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

raveneye · 05-27-2005, 04:11 AM

On the genetics question: let's accept for the sake of argument that there are "math genes" and that "math ability" is a quantitative trait like height. Is it possible that the average "asian" has more math genes than the average person in the general population?

One way this could happen is through a founder effect. The founding "asian" population, purely by chance, might have had more math genes. But what is the likelihood? Well the variance in the mean of a quantitative trait scales with the inverse of the square root of effective population size. So if the genetic variance in math ability is about, say 20% of the mean, and if the founding population effective size was, say 1000, then the variance in the mean of the asian founding population would be around 0.02 of the mean mathematical ability. That's a pretty small number; in other words the founding population might have had a higher genetic ability than average by a few percentage points, purely by chance.

But even if this were true, this tiny difference would have been utterly obliterated by mutation in the 100,000 years or so since the asian population was founded. So the founder effect in the establishment of the "asian" population is probably incapable of producing any genetic basis to a mean difference in math ability observed today.

The only other possible mechanism is natural selection within the "asian" population. But there is no such thing as an asian population, rather there are many subpopulations that intermix within other "asian" populations to varying degrees, and that mix also outside the "asian" population to varying degrees. So if such selection existed, it would have to be uniform across a very large geographical area, and strong enough not to be swamped by the gene flow that has been ongoing within and without the "asian" population for the last 100,000 years. More likely any such selection would be very weak and obliterated by gene flow.

That doesn't mean that there aren't any genetic differences in other traits; most visible physical "asian" characteristics are indeed genetically based. The explanation for these I think is natural selection on reproductive fitness; human beings tend to choose mates based on facial features that resemble those that surrounded them as children. These features however are very superficial and certainly not linked to mathematical ability.

The same argument applies to any of the so-called "races".

05-27-2005, 04:11 AM	#26 (permalink)
raveneye Born Against	On the genetics question: let's accept for the sake of argument that there are "math genes" and that "math ability" is a quantitative trait like height. Is it possible that the average "asian" has more math genes than the average person in the general population? One way this could happen is through a founder effect. The founding "asian" population, purely by chance, might have had more math genes. But what is the likelihood? Well the variance in the mean of a quantitative trait scales with the inverse of the square root of effective population size. So if the genetic variance in math ability is about, say 20% of the mean, and if the founding population effective size was, say 1000, then the variance in the mean of the asian founding population would be around 0.02 of the mean mathematical ability. That's a pretty small number; in other words the founding population might have had a higher genetic ability than average by a few percentage points, purely by chance. But even if this were true, this tiny difference would have been utterly obliterated by mutation in the 100,000 years or so since the asian population was founded. So the founder effect in the establishment of the "asian" population is probably incapable of producing any genetic basis to a mean difference in math ability observed today. The only other possible mechanism is natural selection within the "asian" population. But there is no such thing as an asian population, rather there are many subpopulations that intermix within other "asian" populations to varying degrees, and that mix also outside the "asian" population to varying degrees. So if such selection existed, it would have to be uniform across a very large geographical area, and strong enough not to be swamped by the gene flow that has been ongoing within and without the "asian" population for the last 100,000 years. More likely any such selection would be very weak and obliterated by gene flow. That doesn't mean that there aren't any genetic differences in other traits; most visible physical "asian" characteristics are indeed genetically based. The explanation for these I think is natural selection on reproductive fitness; human beings tend to choose mates based on facial features that resemble those that surrounded them as children. These features however are very superficial and certainly not linked to mathematical ability. The same argument applies to any of the so-called "races".