Having done a math PHD and now working as a programmer I find math proofs and programming semi-similar. Though I think programming is less "relaxing." In mathematics if you have an argument that works and isn't insanely complicated you can call yourself victorious. You can look for a simpler method if you want but there is really no imperative to do so. In programming there is almost always a better way to solve a given problem and the differences in speed matter alot.
High barrier to entry. I expect that at my current skill level I'd get caught pick-pocketing the first time I tried it, and that would impact my ability to try it a second time.
It seems like you just really like programming.
There's a seemingly limitless amount of skills that fit these criteria:
I disagree with the statement that electronics "is basically still programming". There are similarities between the two, but also significant differences; particularly if you consider electronics outside of the digital realm.
I also do not understand why you question whether math is "useful in the real world". I imagine that anyone involved in engineering, science, finance, artificial intelligence, marketing or a great many other "real world" occupations would vouch for the usefulness of mathematics.
Social skills. If you have no skills at all, simply going to omegle and chatting with strangers can be a first step.
If you want to get further you can focus on dating, coaching, negotiating or networking.
Studying stuff using spaced repetition systems, e.g. Duolingo. (Though it may lack "useful in the real world" depending on, among other things, what exactly you're learning.)
Music. It's pretty much all math. Every part of it. When you try to learn a riff, and you play it, and it sounds like you think it should, interesting things happen.
At this point, two thirds of your post are simply repeating what you have already said.
If it sounds like catching a ball engages the mathematical part of your brain more than that, I'll just assume you're an expert on these things and take your word for it.
I'm not an expert on either ball-catching or on music, but that's not terribly relevant. You seem to be repeatedly arguing as if this is really about personal experience but no one in this thread has made a personal experience argument except as a response to you. The central point about ball throwing is the argument that it involves implicitly approximating the solutions to differential equations. The point is that if you believe one of these "takes math" in any substantial fashion you have to believe that the other does about at least as much. And you still haven't responded to this point, or to the many other points raised as objections to your position (such as the empirical existence of people who are very skilled musicians and who are completely incapable of doing any substantial amount of math).
The central point about ball throwing is the argument that it involves implicitly approximating the solutions to differential equations.
That's a fact, eh?
So, when a mathematician is approximating solutions to differential equations, their brain is functioning the same as if they were catching a ball?
To catch a ball in midair, requires the same hand eye coordination as moving a drumstick to hit a drum at the right time.
But what I'm talking about, is not how the hand moves to catch the ball or hit the drum or find the right fret.
To catch a ball, the hand ...
Programming is quite a remarkable activity: