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

Cynthetiq · 05-26-2005, 06:46 AM

Quote:

Minorities, racism, and UMass’s choice
By Jeff Jacoby, Globe Columnist | May 24, 2005
LINK
Consider two questions that have nothing to do with each other:

1. If 22 percent of the students at Quincy High School are Asian, why do Asians account for 94.4 percent of the math club?

2. If J. Keith Motley would have been the first black chancellor of the University of Massachusetts at Boston, why is the UMass board of trustees about to give that job to somebody else?

Each of those questions has been the subject of recent media attention.

On May 18, Michael Winerip devoted his ‘‘On Education’’ column in The New York Times to exploring the overwhelming Asian makeup of Quincy High’s math club. What is it about math, he wondered, that attracts so many Asian kids? His answer, in a nutshell: Most of the school’s Asians are recent immigrants who struggle to communicate in English.

‘‘When I was a freshman, half year in US, English is a big problem,’’ one student told him. ‘‘I just know, ‘Hello, how are you?’ History is a big problem. You don’t openly express yourself because you don’t know what to say and stuff. . . . You don’t have the basic English.’’

But math doesn’t pose that hurdle. In the words of Evelyn Ryan, the head of Quincy High’s math department, ‘‘Math is a universal language.’’ She rejects the notion that Asians have a natural aptitude for math. ‘‘She believes it’s partly cultural,’’ Winerip wrote, since ‘‘math and mathematicians are championed over there’’ — in Asia — ‘‘the way reading and writers are here.’’ Before Asians began immigrating in large numbers to Quincy in the 1980s, Quincy High had only 10 students studying calculus; today there are two calculus classes totaling 40 students, 75 percent of whom are Asian.

I agree: The secret to Asian dominance in the math club and calculus classes lies in Asian culture. But the critical cultural ingredient isn’t that mathematicians ‘‘are championed’’ in Asia. It’s that Asian parents make their kids do homework.

By virtually any measure, Asian Americans achieve spectacular academic success. They make up just 4 percent of the US population, but 17 percent of the incoming students at Harvard, 18 percent at Columbia, 25 percent at Stanford, and 27 percent at MIT. Fewer than 1 New York City student in 10 is Asian, yet Asians fill half the seats in the city’s elite public schools, Bronx Science and Stuyvesant. One-fifth of US medical students are Asian, as are 10 to 20 percent of the students attending Harvard, Yale, Stanford, and other leading law schools. Asian students score in the highest bracket on the SAT — both verbal and math — at far higher proportions than their share of the public. Likewise the specialized SAT II subject tests, in which Asians amass triple their proportional share of top scores in writing and history, five times their share in biology, and eight times their share in math, chemistry, and physics.

These illustrations — there are many more — come from ‘‘No Excuses,’’ Stephan and Abigail Thernstrom’s 2003 book on racial differences in academics. Why do Asians do so much better than their peers in school? Because, the Thernstroms conclude, they care so much more about academic success.

On average, Asian students spend twice as much time doing homework as their non-Asian classmates. They believe they’ll get in trouble at home if their grades fall below A-, while for whites the ‘‘trouble threshold’’ is B-, and for blacks and Hispanics, C-. They don’t believe that success or failure in school depends on factors beyond their control. ‘‘They believed instead that their academic performance depended almost entirely on how hard they worked,’’ the Thernstroms write, summarizing the findings of survey researcher Laurence Steinberg. ‘‘Their performance was within their control. A grade below an A was evidence of insufficient effort.’’

Quincy High’s math club may be virtually all-Asian, but Asian American students don’t excel only at math. They tend to excel, period. And they do so not because they are compensating for weak English skills, but because they grow up in an environment that places enormous value on academic achievement — and pegs that achievement to individual effort.

Which returns me to the University of Massachusetts, and the current flap over the decision to name Dr. Michael Collins to run the Boston campus instead of the acting chancellor, J. Keith Motley. One of three finalists for the job, Motley would have been the first black chancellor of UMass-Boston.

The chairman of the UMass board of trustees says the choice came down to Collins’s executive experience — while Motley was a dean of student services at another university, Collins spent 10 years running a multibillion-dollar hospital network. But a vocal chorus of disgruntled Motley supporters are calling the decision racist.

Leonard Alkins of the Boston NAACP blasts it as proof ‘‘that the plexiglass ceiling is still there for people of color.’’

Boston City Councilor Charles Yancey denounces it as ‘‘a slap in the face to our children.’’ Others call it an example of how whites ‘‘cling tenaciously to power in Boston,’’ and cite a recent poll by Harvard’s Civil Rights Project, which finds 80 percent of blacks and 50 percent of Hispanics calling racial discrimination a serious problem in Greater Boston.

Motley’s supporters plan to flood the trustees with phone calls and to stage a protest at the UMass president’s office. Boston Mayor Thomas Menino boycotted a UMass breakfast to demonstrate his solidarity with those playing the race card. No doubt the story will continue to seethe for a while.

Is there a connection between the Asian math whizzes at Quincy High and the accusations of racism against the UMass board of trustees? Not an obvious one. And yet I can’t help wondering what kind of message black students absorb when racism is invoked, as it so often is, to condemn anything black politicians and activists disapprove of. Who is more likely to succeed — the child who grows up in a culture that tells him success depends on his own hard work, or the one who keeps hearing that until white prejudice is eradicated, minorities will never get a fair shake?

Asian kids don’t have a gene for calculus or getting into Yale. They have a culture that demands hard work, cares deeply about academic success, and rejects ‘‘racism’’ as an excuse for mediocrity. When the same can be said about black American culture — or, for that matter, about white American culture — the math club at Quincy High will look very different.

Jeff Jacoby’s e-mail address is jacoby@globe.com

While I can't say his generalization is true since I know many asians that do have a hard time with studies, and many that don't have the drive or desire to push themselves on their own or from their parents.

While I'm trying hard to not further stereotype, it's those that are easily influenced and focused on current trends and fashions, it was true when I was growing up and I see it in todays asian american youth as well.

And quite honestly, I sucked at math. I even failed pre-calc for most my senior year, and passed it barely but failed physics instead.

Ustwo · 05-26-2005, 07:00 AM

Why do Jews seem to do better in school?

Why do so many children of recent immigrants?

I think its because their parents push and encourage them. I see dozens of kids of school age a day as patients and the only ones that talk about their grades/tests tend to be Asian/Indian. I see a lot more concern about sports in my white/black parents then I do in other groups, being 'popular' seems pretty high up there too. So while I am not 100% convinced that genetics may not play a role, much of it is on the upbringing.

Edit:One thing I've seen too, is the longer they have been in the country the less well Asians seem to do in school (this is from remembering my friends while in school). Being 'more American' isn't always a good thing.

BigBen · 05-26-2005, 07:42 AM

When I returned to University, I had been away from academics for 5 years. I was gathering "Valuable Life Experience" instead...

I got 63% in Calculus in grade 12, but I think that was because I was infatuated with girls, and not first derivatives. It was by far my lowest mark, and it did not count towards my university entrance average. I took it as it was: no big deal.

1st year University came around, and studying economics and anything "On the Margin" requires a healthy dose of Calculus. I was counting myself fortunate that I didn't have to wrote a thousand essays like those poor SOB's in History or English.

The Professor entered the lecture theatre (seats about 200 students) and anounced in a very heavy asian Accent: "Today, we review High School Math..." and with that, he turned and faced the board, and started writing formulae. I was shit scared, and frantically wrote down everything he put on the board. Everything. My hand was cramping at the end of the lecture!

I couldn't understand the words coming from his mouth. I went up to him after class (I was keen. Mommy and Daddy were not paying my way. I was 'financially motivated') and asked a question about one of the fomulas. His response?

"I don't speak English." and he walked out. I was OUTRAGED! How can someone secure tenure at an institution in North America if they do not communicate in the fucking native language?

I went to the department head of Mathematics and Statistics to complain. He was a good Scotsman, and would surely sympathize. He would be as shocked as I was! He was not only harsh, but taught me a good lesson on university.

"Son, I want you to go to the library and search this professors name. If at that point you want to change classes, I will arrange it. You should feel privledged that you are in his class. I think 30 years from now, you will brag to your colleagues that you attended one of his classes..."

Before I left the office (with my tail between my legs) the Department Head quipped "You don't need to speak to understand math. Read the text, then read his notes, then do the homework."

I researched the prof. I was shocked to see that he was quite published, in journals that were written in english, french, Chinese, Italian. This guy was a fucking genius.

I studied. 3 hours a day on math alone. I completed every question in the damn textbook. I attended every class. At the end of the semester, I was one of 24 students left in the class. We took up 1 row in the lecture theatre. The first row.

My mark? a 74. A well earned 74. I am more proud of that mark than any of the "100% Good Job!" bullshit cop-out marks in other classes.

And I love Math to this day.

I promise here and now: I will instill a respect for academics into my children. I will require hard work, and demand good results.

jorgelito · 05-26-2005, 09:16 AM

Ben, are you Asian?

Just kidding, good post, nicely written. It's like a script or short story. Nice job.

Glava · 05-26-2005, 10:02 AM

The article supports the idea that Asians in the US are better in math because of cultural reasons well, but it does nothing to disprove that genes are not a factor, other than saying "they just aren't". While I'm sure culture is an important factor, it seems wrong to simply discount the influence of genes in intelligence when they are a scientifically-proven factor in so many other traits - baldness, mental illness, heart disease, etc. There are also many traits that are found in specific ethnic/racial groups (which I believe is not the same as "race" alone, because of the fuzzy boundaries that it implies) much more commonly than in the general population - sickle-cell anemia in blacks and Tay-Sachs disease in Jews from Eastern/Central Europe, among others. I don't see why intelligence is automatically different. It should be studied more, and not just dismissed so we can all feel good about ourselves. Granted, it's a lot harder to measure than simply looking at the shapes of one's bloodcells, as in anemia, but if a common standard is used, the results will have some validity.

Ustwo · 05-26-2005, 11:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Glava

The article supports the idea that Asians in the US are better in math because of cultural reasons well, but it does nothing to disprove that genes are not a factor, other than saying "they just aren't". While I'm sure culture is an important factor, it seems wrong to simply discount the influence of genes in intelligence when they are a scientifically-proven factor in so many other traits - baldness, mental illness, heart disease, etc. There are also many traits that are found in specific ethnic/racial groups (which I believe is not the same as "race" alone, because of the fuzzy boundaries that it implies) much more commonly than in the general population - sickle-cell anemia in blacks and Tay-Sachs disease in Jews from Eastern/Central Europe, among others. I don't see why intelligence is automatically different. It should be studied more, and not just dismissed so we can all feel good about ourselves. Granted, it's a lot harder to measure than simply looking at the shapes of one's bloodcells, as in anemia, but if a common standard is used, the results will have some validity.

When PC and science colide. The concept of being 'superior' by birth was torpedoed by the backlash to the Nazi's and then utterly sunk by such works as 'The Bell Curve'. Because of the racial undertones we are not allowed to even LOOK at such factors as race unless it involves a disease of some kind. You may see 'good genes' but you are not allowed to comment on them, and must credit only development lest you be labeled a racist, etc.

05-26-2005, 11:37 AM

The effects of genes on development are hugely diverse, and math equally so, that it would be foolish to suggest that gene X made you a better mathematician. It's not PC, to have a fixation with race, but it is scientifically flawed. It would be akin to saying that computers that used a certain brand of wire were better at running Halflife, or that items with a W in their names were naturally better at floating.

A scientist who suggests race being a single factor in a person's intelligence or proficiency at mathematics, art, singing or kung fu is either not looking properly at their results, or they are ignoring cultural, developmental, personal, educational and a multitude of other factors at their peril.

Janey · 05-26-2005, 11:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

I think its because their parents push and encourage them.

Bingo!

All, and I mean ALL of my friends, including myself who had asian/immigrant parents went to either Math tutorial or ESL classes, not just during school, but on the weekends.

I spent every Saturday morning at the Kumon centre for years. And this is during public school. As far as I know, our parents understood that the route to a respectable (interpret as high paying/professional and therefore self-sufficient) job or career was never, ever limited by having ability in mathematics.

I started Kumon in grade 3 and kept going to Grade 10. By that time, math was such an automatic thing for me, it was only through diligence that I could lower my mark (missing tests etc).

As my parents stated it, the funnel of opportunity is widest when you have all your maths and sciences, as well as your musics and languages. And you don't necessarily have to be super intelligent to do well, just disciplined and get the work done.

note: just to add a post script, being a girl, growing up in downtown Toronto, with very conservative parents, I was not allowed to go out. At All. If i wasn't involved in a school activity I was expected to be at home, either doing homework or helping with dinner etc. In the summer I was not allowed out either. the only time I could get to be doing my thing was if i was in a school club. which would explain why I joined the string orchestra. Others were in the same boat, and joined school clubs that they could get into (maybe explaining the math club memberships) based on their capabilities. the 'chinese sixpack' as they called it in Grade 13 was good for something (algebra, functions&relations, calculus, Biology, physics, chemistry)...

superiorrain · 05-26-2005, 11:40 AM

I remember reading a while back in a consumer behaviour book, that this question already has an answer.

So there was this study, i forget where it was taken place but nontheless it did take place and with was with students studying maths. Now the experiment continued for the duration of one yeah, where each class was equally weighted with Asian Males. Asian Males were always stereotyped as being good at maths. Now one class was constantly reminded of this stereotype, the teacher would always repeat and reenforce this idea that the Asian Males would find it easy, or for you guys especially that was probably very easy...blar blar. Contently feeding them the image that they were of a particular cultural and ethnic background this would help them.

The other class with the same number of Asian Males were never alerted to this stereotype and it was never mentioned in the class. So everyone just worked as normal and no one was getting any particular praise.

The result of this (and this shows you how powerful marketing/conditioning is) was that the control group was found to have a normal distribution of results with no particular class, gender, ethnicity, culture and the rest of it doing anything significantly better than anyone else. Whereas the Asian Males in the other class did significantly better than their Asian counterparts in the other class and were all top of the class.

So we can conclude from that, that it is not genes. It is more a case of what is expected of you and what people around will say you will be able to do, if you hear it enough you believe it and in the case of maths if you believe you can do it, then chances are you'll work at it till your belief is fulfilled.

Charlatan · 05-26-2005, 11:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

When PC and science colide. The concept of being 'superior' by birth was torpedoed by the backlash to the Nazi's and then utterly sunk by such works as 'The Bell Curve'. Because of the racial undertones we are not allowed to even LOOK at such factors as race unless it involves a disease of some kind. You may see 'good genes' but you are not allowed to comment on them, and must credit only development lest you be labeled a racist, etc.

If it is proven to be genetic thing... fine... in fact, excellent. That said, to speculate upon genetics without some sort of proof is treading on dangerous ground, a la The Nazis and all the superior race inherent in it.

I'm not saying it is wrong to speculate only that it is dangerous ground and one *should* tread carefully.

Ustwo · 05-26-2005, 01:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zen_tom

The effects of genes on development are hugely diverse, and math equally so, that it would be foolish to suggest that gene X made you a better mathematician. It's not PC, to have a fixation with race, but it is scientifically flawed. It would be akin to saying that computers that used a certain brand of wire were better at running Halflife, or that items with a W in their names were naturally better at floating.

A scientist who suggests race being a single factor in a person's intelligence or proficiency at mathematics, art, singing or kung fu is either not looking properly at their results, or they are ignoring cultural, developmental, personal, educational and a multitude of other factors at their peril.

<- Worked in a genetics lab for 2 years.

I don't think anyone here is suggesting that. I think development has a GREATER factor than any genetic ones at present, but it would be foolish to assume that while we have genes that make you sick, or make you tall, or make you bald, we don't have genes that make math easier. Phenotype due to genotype with intelligence is very hard to measure and right now its not PC to do so, but would it be shocking to learn that there are differences? Do you think people like DaVinci just worked hard and had good learning enviroments?

05-26-2005, 01:32 PM

Tallness is a direct function of body development, that's what genes do. Baldness likewise. Yes there are some genetic defects such as Downs' Syndrome that effect mental development. But races are hugely diverse populations - some chinese people are taller than some black people, some white people can jump etc

My point is that the link between race and genetics isn't even closely defined yet. Yes, you can trace your maternal line down your mitochondrial line genetically, and yes you might be able to make some geographical analysis of where a particular gene in your body is most likely to originate, but the fact remains that races are populations of individuals, and are vastly diverse within those populations.

There may be a gene (or more likely a multitude of genes coupled with environmental factors) that makes you smart, but it wont be racially exclusive.

The thing is, you can look at a particular aspect of mathematics in so many ways, that one mode of thinking that might be gene related (and that's still a big if) is no better than another, entirely different one. What I mean to say is that even if the brain works differently for different races, then you still can't make the judgement that one is better than the other, but you can suggest different ways of teaching the same things.

Then there's the link between autism and mathematics - whether autism is genetic or not I don't know, but it is commonly seen as an inability to cope with or appropriately categorise large amounts of information. The reason mathematics is supposed to express itself with these people is that they find comfort within its safe, predictable logical structures. Does that mean that math is being expressed by <i>less</i> or more capable brains? And are there more autistic people of one race or another? If there are is this likely to be genetic, or environmental? And you come back round to the original point that races are populations of individuals with a wide range of genotypes, and an exponentially larger range of phenotypes - this is why it doesn't make sense to make racial projections.

jaco · 05-26-2005, 03:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zen_tom

But races are hugely diverse populations - some chinese people are taller than some black people, some white people can jump etc

Trying to negate a group difference by stating individual exceptions is very poor logic indeed.

"There may be a gene (or more likely a multitude of genes coupled with environmental factors) that makes you smart, but it wont be racially exclusive."

Intellegence is not decided by enviroment, knowledge is. There have been multiple tests created to test intellegence cross culturally so as not to involve possible enviromental effects into the equation.

"What I mean to say is that even if the brain works differently for different races, then you still can't make the judgement that one is better than the other, but you can suggest different ways of teaching the same things."

I would say that if you take a large enough number of people from each race and give them the same problems with the same educational experience across the board you would be able to judge such a thing quite easily.

All in all, any scientist who would like any future funding at all stays away from any possible testing or proving of anything besides the thinking that we are all exactly the same but look different. Though, lets not talk about the fact that our skeleton structures, brain size, cranial structure, musculature, hormonal levels and even longevity are quite easy to see are different. Why in the world would everyone want to be the same anyway?

Ustwo · 05-26-2005, 04:24 PM

Zen_tom all genes either go to fixation or extinction. Its how the math works, and on the way they will be expressed differently in a population. It is quite possible that in the Asian population there would be a greater concentration of the 'math' gene or genes. This would not mean that every Asian was good at math, but it would mean that a higher % of the population would be. I am not saying this is even true but it is possible and feasable that such differences exsist.

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.

Ustwo · 05-26-2005, 06:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zen_tom

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

We are in basic agreement but your primary argument seems to be that its hard to measure intelligence unlike height.

While thats true, it does nothing to change the possibility of there being genetic differences, nor the likelyhood that their will be clusters in familes/populations.

I would be very surprised if there weren't such differences.

jorgelito · 05-26-2005, 07:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

<- Worked in a genetics lab for 2 years.

I don't think anyone here is suggesting that. I think development has a GREATER factor than any genetic ones at present, but it would be foolish to assume that while we have genes that make you sick, or make you tall, or make you bald, we don't have genes that make math easier. Phenotype due to genotype with intelligence is very hard to measure and right now its not PC to do so, but would it be shocking to learn that there are differences? Do you think people like DaVinci just worked hard and had good learning enviroments?

This makes more sense. No doubt there are some genes that are "coded for math proficiency", but I do not think it is "race" based. For example, Mozart, Einstein, Hawking, Nash etc are probably "genetically" predisposed for more math proficiency. No amount of training and discipline for me (average genetics) could render me "equal" with those guys at math. But I bet I could kick both their asses at basketball (just kidding...sort of).

Personally, I think "race" is crock-science.

jorgelito · 05-26-2005, 07:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

We are in basic agreement but your primary argument seems to be that its hard to measure intelligence unlike height.

While thats true, it does nothing to change the possibility of there being genetic differences, nor the likelyhood that their will be clusters in familes/populations.

I would be very surprised if there weren't such differences.

I think you can insofar as current testing measures are devised. Think prodigies and special schools. They are tested for their aptitude and proficincies and placed in special classes.

In short, this subject is complex with a myriad of factors: culture, genetics, migration patterns, emotional development, etc...

It is lazy and idiotic to attribute to something as outdated and scientifically false as "race".

Jesus Pimp · 05-26-2005, 07:15 PM

I guess I'm a rare case. I'm Chinese and really suck at math (That's why i went to art school heh). I did poorly in grade school, got crappy SAT scores, but somehow got into into good colleges. I didn't want to be a doctor, programmer, or pharmacist. I'm good with computers and design though. Maybe those was genetically coded in my genes.

Glava · 05-26-2005, 08:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jorgelito

This makes more sense. No doubt there are some genes that are "coded for math proficiency", but I do not think it is "race" based. For example, Mozart, Einstein, Hawking, Nash etc are probably "genetically" predisposed for more math proficiency. No amount of training and discipline for me (average genetics) could render me "equal" with those guys at math. But I bet I could kick both their asses at basketball (just kidding...sort of).

Personally, I think "race" is crock-science.

Mozart was a mathematician?

stingc · 05-26-2005, 09:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jorgelito

It is lazy and idiotic to attribute to something as outdated and scientifically false as "race".

What does "scientifically false" mean? I'm caucasian, and I really doubt you could find anybody who would confuse me or anybody else in my family for another race. The same can be said for most people. There are clearly different sets of inherited traits which we can (reliably) use to categorize people into one race or another. Why is it so hard to believe that these (physical) traits don't go together with certain mental ones (on average)?

I'm certainly not saying that mental differences are entirely due to race. I think (at least in this case) that most of it is cultural, but I wouldn't be surprised at all to see that certain mental characteristics are correlated to race.

Ustwo · 05-26-2005, 10:28 PM

Well perhaps race is best defined as a cluster of certain genes which lead to a phenotype which is easily identified.

Races are due to a cluster of these genes, which moved to fixation in a small population.

jorgelito · 05-26-2005, 11:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Glava

Mozart was a mathematician?

In a way, yes I suppose (maybe not literally). There is a very strong correlation between math and music. Mozart's music is often referred to as being "mathmatically perfect". Some people consider a piano to be an adding machine. Pretty neat huh?

Alot of the child prodigies with a proficiency for math are also excellent in music. It's not a 1:1 ratio, it's just a correlation. I can't quantify it (maybe someone else can).

I guess it's the way they are wired.

Although I'm not sure it goes the other way. I've never heard of Einstein writing no symphonies or playing piano (then agian, he was a physicist, not a mathematician).

jorgelito · 05-27-2005, 12:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stingc

What does "scientifically false" mean? I'm caucasian, and I really doubt you could find anybody who would confuse me or anybody else in my family for another race. The same can be said for most people. There are clearly different sets of inherited traits which we can (reliably) use to categorize people into one race or another. Why is it so hard to believe that these (physical) traits don't go together with certain mental ones (on average)?

I'm certainly not saying that mental differences are entirely due to race. I think (at least in this case) that most of it is cultural, but I wouldn't be surprised at all to see that certain mental characteristics are correlated to race.

That is a good question. No doubt there are variable degree of "traits" one can ascribe to the HUMAN RACE. (i.e. - a spectrum of skin pigmentation). When I say "scientifically false", I mean race is a social construct as opposed to anything scientifically meaningful.

You mention yourself to be caucasian. What does that mean? From the Caucasus region? Are you Russian? Georgian? Ukranian? (which are nationalities, not races). Or are you white? Are Irish folk caucasian too? They say Indians (from India) are Aryan. If Germans are Aryan (white), does that make them Caucasian too? If so, are Indians Caucasian?

There really isn't any scientific basis for "race". We are all variations (that is, insignificant phenotypes) of one human race.

In regards to your second part, I've never heard of nor read of any correlation between physical traits and mental. Does that implie (and correct me if I did not understand your post) for example, the lighter the skin, the smarter the person? Or how about the slantier the eyes (physical trait) the better at math (mental trait)?

I understand what you are saying about inherited traits (skin color, etc) but how does that make one better at math than another?

If it was that easy, if we could just slap everyone into neatly ordered groups like oh, race, then racial profiling would make sense. Gender bias would make sense because there would be scientific proof and basis or grounds for discrimination. For example: All accountants would be Asian. Hmmm....maybe that's why Enron happened. Those silly causcasians aren't good at math so that's why their company screwed up. We should let all the Asians take over. And those poor blacks. Don't they know that they are genetically inferior? Forget med school or law school. Stick to dancing and singing or sports. Maybe manual labor too if it's not too difficult mentally. And how about those Latinos? Can you even give me an accurate description of one? You see how this is flawed right? If I told a cop that I was mugged by a Latino chick, how would he recognize or draw a picture or describe it? Can anyone? Latino is probably one of the worst "racial" or whatever descriptions ever constructed. No two alike. Two famous Latinos look nothing alike: Sammy Sosa and Ricky Martin. Tell me: What physical traits do they share? How could anyone then, correlate mental traits to go with these supposed physical traits?

I think one of the problems in these type of discussions is the oversimplification of complex subjects. We could probably spend hours just trying to define "race" etc. I don't know how old you are, so you may not remember or know what I am talking about next. When I was in 8th grade, our biology book classified the human race in 3 categories: negroid, mongoloid, and caucasoid. In 10th grade, they added a 4th, australoid (I think it referred to the aboriginal group). 15 years later, in anthro class, we are informed that the previous classification is no longer valid etc and all this other stuff. That was a cool class, we got to study DNA, genetics etc and worked with a lot of primate skeletons. Anyways.... I felt like an idiot cause I was still stuck in the whole 3 (or 4) races mentality and I felt dated.

hrandani · 05-27-2005, 02:17 AM

I think it's funny how so many people talk about genetics without really having the first clue what they are and how they work.

That aside, I don't think most people really understand how incredibly powerful culture can be in forming a person in terms of drive, motviation, and determination. And the traditional culture of many asian communities does not tolerate failure or anything less than perfection. Sure, there's lots of asian students who do not do well, but there you get into distinction between american asian etc, whatever. They have a very structured lifestyle in that case.

It doesn't matter what your genes are, we all know stupid people who make straight A's and geniuses who fail. It's about your environment, and most importantly, your motivation to do well that matters most.

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".

raveneye · 05-27-2005, 04:22 AM

Quote:

Well perhaps race is best defined as a cluster of certain genes which lead to a phenotype which is easily identified.

That definition doesn't really work; you'd have all sorts of ridiculous "races", like red-haired people with freckles who sunburn easily.

stingc · 05-27-2005, 04:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jorgelito

When I say "scientifically false", I mean race is a social construct as opposed to anything scientifically meaningful.

Something is "scientifically meaningful" as long as it is sufficiently well-defined. Whether it is useful or not is another question, and that depends on what exactly you want to use it for.

Quote:

You mention yourself to be caucasian. What does that mean? From the Caucasus region? Are you Russian? Georgian? Ukranian? (which are nationalities, not races). Or are you white?

I am actually of Ukranian and Russian descent, but I was using race in the common sense. Although not the definition preferred by physical anthropologists, it is easy to use and mostly unambiguous. Feel free to substitute another definition if you want. I have no idea which is most useful for what I'm talking about.

Quote:

I understand what you are saying about inherited traits (skin color, etc) but how does that make one better at math than another?

It doesn't. Or at least it's not obvious that it does. It is possible that genes controlling some physical characteristics could also influence mental ones. Who knows?

The simpler and more likely mechanism is that different races have slightly different 'gene pools.' People of one race tend to marry into the same race (at least until very recently). This has been happening for so long (where "race" initially had a geographic meaning) that the features we now identify with each group were able to become nearly universal. Why shouldn't other characteristics have evolved along with the obvious ones in this time? It is known, for example, that certain genetic problems are much more prevalent among particular races.

Quote:

If it was that easy, if we could just slap everyone into neatly ordered groups like oh, race, then racial profiling would make sense. Gender bias would make sense because there would be scientific proof and basis or grounds for discrimination.

It might make sense if all [insert group A] were better than all of [insert group B] at some task, but that's a ridiculous oversimplification.

warrrreagl · 05-27-2005, 04:57 AM

I don't ever remember a group of Asians marching around with signs and placards demanding equal rights and justice.

Ustwo · 05-27-2005, 05:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by raveneye

That definition doesn't really work; you'd have all sorts of ridiculous "races", like red-haired people with freckles who sunburn easily.

Like the Celts?

Race is relative. While there is a greater difference in phenotypic expressions between a black man from south Africa and an Eskimo due to longer periods of genetic isolation from each other and different environmental factors driving some of those factors, but there are obvious differences. When people say someone looks Swedish or Irish, or Italian, they are not talking about their system of government, but characteristics. The fact that they all have white skin makes them Caucasian, and genetically there is less difference between other 'races' but they are still distinct in their genetics. We officially draw the line on race around skin color, but that is just as arbitrary as any other method.

Some environmentalists are trying to use such differences in animals to prevent any sort of expansion. If they find a type of fish in a river with a single non-phenotypic genetic variant they are trying to argue its a sub-species and needs to be protected and that is a bit absurd.

raveneye · 05-27-2005, 06:12 AM

Quote:

Like the Celts?

Sure, the Celts would qualify by that definition, plus probably millions of other similar groupings.

Defining "race" by virtue of genetic clusters alone commits one to recognizing every family group as a different race.

Ustwo · 05-27-2005, 06:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by raveneye

Sure, the Celts would qualify by that definition, plus probably millions of other similar groupings.

Defining "race" by virtue of genetic clusters alone commits one to recognizing every family group as a different race.

Which is why race is relative. We base it off skin tone, but it could be based off anything. At some point our brains say 'close enough'.

raveneye · 05-27-2005, 06:33 AM

Quote:

Which is why race is relative. We base it off skin tone, but it could be based off anything. At some point our brains say 'close enough'.

Yes: it is arbitrary where you draw the line, and the traits you use to make any delineation are also completely arbitrary. I agree completely.

That is why your "best definition of race" doesn't have much utilitarian value.

sapiens · 05-27-2005, 06:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hrandani

I think it's funny how so many people talk about genetics without really having the first clue what they are and how they work.

It may be true that many people talk about genetics without really having the first clue what they are and how they work.

Personally, I think it's funny how so many people talk about "culture" without having the first clue what it is and how it works. "Culture" is so frequently tossed around as an explanation, but it isn't an explanation at all (any more than saying something is "genetic" or "evolved"). What are the specific environmental inputs that are represented by the concept of "culture" and how do they work to form "a person in terms of drive, motivation, and determination"? And how do these cultural factors accomplish this independent of any heritable factors? And how do we demonstrate this causal independence?

pwrinkle · 05-29-2005, 12:18 AM

I didn't read all the shit about genetics because doing well in school doesn't really depend on being intelligent or having some smart gene. Doing well in school just needs a lot of hard work and good habits. That is basicly how most things work in life.

Marvelous Marv · 05-29-2005, 09:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by raveneye

Yes: it is arbitrary where you draw the line, and the traits you use to make any delineation are also completely arbitrary. I agree completely.

That is why your "best definition of race" doesn't have much utilitarian value.

I asked my friend, a former tissue-typer at a human organ transplant facility, about this. He said that you could call it arbitrary, but that they had very well-defined guidelines for what is commonly called a "good match."

Less well-defined is the definition of a "dark" individual, versus a "light-skinned" individual, but that concept is useful as well, in regard to predicting skin cancer.

Both of these would appear to have utilitarian value to me.

Getting back to earlier statements, some years ago I saw a study whose results concluded that many American immigrants are what could be called "overachievers," and that it often carried over to the second generation.

By the third generation, statistically, there was very little difference in their performance in comparison to those whose grandparents, etc. were born here. I haven't seen this in years, and a brief seach didn't locate it. Sorry.

So now I'm on both sides of the genetics debate.

raveneye · 05-29-2005, 09:29 AM

Quote:

Less well-defined is the definition of a "dark" individual, versus a "light-skinned" individual, but that concept is useful as well, in regard to predicting skin cancer.

Yes, but I don't see that this has anything helpful to say about "race". There are dark skinned lineages on every continent.

Quote:

I asked my friend, a former tissue-typer at a human organ transplant facility, about this. He said that you could call it arbitrary, but that they had very well-defined guidelines for what is commonly called a "good match."

Same response. I don't see what this has to do with "race" as it is usually applied to human populations. There's no such thing eg. as a Hispanic kidney.

Glava · 05-29-2005, 11:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by raveneye

Yes, but I don't see that this has anything helpful to say about "race". There are dark skinned lineages on every continent.

Same response. I don't see what this has to do with "race" as it is usually applied to human populations. There's no such thing eg. as a Hispanic kidney.

"Hispanic" is a very poorly-defined race. In the United States, anyone from the palest Jew from Argentina to the darkest baseball player from the Dominican Republic is considered Hispanic simply because they speak the same language. Basing a race on language is foolish.

raveneye · 05-29-2005, 11:25 AM

Quote:

"Hispanic" is a very poorly-defined race. In the United States, anyone from the palest Jew from Argentina to the darkest baseball player from the Dominican Republic is considered Hispanic simply because they speak the same language. Basing a race on language is foolish.

Yes, that's why Hispanic was eliminated as a race in the 2000 U.S. Census. Yet it is still commonly used (eg. on affirmative action checklists).

And the same can be said for all the "official" races recognized by the U.S. None is a monophyletic grouping.

I think the best interpretation of human genetic variation is a clinal interpretation: most traits vary clinally (ie. gradually) from place to place. There are no sharp distinctions, no boundaries, and no barriers to complete mixing.

pwrinkle · 05-29-2005, 12:38 PM

Aren't people from brazil considered hispanic too, and they speak portugeze, so it isn't just language.

05-26-2005, 07:00 AM	#2 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	Why do Jews seem to do better in school? Why do so many children of recent immigrants? I think its because their parents push and encourage them. I see dozens of kids of school age a day as patients and the only ones that talk about their grades/tests tend to be Asian/Indian. I see a lot more concern about sports in my white/black parents then I do in other groups, being 'popular' seems pretty high up there too. So while I am not 100% convinced that genetics may not play a role, much of it is on the upbringing. Edit:One thing I've seen too, is the longer they have been in the country the less well Asians seem to do in school (this is from remembering my friends while in school). Being 'more American' isn't always a good thing. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

05-26-2005, 07:42 AM	#3 (permalink)
BigBen Comedian Location: Use the search button	When I returned to University, I had been away from academics for 5 years. I was gathering "Valuable Life Experience" instead... I got 63% in Calculus in grade 12, but I think that was because I was infatuated with girls, and not first derivatives. It was by far my lowest mark, and it did not count towards my university entrance average. I took it as it was: no big deal. 1st year University came around, and studying economics and anything "On the Margin" requires a healthy dose of Calculus. I was counting myself fortunate that I didn't have to wrote a thousand essays like those poor SOB's in History or English. The Professor entered the lecture theatre (seats about 200 students) and anounced in a very heavy asian Accent: "Today, we review High School Math..." and with that, he turned and faced the board, and started writing formulae. I was shit scared, and frantically wrote down everything he put on the board. Everything. My hand was cramping at the end of the lecture! I couldn't understand the words coming from his mouth. I went up to him after class (I was keen. Mommy and Daddy were not paying my way. I was 'financially motivated') and asked a question about one of the fomulas. His response? "I don't speak English." and he walked out. I was OUTRAGED! How can someone secure tenure at an institution in North America if they do not communicate in the fucking native language? I went to the department head of Mathematics and Statistics to complain. He was a good Scotsman, and would surely sympathize. He would be as shocked as I was! He was not only harsh, but taught me a good lesson on university. "Son, I want you to go to the library and search this professors name. If at that point you want to change classes, I will arrange it. You should feel privledged that you are in his class. I think 30 years from now, you will brag to your colleagues that you attended one of his classes..." Before I left the office (with my tail between my legs) the Department Head quipped "You don't need to speak to understand math. Read the text, then read his notes, then do the homework." I researched the prof. I was shocked to see that he was quite published, in journals that were written in english, french, Chinese, Italian. This guy was a fucking genius. I studied. 3 hours a day on math alone. I completed every question in the damn textbook. I attended every class. At the end of the semester, I was one of 24 students left in the class. We took up 1 row in the lecture theatre. The first row. My mark? a 74. A well earned 74. I am more proud of that mark than any of the "100% Good Job!" bullshit cop-out marks in other classes. And I love Math to this day. I promise here and now: I will instill a respect for academics into my children. I will require hard work, and demand good results. __________________ 3.141592654 Hey, if you are impressed with my memorizing pi to 10 digits, you should see the size of my penis.

05-26-2005, 10:02 AM	#5 (permalink)
Glava Betitled	The article supports the idea that Asians in the US are better in math because of cultural reasons well, but it does nothing to disprove that genes are not a factor, other than saying "they just aren't". While I'm sure culture is an important factor, it seems wrong to simply discount the influence of genes in intelligence when they are a scientifically-proven factor in so many other traits - baldness, mental illness, heart disease, etc. There are also many traits that are found in specific ethnic/racial groups (which I believe is not the same as "race" alone, because of the fuzzy boundaries that it implies) much more commonly than in the general population - sickle-cell anemia in blacks and Tay-Sachs disease in Jews from Eastern/Central Europe, among others. I don't see why intelligence is automatically different. It should be studied more, and not just dismissed so we can all feel good about ourselves. Granted, it's a lot harder to measure than simply looking at the shapes of one's bloodcells, as in anemia, but if a common standard is used, the results will have some validity. Last edited by Glava; 05-26-2005 at 10:07 AM..

05-26-2005, 11:40 AM	#9 (permalink)
superiorrain Psycho Location: London	I remember reading a while back in a consumer behaviour book, that this question already has an answer. So there was this study, i forget where it was taken place but nontheless it did take place and with was with students studying maths. Now the experiment continued for the duration of one yeah, where each class was equally weighted with Asian Males. Asian Males were always stereotyped as being good at maths. Now one class was constantly reminded of this stereotype, the teacher would always repeat and reenforce this idea that the Asian Males would find it easy, or for you guys especially that was probably very easy...blar blar. Contently feeding them the image that they were of a particular cultural and ethnic background this would help them. The other class with the same number of Asian Males were never alerted to this stereotype and it was never mentioned in the class. So everyone just worked as normal and no one was getting any particular praise. The result of this (and this shows you how powerful marketing/conditioning is) was that the control group was found to have a normal distribution of results with no particular class, gender, ethnicity, culture and the rest of it doing anything significantly better than anyone else. Whereas the Asian Males in the other class did significantly better than their Asian counterparts in the other class and were all top of the class. So we can conclude from that, that it is not genes. It is more a case of what is expected of you and what people around will say you will be able to do, if you hear it enough you believe it and in the case of maths if you believe you can do it, then chances are you'll work at it till your belief is fulfilled. __________________ "The only way to discover the limits of the possible is to go beyond them into the impossible." - Arthur C. Clarke

05-26-2005, 01:32 PM	#12 (permalink)
zen_tom Guest	Tallness is a direct function of body development, that's what genes do. Baldness likewise. Yes there are some genetic defects such as Downs' Syndrome that effect mental development. But races are hugely diverse populations - some chinese people are taller than some black people, some white people can jump etc My point is that the link between race and genetics isn't even closely defined yet. Yes, you can trace your maternal line down your mitochondrial line genetically, and yes you might be able to make some geographical analysis of where a particular gene in your body is most likely to originate, but the fact remains that races are populations of individuals, and are vastly diverse within those populations. There may be a gene (or more likely a multitude of genes coupled with environmental factors) that makes you smart, but it wont be racially exclusive. The thing is, you can look at a particular aspect of mathematics in so many ways, that one mode of thinking that might be gene related (and that's still a big if) is no better than another, entirely different one. What I mean to say is that even if the brain works differently for different races, then you still can't make the judgement that one is better than the other, but you can suggest different ways of teaching the same things. Then there's the link between autism and mathematics - whether autism is genetic or not I don't know, but it is commonly seen as an inability to cope with or appropriately categorise large amounts of information. The reason mathematics is supposed to express itself with these people is that they find comfort within its safe, predictable logical structures. Does that mean that math is being expressed by <i>less</i> or more capable brains? And are there more autistic people of one race or another? If there are is this likely to be genetic, or environmental? And you come back round to the original point that races are populations of individuals with a wide range of genotypes, and an exponentially larger range of phenotypes - this is why it doesn't make sense to make racial projections. Last edited by zen_tom; 05-26-2005 at 01:35 PM..

05-26-2005, 09:16 AM	#4 (permalink)
jorgelito All important elusive independent swing voter... Location: People's Republic of KKKalifornia	Ben, are you Asian? Just kidding, good post, nicely written. It's like a script or short story. Nice job.

05-26-2005, 11:37 AM	#7 (permalink)
zen_tom Guest	The effects of genes on development are hugely diverse, and math equally so, that it would be foolish to suggest that gene X made you a better mathematician. It's not PC, to have a fixation with race, but it is scientifically flawed. It would be akin to saying that computers that used a certain brand of wire were better at running Halflife, or that items with a W in their names were naturally better at floating. A scientist who suggests race being a single factor in a person's intelligence or proficiency at mathematics, art, singing or kung fu is either not looking properly at their results, or they are ignoring cultural, developmental, personal, educational and a multitude of other factors at their peril.

05-26-2005, 04:24 PM	#14 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	Zen_tom all genes either go to fixation or extinction. Its how the math works, and on the way they will be expressed differently in a population. It is quite possible that in the Asian population there would be a greater concentration of the 'math' gene or genes. This would not mean that every Asian was good at math, but it would mean that a higher % of the population would be. I am not saying this is even true but it is possible and feasable that such differences exsist. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

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.

05-26-2005, 07:15 PM	#19 (permalink)
Jesus Pimp The Original JizzSmacka	I guess I'm a rare case. I'm Chinese and really suck at math (That's why i went to art school heh). I did poorly in grade school, got crappy SAT scores, but somehow got into into good colleges. I didn't want to be a doctor, programmer, or pharmacist. I'm good with computers and design though. Maybe those was genetically coded in my genes. __________________ Never date anyone who doesn't make your dick hard.

05-26-2005, 10:28 PM	#22 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	Well perhaps race is best defined as a cluster of certain genes which lead to a phenotype which is easily identified. Races are due to a cluster of these genes, which moved to fixation in a small population. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

05-27-2005, 02:17 AM	#25 (permalink)
hrandani Insane	I think it's funny how so many people talk about genetics without really having the first clue what they are and how they work. That aside, I don't think most people really understand how incredibly powerful culture can be in forming a person in terms of drive, motviation, and determination. And the traditional culture of many asian communities does not tolerate failure or anything less than perfection. Sure, there's lots of asian students who do not do well, but there you get into distinction between american asian etc, whatever. They have a very structured lifestyle in that case. It doesn't matter what your genes are, we all know stupid people who make straight A's and geniuses who fail. It's about your environment, and most importantly, your motivation to do well that matters most.

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".

05-27-2005, 04:57 AM	#29 (permalink)
warrrreagl pinche vato Location: backwater, Third World, land of cotton	I don't ever remember a group of Asians marching around with signs and placards demanding equal rights and justice. __________________ Living is easy with eyes closed.

05-29-2005, 12:18 AM	#35 (permalink)
pwrinkle Upright	I didn't read all the shit about genetics because doing well in school doesn't really depend on being intelligent or having some smart gene. Doing well in school just needs a lot of hard work and good habits. That is basicly how most things work in life.

05-29-2005, 12:38 PM	#40 (permalink)
pwrinkle Upright	Aren't people from brazil considered hispanic too, and they speak portugeze, so it isn't just language.