Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Guest 6801328" data-source="post: 7538953">Although I largely agree with your conclusions, I have a quibble with this point you keep making about "understanding math".  Sure, people are bad at the math that applies to problems that appear in the modern world but not in the primitive world where most evolution happens (such as understanding probability as it applies to populations larger than village-sized).But humans can be really good intuitively at things with complex underlying math, if they get exposed to it over long periods of time.  For example, programming a machine to catch a ball requires calculus (or at least a manual integration with small intervals), yet humans learn to do this easily after spending some time observing falling objects.  Likewise finding effects of drug compounds that only sorta work sometimes requires statistics, but over the millennia many people have noticed the pattern of "Hey, when people who have this problem east that food, it sometimes helps."Also, all five of our senses are mostly logarithmic, even though most of us don't understand logarithms (even those who ostensibly studied it...).Again, I don't think this invalidates your larger conclusion, but I think you're pushing your claims too far on this one point.</blockquote>