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.
Don't be such a square.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
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.
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.
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.
They analyzed Einstein's dead brain. After months of intense research, they discovered that it was no smarter than any other dead brain.
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.
That's my line. But I see your point.
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.
I think we should stop this tangent...
"Don't meddle in the affairs of a patent dragon, for thou art tasty and good with ketchup." ~ohcrapitssteve
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.
They analyzed Einstein's dead brain. After months of intense research, they discovered that it was no smarter than any other dead brain.
Amusing. Studies did show, however, why it might have been smarter than other live brains while it was alive:
http://io9.com/this-is-why-einsteins-brain-was-better-than-yours-1441971724
A chimp may not have the hardware to do higher math, but who's to say that most humans don't? Why is that fine genetic line somewhere amongst humans, rather than between us and the chimps?
You may not be able to rival Usain Bolt, but you'd certainly benefit from training. It seems clear to me most people are not at the limit of their math ability. In fact, we have a society where being innumerate is perfectly acceptable. I think the easiest gains are to be had in training people more (if math is what we want) rather than to try and move the limits.
The example of Bolt is also interesting. He's of a type that is not normally pushed to do sprints (too tall), yet there he is, the fastest man ever. It will be interesting to see what they conclude about genetic influences on math skill.
I thought it was the size of the skull that mattered?
Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
don't drink and derive.
With my physique I'm never ever going to run faster than Usain Bolt
Google Tonya Harding and Nancy Kerrigan once. Nothing is impossible if you keep trying.
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".
I'm never ever going to run faster than Usain Bolt no matter how hard I train
You're not training right. You need to practice whacking fast runners in the knees with a baseball bat.
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.
We should just be on a level plane.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Nurture could be even more important than nature. Would a "normal" person be a mathematical genius if had the same education/environment/growing as one? A lot of physical development (even in the brain) have deep links with what you do. And motivation don't come in the genes. The same goes in the other direction, if exists those genes (and should be tested "normal" people that had the same background to those genius). Could a person with the "right" genes be a normal one without the right education, diet, motivation, etc? How you could tell that someone could not be a math genius if education would had made the difference?
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.
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
Not a good analogy. Take the opposable thumb. Genetics explains the difference between thumbs on humans and not-thumbs on dogs or elephants, but it doesn't explain most cases of humans missing a thumb.
Just because genetics might explain the difference in capacity for abstract math in humans and chimps or dog doesn't mean it explains the varriance among humans.
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
Most humans may have the hardware to do higher math.
;).
But the fine line among humans for this particular Slashdot story is where "Maths Genius" begins. They're looking for mathematical geniuses not those who can do higher math.
In fact, if I were doing the study I'd only look for those who have come up with stuff that's actually insightful and groundbreaking. To me in math (and many other fields) it's those who find new "shortcuts" in the "jungle" that are the geniuses, not those who can follow those "shortcuts" once found by others.
Following is much easier. Even I might (possibly with great effort) follow the "shortcuts" once they have been found, but I may never have found them on my own.
You may be right that most humans might be able to find such new shortcuts with training and practice. But from what I see very many humans already have difficulty thinking logically, scientifically or even reading accurately. What are the odds they'd be able to be trained to see new interesting mathematical conjectures in "thin air" and then prove them elegantly?
That said, it would be good if we could start training most humans to think better. But I doubt most politicians would want that
Yeah, you're wrong.
Comparing a different species to us is meaningless. It's not surprising a different species can never do something that isn't within their capabilities.
Human's on the other hand...
Genetics certainly doe splay a part, but to what extent?
I think nurture is just as much a part, if not more important. If you take two children with genes for average intelligence, give one a healthy diet and plenty of stimulation and knowledge, and the other isn't paid any special attention to, then one is going to be more intelligent than the other.
The brain is a muscle, and exercising it and stimulating it can cause it to grow, like any other. We know that people who learn certain skills develop different pathways in the brain, i.e. musicians vs chess players vs artists.
As for you never being able to run as fast as Usain Bolt...you're probably right. But (assuming you're young enough) You could get your body in extreme shape and be in the same general category as him. You may not be world champion, but you could get your self to the 97th percentile or something.
Genes are a template. It's rare that they are the limiting factor.
That isn't just feel good nonsense, it's what the evidence shows.
If you ignore ACs because they are anonymous - you're an idiot.
Except you bring zero evidence that cogitation has anything to do with your genetic inheritance in humans. Maybe it does. I'd be surprised if there isn't some effect. But your opinion is just that, an opinion. My belief as a teacher is that learning has far more to do with confidence and self-belief than any innate talent.
[FUCK BETA]
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
You don't ever "see" how to seperate the function into udv to get uv-vdu. Even in the case of the most "obvious" examples like xe^x, you still need to decide which part should be u or dv.
After a few dozen (hundred?) times of doing this, you get a feel for which should be chosen. More recently, this knowledge has been codified in a LIATE mnemonic/algorithm for choosing the two parts, which works for most elementary integrals students are likely to encounter.
Nobody can "just integrate". Nobody. Not even Euler was able to integrate everything. With experience -- extensive expeirience -- you may garner enough tricks and techniques to be able to integrate something like x^m(a+bx^n)^p -- but you would need to be very well read to know that you could only do so if one of p, (m+1)/n, or (m+1)/n +p is an integer -- (see Chebyshev's Integral). I didn't "see" or know this fact -- I learned it from reading works of others who came before me. No gene can replicate that.
May the Maths Be with you!
Relevant: http://www.maa.org/sites/default/files/pdf/devlin/LockhartsLament.pdf
Wrong organ. Although the mistake is understandable.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Some mathematicians, however, argue that maths aptitude is not born so much as made.
What about Srinivasa Ramanujan?
It's not average or even above intelligence they care about here. They are looking for the best.
Analogy: they are not looking for those who can merely run fast. They are looking for what makes the top sprinters the top sprinters.
Like it or not, there's at least some research that indicates I'm more likely to be right than wrong:
http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/8970941/sorry-but-intelligence-really-is-in-the-genes/
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2012/01/twins/miller-text
So for your claims that I'm wrong that most of it is born, I'd say show me some scientific evidence first. If most of intelligence is linked to genetics (based on research as mentioned) then arguably most of "math genius" is likely to be linked to genetics too.
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.
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
Except you bring zero evidence that cogitation has anything to do with your genetic inheritance in humans
Sure but there's existing evidence around: http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/8970941/sorry-but-intelligence-really-is-in-the-genes/
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2012/01/twins/miller-text
So given current scientific evidence regarding heritability and intelligence, I suggest that my claim that "most of it is born" with respect to mathematically geniuses is highly plausible.
Teaching is still very important just like coaches, training and practice are still very important for sprinters.
But the evidence is that geniuses are mostly born not made just like top sprinters are mostly born not made.
You can teach almost anyone to fight or do math or to run, but not all will be top fighters, math geniuses or world record sprinters.
And like it or not in many fields the top count more than the rest. Few care about the sprinter who finished 10th. Few care if you are the 10th to independently discover the Theory of Relativity (unless you do it when you are four or something ;) ).
But in other areas it's not so important, so people who aren't going to be the best in the "Star fields" may be better off in those other areas.
Have a look at the wiki : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environment_and_intelligence
It gives a good general overview.
The real reason I'm linking to it is it has a plethora of studies supporting my point and showing yours to be the less probable, or at the least less significant.
Again, genetics are a template....that's about it.
If you ignore ACs because they are anonymous - you're an idiot.
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.
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% ?
O, it's bound to fail, but not for only the mentioned reasons. Yes, it's largely development. But that's not all of it.
One thing is that different people are intelligent in different ways. Einstein was into a particular kind of visualization that just about nobody else has ever had any success with. The guy who dreamed a snake eating it's own tail, and developed it into a theory of the structure of the benzene ring used a different kind of visualization. Different problems are best tackled by different specialized solutions. And if the solution were commonly used, someone would have already solved it. Some people visualize stick figures in color. Some in monotone. Each is best for a certain range of problems. Some people juggle figures with virtual muscle twitches. And there are problems that that's best for. And this is just a VERY rough categorization.
P.S.: Note that while Einstein was a highly skilled mathematician, he was never able to accept quantum theory. He could do the math, but he couldn't fit it into his system of visualization. (He actually made some good contributions to it, but they were done in trying to disprove it. He would do the math, come to and answer he couldn't accept, and say "See, this proves quantum theory is wrong." Then someone would do the experiment and the prediction would be correct.)
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
I wouldn't focus just on those who make breakthroughs, but also on those who just find it 'easy' or 'fun'. There could be two things at work here. Mathematical capability, and creative capability. I suspect they would be othogonal, with the pairing being truly powerful, but this also makes finding any genetic factors more difficult. In fact, it would be wise to test people with a spectrum and variety of mathematical abilities, and see what patterns and commonalities emerge, and who has them that they didn't expect to.
Sure I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?
In fact, your "that's a fact" could be stated both more strongly and more generally. Thus:
Most people are inferior to experienced experts in every field of endeavor, however defined.
I'm not quite certain of the "however defined", but it was true for every example of a definition of a field that I could come up with. You do, however, need to accept "skill at playing the lottery" as either (or both) of "don't play the lottery" and "cheat", and certain other fields of endeavor require analogous definitions of expertise.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
In addition to talent and passion, Erdos had a secret weapon... amphetamines!!!
This sig is not paradoxical or ironic.
If that were the case, whales would be the smartest animals on the planet, not humans. The skull-size-equals-intelligence notion went out the window a while ago. Look at birds. Some of them can use tools and have ridiculous cognitive and language abilities, small brains. Size means nothing. In the immortal words of Yoda, "Judge me by my size do you? And well you should not!"
Skulls aren't organs, but the organ you alluded to is often called a bone.
Whales are dumb. They get shot by drunk Japanese sailors all the time. That reminds me of a joke...
A long time ago two whales were swimming in the ocean then on the horizon, they see a ship.
One whale says to the other, "Hey, those are the bastards that killed my mom. Let's go sink their ship!"
So the other whale agrees and they dive down under the ship and blow all their air out of their massive lungs through their blowholes, capsizing the boat and throwing all the sailors overboard.
Then the first whale exclaims "We've done it, now lets eat them!"
The other whale replies "Whoa! I don't mind giving a blowjob but I refuse to eat the Seamen."
Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
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
Actually, his specific issue with it may still be correct. There is no consensus the determinism has been refuted.
We don't know enough yet.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
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!
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!
I would agree there's some unknowable aspect that will always apply to the people who are pushing the boundaries of knowledge. But that's almost by definition - anyoen out at the edge is pushing the limits of the possible. In the meantime, bright highschoolers can learn General Relativity and the basics of quantum mechanics, so either intelligence is increasing massively through time (unlikely) or that it has more to do with teaching than innate talent.
[FUCK BETA]
As I mentioned in another post, in math (and many other fields) it's those who find new surprising and useful paths in the "jungle" that are real geniuses.
Once those paths are found, following them is easier. Even I might be able to follow them once they have been found, but I may never have found them on my own.
You can probably teach people to find new paths (and prove that they work). The focus seems to be mainly learning/memorizing the old paths - which can be useful - since you do need to use them in some fields, and also you do need to know the old ones so that you don't waste time re-finding them ;).
As I said those who find the new great paths first tend to count more than the 10th person who manages to find them independently. And those who can merely follow long established paths are useful but if that's all they can do they'd be more easily replaced by computers. Just being able to follow is overrated.