Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post - Asian Americans: Math Genes or Better Students?

05-26-2005, 05:02 PM

OK, let me try another tack. A gene might alter a particular characteristic, like height, eye colour, nose-size etc - and all of these things are intrinsically measurable. If you are 5'9" in your socks at age 25, then that's that - you are taller than someone who is 5'7" in their socks - no argument.

How though do you test someone's affinity for trigonometric problems, matrix theory, plain old algebra, calculus, topological geometry, set theory and all the myraid of other, all entirely different branches of mathematics against someone else's?

How do you choose whether one dancer, musician or artist is better than another one when there are so many different branches of dance or music, or art around?

And even if you could, how are you going to even begin to isolate which racially prominent genes are supposedly responsible in combination with which other racially prominent genes, when all the environmental factors get in the way. And even if you manage all that, at the end of it all, what usefull information will you have uncovered?

Yes genes are fixated or become extinct, however, this happens entirely at random, and in combination with nearby or otherwise associated sets of genes. There is a lot of redundant genetic code that we drag along that has remained fixated for millions of years that appears to have absolutely no 'use' whatsoever, except to absorb mutaions and defects without spoiling the important parts that are expressed.

True, a population is likely to have a closer clustering of similar gene combinations, but the rings or boundaries you draw to delineate them are entirely arbitrary. Not that that matters.

My final point is to repeat that math involves such a complex web of behaviours, conceptions, motivations and methodologies, that aproaches to it are as individual as there are people. Some people may have especially clear conceptions of mathematics, but they will all conceptualise things in their own way. That and extreme variations within populations vary so much more than they do between populations, that I can't imagine a statistically reliable, racio-genetic linkage could be proven except by someone with an axe to grind.

It's not PC, it's sensible, practical science.

05-26-2005, 05:02 PM	#15 (permalink)
zen_tom Guest	OK, let me try another tack. A gene might alter a particular characteristic, like height, eye colour, nose-size etc - and all of these things are intrinsically measurable. If you are 5'9" in your socks at age 25, then that's that - you are taller than someone who is 5'7" in their socks - no argument. How though do you test someone's affinity for trigonometric problems, matrix theory, plain old algebra, calculus, topological geometry, set theory and all the myraid of other, all entirely different branches of mathematics against someone else's? How do you choose whether one dancer, musician or artist is better than another one when there are so many different branches of dance or music, or art around? And even if you could, how are you going to even begin to isolate which racially prominent genes are supposedly responsible in combination with which other racially prominent genes, when all the environmental factors get in the way. And even if you manage all that, at the end of it all, what usefull information will you have uncovered? Yes genes are fixated or become extinct, however, this happens entirely at random, and in combination with nearby or otherwise associated sets of genes. There is a lot of redundant genetic code that we drag along that has remained fixated for millions of years that appears to have absolutely no 'use' whatsoever, except to absorb mutaions and defects without spoiling the important parts that are expressed. True, a population is likely to have a closer clustering of similar gene combinations, but the rings or boundaries you draw to delineate them are entirely arbitrary. Not that that matters. My final point is to repeat that math involves such a complex web of behaviours, conceptions, motivations and methodologies, that aproaches to it are as individual as there are people. Some people may have especially clear conceptions of mathematics, but they will all conceptualise things in their own way. That and extreme variations within populations vary so much more than they do between populations, that I can't imagine a statistically reliable, racio-genetic linkage could be proven except by someone with an axe to grind. It's not PC, it's sensible, practical science.