3 ms·

I'll take a shot at this (your bait). For context have an undergrad in Math, my parents are mathematicians and theoretical computer scientist. Read quite a fe

I'll take a shot at this (your bait). For context have an undergrad in Math, my parents are mathematicians and theoretical computer scientist. Read quite a few biographies on famous mathematicians, and one salient inescapable conclusion is that the most prominent mathematicians tend to be European or American, and very rarely Asian (chinese, Korea or Japan). There are of course exceptions, but few. The top mathematicians are not Asian, just a fact. And yet, the majority of IMO gold winners are, not sure how to explain the discrepancy, but the most likely conclusion is that solving Olympiad math questions has very little correlation with with doing creative mathematics.

dsacco 10y ago
How many biographies did you read, and whose, by whom? It would be nice to see data in this conversation.
chillacy 10y ago
> The top mathematicians are not Asian, just a fact Alright I'll bite as well. Though I don't think the OP's conclusion is correct, I also don't think the lack of prominent asian mathematicians is entirely indicative of ability or creativity, but rather largely caused by the availability bias of English speakers and our current vantage point in history. First: availability bias. We're reading English books and working within an education system born out of Europe. Asian history has been full of interesting wars, rulers, artists, politics, etc for thousands of years, but few in America will ever learn anything except for where it relates to America / Europe. Much of the information about Asian history will be in another language as well. Second: Recent history. Knowledge-creators in other countries are playing a game they are disadvantaged in, having to first learn English, then travel abroad for the best universities, etc. (Imagine if you had to learn Japanese and travel to Japan to go to get a decent higher education!) The reason of course is that 1500s and onwards (post-renaissance), most of the knowledge generation was happening in Europe. But that wasn't always the case: if we look a thousand years prior, or 2 thousand years prior, knowledge was being generated by Greek, Arab, or Chinese mathematicians. For instance, the concept of 0 arrived to Europe pretty late: http://www.livescience.com/27853-who-invented-zero.html http://www.livescience.com/27853-who-invented-zero.html So circling back to the original question of the importance of genetics vs environment: That the world's patches of knowledge has shifted across different cultures, peoples, and places over the last maybe 8 thousand years to me doesn't imply such a large importance on inherent genetic ability, and that time frame is too short for any evolutionary changes. Culture seems to be a much larger factor (and this is where I will concede that asian culture can stifle creativity). Culture is the main difference between the heads down religious conviction of the 9th century in Europe and the renaissance, not genetics.
- jernfrost 10y ago
  I also don't believe there is a genetic difference, however I think there is a clear cultural difference which favors westerners. Asian culture with its emphasis on harmony and respect for the elders does not IMHO foster radical innovation. A key problem for China is that it is united. This stifles competition in ideas of how to organize society. Europe has benefited tremendously from being divided. That has prevented Europe from stagnating the way China did for hundreds of years. One stupid ruler can bring down all of China. One stupid European leader can't bring down the whole of Europe. It is also false to consider Europe being a laggard in earlier times just because it was behind in maths and higher learning. One tends to think the Roman empire was so superior due to its progress in the arts and sciences. However medieval Europe saw far more progress in e.g. machinery and labour saving devices. Windmills, waterwheels, better plows etc was developed in this period. In the short term the unit of China reaped a lot of benefits in the form of having much more peace. Europe suffered many setbacks due to the frequency of wars. But in the long run this proved a benefit. The fierce competitive nature of westerners could not be countered by harmony focused asian cultures.
  - chillacy 10y ago
    Yes, competition tends to be bad for most individuals (who lose) but good for society. China of course started taking off recently too after capitalist reforms in the 80s. The US, arguably one of the most "pull-yourself-up-from-your-bootstraps" of nations has done pretty well, despite lack of social programs. And back to Europe, I do think it was held back due to the forced conformity to the Church (IMO Christianity held back European science for hundreds of years). So yes, culture is a very big current as far as steering people!
nl 10y ago
The top mathematicians are not Asian, just a fact. Those who awarded the Fields medal to Terrance Tao, Ngô Bảo Châu and Manjul Bhargava may disagree.

dsacco 10y ago

How many biographies did you read, and whose, by whom? It would be nice to see data in this conversation.

chillacy 10y ago

> The top mathematicians are not Asian, just a fact Alright I'll bite as well. Though I don't think the OP's conclusion is correct, I also don't think the lack of prominent asian mathematicians is entirely indicative of ability or creativity, but rather largely caused by the availability bias of English speakers and our current vantage point in history. First: availability bias. We're reading English books and working within an education system born out of Europe. Asian history has been full of interesting wars, rulers, artists, politics, etc for thousands of years, but few in America will ever learn anything except for where it relates to America / Europe. Much of the information about Asian history will be in another language as well. Second: Recent history. Knowledge-creators in other countries are playing a game they are disadvantaged in, having to first learn English, then travel abroad for the best universities, etc. (Imagine if you had to learn Japanese and travel to Japan to go to get a decent higher education!) The reason of course is that 1500s and onwards (post-renaissance), most of the knowledge generation was happening in Europe. But that wasn't always the case: if we look a thousand years prior, or 2 thousand years prior, knowledge was being generated by Greek, Arab, or Chinese mathematicians. For instance, the concept of 0 arrived to Europe pretty late: http://www.livescience.com/27853-who-invented-zero.html http://www.livescience.com/27853-who-invented-zero.html So circling back to the original question of the importance of genetics vs environment: That the world's patches of knowledge has shifted across different cultures, peoples, and places over the last maybe 8 thousand years to me doesn't imply such a large importance on inherent genetic ability, and that time frame is too short for any evolutionary changes. Culture seems to be a much larger factor (and this is where I will concede that asian culture can stifle creativity). Culture is the main difference between the heads down religious conviction of the 9th century in Europe and the renaissance, not genetics.

jernfrost 10y ago
I also don't believe there is a genetic difference, however I think there is a clear cultural difference which favors westerners. Asian culture with its emphasis on harmony and respect for the elders does not IMHO foster radical innovation. A key problem for China is that it is united. This stifles competition in ideas of how to organize society. Europe has benefited tremendously from being divided. That has prevented Europe from stagnating the way China did for hundreds of years. One stupid ruler can bring down all of China. One stupid European leader can't bring down the whole of Europe. It is also false to consider Europe being a laggard in earlier times just because it was behind in maths and higher learning. One tends to think the Roman empire was so superior due to its progress in the arts and sciences. However medieval Europe saw far more progress in e.g. machinery and labour saving devices. Windmills, waterwheels, better plows etc was developed in this period. In the short term the unit of China reaped a lot of benefits in the form of having much more peace. Europe suffered many setbacks due to the frequency of wars. But in the long run this proved a benefit. The fierce competitive nature of westerners could not be countered by harmony focused asian cultures.
- chillacy 10y ago
  Yes, competition tends to be bad for most individuals (who lose) but good for society. China of course started taking off recently too after capitalist reforms in the 80s. The US, arguably one of the most "pull-yourself-up-from-your-bootstraps" of nations has done pretty well, despite lack of social programs. And back to Europe, I do think it was held back due to the forced conformity to the Church (IMO Christianity held back European science for hundreds of years). So yes, culture is a very big current as far as steering people!

nl 10y ago

The top mathematicians are not Asian, just a fact. Those who awarded the Fields medal to Terrance Tao, Ngô Bảo Châu and Manjul Bhargava may disagree.