Thread: Will a great dancer be a great Mathematician?

g-factor theory shows that intelligence test scores are correlated, pointing to general factor of intelligence - the g-factor.

Therefore, the above statement can be derived. obviously, individual difference can and will occur, yet in general - this is supposed to be true.

You can look at several different aspects of this question, with varying degree of controversy:

1) Will a great dancer be a better Mathematician than a mediocre dancer
2) Will a great dancer be a better Mathematician than an average guy

Leading to the question - Will a great dancer be a great Mathematician

Traditionally, research on g has concentrated on psychometric investigations of test data, with a special emphasis on factor analytic approaches. However, empirical research on the nature of g has also drawn upon experimental cognitive psychology and mental chronometry, brain anatomy and physiology, quantitative and molecular genetics, and primate evolution.^[3] While the existence of g as a statistical regularity is well-established and uncontroversial, there is no consensus as to what causes the positive correlations between tests.
Behavioral genetic research has established that the construct of g is highly heritable. It has a number of other biological correlates, including brain size. It is also a significant predictor of individual differences in many social outcomes, particularly in education and the world of work. The most widely accepted contemporary theories of intelligence incorporate the g factor.^[4] However, critics of g have contended that an emphasis on g is misplaced and entails a devaluation of other important abilities.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j...vxkYpds-3BPjXw

What does dancing have to do with intelligence?

What does g stand for? Gravity?

leaving the op for a moment.
I have noticed that facility with music is positively correlated with facility with language acquisition.

as re dancing and math---define a "great dancer" did ypou mean like rudolf nureyev?

Originally Posted by sculptor

leaving the op for a moment.
I have noticed that facility with music is positively correlated with facility with language acquisition.

And maybe mathematical ability?

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by sculptor

leaving the op for a moment.
I have noticed that facility with music is positively correlated with facility with language acquisition.

And maybe mathematical ability?

not from my observations

Maybe the reverse is true (mathematical ability correlates with musical ability)? But I don't know. I feel their should be some connection as music is so mathematical in its structure...

I do remember a political (not sure if it was really political but don't know an alternative word to use) push to protect teaching of music and art in schools. With budget cuts all over the place, many public schools were cutting their music and art programs as well as sports.

The people trying to protect these programs were arguing that there was a link between higher math and language arts scores among children who also studied music and art.

There have also been movements stating that singing to your unborn child or playing classical music for babies make them more mathematically and linguistically gifted. I don't know if any of the cited studies were legitimate though or if they were just hype.

There have also been movements stating that singing to your unborn child or playing classical music for babies make them more mathematically and linguistically gifted. I don't know if any of the cited studies were legitimate though or if they were just hype.

That business about Mozart for unborn babies did grow out of a legitimate research result but ....

The very specific and limited research project showed that playing Mozart to college age students (can't remember what the controls were, probably one with no music at all and another group with popular music) improved their performance on a particular test - for ten minutes (half an hour?). The research had nothing to do with young children, let alone foetuses, nor with longer term brain development or improving mature brain function, which somehow led to people making buckets of money compiling CDs of music, which has always been readily available, into attractive, brightly coloured "Your baby will be clever" products.

Though I confess I used to use music in the tuition centre. The criteria for selection being, no vocals, absolutely regular rhythm, no major changes in volume - which finished up with plenty of Mozart, Vivaldi, Bach, Pachelbel and Dave Brubeck along with some of Chopin and Beethoven's piano stuff. There were a few other bits and pieces but they're the ones I remember. It really functioned as musical white noise, because traffic outside was quite intermittent and having music quietly in the background cut down the interruptions by sudden noise in absolute quiet, it also cut down the urge to talk - a bit anyway.

We've had the same issue here with music and art in schools. It's all a bit disheartening. You have to justify music and art because they're good for something else not because school is the student's chance to discover talents and interests? Pffft! It's all part of the dreary notion that education is to prepare people for the job market and nothing else. With the implications that music and art are worthless and being a professional musician or artist is not an occupation that can earn you money.

Originally Posted by adelady

We've had the same issue here with music and art in schools. It's all a bit disheartening. You have to justify music and art because they're good for something else not because school is the student's chance to discover talents and interests? Pffft! It's all part of the dreary notion that education is to prepare people for the job market and nothing else. With the implications that music and art are worthless and being a professional musician or artist is not an occupation that can earn you money.

Exactly, but they fail to realize how much money is spent on and made through advertising, could you imagine commercials without music or artistic rendering of some kind.

It would be as effective as a guy in a black and white suit standing with no props explaining to you that a product is available.

Hello folks, let me have your attention. My company, Chocolate Candy Co., has created a new candy bar. It is made of chocolate, peanuts and caramel. Pretty much the same thing as many other candy bars. But ours is special because my company made it and I would like you to buy it so that I can get rich.

Doesn't that just inspire one to run out and get that candy bar made by that company.

Music and art are extremely relevant to psychology and our economy. It is all linked. For the schools to miss that is horrifying.

Gardener's multi-intelligence theory identifies a bodily-kinesthetic type of intelligence. The theory while popular with educators because it provides a useful framework for teaching students with a variety of approaches, hasn't stood up all that well as a strong theory, but probably a bit better than Spearman's intelligence model of general intelligence theories have. The reality is probably somewhere in between, that in most people you find an exceptional talent, such as dancing, you'll also find better than average but not necessarily exceptional general intelligence. There seem to be some close developmental links between difference capabilities such as music and math, but I don't think there's as close a match between bodily-kinesthetic and math.

(thinks of how to integrate dance into a math lesson....now that would be fun and effective!)

The OP refers to a great mathematician and a great ballet dancer.

Unfortunately, at some stage everyone has to decide what they're going to put most effort into. For ballet, its class. There is no option but hours of class each and every day. Regardless of the possibility that a dancer may have shown great promise as a mathematician, a footballer, a violinist, a scientist, a doctor or other demanding occupation, it is simply impossible to keep up with parallel activities at the same high level.

Specialisation is not a sign of lack of other talents, it's that all specialities demand so much time and effort that there's no room for another unless you're prepared to lower your standards in one or another of them.

Originally Posted by seagypsy

What does g stand for? Gravity?

The g factor (short for "general factor")

From the link I provided you with in my post.