as basic, they were ones with numbers in brackets, how are you supposed to work out that you do the numbers in brackets first? Apparently thats intuitive and you're supposed to be able to work it out for yourself!

I was good at arithmetic,quite good at algebra, and absolutely awful at geometry.

I agree Cat Woman. I didn't enjoy maths at school and thought I couldn't do it.(got a grade 2 CSE - remember those?) but many years later I gained an AAT qualification that is equivalent to two A levels in Accounting. I enjoyed English language classes as I'm naturally good at it, but did not enjoy the books we were made to read for English Literature - I'm no fan of Dickens, Hardy or Shakespeare. 

I enjoy fun poems, like "The walrus and the carpenter" from Alice through the looking glass, and I occasionally try to write my own. I also like the rhythm of Haiku. But I'm not into poetry that's too romanticised or ethereal, I like it to be relatable.

I'm never anyone but myself. This was a wider question than just about autistic people learn, believe it or not NT people have problems with this too.