>>11038012>What's the deal with associating mathematics and visuo-spatial intelligence, when math is specifically the adaption of figures and spaces to the verbal-logical domain.Yes, the big divide in mathematics is between geometry and algebra, but there are structures that doesn't translate well between the realms. A simple example is a figure with more than 3 dimensions (abstract visualization). We naturally conceptualize figures with less than 4 dimensions in a geometrical sense. At some point we created algebra and starting representing them in algebraic form. In this form it is convenient to extrapolate figures of arbitrarily many dimensions. We then have trouble translating these figures back into geometry as we know it, that is visualizations that resemble how we see reality (photorealistic visualizations). We get a more abstract form of visualization. Or let's just say patterns.
>>11038192>Just a reminder that spatial intelligence is useless without the vocabulary to express it. Humans are (unfortunately) social creatures.Valid point, but kind of awkward in this discussion. Say you only work with photorealistic figures, or figures that readily can be sufficiently understood by reduction into photorealistic figures. Then the visualization itself can be this language. There are many ways of expressing mathematical ideas. The mathematical language is our best efforts at coming as close as possible to the nature of mathematical thinking such that the translation is as painless as possible. We also use this language much more constructively and generatively than we use natural language. I am sure there are many more differences as well.
