The girl child is a child

If Sigmund Freud is to be believed (and I’m inclined to believe him on this; even if I’m not entirely sold on all his theories), pretty much every characteristic, predisposition, inclination displayed by your everyday adult, is a reflection of childhood experiences. Ergo, we all are a product of our background. Home, school, religious associations, all other social engagements contribute significantly (albeit, in different measure) to the mental state every child grows into an adult to attain.

You may wonder how this can be reconciled to people who grow up to be the exact opposite of their parents’ or other purported mentors’ desires or tread a much different path from that indicated by their primary orientation as young children.

Well, one simple explanation is that, when faced with a preset mode of behavior, the average child, in developing its individual mind, subconsciously chooses to either conform or rebel. This decision can be influenced by a variety of factors, for example, an only child from a close-knit couple of judges (I’m presuming the quip ‘sober as a judge’ means these are incredibly conservative, upscale members of society), is very likely to become a judge, lawyer, or pursue some other white-collar career, or, on the flip side, become a rockstar, a sketch artist, or some equally ‘unconventional’ professional (if even that).

If you’re just as likely to conform to or rebel against childhood norms, you might wonder if childhood-effect theories are simply blanket nonsense and decisions are utterly random, but they aren’t, and decisions truly are predicated on the culmination of previous experiences (whether one consciously remembers them or no).  You see, most people would choose to flourish in a familiar environment (I know I would!) and even when they have to work at exceling, it’s that much easier to do when they have a relatively familiar grip on the rules of the game.

For example, the judges’ child, having both parents for models, being surrounded by people in similar or affiliate professions, having access to books and materials along the legal line, is that much more likely to choose a career in law, not because legal research is any easier for a lawyer’s child, but because it’s a familiar environment, and is easier to understand than a totally different field, like medicine, for instance.

Why have I taken the trouble to talk (write) about all of this? Very simply, cause I feel math is unfamiliar to most young children, and even though everyone has to slug through it in the earlier days of childhood, there’s no doubt everyone who can, makes a sharp detour the moment they’re presented with a choice. The teaching system lays so much emphasis on mathematical performance that it is perceived by children as work. And nobody likes work!

Way forward? Make math fun. Make math engaging. Make math as attractive as sports. After all, it takes as much intellectual effort to excel at math, as it takes physical effort to excel in sports. Even though not every middle school sportsman grows up to be an athlete, the activity is familiar enough that most people never totally give up the sport, and so find interest in coaching, or some other ancillary activity, and the same principle applies to mathematical familiarity; even though most people won’t pursue a career in pure math, they can find passion in physics, geometry, and a host of applied mathematics fields. Either way, it’s a win.