So, being "not a figure kind of person," I sat down with my taxes today. Oh My. I was Proud that I had put all Relevant Materials in a Box, but still...it took hours to sort, over an hour to read the directions and calculate, and it seemed like I would only get about 700 bucks back. That just didn't seem right at all.
So I called H and R Block, and for a mere $250 my return went up to over 2,000! Maybe I'll use that to host an ASM party?
We can credit this difference to my poor math; we can credit the return to my intelligent use of 403(b) (which is the university's equivalent to a 401(k), except the university doesn't match funds...). I put almost half my Huge Teacher's Salary in to the 403(b), but I was calculating my return on my actual wages.
Now....how to set up next year to get even *more* back???
phelbooth wrote: > So, being "not a figure kind of person," I sat down with my taxes > today. Oh My. I was Proud that I had put all Relevant Materials in a > Box, but still...it took hours to sort, over an hour to read the > directions and calculate, and it seemed like I would only get about > 700 bucks back. That just didn't seem right at all.
> So I called H and R Block, and for a mere $250 my return went up to > over 2,000! Maybe I'll use that to host an ASM party?
> We can credit this difference to my poor math; we can credit the > return to my intelligent use of 403(b) (which is the university's > equivalent to a 401(k), except the university doesn't match funds...). > I put almost half my Huge Teacher's Salary in to the 403(b), but I was > calculating my return on my actual wages.
> Now....how to set up next year to get even *more* back???
> Happy Tax Time, all!
> Fill
Why don't you use a Tax program? It makes things a LOT easier. There are both online versions and CDs. The most popular ones are TaxACT, H&R Block At Home (formerly TaxCut), and TurboTax. Then "you" don't have to calculate anything.
> phelbooth wrote: > > So, being "not a figure kind of person," I sat down with my taxes > > today. Oh My. I was Proud that I had put all Relevant Materials in a > > Box, but still...it took hours to sort, over an hour to read the > > directions and calculate, and it seemed like I would only get about > > 700 bucks back. That just didn't seem right at all.
> > So I called H and R Block, and for a mere $250 my return went up to > > over 2,000! Maybe I'll use that to host an ASM party?
> > We can credit this difference to my poor math; we can credit the > > return to my intelligent use of 403(b) (which is the university's > > equivalent to a 401(k), except the university doesn't match funds...). > > I put almost half my Huge Teacher's Salary in to the 403(b), but I was > > calculating my return on my actual wages.
> > Now....how to set up next year to get even *more* back???
> > Happy Tax Time, all!
> > Fill
> Why don't you use a Tax program? It makes things a LOT easier. There are > both online versions and CDs. The most popular ones are TaxACT, H&R Block > At Home (formerly TaxCut), and TurboTax. Then "you" don't have to > calculate anything.
OH, my Beams, I TRIED a tax program last year...and the IRS jumped all over me--many, many errors, well, OK, two, but still...
Peace of mind is worth 250 if you are challenged by figures...
phelbooth <phelbo...@gmail.com> wrote: > So, being "not a figure kind of person," I sat down with my taxes > today. Oh My. I was Proud that I had put all Relevant Materials > in a Box, but still...it took hours to sort, over an hour to > read the directions and calculate, and it seemed like I would > only get about 700 bucks back. That just didn't seem right at > all.
> So I called H and R Block, and for a mere $250 my return went up > to over 2,000! Maybe I'll use that to host an ASM party?
> We can credit this difference to my poor math; we can credit the > return to my intelligent use of 403(b) (which is the university's > equivalent to a 401(k), except the university doesn't match > funds...). I put almost half my Huge Teacher's Salary in to the > 403(b), but I was calculating my return on my actual wages.
> Now....how to set up next year to get even *more* back???
There's a difference between lowering your total tax payments to the government, and getting a refund at the end of the year. While the former is advisable, the latter is unadvisable. IOW, you should simultaneously try to lower your total tax liability while, at the same time, try to bring your final exchange with the government to as close to zero as possible. (i.e., not refund, not payment). In fact, there is a school of thought that you should try to arrange things so that it is you who must pay the government money come tax time, up to the limit they would allow before they penalize you for it.
The fact that you got a healthy refund this year is not because of the reasons you state. It is because you allowed the government to overcharge you all year long. They took that money from you all year, and used it, and didn't pay you a plug nickel in interest, did they? However, had they collected the exact right amount so that you would've had no refund, then that money would've been available to you all year long.
There is an argument to be made that this money would just have been wasted during the year, and you'd have none of it now. And although that doesn't make financial sense, if you need that kind of forced savings plan to save money, then have at it
> There's a difference between lowering your total tax payments to the > government, and getting a refund at the end of the year. While the > former is advisable, the latter is unadvisable. IOW, you should > simultaneously try to lower your total tax liability while, at the > same time, try to bring your final exchange with the government to > as close to zero as possible. (i.e., not refund, not payment).
Each year, if the refund is over $500, I retune the withholdings to try to make it smaller the next year.
> In > fact, there is a school of thought that you should try to arrange > things so that it is you who must pay the government money come tax > time, up to the limit they would allow before they penalize you for > it.
On the other hand there's no way I want to have to write a check when I do my taxes. There have been years in the past where I didn't have the cash on hand for that and it trashed my April budget. Not something I want to repeat.
So in the end I set my withholdings to be certain I don't have to write a check and that means I will get a refund, yet I also set them so that my refund last year would have been small. It's reactive but it mostly works.
>> There's a difference between lowering your total tax payments >> to the government, and getting a refund at the end of the year. >> While the former is advisable, the latter is unadvisable. IOW, >> you should simultaneously try to lower your total tax liability >> while, at the same time, try to bring your final exchange with >> the government to as close to zero as possible. (i.e., not >> refund, not payment).
> Each year, if the refund is over $500, I retune the withholdings > to try to make it smaller the next year.
>> In >> fact, there is a school of thought that you should try to >> arrange things so that it is you who must pay the government >> money come tax time, up to the limit they would allow before >> they penalize you for it.
> On the other hand there's no way I want to have to write a check > when I do my taxes. There have been years in the past where I > didn't have the cash on hand for that and it trashed my April > budget. Not something I want to repeat.
> So in the end I set my withholdings to be certain I don't have > to write a check and that means I will get a refund, yet I also > set them so that my refund last year would have been small. > It's reactive but it mostly works.
Doug Freyburger <dfrey...@yahoo.com> wrote: > On the other hand there's no way I want to have to write a check > when I do my taxes. There have been years in the past where I > didn't have the cash on hand for that and it trashed my April > budget. Not something I want to repeat.
BTW, I do the same thing, although, in theory, the smarter play would be to owe the government at the end of the year. Doing so would allow me to invest that money and get a return on it before having to pay it to the FEDs. I only wish I were that disciplined.
> Doug Freyburger <dfrey...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > On the other hand there's no way I want to have to write a check > > when I do my taxes. There have been years in the past where I > > didn't have the cash on hand for that and it trashed my April > > budget. Not something I want to repeat.
> BTW, I do the same thing, although, in theory, the smarter play > would be to owe the government at the end of the year. Doing so > would allow me to invest that money and get a return on it before > having to pay it to the FEDs. I only wish I were that disciplined.
But, see, I must humbly admit my problem is I cannot conceptualize figures very well. And I'm deathly afraid of withholding/401b-ing to the extent that I end up having to pay the Government in April. What I should do, probably, is talk to the HR Block person about how to manage my income better, from what I think you're saying.
(I'm not even sure I get what you're saying. I just blip out with numbers/long-range planning. I am a dunce, and I fully (but not proudly) admit it)
>> Doug Freyburger <dfrey...@yahoo.com> wrote: >>> On the other hand there's no way I want to have to write a >>> check when I do my taxes. There have been years in the past >>> where I didn't have the cash on hand for that and it trashed >>> my April budget. Not something I want to repeat.
>> BTW, I do the same thing, although, in theory, the smarter play >> would be to owe the government at the end of the year. Doing so >> would allow me to invest that money and get a return on it >> before having to pay it to the FEDs. I only wish I were that >> disciplined.
> But, see, I must humbly admit my problem is I cannot > conceptualize figures very well. And I'm deathly afraid of > withholding/401b-ing to the extent that I end up having to pay > the Government in April. What I should do, probably, is talk to > the HR Block person about how to manage my income better, from > what I think you're saying.
> (I'm not even sure I get what you're saying. I just blip out with > numbers/long-range planning. I am a dunce, and I fully (but not > proudly) admit it)
What I'm saying is this:
The total amont that you have to pay the government each year is based on whatever your financial circumstances were for the year, and it has nothing to do with whatever is withheld from you each week. Those withholdings are based only upon an approximation of the total amont of money you have to pay each year in taxes. For instance, for a person who earns 50K in income for the year, let's assume that based upon the number of dependents they have, and how much in other "deductions" they might have, that their tax bill for the entire year would be $11K (I have no idea if that's anywhere near right, but let's just go with it).
However, because, at the very beginning of the year, there's no good way to know exactly what that total tax bill will be, between them and their employer (post for another time) they estimate that their total tax bill for the year will be $12K. Therefore, if they were to get paid twice per month, $500 would be "withheld" from every pay. The employer withholds this from the employee, and sends it to the FEDs.
But when that person finally gets around to doing their taxes, and all of the deductions are taken into consideration, they find that their total tax bill was actually the $11K mentioned above. That would mean that they get a refund of a $1,000.
So is that a good thing? Not really. If, instead, at the beginning of the year, they had more accurately estimated their total tax bill to have been the $11K instead of $12K, then instead of the FEDs getting that money all year, our intrepid tax payer would've had it all year, possibly to invest and make some money on it.
Yes, you can look at the withholding as a sort of no-interest earning Xmas club that forces you to save money, and for some people, that's a good idea. At one point in my life, it was exactly what I needed. However, that's only because of a lack of discipline. What I do now is estimate as closely as possible what I think my total tax bill to be, and my withholdings are based upon that amount, and if I do want to save, I have that also automatically deducted from my pay, but instead of sending it to the FEDs to keep and use, I have it direct deposited to a savings account so that I can use it if I need it, or, at least I'm earning interest on it.
So yes, there are things that you might be able to do to lower your total annual tax bill, and there might be things that you can do to save more. But the concept of having the government take more money from your pay so that they can keep it for you until the next tax season isn't a really good idea, at least from a purely financial perspective.
> But, see, I must humbly admit my problem is I cannot conceptualize > figures very well. And I'm deathly afraid of withholding/401b-ing to > the extent that I end up having to pay the Government in April. What I > should do, probably, is talk to the HR Block person about how to > manage my income better, from what I think you're saying.
The simple version -
You got a $2000 refund this year. If you expect your tax situation to be similar next year then change your W-2 to have one more deduction so a little less gets withheld. Then adjust your 401b or your budget to take up the difference. Each year adjust by 1 as you go. Either up or down.
A little more careful -
You got a $2000 refund this year. If you expect your tax situation to be similar next year then ask the HR Block person to run an estimate with 1 more and with 2 more deductions on your W-2 than you have now. If the one with 2 more still gives a refund ask to do the estimate with 3. Each year adjust based on the estimates. Either up or down.
> > But, see, I must humbly admit my problem is I cannot conceptualize > > figures very well. And I'm deathly afraid of withholding/401b-ing to > > the extent that I end up having to pay the Government in April. What I > > should do, probably, is talk to the HR Block person about how to > > manage my income better, from what I think you're saying.
> The simple version -
> You got a $2000 refund this year. If you expect your tax situation to > be similar next year then change your W-2 to have one more deduction so > a little less gets withheld. Then adjust your 401b or your budget to > take up the difference. Each year adjust by 1 as you go. Either up or > down.
> A little more careful -
> You got a $2000 refund this year. If you expect your tax situation to > be similar next year then ask the HR Block person to run an estimate > with 1 more and with 2 more deductions on your W-2 than you have now. > If the one with 2 more still gives a refund ask to do the estimate with > 3. Each year adjust based on the estimates. Either up or down.
OK, good explanation for those who are numerically challenged--tho I wish you'd have used 10K, for round numbers are much more palatable. :)
I am wondering about the link between math and space. I also have very poor spatial conceptualization (except, oddly, when hiking in the middle of no-where, where I seem to do quite well). For example, if I were to visit a large 2-story home and tour it, I would not be able to "see" the upper-floor in relation to the lower-floor.
But I can't take more deductions if I'm only one person, right?
So that would mean adjusting the 401b? I'm already pretty much capping it out (as I said, putting about half my pay), but I think there's still a few hundred more I can deduct. But then I get worried about cash-on-hand and penalties and Oh My. Taht would be the Scottish in me (and yes, I am wearing orange today)
phelbooth <phelbo...@gmail.com> writes: > On Mar 17, 1:08 pm, Doug Freyburger <dfrey...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > phelbooth wrote:
> > > But, see, I must humbly admit my problem is I cannot conceptualize > > > figures very well. And I'm deathly afraid of withholding/401b-ing to > > > the extent that I end up having to pay the Government in April. What I > > > should do, probably, is talk to the HR Block person about how to > > > manage my income better, from what I think you're saying.
> > The simple version -
> > You got a $2000 refund this year. If you expect your tax situation to > > be similar next year then change your W-2 to have one more deduction so > > a little less gets withheld. Then adjust your 401b or your budget to > > take up the difference. Each year adjust by 1 as you go. Either up or > > down.
> > A little more careful -
> > You got a $2000 refund this year. If you expect your tax situation to > > be similar next year then ask the HR Block person to run an estimate > > with 1 more and with 2 more deductions on your W-2 than you have now. > > If the one with 2 more still gives a refund ask to do the estimate with > > 3. Each year adjust based on the estimates. Either up or down.
> OK, good explanation for those who are numerically challenged--tho I > wish you'd have used 10K, for round numbers are much more > palatable. :)
> I am wondering about the link between math and space. I also have very > poor spatial conceptualization (except, oddly, when hiking in the > middle of no-where, where I seem to do quite well). For example, if I > were to visit a large 2-story home and tour it, I would not be able to > "see" the upper-floor in relation to the lower-floor.
Understanding math, and spatial conceptualization both involve holding very abstract information in your brain as opposed to actually _looking_ at it.
Those of us who are good at either of these tend to be good with abstractions. Of course some of us are _only_ good with abstractions, but lots of people who are good at abstractions are good at quite a few other things too.
> Doug Freyburger <dfrey...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > On the other hand there's no way I want to have to write a check > > when I do my taxes. There have been years in the past where I > > didn't have the cash on hand for that and it trashed my April > > budget. Not something I want to repeat.
> BTW, I do the same thing, although, in theory, the smarter play > would be to owe the government at the end of the year. Doing so > would allow me to invest that money and get a return on it before > having to pay it to the FEDs. I only wish I were that disciplined
Hmmmmm. That is, as we say here in WI, a whole 'nother can of worms...how can you even know that your investments would be more than what you might owe the gov't, esp as they seem especially gleeful to take money for dividends of the A and B type (I have no idea of the difference; I just know I have both types and they count it even as your investments spiral downward abysmally...)
Nope. Way to much mathematical calculations for me. I'm not a calculating kinda person. Do you all know the poem, The Actuarial Wife? I used to teach it in Intro to Lit--it's great--I couldn't find a copy online, and my anthology is at school (and I'm not)--if I think of it, I'll post it sometime soon. It's a terrible, horrible, wonderful poem. Reminds me of my ex, come to think of it :)
By the way, Doug, thanks for the clarity of your response. I will try to do better this forthcoming year. I think I can get better at this.
> > Doug Freyburger <dfrey...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > On the other hand there's no way I want to have to write a check > > > when I do my taxes. There have been years in the past where I > > > didn't have the cash on hand for that and it trashed my April > > > budget. Not something I want to repeat.
> > BTW, I do the same thing, although, in theory, the smarter play > > would be to owe the government at the end of the year. Doing so > > would allow me to invest that money and get a return on it before > > having to pay it to the FEDs. I only wish I were that disciplined
> Hmmmmm. That is, as we say here in WI, a whole 'nother can of > worms...how can you even know that your investments would be more than > what you might owe the gov't,
If you're going to end up owing $100, and you put it in the bank, you get the interest on that $100, and then you pay the IRS the $100 on April 15th.
So you come out ahead, even though the bank interest doesn't amount to very much.
No calculation needed - you just do better getting interest on that money than not getting interest on that money.
> I am wondering about the link between math and space. I also have very > poor spatial conceptualization (except, oddly, when hiking in the > middle of no-where, where I seem to do quite well). For example, if I > were to visit a large 2-story home and tour it, I would not be able to > "see" the upper-floor in relation to the lower-floor.
Lately I've wondered if visualization talent might be evolved. The stone age lasted a very long time and during the stone age the people better at making stone tools survived better. Making a stone tool involves seeing the stone in its current form, visualizing the desired tool within the larger stone, visualizing stress lines within the stone so your blows don't shatter the large stone as you chip away the extra parts. The process is as mathematical and geometric as jumping from tree limb to tree limb in the forest or as throwing a rock at a critter you want to eat. I mean it's as mathematical as throwing a football in a game.
I've never gotten why folks like interior designers claim to not like math. When they visualize a room with new items in it that visualization is entirely math. The TV show NUMB3RS actually does an okay job depicting visualization. Some folks use visualization to picture what Barbie will look like in the next little outfit. Hurgh the caveman uses visualization to get a spear point out of flint. Charlie on the TV show uses visualization to picture a criminal trying to escape the cops. All the same thing inside the brain. Math.
But Fil's a poetry person. Poetry is music. Music is math.
> But I can't take more deductions if I'm only one person, right?
You can take the number of deductions you are entitled to. If you got a refund this year then you can increase your deductions for next year. There are rules against setting your deductions based on fraudulent income projections but doing corrections is the right thing.
> So that would mean adjusting the 401b? I'm already pretty much capping > it out (as I said, putting about half my pay), but I think there's > still a few hundred more I can deduct.
If you change the number of deductions by one that might be a $50 per month change in take home. If you're already saving 50% it hardly matters if you blow the extra bucks.
> That would be the Scottish in me (and yes, I am wearing orange today)
I used to wear my favorite Marvin The Martian tie but I wore it out last year. This year I looked in my closet and the only green item was my Scottish clan tie (MacDougal, I go my my wife's clan). It is mostly red and green. I thought it over and decided that it might make a policital comment that I didn't intend. As a heathen/pagan I'm not big on celebrating a guy who drove the heathens/pagans out of Ireland but I do have some Irish lineage. I continued the search and found a green teeshirt to wear under my button shirt. Open collar so it showed.
> > I am wondering about the link between math and space. I also have very > > poor spatial conceptualization (except, oddly, when hiking in the > > middle of no-where, where I seem to do quite well). For example, if I > > were to visit a large 2-story home and tour it, I would not be able to > > "see" the upper-floor in relation to the lower-floor.
> Lately I've wondered if visualization talent might be evolved.
For those of us who believe in evolution, the answer must surely be yes. Aren't all traits the result of evolution?
> The > stone age lasted a very long time and during the stone age the people > better at making stone tools survived better. Making a stone tool > involves seeing the stone in its current form, visualizing the desired > tool within the larger stone, visualizing stress lines within the stone > so your blows don't shatter the large stone as you chip away the extra > parts. The process is as mathematical and geometric as jumping from > tree limb to tree limb in the forest or as throwing a rock at a critter > you want to eat. I mean it's as mathematical as throwing a football in > a game.
Hmm. I disagree that throwing a football is connected with being good at visualization or being good at math. Yes, you can describe the motion of a football mathematically, but no one who throws a football is either implicitly or explicitly solving those rather complicated mathematical equations. (And they _are_ complicated once you take into account wind and air resistance.) Instead I would like throwing a football to things like proprioception and practice. [Note: I'm not dismissing that there is a great deal of skill involved in throwing a football well - I just dispute that it is a mathematical skill. Same for jumping from limb to limb.]
> I've never gotten why folks like interior designers claim to not like > math. When they visualize a room with new items in it that > visualization is entirely math. The TV show NUMB3RS actually does an > okay job depicting visualization.
I'll take your word for it, but please take my word for it that it does a _bad_ job depicting what can be done with math.
You can't take 5 locations a serial killer has struck in and use any kind of math to pinpoint the 6th location he'll strike in.
> Some folks use visualization to > picture what Barbie will look like in the next little outfit. Hurgh the > caveman uses visualization to get a spear point out of flint. Charlie > on the TV show uses visualization to picture a criminal trying to escape > the cops. All the same thing inside the brain. Math.
No. I'm sorry. This is just incorrect. Yes, you _may_ be able to use mathematics to decide where to strike an idealized stone in order to get a spear point. But the stones being used aren't idealized, and the strikers are using experience, not mathematical calculation, and not abstraction except in so far as they are holding a picture in their head of what the spear point is to look like.
> But Fil's a poetry person. Poetry is music. Music is math.
Again, no. Yes lots of musical relationships can be described by math. But no known or conjectured mathematical process can distinguish between great music and mediocre music. And no known or conjectured mathematical process produces great music.
Math is central to understanding lots of things, but what you are writing is equivalent to saying "if part of something can be _described_ by math, then someone doing that thing is _doing_ math." And that just isn't true unless you take the reductionist viewpoint that _everything_ is math - and then calling something math ceases to be meaningful.
>> Lately I've wondered if visualization talent might be evolved.
> For those of us who believe in evolution, the answer must surely be > yes. Aren't all traits the result of evolution?
There are traits that are selected for and traits that are matters of genetic drift. So the answer isn't yes or no but more like a floating point in between or a matter of whether you count the drift as a part of evolution. Is the drift the evolution or is the selection the evolution? Depends on how you treat random genetic drift. I refered to selection at the next sentence and you cut in this place to make a point that is interesting and a matter of viewpoints.
Your use of the word "believe" is also interesting and a matter of viewpoints. Evolution, as defined, is as true as the wave particle duality of matter, as gravity, as the atomic theory of chemistry. But the definition is incomplete and ambiguous as with the case of random genetic drift of traits with no aparent selection.
>> The >> stone age lasted a very long time and during the stone age the people >> better at making stone tools survived better. Making a stone tool >> involves seeing the stone in its current form, visualizing the desired >> tool within the larger stone, visualizing stress lines within the stone >> so your blows don't shatter the large stone as you chip away the extra >> parts. The process is as mathematical and geometric as jumping from >> tree limb to tree limb in the forest or as throwing a rock at a critter >> you want to eat. I mean it's as mathematical as throwing a football in >> a game.
> Hmm. I disagree that throwing a football is connected with being good > at visualization or being good at math.
If a projectile hits its target than the path of that projectile was calculated. Any projectile launched without calculation has a tiny chance of hitting its target.
> Yes, you can describe the > motion of a football mathematically, but no one who throws a football > is either implicitly or explicitly solving those rather complicated > mathematical equations. (And they _are_ complicated once you take into > account wind and air resistance.) Instead I would like throwing a > football to things like proprioception and practice. [Note: I'm not > dismissing that there is a great deal of skill involved in throwing a > football well - I just dispute that it is a mathematical skill. Same > for jumping from limb to limb.]
And it doesn't matter in the least if the calculation was done on paper with a pencil or in the cerebellum by instinct.
>> I've never gotten why folks like interior designers claim to not like >> math. When they visualize a room with new items in it that >> visualization is entirely math. The TV show NUMB3RS actually does an >> okay job depicting visualization.
> I'll take your word for it, but please take my word for it that it > does a _bad_ job depicting what can be done with math.
> You can't take 5 locations a serial killer has struck in and use any > kind of math to pinpoint the 6th location he'll strike in.
Sure. It's fiction. The show ignores matters of statistical validity in order to get a case solved in a one hour episode. The CSI shows treat the time it takes to match DNA the same way. All of these shows depict science like it's magic. But "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" and there's a real difference between science and technology.
>> Some folks use visualization to >> picture what Barbie will look like in the next little outfit. Hurgh the >> caveman uses visualization to get a spear point out of flint. Charlie >> on the TV show uses visualization to picture a criminal trying to escape >> the cops. All the same thing inside the brain. Math.
> No. I'm sorry. This is just incorrect.
You exclude geometry, projection and prediction from mathematics. Noted.
> Yes, you _may_ be able to > use mathematics to decide where to strike an idealized stone in order > to get a spear point.
Engineering models do work that way. Actual stone workers doing the calculation inside their brain don't. Whether they call what their brain is doing calculation or not.
> But the stones being used aren't idealized, and > the strikers are using experience, not mathematical calculation, and > not abstraction except in so far as they are holding a picture in > their head of what the spear point is to look like.
Just as a projectile thrown without calculation has almost no chance of hitting its target, a stone struck without calculation has almost no chance of being made into the desired tool. It matters not in the least if you call the thought process calculation or not.
>> But Fil's a poetry person. Poetry is music. Music is math.
> Again, no.
I'll leave you to argue that point with Plato and his collegues.
> Math is central to understanding lots of things, but what you are > writing is equivalent to saying "if part of something can be > _described_ by math, then someone doing that thing is _doing_ math." > And that just isn't true unless you take the reductionist viewpoint > that _everything_ is math - and then calling something math ceases to > be meaningful.
If some process is almost completely guaranteed to fail without calculation and the process is made to work, then math happened whether you think it did or not.
> >> Lately I've wondered if visualization talent might be evolved.
> > For those of us who believe in evolution, the answer must surely be > > yes. Aren't all traits the result of evolution?
> There are traits that are selected for and traits that are matters of > genetic drift. So the answer isn't yes or no but more like a floating > point in between or a matter of whether you count the drift as a part of > evolution. Is the drift the evolution or is the selection the > evolution? Depends on how you treat random genetic drift. I refered to > selection at the next sentence and you cut in this place to make a point > that is interesting and a matter of viewpoints.
Yes, I understand what you are saying.
Evolution is a combination of drift (which is how traits arise) and selection (which is how traits become common).
Although there is a lot of variation among humans at how good their visualization traits are, the baseline is high enough so that it is impossible for me to believe it hasn't been selected for.
> Your use of the word "believe" is also interesting and a matter of > viewpoints. Evolution, as defined, is as true as the wave particle > duality of matter,
Actually, I'd say it is truer than wave/particle duality which is just an overlay of interpretation over a very robust theory. The theory tells us what matter does. Our brains label it as wave/particle duality, but that is really just being sloppy. A photon isn't a wave, and it isn't a particle, and we don't happen to have a good word to describe what it is. We _do_ have a good theory to predict what photons _do_.
> as gravity, as the atomic theory of chemistry. But > the definition is incomplete and ambiguous as with the case of random > genetic drift of traits with no aparent selection.
> >> The > >> stone age lasted a very long time and during the stone age the people > >> better at making stone tools survived better. Making a stone tool > >> involves seeing the stone in its current form, visualizing the desired > >> tool within the larger stone, visualizing stress lines within the stone > >> so your blows don't shatter the large stone as you chip away the extra > >> parts. The process is as mathematical and geometric as jumping from > >> tree limb to tree limb in the forest or as throwing a rock at a critter > >> you want to eat. I mean it's as mathematical as throwing a football in > >> a game.
> > Hmm. I disagree that throwing a football is connected with being good > > at visualization or being good at math.
> If a projectile hits its target than the path of that projectile was > calculated.
If you define "calculation" as having practiced something over and over again so that you can do it reliably, then I agree. To me, that isn't calculation though.
One can shoot a cannon the same way. Make a guess. If you are too far to the left, move some to the right. If you fall short, make the angle closer to 45 degrees, if you go to far, make the angle further from 45 degrees.
Repeat, making smaller adjustments as you get closer.
I don't call that calculation. If you do I find it strange, but I don't want to argue the semantics.
> Any projectile launched without calculation has a tiny > chance of hitting its target.
> > Yes, you can describe the > > motion of a football mathematically, but no one who throws a football > > is either implicitly or explicitly solving those rather complicated > > mathematical equations. (And they _are_ complicated once you take into > > account wind and air resistance.) Instead I would like throwing a > > football to things like proprioception and practice. [Note: I'm not > > dismissing that there is a great deal of skill involved in throwing a > > football well - I just dispute that it is a mathematical skill. Same > > for jumping from limb to limb.]
> And it doesn't matter in the least if the calculation was done on paper > with a pencil or in the cerebellum by instinct.
It doesn't. But there is no evidence to believe it is done in the cerebellum by instinct (people who have never thrown a football before can't hit a target by instinct I'll point out). By contrast, there is lots of evidence it is done by repeated trial and error, and not by instinct at all.
> >> I've never gotten why folks like interior designers claim to not like > >> math. When they visualize a room with new items in it that > >> visualization is entirely math. The TV show NUMB3RS actually does an > >> okay job depicting visualization.
> > I'll take your word for it, but please take my word for it that it > > does a _bad_ job depicting what can be done with math.
> > You can't take 5 locations a serial killer has struck in and use any > > kind of math to pinpoint the 6th location he'll strike in.
> Sure. It's fiction. The show ignores matters of statistical validity > in order to get a case solved in a one hour episode. The CSI shows > treat the time it takes to match DNA the same way. All of these shows > depict science like it's magic. But "Any sufficiently advanced > technology is indistinguishable from magic" and there's a real > difference between science and technology.
> >> Some folks use visualization to > >> picture what Barbie will look like in the next little outfit. Hurgh the > >> caveman uses visualization to get a spear point out of flint. Charlie > >> on the TV show uses visualization to picture a criminal trying to escape > >> the cops. All the same thing inside the brain. Math.
> > No. I'm sorry. This is just incorrect.
> You exclude geometry, projection and prediction from mathematics. > Noted.
Of course I don't. I just claim you are mistaken that people are doing math when they throw a football or visualize Barbie in an outfit.
> > Yes, you _may_ be able to > > use mathematics to decide where to strike an idealized stone in order > > to get a spear point.
> Engineering models do work that way. Actual stone workers doing the > calculation inside their brain don't. Whether they call what their > brain is doing calculation or not.
Again, I make a distinction between calculation and between skill learned by trial and error. Both are very valuable, and you can do a lot with both. But they are different.
> > But the stones being used aren't idealized, and > > the strikers are using experience, not mathematical calculation, and > > not abstraction except in so far as they are holding a picture in > > their head of what the spear point is to look like.
> Just as a projectile thrown without calculation has almost no chance of > hitting its target, a stone struck without calculation has almost no > chance of being made into the desired tool. It matters not in the least > if you call the thought process calculation or not.
> >> But Fil's a poetry person. Poetry is music. Music is math.
> > Again, no.
> I'll leave you to argue that point with Plato and his collegues.
> > Math is central to understanding lots of things, but what you are > > writing is equivalent to saying "if part of something can be > > _described_ by math, then someone doing that thing is _doing_ math." > > And that just isn't true unless you take the reductionist viewpoint > > that _everything_ is math - and then calling something math ceases to > > be meaningful.
> If some process is almost completely guaranteed to fail without > calculation and the process is made to work, then math happened whether > you think it did or not.
And yet none of the processes you describe (throwing a ball, carving a spear point, etc.) are guaranteed to fail without math. They can all be learned by trial and error and guidance from someone skilled.
So yes, I might accept your point that if something is guaranteed to fail without calculation, and it succeeds, then there must be calculation. But your examples _aren't_ guaranteed to fail without calculation.
Your thinking is very narrow. Because something _can_ be done with calculation (e.g. aiming a cannon), it does not follow that it _must_ be done with calculation.
As far as throwing a football in real-world circumstances and hitting a small target at a distance the way good quarterbacks can, or taking a flint and making a sharp aerodynamic spear point the way a skilled stone-age hunter probably could - these are things that are generally too complex to be done with mathematics. Trial and error and a solid 10,000 hours of experience combined with the muscular memory that comes from that 10,000 hours of experience are a much better fit with those skills.
> >> Lately I've wondered if visualization talent might be evolved.
> > For those of us who believe in evolution, the answer must surely be > > yes. Aren't all traits the result of evolution?
> There are traits that are selected for and traits that are matters of > genetic drift. So the answer isn't yes or no but more like a floating > point in between or a matter of whether you count the drift as a part of > evolution. Is the drift the evolution or is the selection the > evolution? Depends on how you treat random genetic drift. I refered to > selection at the next sentence and you cut in this place to make a point > that is interesting and a matter of viewpoints.
> Your use of the word "believe" is also interesting and a matter of > viewpoints. Evolution, as defined, is as true as the wave particle > duality of matter, as gravity, as the atomic theory of chemistry. But > the definition is incomplete and ambiguous as with the case of random > genetic drift of traits with no aparent selection.
> >> The > >> stone age lasted a very long time and during the stone age the people > >> better at making stone tools survived better. Making a stone tool > >> involves seeing the stone in its current form, visualizing the desired > >> tool within the larger stone, visualizing stress lines within the stone > >> so your blows don't shatter the large stone as you chip away the extra > >> parts. The process is as mathematical and geometric as jumping from > >> tree limb to tree limb in the forest or as throwing a rock at a critter > >> you want to eat. I mean it's as mathematical as throwing a football in > >> a game.
> > Hmm. I disagree that throwing a football is connected with being good > > at visualization or being good at math.
> If a projectile hits its target than the path of that projectile was > calculated. Any projectile launched without calculation has a tiny > chance of hitting its target.
> > Yes, you can describe the > > motion of a football mathematically, but no one who throws a football > > is either implicitly or explicitly solving those rather complicated > > mathematical equations. (And they _are_ complicated once you take into > > account wind and air resistance.) Instead I would like throwing a > > football to things like proprioception and practice. [Note: I'm not > > dismissing that there is a great deal of skill involved in throwing a > > football well - I just dispute that it is a mathematical skill. Same > > for jumping from limb to limb.]
> And it doesn't matter in the least if the calculation was done on paper > with a pencil or in the cerebellum by instinct.
> >> I've never gotten why folks like interior designers claim to not like > >> math. When they visualize a room with new items in it that > >> visualization is entirely math. The TV show NUMB3RS actually does an > >> okay job depicting visualization.
> > I'll take your word for it, but please take my word for it that it > > does a _bad_ job depicting what can be done with math.
> > You can't take 5 locations a serial killer has struck in and use any > > kind of math to pinpoint the 6th location he'll strike in.
> Sure. It's fiction. The show ignores matters of statistical validity > in order to get a case solved in a one hour episode. The CSI shows > treat the time it takes to match DNA the same way. All of these shows > depict science like it's magic. But "Any sufficiently advanced > technology is indistinguishable from magic" and there's a real > difference between science and technology.
> >> Some folks use visualization to > >> picture what Barbie will look like in the next little outfit. Hurgh the > >> caveman uses visualization to get a spear point out of flint. Charlie > >> on the TV show uses visualization to picture a criminal trying to escape > >> the cops. All the same thing inside the brain. Math.
> > No. I'm sorry. This is just incorrect.
> You exclude geometry, projection and prediction from mathematics. > Noted.
> > Yes, you _may_ be able to > > use mathematics to decide where to strike an idealized stone in order > > to get a spear point.
> Engineering models do work that way. Actual stone workers doing the > calculation inside their brain don't. Whether they call what their > brain is doing calculation or not.
> > But the stones being used aren't idealized, and > > the strikers are using experience, not mathematical calculation, and > > not abstraction except in so far as they are holding a picture in > > their head of what the spear point is to look like.
> Just as a projectile thrown without calculation has almost no chance of > hitting its target, a stone struck without calculation has almost no > chance of being made into the desired tool. It matters not in the least > if you call the thought process calculation or not.
> >> But Fil's a poetry person. Poetry is music. Music is math.
I "get" poetry. I appreciate music and get a teeny bit of it. I don't get math/space.
Except as I said, I do understand space when hiking. If a trail isn't well marked, I inherently know which way to go. As far as I know, there has only been one exception to this (where I was not exactly lost, but not where I intended to be)--but I could figure out where I was a where I took a wrong turn, and get back. Tho it was scary cuz night was coming on and I was with my then beloved hubby, a diabetic, who had no insulin or food, to speak of. Plus, the dear man is blind as a bat. Never hiked so fast in my life. :)
> > Again, no.
> I'll leave you to argue that point with Plato and his collegues.
Just who was it, again, that he wanted to keep out of his Republic ;)
> > Math is central to understanding lots of things, but what you are > > writing is equivalent to saying "if part of something can be > > _described_ by math, then someone doing that thing is _doing_ math." > > And that just isn't true unless you take the reductionist viewpoint > > that _everything_ is math - and then calling something math ceases to > > be meaningful.
> If some process is almost completely guaranteed to fail without > calculation and the process is made to work, then math happened whether > you think it did or not.
|
