Why Ask Why? Part 2

My first posting on this topic was intended as a humorous reflection based on some lighthearted, enjoyable conversations that I had last week with several people near and dear to me. And, interestingly, it's a topic that just doesn't want to die, so I'm compelled to visit it again.

I have no brilliant answers to those questions raised by categorizing the population into two groups: language people and math people. And based on some of the reactions I've gotten, I was starting to think that perhaps I had oversimplified--that maybe to place people in one of two categories was unfair. But after further reflection, I think those reactions tend to support my theory rather than destroy it. So at this point, I'm not prepared to take a dogmatic position on this matter of great universal significance, but these are some of my observations I'm gathering as evidence in forming my theory (admittedly a scientific process, so there may be some holes in the process for this language person).

First, all of the objections I've heard to my two-category theory have come from those I would classify as math people. Note the comments: Aaron (math person) is rolling his eyes at me, and Julia (math person) is exclaiming "Good grief!" And H., the math person who wanted to know the reasons apostrophes form possessives the way they do (rather than simply accepting the rules), pointed out quite convincingly that his experience would show that he is both a math and language person (and to be fair, he is--and yet, as of last night, he really had to think hard to remember the reasons for the apostrophe rules that I had explained to him the previous week).

On the other hand, the language people who have read the posting have made comments like "That's cute, Annette!" "That's funny!" No objections, no eye rolling, no criticism, and no attempts to argue that they are both language and math people.

Another observation I noted was from lunch yesterday. I found myself at a table with two accountants who said that they did not care about the whys. Neither of them liked algebra, and one of them even pointed out that his wife, an English/literature teacher, was the one in their family who was always asking the "why" questions. Before this, I would have automatically placed accountants in the math people category--that's what they do all day.

So here are some of the questions and observations that emerge from this. My first thought, especially after talking with the accountants, was that obviously there must be subcategories. There are, in fact, math people who can do what language people do--and do it well. But further reflection makes me go back to my original two-category theory: Of course math people want more than two categories. Two categories is just too simple, too easy. So it would just be part of their "why" nature to object to a two-category theory. Note that the language people are very happy to accept that there may be just two categories of people. How typical of both groups!

It does seem that math people do tend to cross over into the language category more often than language people venture into the world of math. Again, this fits the profile. We language people are perfectly willing to accept our limitations, to stay where we belong, to keep letters and numbers separate and distinct. Math people--not so much...

And as to the accountants? I've decided that maybe their work is just a language form of math. They simply "crunch numbers," looking for the bottom line. They follow a process, and so there is no need for algebra, theorems, or anything more than an understanding of basic math. But--oh no--I have just placed myself into a category with accountants! There must be some other explanation...