### You are viewing a page indexed by search engine. All comments on the topic are put together without order and may be confusing to read. To see organized discussion click here. ###

I think that they are making this statement in an attempt to boost the confidence of the student, because if 99% of the people born are able to see color and the same with their numerical skills, this basically says there is no need to feel overwhelmed. Just calm down and do what comes natural. We're born with the ability to see the world numerically just as we're born to see the world in colour. A study has shown that there are no difference in numerical ability between the children who speak Warlpiri or Anindilyakawa (two Aboriginal languages without number words) and the English speaking children. Numerical skills are something we are born with. [1] They did have the same reason, but not the same knowledge. Today, even youngest children know what zero is. All kids know it, and therefore this mystery number of the past is no mystery today.

This points to a conclusion that reason alone is not enough for learning math. One needs access to knowledge as well.

But what about making mathematical discoveries. Are reason and knowledge sufficient, or is a third component needed? What seems reasonable to us today was not so reasonable to our ancestors. For example, a bit more than two thousand years ago, humans didn't know about number zero. Today it is hard to comprehend how one could think about mathematics without that number. Didn't our ancestors have the same innate reason as we do? Reason is innate to all humans, and math is based on reason. It follows that anyone can learn math by simply using reason. That may be true, but some will learn it faster and better than others. Anyone can learn math.