Slashdot Mirror
Root of Maths Genius Sought
ananyo writes "He founded two genetic-sequencing companies and sold them for hundreds of millions of dollars. He helped to sequence the genomes of a Neanderthal man and James Watson, who co-discovered DNA's double helix. Now, entrepreneur Jonathan Rothberg has set his sights on another milestone: finding the genes that underlie mathematical genius. Rothberg and physicist Max Tegmark, who is based at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge, have enrolled about 400 mathematicians and theoretical physicists from top-ranked US universities in a study dubbed 'Project Einstein'. They plan to sequence the participants' genomes using the Ion Torrent machine that Rothberg developed. Critics say that the sizes of these studies are too small to yield meaningful results for such complex traits. But Rothberg is pushing ahead. 'I'm not at all concerned about the critics,' he says, adding that he does not think such rare genetic traits could be useful in selecting for smarter babies. Some mathematicians, however, argue that maths aptitude is not born so much as made. 'I feel that the notion of "talent" may be overrated,' says Michael Hutchings, a mathematician also at Berkeley."
Second step, treat them differently.
the shape of their skulls.
Sorry. I'll get my coat.
isn't this just a little bit creepy? Not to mention likely to fail.... Since they are sequencing self-selected professionals, how do you control for the effort of the subject to attain their "ability" whatever that is being measured. It is a little worry for those humans who do NOT have the "genius" gene....;-(
You've got two human worlds:
On one they learn how to genetically select smarter babies and when those babies they improve the technique, and so on.
On the other world, they invent an AI that's able to build AIs better than itself, and it does so over and over.
Speculative question 1: Which of those worlds reach the singularity first.
Speculative question 2: Which of those worlds get to a point where the only way to keep advancing is to switch to the other world's path (i.e.: Will genetically engineered smarter humans reach the singularity by building better AIs or Will exponentially smarter AIs reach the singularity by finding a way to improve humans so they can solve a problem that the AI can't bypass.)
Some mathematicians, however, argue that maths aptitude is not born so much as made. 'I feel that the notion of "talent" may be overrated,' says Michael Hutchings, a mathematician also at Berkeley."
Data trumps 'feelings' and 'opinion' every time. Inconclusive data is better than no data. More data can always be gathered if the results look promising. The mere act of looking might serendipitously turn up something else of interest. Let them conduct their study if they want to and then argue about the results if that's your thing.
So Michael Hutchings wants everyone to think he worked hard to get where he is, and didn't just have an easy ride.
Of course he had to work, but if he was crap at basic arithmetic in high school he wouldn't be a mathematician now. Of course talent is involved.
Why does there always have to be some non-sequiteur "response" from someone not involved in the study who has personal axes to grind but no actual evidence or study? It's not just Slashdot - the BBC does this too. Long story about X followed by some random comment that argues against it from someone who is clearly basing his opinion on personal biases or his own research direction, and hasn't any legitimate input at all.
Why is it "maths" in British English, but "math" in American English? In America, it's "mathematics," "physics," "electronics," etc. Only "math" is singular.
I suspect we need a liberal arts person to explain it.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
Is it odd that the "root of maths genius" is actually the inverse function of multiplying two maths geniuses together?
Many years ago I received several courses of what was then considering to be cutting and experimental gene therapy. It was a carefully constructed gene made from parts of human and non-human DNA carefully sewn together. The objective was to modify my immune system due to a nasty medical disorder. It worked like magic. Despite the fact that it did not actually integrate into my genome, it persists in my body to this day.
I know it's not the same, but wouldn't it be great to get an infusion of math genes? If such a thing were ever possible, one would still have to hit the books to take advantage of it, but all the same - cognitive enhancement through gene therapy could prove to be a singularity style breakthrough. Over the last decade and a half, the science and practice of genetic engineering has advanced substantially faster than even my own technologically over optimistic self predicted. What sounds far-fetched now is no longer something I would past the nearer than you might think future. Across all of scientific discovery and technological achievement, I have a suspicion that the next decade or two is going to be a wilder ride than most currently imagine.
Brought to you by Carl's Junior.
I believe that there must be some intrinsic ability to comprehend integration by parts. I mean, you can prove that it works, but some people "see" how to separate a function and some don't. This would make it perfectly normal, just like ranges of ability in music, athletics, linguistics, and just about every other human endeavor whether physical or mental. Certainly training and development, which includes opportunity to express the ability, is critical. How many Einsteins have been born in backwater locations or primitive times when their natural abilities had no opportunity to flower? Right now, in our modern supposedly-connected era, this story http://www.wired.com/business/2013/10/free-thinkers/all/ includes a young student who got the highest score on a nationwide test, after having gone unnoticed. How many more virtuosos, in how many fields, can we find if we take the time to look? OTOH how many talents have already been wasted, or will be, because they happen to exist in female brains and bodies living in cultures that will never recognize them? How many are dying of disease in refugee camps (or worse) when their abilities could make life better for everyone?
Nobody would discard half of the food they grow, or half of the ore they mine, or half of the uncut diamonds they find - yet as a species we probably waste half of our human resources.
Most of it is born. If you don't believe it's genetic try training a dog or elephant or chimp to do higher math. You can try for years or decades if you want. They like to say there's very little genetic difference between a chimp and a human, but that small difference makes a big difference in certain things[1].
;)
But even if the raw talent is there you still need training. Just like an untrained person with the raw physical talent of a top fighter will lose in a fight with a highly trained and experienced fighter with less "raw talent".
Training and practice is important but if you lack the talent you're not going to be among the best even when fully trained for years or even decades. And it's often the best that push the boundaries.
With my physique I'm never ever going to run faster than Usain Bolt no matter how hard I train. All the feel good nonsense of "nothing is impossible if you keep trying" etc is nonsense and not based in science.
[1] But perhaps no significant difference from the point of view of a super advanced alien from the "dark matter" zones
Slightly off topic, maybe, but I was immediately reminded of the book: Flowers for Algernon.
It was required reading in one of my classes back in high school. I found the story to be quite thought-provoking; made me realize how ephemeral intelligence could be. It was humbling for me to realize how much one accident could dramatically change my life. Yet, I cannot live in constant fear of its happening, but instead just try to do as best I can with what I have this day. To try and help others. To hope that, in the end, the world might be a little bit better for my having been a part of it.
I believe that for the most part, people don't have a "natural" talent for what they are good at -- instead, they have a strong desire for it, which makes the many hours of work they put in seem more like fun than work. In order to be good, you have to put in many hours (4 hours a day, for 10 years) of progressive practice -- constantly working at the edge of your current skill, and pushing that edge slowly forward. It is that way with programming, math, music, art, etc. But to dedicate 10,000 hours, you have to be able to somewhat enjoy what you are doing, or you will give up.
There may be a "math genius" set of genes somewhere in our DNA, and I think that makes sense because some people are better visualizers and problem solvers than others, regardless of education. But one thing that I think gets overlooked is whether the early interest in math gets nurtured by a good teacher or wiped out by a bad one.
My personal experience seems to indicate there might be something to this. I've always been a very good problem solver, and I get to keep my systems engineering job in an increasingly competitive field because my employers regard me as someone who can see problems 1000 miles down the line from the first bad decision and work on correcting them. However, I absolutely, completely, totally suck at math. In school, I was a memorizer for math tests, and it was absolute torture as the content kept getting more and more complex with me not getting the basics. So when I got to college, I started off in a chemical engineering major and realized I just lacked the ability to do the math required, even though I understood the concepts. I ended up getting a chemistry degree instead, and somehow wound up in IT. :-)
The reason why I picked chemistry was because a had a really good high school chemistry teacher, better than any of the science teachers I have had. The material was taught in a way that clicked with me, even if some of it required math that I wasn't perfect at. Whenever I talk about chemistry education with someone, most people say, "Oh, I took one class and it never made any sense to me. I couldn't ever do any real chemistry work."
I think that a lot of math-oriented people have a similar experience early on. And since math builds on the basics, it's very important to get kids interested very early on. "Math people" can see beyond the variables and relations, and understand exactly what a given expression is saying in real terms. The problem starts when people don't get it, and know they have to pass tests, and just memorize procedures without knowing why they work. The 8th/9th grade "polynomial manipulation" exercises are really good examples of this. I still don't know why x = (-b +/- sqrt(b^2 - 4ac))/2a. If someone had bothered to explain this to me, maybe I would have had a better time with things.
Shouldn't be too hard. Lets see...
20 mati*sqrt(hecans).
There are only two types of true prodigies -- math and music, suggesting they are related.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
'I feel that the notion of "talent" may be overrated,' says Michael Hutchings, a mathematician also at Berkeley."
It is probably a bit of both , your DNA enabling you to have a potential, and your own learning switching that potential free. To take my own example I had an incredible easy time learning all sort of math, from ground school up to 2 years into university with all sort of abstract concept (I continued into physic afterward). All my colleague were struggling. I am not saying I am a genius, long way from there, but I obviously never had to make any effort whatsoever to learn math *and* remember it. And i still remember 20 years afterward a lot of them, despite not using them on daily basis (Heck I recently helped my nephew to understand integration in a complex plan of polynomial ratio, around the "zeros" of the polynomial denominator). I am thinking that a good part of it was good genetic, for which sadly my parents can claim success,not me. Sure loving math helped a lot,but I had a facility to learn and remember without struggling I never saw in my colleague.
So yeah such easiness with math, i would say , it is probably 60% nature, 40% nurture. My english suck 100% sadly.
Talent probably isn't the main thing separating your Fields Medal recipient from your average "math prof. at a major research university". That's probably hard work and circumstance. But inborn talent probably is one of the main things separating "guy who has trouble grasping the concept of a square root" and "guy who goes on to become a math prof. at a research university". In some sense, inborn talent puts a soft cap on what someone is likely to achieve. In some situations you can overcome lack of talent with hard work and perseverance, but the closer you get to the upper limit of your natural ability the more difficult that becomes. You see this when someone guts it out in high school and aces their math classes, then tries to the same thing in an advanced undergraduate class and it no longer "works".
Beware of enhancing one aspect of the human condition and creating more problems. (A scifi plot all the way back to Frankenstein).
If nerds do have more autistic children, the following explainations have been offered:
- Some nerds already have a mild form of the condition and it expressed more their offspring.
- Austism has been linked to older fathers. And nerds may reproduce later in life.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics
Didn't Einstein say the root of his genius is to get at least 10 hours of sleep every day?
He is trying to identify high IQ genes. They are in the processes of sequencing hundreds of geniuses.
I and others have doubts for a couple reasons:
- IQ inelligence may reside in hundreds of genes. May be very difficult to data-mine.
- The tendency for children of smart parents to veer back to average intelligence.
Well, geniuses, Einstein was not a math genius. For example, it took him much longer than David Hilbert to work out the equations for General Relativity, and he required the help of Grossmann.
What set him apart was that he knew where he wanted to go. He believed in physical invariants and fought the math until he was able to meet them. That kind of determination is very, very rare and quite precious. But it was not math-related.
If they wanted to name a project for math geniuses, they's have done better using Hilbert or Erdos.
Funny, I just read this article last night. http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2013/10/the-myth-of-im-bad-at-math/280914/ It says there probably are some "math geniuses" out there, so doesn't totally contradict the Rotherberg/Tegmark research. But the thesis indicates we have plenty of computers for the genius level math, and that most of the problem (weakness in general population) derives directly from the myth that innate/genetic "math ability" exists at all.
And if the math ability is God-given, there are computer programs now to discover even that (computer proves God article in Der Spiegel). http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/computer-scientists-prove-god-exists/story?id=20678984
Gently reply
Lol, ironically Einsten sucked pretty badly at maths and he knew it (quote: "Do not worry about your difficulties in Mathematics. I can assure you mine are still greater."). Oh, well long live pop culture...
Great adaptation of the same online on YouTube -> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=loi3gDeGTwU
* I really felt bad for Charly in a way - ignorance is bliss, but then again, knowing tons isn't an answer either (which he finds out too).
APK
P.S.=> My FAVORITE part's when Charly's interrogated/answering the questions directed his way from the "intellectual elite" (whom he dwarfed @ that stage): I agree with EVERYTHING he noted, personally (perhaps now moreso today than ever)... apk
So uhm, how are they going to differentiate between regular people that have put a lot of time an effort into learning math & those that are math geniuses?
Is there such a thing as "genius"?
If there is, does it have specific genes?
Do the choices a person makes in life, their environment, lifestyle and opportunities play a factor?
Can you have the "right genes" and not be a math genius?
Is there a specific variation to the genetic sequence in the way its expressed?
I believe you can find math genius with the same ease as you can find acrobatic genius...or difficulty if it's at all possible.
Were engaging in a Nature vs. Nuture argument here. I think math ability is much more than a few critical genes. I'll bet that it is the interaction of many genes. There is also the issue of upbringing. We can't tell if a child that has a bad environment could be a hidden math genious that will never achieve his/her potential.
I would be willing that there are (or were) individuals that could dwarf Einstein in raw math ability. They never got the chance. This study would not include these individuals.
"Co" does not imply 3 people were involved. Doesn't Slashdot regularly acknowledge the work of Rosalind Franklin? On Slashdot I expect blurbs that are at consistent with the ethos, otherwise it's complete nonsense.
Currently it is politically incorrect to consider eugenics. I personally think that our view of this will gradually change as our knowledge of genetics increases. Suppose it becomes easy to select traits like athletic ability, appearance or intelligence in children. Some people will certainly try to give their child an advantage in life. It will happen like steroids in sports. Once some children are born with better traits, others will be tempted to do the same with their children. The ugly part of eugenics is association with racism. As long as we don't have categories of people forbidden to reproduce, it should be politically acceptable. It's not inherently evil to do something to opt for smarter or stronger children. Probably there will be successes and failures, but I think people will do it. For me I wonder what people would choose: intelligence, beauty, strength, ... With respect to math genes, it is currently hard to find a job with a Ph.D. in math, so there isn't a huge need for more people with good math genes though a few geniuses might be useful. My guess is that different folks will choose different traits and that the human race will become more diverse. People will continue living in interesting times.
Ray Seyfarth, ray.seyfarth@gmail.com, http://rayseyfarth.blogspot.com
Relevant: http://www.maa.org/sites/default/files/pdf/devlin/LockhartsLament.pdf
Some mathematicians, however, argue that maths aptitude is not born so much as made.
What about Srinivasa Ramanujan?
Root of Math Genius sought? If math genius can be quantified, then there's certainly multiple roots that should be considered. Some might seem irrational or even imaginary on the surface, but it should be easy to verify that these are indeed roots. I doubt that this study will result in anything transcendental in understanding the roots of math genius.
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2013/07/genetics-of-iq/
Einstein was not a math genius. He was a physics genius who was also really good at learning the mathematics he needed to solve his problems.
Told you there was a legitimate use for torrents.
Also, a marginally related image that I just posted this morning!
Sha! Pocket sand!
XKCD:Xeric Knowledge Comically Dispen
Should be looking at artists(esp. musicians). The genius of math is in the creative side of the brain. Being able to imagine, visualize abstract stuff and put it together in novel & creative ways is genius part of math. Not the "cookbook" application of formulas and such.
What Happens When a Language Has No Numbers?
The "researchers" would probably think this is a society of retards, when actually it's just a different way of living and thinking. Numbers don't exist. The universe is not mathematical. Those are both stories we tell ourselves to make sense of the world...
Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
Rothberg and physicist Max Tegmark, who is based at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge, have enrolled about 400 mathematicians and theoretical physicists from top-ranked US universities...Critics say that the sizes of these studies are too small to yield meaningful results for such complex traits.
I'm not sure who's right, Rothberg, or his critics. In any event, his should exclude either his genes or theirs.
There's probably a textbook somewhere that gets through to someone who is not reached by the textbook provided. But the provided textbook is mandatory because its publisher bribed someone (school board member, teacher, politician etc.) to make the useless textbook mandatory.
"And the Einstein Oscar goes to... Yes, another Rothberg's biased machine selection... Mr. Idiot! Woohooo!" How Rothberg Machine Works: Rothberg sets the rules... Rothberg judges them by those rules... Rothberg sends them to hell or heaven... Such a retarded way of evaluating talent...
I wanted to major in physics (got an A) but couldn't because I couldn't pass 2nd year maths. I enjoy maths, but I have my limitations, especially with those damned proofs and advanced matrices.
On the other hand, my youngest cousin would miss his maths lectures 'cos he couldn't get out of bed in time. By the time he'd arrive at uni, his class mates would be waiting for him so they could ask him to explain the lecture. He'd spend a few minutes reading through the chapter (1st time) then proceed to explain to his classmates what the lecturer could not. (This happened every week.) Obviously he got top grades.
Now tell me, if I study hard and still don't get it, yet my cousin gets it without even trying, then would you not say that his talent helps him more than a measly 10% ?
Need I say more?
Is he going to be sequencing the genes of any AFRICAN 'geniuses? This should be a laugh...
As I recall, though Einstein was undeniably a genius, he was no genius with math.
...and I mean that in a good way.
I don't doubt that genetics plays a part; but with the right environment (i.e., training), persistence/interest, and especially training at a younger age most brains can build the necessary connections to make math intuitive.
I think most folks on /. are familiar with the tipping point where one "groks" a complex subject. During my highschool & college years, math came pretty easy for me: Comp sci by degree, but throwing in grad level number theory, differential equations, etc. Fun stuff.
But during my elementary years? I had very poor teachers, a serious lack of interest in the topic (typical urban kid; I was running around wreaking havoc in the neighborhood & getting in trouble).
Down the slippery slope, of course. If we can only identify all the MIT nerds who are best at math, and get them to breed only with each other, we can create an even hardier breed of invincible, gay nerd. Fabulous!!!
The article didn't say a damn thing about a "math person." As so often happens here, you're building a ridiculous strawman then bragging about knocking it down. You're nothing but a damn liar. The article was about people that are good at maths.
Seriously, stop posting. Your kind is ruining this site.
In addition to talent and passion, Erdos had a secret weapon... amphetamines!!!
This sig is not paradoxical or ironic.
But we haven't yet found a reliable way of making it. Genetic and early learned dispositions may make one person more likely than another to find a way of doing maths easily by chance, and possibly to derive more enjoyment from it, but mathematical ability is made and learned.
As with many things, a disciplined approach, practice and AbsoluteMasterOfTheBasics are what matters. When it comes to basic counting, you should be so familiar with it that it is effortless: every time you need to spend an iota of effort on basic couting, you diminish what your intution can see. You also need to see and feel what mathematical beauty feels like, and enjoy the thrill of solving problems and communicating their solution. How to get kids interested in this without trying to force them into it is something we haven't figure out yet, but need to.
John_Chalisque
that shouldn't have the gene. They are going to have a control population for this 'experiment', aren't they?
And I will feed him, and care for him, and team him up with a group of hard working plodders, and under my leadership they will build a race of inhuman monsters and take over the world!
Mathematicians like Fermat never did prove what they calculated so much as like Physicists do ?! Or Biologists ?! A real mathematician as genius does not prove what he or she put as theorem, cause proving and deliver formulas can be dangerous. Only physicists are for example building weapons with formulas. So, do we need proof by genetics ?!
What use would be this of ? To define the math genius by genetics ? At same time a biologist is aware of fact, that despite of all definitions concerning fields of genius, the human being is nothing doing else than eating the planet empty and spreading out ?!
This is a great idea on a new religion, following the Scientology idea. Use the machine to test people to see if they are worthy. Of course you charge them to be tested. Do you want to be in the Genius Club? Better sign up and pay your dues.
It sounds like a plan to clone geniuses in a plot to take over the world!