not really. I didn't really want to go into this topic since there is not quantitative evidence truly, but what do you even quantify as "a very mathematical way?" I'd say doing basic math and solving basic algebraic equations for work or just curiosity isn't not really that mathematical, but that's what most people would do. And to be fair, a good portion of mathematically inclined people (asians lul) are not thinking about group theory or matrix transformations or some crap like that, they only use it when they need to. Otherwise, they'd only think about more complex problems if that is their job. Every once in a while people will just solve problems for fun or do it to help someone. I know most of my friends haven't even taken a math class in 4 to 5 years and only use basic math skills nowadays, but would be bounds better at relearning calculus than most people our age (who also have not taken or done advanced math in years). This is all just hypothesizing and no evidence, but that's all I have for that.chainpullz wrote:
People who are good at math are good at math because they see and think about everything in the world in a very mathematical way.
But when it comes to hardwork and mindset, even that is a talent in and of itself. Our brains are a physical entity that can be almost completely hardwired to think a certain way. Perhaps there's no absolute conclusion on the malleability of the human brain, but just evolutionarily speaking, certain animals have been "proven" to act a certain way under certain stimuli regardless of any environment. Of course, we don't see that specifically in humans, but the idea is that tendencies to retain a certain behavior exist in all animal, and especially for humans, regardless of whether it's "hardwired" or not. This is why personalities exist, because we have a tendency to always be a certain way. You can argue that people can push through if they work "hard enough" to change their identity and personality, but can't it also be said that that particular is much harder and time-consuming to accomlpish? And in that way, wouldn't that mean that for someone who has a behaviorally negative tendency to require more time and effort to fix it and improve themselves in a particular area? If you don't consider this a kind of talent, then there still seems to be a discrepancy between the amount of time one person takes to learn a skill and the time it takes for another, and that time discrepancy itself is like a pseudo-talent. If not measurable in mental capacity, we can still measure talent in the amount of time it takes people to learn particular sets of skills, although not numerically per se.