The Math Gene: How Mathematical Thinking Evolved And Why Numbers Are Like Gossip (First Published in Great Britain in 2000 by Weidenfeld & Nic)

Or so it seems to anyone who has felt very much on the outside of the subject. British mathematician Keith Devlin is certainly on the inside, and in The Math Gene, he has wonderful news for everyone: we can all join him there. For Devlin argues that we all possess the ability to cope with mathematics--if only we recognize what's required. While a number of recent books, notably Stanislas Dehaene's The Number Sense, have focused on numerical ability, the scope of Devlin's book is much larger. He examines the evidence that we all possess, if not literally a gene, then at least an inherent ability not just for arithmetic but for real mathematics: algebra, calculus, and the rest. Devlin even puts forward a Darwinian explanation for the origin of this ability, based on the idea that being able to handle abstract ideas and relationships confers key evolutionary advantages.

Mathematics merely involves a relatively high level of abstraction--but one we can all cope with, if we work at it. "Doing mathematics is very much like running a marathon," writes Devlin. "It does not require any special talent, and 'finishing' is largely a matter of wanting to succeed."

In its wealth of wonderful examples supporting the central argument, The Math Gene bears comparison with Steven Pinker's The Language Instinct, and its plain common sense about this most misunderstood of subjects is inspirational. Thoroughly recommended for anyone seeking to rid their intellectual closet of the skeleton of mathematical "incompetence." --Robert Matthews, Amazon.co.uk

Product Description

This is an intriguing question. After all, it's a fairly new part of human behavior - having been around maybe 10,000 years - that we all can do, at least a bit, and the rest of the animal kingdom can't, at least as far as we know.

Devlin's the first mathematician I know of who's looked deeply into this subject using recent research in the area; he's done a great job fitting the available data to a theory that starts to answer the question, how it is we can do mathematics?

First, though, you have to understand what mathematics really is. Devlin's definition is the "science of patterns" and he explains clearly and convincingly why it's the right one.

His premise, roughly, is that however we acquired language, and he stays mostly on the sidelines of the heated debates about that, mathematical ability came along for the ride. His reasoning is that "off-line reasoning" is an essentially equivalent to language, as you can't have one without the other, and that this plus some other abilities, such as a number sense and spatial reasoning, give us the ability to do mathematics.

He then explains why so many of us find the subject difficult. A simplified version is that we use language mainly to talk about interpersonal relationships. In a word, gossip. Note he's not claiming this to have been the purpose for it's development, just that it's what we mostly do with it now. And we're very good at gossiping. In fact, it's so easy we consider it to be a form of relaxation. To Devlin, you need to have the same kind of relationship with mathematical objects in order to be able to work with them.

The book's greatest strength, to my mind, is its gathering of results in cognitive psychology into a coherently developed thesis regarding the origins of mathematical ability. It's a worthy contribution to the discussion, even if the theory proposed is completely wrong, as it may well be. Devlin's open and clear about it being highly speculative.

I do have quibbles, but they're just that. Its major weakness, if the book can be said to have any, is that it doesn't make much by the way of predictions based on his theory, which would make it far more convincing. But this is a terrific starting point for other work.


Useful Glimpses Into How a Mathemetician Thinks   October 31, 2000
Donald Mitchell (Boston)
12 out of 16 found this review helpful

Let's face it. Most people have trouble with math, and are delighted when they don't have to figure out any more when two trains are going to collide or pass each other. Personally, I always liked problems, so I found math interesting. My friends always thought that was one of my more peculiar characteristics.

Dean Keith Devlin deplores the fact that the way math (that which we learn after arithmetic is mastered) is taught obscures access to the most interesting parts of the subject. I agree with him on that. In this book, he tries to take away some of the fog for the reader by showing you thought processes that mathematicians use in some simple situations and problems that most people can grasp. These examples are nicely designed to build on one another, so you get a cumulative learning experience from them of how a mathematician may think. The "nested" design of the examples was impressive to me as an author.

This book is for those who think of themselves as nonmathematical and want to understand more about why they experience a weak skill set in that way. Mathematicians will probably find the book much too elementary to be interesting, except as a model of how to explain mathematics to the lay person. Those who study mind development will find the book full of logical proofs, but modest insight.

The author also tries to build a plausible scenario for how mathematical ability developed in primitive humans. I applaud his ambition. His speculations are interesting, but certainly did not persuade me. I think his problem was that he did not look far enough into the scientific research on how we learn.

Everyone has problems with something where we have no experience. As David Ingvar pointed out, we simply draw a blank until we can create experience in that area or connect to an existing experience. To help people learn, give them experience in the new thing that is structured to be connected to some familiar thing. This point is made indirectly by an example Dean Devlin provides: Children who have trouble doing simple arithmetic can make change perfectly well. The best educational techniques create simulations that encourage this approach focused in relevant experiences. Unfortunately, those who teach math are mostly immune to using this method. Higher math is taught in the way that makes it most difficult to understand -- as abstractions unconnected to other math or ordinary situations and people. You will often "feel" an underlying unity in math, but I never had a teacher who addressed it. The closest I came was in a calculus class where we wrote software programs to solve problems. Putting a virtually infinite set of rectangles together and adding their areas to approach the answer for the area under the curve was fascinating and useful to me.

The other problem with his arguments about the origins of mathematical ability is that he concentrates on the "formal proof" parts of this thinking which are conscious. Many people report that math for them is more unconscious and intuitive. I am one of those people. I can see the solution in a nonverbal, nonmathematical form. After I know the answer, then I sit down and painstakingly translate it into formal proofs. But that is merely for communication purposes. It doesn't help me at all. I was not surprised that Dean Devlin sees conscious mathematical thinking as being like language -- because that's the exact same purpose it serves. The more important question of how mathematical insight can be developed is not really addressed, as I understood the book. Dean Devlin alludes to those moments of inspiration, but doesn't tie them into his main themes. I suspect that "knowing" the answer in this unconscious way is much like "knowing" where to throw a rock to hit something, an example that Dean Devlin uses.

Reading this book made me realize that there are many disciplines where I do not understand the fundamental thought processes involved. Perhaps that is true of you, too. Since we often rely on other people to help us in these areas, we cannot hope to understand their advice if we do not understand the mental processes for how they arrive at that advice. I suggest that you and I start spending some time over lunch and drinks getting some more understanding of medicine, engineering, pscyhology, and teaching in this same way from professionals in those disciplines. I suspect we will be greatly helped by what we learn.

Peer out from the other person's mind from time to time to see more!


Wonderful insight into mathematics and human evolution   September 6, 2002
7 out of 9 found this review helpful

The Math Gene is a wonderful insight into mathematics and how humans may have evolved the ability for mathematical thought. Dr Devlin gives a powerful argument for his theory in three parts. He begins with an explanation of the nature of mathematics, and dispells many misconceptions about math held by people outside of the mathematics community. He then spends the bulk of his text describing the nature and evolution of language and communication in humans and their differences with animals in that respect. He explains what pressures in the environment would be necessary to cause an evolutionary change in language and thought in a way that is understandable by a layperson and plausable to someone with a strong scientific background. He ends his book with a comparison of the mind's mathematical and language processes, why language (particularly gossip) must have preceded mathematical thought, and why mathematical thought is a direct product of any consciousness capable of language.

I thoroughly enjoyed this book, and have recommended it to friends and colleages alike. I would also recommend another one of Devlin's books, The Language of Mathematics, for a glimpse into the diverse and beautiful world of math any person could understand and appreciate.


Very Interesting--a book about math and language...   October 5, 2000
2 out of 4 found this review helpful

The author explains how and why humans have the ability to do math--with math being much more than arithmetic. The author suggests that the mental process of performing mathematics and the mental process needed to construct sentences have the same structure.


Gossip?   April 19, 2006
Anne Hewitt (Steele's Tavern, Va)
1 out of 8 found this review helpful

It seems much more plausible that math developed strictly from hunger. People who couldn't plan ahead would die. Planning for carbs and protein means laying plots, seed saving, estimating yield, irrigation, predicting seasons etc. Projecting into the future is abstraction. The development of agriculture also means staying in one place and building permanent structures that fit together and last. You must estimate materials and they must be plumb and square, so tools for measurement develop. Navigation must have been another leap. Triangulation to measure everything from position to the height of a tree to be cut for a mast. Figuring time and distance traveled to know how much food and water to store and to figure if you'll arrive befor the monsoon season.

It seems that even today, primitive societies, mostly in the tropics, that are nomadic or based on hunting and gathering have only very basic mathematics. Maybe one to one correspondence, bring home enough food for each person, each day. Match the people to fingers. If more than 10 use a second person. (Base 10). This is a start that could be built on if they stopped, plotted the future and planned. That would be less likely with an abundant, year round supply of food.

I was looking for a book that explains why my family has great verbal SATS but poor math ability. (Even though we are descended from farmers and American Indians.) The gossip idea seems well, a stretch. I gave this 5 stars because the site requires a rating and I want to be generous but I won't buy the book after reading about this gossip theory. I have no math sense but I do have common sense. I mean, I think a farming family in an isolated log cabin 3 centuries ago would be using a lot more native math than local gossip.
There would be nothing to gossip about. Also most of the scientists and engineers I know, hate small talk and are very bad at gossip.