When we say bug, I guess we just mean "avoidable issue" of a relatively modest importance, but that can have big impact, right?
Then, if you learn singing or violin, and you are "tone-deaf" or near tone-deaf, then it is not a bug, it is an inability to love and learn music, and no amount of patching will fix it for real, even if it could hide the problem under the carpet for a while, in the case of piano learning. (Because a "tone-deaf" could play piano relatively well, but probably won't be able to play violin.)
I would love to be convinced that "math-deaf" do not exists or is only very rare, but it simply do not match with my experience. To take an example: When I was young, and still now: I find the "open" and "closed" segment symbolised by ]----[ and [----] to be a very enlighting and powerful piece of mathematics. But when I tried to explain it to people who are not in love with math, I just get blank stares: they would understand it, be able to use it, but would never have tears in their eyes when trying to explain it to someone else. I think they just don't see the beauty of it.
Not seeing the beauty in math is not to be considered a defect or a bug. I'd say on the contrary: seeing beauty in math is borderline psycho and an anomaly, just like seeing music graphically or being haunted with stories (Balzac was). But it helps a lot for math studies, just as loving music will help learning music. And math studies are important for most scientific or engineering careers.
To wrap this up, it means that nature is not fair: some kids are gifted, some are not. In fact I do not see any reason for nature to be fair, and many events show enough it isn't (See Lisbon earthquake). The "bug theory" of the OP is trying to hide this fact, as is the "learning disability" movement.
Then, if you learn singing or violin, and you are "tone-deaf" or near tone-deaf, then it is not a bug, it is an inability to love and learn music, and no amount of patching will fix it for real, even if it could hide the problem under the carpet for a while, in the case of piano learning. (Because a "tone-deaf" could play piano relatively well, but probably won't be able to play violin.)
I would love to be convinced that "math-deaf" do not exists or is only very rare, but it simply do not match with my experience. To take an example: When I was young, and still now: I find the "open" and "closed" segment symbolised by ]----[ and [----] to be a very enlighting and powerful piece of mathematics. But when I tried to explain it to people who are not in love with math, I just get blank stares: they would understand it, be able to use it, but would never have tears in their eyes when trying to explain it to someone else. I think they just don't see the beauty of it.
Not seeing the beauty in math is not to be considered a defect or a bug. I'd say on the contrary: seeing beauty in math is borderline psycho and an anomaly, just like seeing music graphically or being haunted with stories (Balzac was). But it helps a lot for math studies, just as loving music will help learning music. And math studies are important for most scientific or engineering careers.
To wrap this up, it means that nature is not fair: some kids are gifted, some are not. In fact I do not see any reason for nature to be fair, and many events show enough it isn't (See Lisbon earthquake). The "bug theory" of the OP is trying to hide this fact, as is the "learning disability" movement.
Fairness is an invention of human beings.