Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Root of Maths Genius Sought

Posted by Unknown on from the army-of-cloned-math-nerds-not-very-terrifying dept.

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."

6 of 251 comments (clear)

  1. First Step = ID the smarter people by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Second step, treat them differently.

    1. Re:First Step = ID the smarter people by disposable60 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      As long as you keep watching the less-developed minds for signs of the lights coming on later than average. Not all people develop according to schedule, and some late bloomers come on strong.

      I know somone's going to say something about so few people accomplishing anything monumental after age 25 that you don't need to bother, but one should notice how few people accomplish anything at all BEFORE they turn 25.

      --
      You're looking for quotes? See my journal.
    2. Re:First Step = ID the smarter people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Great fucking science, folks.

      Isn't that what genetics is all about? Mating?

    3. Re:First Step = ID the smarter people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No, Eugenics is about forcing people with desirable traits to breed, and preventing people with undesirable traits from reproducing. It has nothing to do with the development of people already born, other than picking through them to find the best breeding stock.

      not create programs to identify what genetic traits lead to people being great at any particular thing because that's a slippery slope.

      No, it's not. Your argument amounts to "someone might do something dastardly with the data, so we should remain ignorant". It's not any different than research into what makes someone physically stronger or more resilient to disease. Since you want to rely on ultimate worst-case scenarios without any possibility of a middle ground (aka the slippery slope fallacy) then using your logic we should immediately halt all biological research.

  2. Re:Most of it is born by LordNacho · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  3. No such thing as "math person" (the Atlantic) by retroworks · · Score: 5, Informative

    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