You could just as easily turn that around, though and say that Asians have better systems for numbers because they are inherently more gifted at numerical manipulation. But either way, winning the IMO has very little to do with calculation ability anyway.
Why assume that it's necessarily a one-way relationship? Real life is full of these positive feedback loops. A slight innate mathematical advantage leads to a slightly better system which leads to mathematics being slightly more valuable, prompting a higher valuation on mathematical ability in one's potential spouse.
Sorry I didn't mean to imply that my explanation was the correct one. I was simply pointing out that there are alternatives to Gladwell's that are equally consistent with the facts he presents.
If forced to choose, i'd probably pick the feedback loop theory as well though.
Seems like I should clarify... It may be that Asians are just better at math — “inherently” as you say. Ok, maybe.
It also seems possible that there are certain aspects of language and culture that support math achievement. Gladwell, in _Outliers_ is after this category of explanation.
Personally, I tend to like cultural explanations more than raw talent explanations because I like to think that everyone is capable of everything (eventually, if they work hard enough). I certainly like to act like everyone is capable of everything and it helps to have supporting theories.
Gladwell’s theory goes something like this: First, the counting systems tend to be more consistent, less idiosyncratic. This means kids learn them better earlier and build confidence early. This early start builds on itself — a point he comes back to over and over in his book. Second, the numbers tend to be faster to say. This means you can remember more digits — quite a few more. This has the same impact on confidence. Third — and this is his main deal — rice farming yields to careful, persistent effort much like a math problem. This is less true of western farming. All the western farming sayings go something like “there’s no accounting for the weather. sometimes your just eff’d!”. All the Asian sayings go something like “work hard and your family will prosper for generations.” He says this gives Asians a leg up in math because math yields to the same kind of persistent effort.
Also — someone below diss’d on Gladwell calling him a “pop” psychologist. I don't think he is not a psychologist, though I guess he is pretty pop. Still, what he does, while researched, is not science, that’s for sure.
I think explanations like Gladwell's are valuable even if they are not true because they at least show us how nuanced and twisty the truth might be. That keeps us looking for explanations that are maybe not so simple. That's good because as a species we're stupid enough without the crippling detriment of thinking we already understand what we do not.
Ya, I don't mean to say that he's wrong. Simply that he is cherry picking a narrative around his facts and presenting it as though the facts prove the narrative without really mentioning that there are other narratives that are also consistent with those facts.
This is not a very nice way to formulate your objection, but I have to agree. Believing things because you'd like them to be true is a terrible way of trying to get at the truth, and the arguments for that position are the most contorted I've seen in a while.
If a language's number system had this kind of relevance it would be expected that french and German people would have a lower representation in the math community.
That is definitely not the case.
EDIT: instead of french and german people, I should have said people whose native language is French or German.
