Some years ago, John Collison tweeted that he realized everything he saw in the built environment had once been someone’s passion project.
I think there’s another, maybe more interesting way to say it, which is that everything built embodies a story both in how its internal parts relate to each other, and how those parts relate to the rest of the world, say, the humans who use a building.
I realized this watching my 6yo, who loves stories, place each new Lego brick into a building or vehicle and explain what it contributed, and how it would be useful. The bricks were stuck together with explanations.
Talking about this later with a friend who does design, he made me see that this is what design is. And that the stories change after the object is built, as the humans bring new needs and expectations to objects. Everything is its own Gestalt and the Gestalt is dynamic over time.
- In "What Is the Name of This Book?" he recalls being introduced to logic at the age of six.
- In "The Lady or the Tiger?" (if I remember correctly), a friend asks Raymond not to tell his child that the puzzles he's enjoying are actually math because he hates math!
I'm expecting him to re-read the whole set at least twice.
(BTW if you're in the UK, you can often find the complete set of 10 books on eBay for £12 including delivery.)
Okay. I wasn’t a scout. But a good approach through storytelling!
Talented mathematicians are visibly disappointed when their child turns out more re average than them and try to compensate via clever early education schemes that are unlikely to work out given what we know about heritability of these traits.
Environmental interventions are devilish: promising and not delivering excellence, yet consuming valuable time and effort.
In other words, nothing about reading is natural, and nothing about what you're saying is a "fact of nature."
Math is a very specific ability and interest, requiring not just high general intelligence but some additional elusive factor (also likely heritable, as anybody observing "academic dynasties" would note). There is research on this [1] [2], but not nearly enough to say much more.
Anyway, I hope I explained my position on this. It's not the specific gene variants or mechanisms that matter, but basic threshold effects over polygenically heritable traits, and hard diminishing returns on teaching someone who does not meet the talent requirement.
1. https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/jou... 2. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5290743/
Beyond basic arithmetic, the utility of math is not nearly as obvious or widely applicable. It feels much more detached and abstract and this is made worse by popular teaching methods (which frequently lack hands-on examples of the math in question in practical application). It’s only natural that many children, even those who are capable, don’t take interest.