The Genetics of Mathematics

Behold the feats of 27-year old Frenchman Alexis Lemaire, who just accurately calculated the 13th root of a random 200 -digit number. I was alerted to this achievement by my Uncle Stan, who feels that it must be proof of a genetic gift since this ability could not be learned or taught.

My (admittedly incomplete) reply to Stan:

***
Stan,

First, you need to back away from your argument about genetics, because genes don't work that way. It's entirely understandable that you think they do. I did too. For a century, we've all been taught that genes contain information and programming for how our minds and bodies are supposed to develop. This is wrong. Genes don't contain such intricate plans. I know this sounds preposterous, but it's true, and I will demonstrate it to you in the opening chapters of my book. I'm as shocked by this stuff as everyone else will be, and it does require a very strange reorientation of some rock-solid beliefs.

Second, you are illustrating a false choice: either this man's problem-solving ability is innate (genetic) or it is learned/taught. The missing option there is that it is *developed* -- developed from the first moment of conception to the very moment of his latest calculation; developed from an incalculable number of dynamic interactions between genes, hormones, nutrients, thoughts, emotions, actions, movements, curiosities, and so on. Putting all of this into a development paradigm fits two important truths:

A. Genes are not directors. They are actors, along with other equally important actors. It is an ensemble, and the product created is only possible as a result of that ensemble. A trumpet player does not make jazz on his own. He needs to interact with the other players. Human development is a jazz improvisation. It follows certain rules, but the outcome develops from the interaction.

B. "Development" does not imply that everything is under our control, or ever will be. If we say that anything can be taught/learned, we imply that we have near-100% control over the process. We don't. We don't control which gene actors are inside each developing fetus, nor do we control how many trees are growing in the front yard. Nor do we control the content of the water that the mother is drinking. Nor do we control all the cultural messages the baby comes into contact with. What we can do, though, is learn more about all these variables, and perhaps gain a little bit more control over some of them. It's not a guaranteed recipe to create exactly the individual capabilities we desire, but it is a plan to nudge all of humanity in the right direction.

David

Comments

[Tim Dellinger]

Hi there.
I was really happy to see you say "It's not a guaranteed recipe to create exactly the individual capabilities we desire, but it is a plan to nudge all of humanity in the right direction."
It's really interesting to watch you approach the subject of the book from so many different angles and to watch your understanding of the subject mature. I was a little worried in January 2007 when you were reading through the "deliberate practice" literature and posting things like "The IT -- the greatness -- is something you acquire, not something you are given or are not given" and "Talent is not a gift, but a process".

My view is that one's early environment (chemistry in the womb, parents singing you songs as a baby, etc.) is, in fact, a gift that they give you.
It's that gift that shapes you.

It seems that you might be softening your stance on what (to me) seems like a provocative title: The Genius in All of Us, which (to me) implies that we could all be geniuses if we put in hours of deliberate practice.

It's interesting that the brain (in many ways) and the muscles (even the ratio of fast twitch to slow twitch muscles!) are malleable, but my gut feeling has always been that they're not infinitely malleable and that we can't all be geniuses.

I'd also be interested in seeing information on non-geniuses... e.g. children of famous musicians, athletes, artists, etc. where were absolutely inundated with the subject matter and encouraged at every step of their lives, but just didn't have the mojo and were mediocre at best.

Thanks for giving the author-blog format a shot... I enjoy it.

Tim Dellinger

[Bob]

Tim,
I think one of the more difficult things about researching exceptional achievement is a survivor bias. To understand genius we start by examining geniuses. We look for what it is that made them special (deliberate practice, for example). But what's tough to do is to find all the people out there who spent as much time as the geniuses, who put in the hours of dedicated practice, who had the passion, but who did not rise above the rest of the pack. Who are those people? How many of them are there? Where do you go to study them?

This reminds me of the recent books on the characteristics of millionaires. Millionaires get rich by starting their own companies or buying and holding stocks, for example. But how many people start companies and buy and hold stocks but don't become millionaires?

I'm eager to read David's book when it comes out to see how he handles these issues.

Bob Bateman

[Eric]

An assumption here is that taking the 13-th root of a 200 digit number is difficult. It isn't. Rather, this is a problem designed to sound much harder than it actually is.

To illustrate this, I'll train you to take the 13th root of a random *26*-digit number IN YOUR HEAD! No kidding! That would be the 13th root of a number like:

58,820,136,703,657,666,922,151,936

No way, right?! Maybe with months of rigorous practice in some clifftop monastary?

Don't get stressed out. Here's the whole training program:

* Write down the last digit of the original number.

* Write an 8 to the left if the two leading digits of the original number are less than 24. Otherwise, write a 9 to the left.

That's it. Let's apply this method to the example. The last digit of the original number is 6, so you write that down:

6

At this point, you might want to take a mental break-- get a coffee or something. You're halfway through the calculation and may want to marshal your energies for the brutal second half.

Onward. The two leading digits of the original number were 58, which is greater than 24, so you write down a 9 to the left:

96

Whew-- Wipe that sweat from your fevered brow! Let's verify the answer with a computer. Notice that the numbers involved are so big that even a cutting-edge 64-bit computer can't carry out this multiplication as a primitive operation!

96 * 96 * 96 * 96 * 96 * 96 * 96 * 96 * 96 * 96 * 96 * 96 * 96 = 58,820,136,703,657,666,922,151,936

YOU WERE CORRECT! You must be a sooooper-genius!

Now, seriously, the challenge must certainly be greater with 200 digit numbers, but point is that this problem is FAR easier than it sounds. People who can solve this problem quickly are not geniuses, they're tricksters.