On Nov 3, 2012, at 6:17 PM, Louis Talman <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > > On Sat, Nov 3, 2012 at 10:58 AM, Robert Hansen <email@example.com> wrote: > > > And let me add. These alleged real world problem courses get so screwed up because the authors think like Dehaene. They think there is some magical innate sense that is being suppressed and can be released if we would only stop teaching the math and let the children discover it on their own. With calculators. > > > This is a distortion of what Dehaene suggests. He thinks that many kids don't connect the standard algorithms with their innate quantitative sense---which remains intact and as correct as it ever was. > > That's quite a different suggestion. > > And, once again, I said nothing about the use of calculators.
This is what Dehaene wrote...
One of the brain?s specialized mental organs is a primitive number processor that prefigures, without quite matching it, the arithmetic that is taught in our schools. Improbable as it may seem, numerous animal species that we consider stupid or vicious, such as rats and pigeons, are actually quite gifted at calculation. They can represent quantities mentally and transform them according to some of the rules of arithmetic. The scientists who have studied these abilities believe that animals possess a mental module, traditionally called the ?accumulator,? that can hold a register of various quantities. We shall see later how rats exploit this mental accumulator to distinguish series of two, three, or four sounds or to compute approximate additions of two quantities. The accumulator mechanism opens up a new dimension of sensory perception through which the cardinal of a set of objects can be perceived just as easily as their color, shape, or position. This ?number sense? provides animals and humans alike with a direct intuition of what numbers mean.
Dehaene, Stanislas (1999-12-09). The Number Sense: How the Mind Creates Mathematics (Kindle Locations 188-195). Oxford University Press - A. Kindle Edition.
If you have something else that he wrote that backs off of what he says above, in "The Number Sense", then I would be grateful if you would share it, or a link to it, or a reference of it, with us.