(Art by トキキ)1
Mindset dictates fate—thinking that something is impossible staples the extrapolation of an idea or future. “There is no point in trying,” proclaims a defeatist to a determined optimist. Conversely, believing that something is possible, it might as well be possible. “We are not at the limits of physics,” retorts the determined optimist. Mindset dictates either or. And because the mind oscillates between impossible and possible, one could reason that mindset is not etched into bones but is gathered and controlled by one’s fortitude. A powerful concept, indeed, this ability to change one’s mind. But even that powerful concept authors its own demise, sowing doubt and cowardice, preventing one from going further into an idea. Where mindset falters, natural talent—genetic talent—reigns with seemingly infinite fuel, resisting the whims of self-deception and the volatility of motivation. After all, genetic talent is innate, like a rekindling candle whose embers refuse to extinguish against the harshest winds.
Before I start, I am not a geneticist, nor am I a professor at a university or an analyst for a think tank or a researcher for a lab. Much of my writings are observations, and some ideas are picked up from books. I understand that many advanced writings—which my writings are not—must be supplied with empirical evidence backing the claims provided. But my piece of writing rests upon possible inferences—which may or may not be true—stemming from possible conclusions not supplied by academic papers. I write this as a means of exercising my ability to think. And also because it is fun to think about cause-and-effects that may or may not be true, akin to a gambler studying the mechanics of a game to better his own odds against the house, where the gambler has one bet to make before going bust.
In some sense, genes are the opposite of mindset. Where mindset could change on a whim, genes are like a boulder that cannot-yet-be moved (the technology would eventually exist, but not now). That is to say that mindset is malleable but genes are here to stay; one could go for several decades with the same mindset—but genes are there on the deathbed. If I were to take a bet on an athlete who has a strong mindset versus an athlete with inborn talent, ceterus paribus, I am the man who bets for genes. For athletes had practiced with their genes since birth. Where an athlete has to be enamored with a subject at a certain age, probably at around ten (when parents tell their children to do things on their own invocation), the athlete with talented genes already has been from the start. The compounding effects of decisions began with genes long before they began with mindset.
That is not to say that all practice or mindset is worthless or that genes are the only thing that dictates winners from losers to suckers. What I am saying is that genes play a role in situations that invoke those particular genes in the first place, like how people with longer arms are probably—but not always—faster swimmers or how people with longer legs are probably—but not always—faster runners.
A Guess on China and India
Let me give you a thought experiment using two great countries: China and India. In some sense, both countries have some genetic influence based on their respective cultures. In China, The Tang dynasty, roughly around 600-900 CE, used some form of meritocratic approaches for their government officials, emphasizing Confucianism, Legalism, Chinese literature, military strategy, and more. Only the best became government officials. Here, you start to see how exams filtered people in or out of government. But one interesting conjecture are about the families that made it through the exam. For instance, families that had passed the exam likely have an increased probability of marrying into other families that had also passed the exam. That may contribute—may even evolve or reinforce—the set of genes that might have been necessary to pass the exam, such as genes give an edge towards reading, writing, memory, creativity, persuasion, and other characteristics. Would that mean, over time, in the future, new generations of government officials better fit those exam categories? In this thought experiment, I think so.
In India, they used the caste system. The caste system grew around the Vedic period, roughly between 1500 BCE and 1000 BCE. The caste system at the time emphasized Brahmins (priests), Kshatriyas (warriors), Vaishyas (merchants), and Shudras (laborers). From here, you could also start to see some sort of genetic filtering in India. As Brahmins married Brahmins, Kshatriyas married Kshatriyas, is it reasonable to say that these newer generations of Brahmins and Kshatriyas either have genes that evolved or reinforced the genes that composed Brahmins and Kshatriyas in general? In this thought experiment, I think so.
Now, I am not saying that these genetic influences absolutely determine fate. But I am saying that there is a possible influence, however slight, in genes evolving or re-enforcing themselves to better fit their respective environments. What I am saying is that there is a possible cause-and-effect correlation here, although slight. And that we probably should consider genes in the equation of cities.
Some Thought Experiments
Here is a simple thought experiment: farmers selectively bred their crops and animals to increase their odds of higher yields. In horse racing, people selectively bred their horses, emphasizing speed and endurance. Regarding cows, I would not be surprised if farmers emphasized breeding cows that gave more milk and lived longer to conceive calves that much more. Here, one could see the effects of keeping and breeding the best crops and animals for as long as possible. A lucky person could breed something impressive, and maintain that lineage for as long as possible. A real-life example would be the person elementary students had learned during their first experiments of growing plants: Gregor Mendel, who discovered the basic foundations of genetic inheritance. Just as Isaac Newton once remarked along the lines of standing on the shoulders of giants, so too do the farmers and their crops and animals, and I suspect cities.
Now, taking in those thought experiments, we could probably say the same thing happens within a city, but indirectly—with some incidental market-based approach among people. Consider the top educational institutions in the US—places like Harvard, MIT, Stanford, and among others. There is a filtering effect: not all students can enter tutelage under these institutions. Harvard, for instance, has an acceptance rate of roughly 2%-4% among 2016-2028 classes2 and has been continually getting much more difficult to be accepted as the decades go on, as the acceptance rate in 1981 was 15.5%3. Harvard expects its students (though not all) to score at roughly the top 1-2% of the SAT and practically a perfect score on the ACT4.
As for the students that do enter these top institutions, they learn with students of similar or higher caliber. These students form networks and new friendships. Eventually—and this is what I find interesting—is that these students, during schooling or graduation, start families with one another. That is to say, generally—be it Harvard, MIT, Stanford or among others—people marry people who come from similar institutions.
Just as in the thought experiments, the genes that best fit the requirements of entering these institutions begin marrying one another, either evolving or reinforcing those particular genes. So, is it reasonable to suppose that a father with an MIT degree and a mother with a Stanford degree will have children capable of exceeding their parents in entering similar educational institutions? I think so.
The same logic, as displayed by the thought experiments and by what I (attempted) to deduce from educational institutions, also applies to top businesses like Google, Microsoft, and Apple. For instance, if someone has not yet been married when they begin their employment at a top business, once they start earning income, is it reasonable for such people to marry other people who work for similar top businesses? I think so.
That is all to say that people assort themselves through the decades: people go to educational institutions at their own level, work at businesses at their own level, and marry at their own level. But I am pointing towards the new generations of people conceived from this natural, self-choosing assortment. Over time, it is reasonable to see the beginnings of genetic talent. In even longer time scales, we might see a city’s self-sustaining growth of genetic talent.
Genetic talent is important because some things cannot be taught. For instance, you cannot teach someone to be taller. If we could teach people to be Einstein-level geniuses, why have we not? That is not to say we should not attempt. But we should try many different things to get Einsteins, even if it calls forth brewing genetic talent in cities.
An interesting possible effect of having an abundance of genetic talent is that a city is a more interesting place to live relative to other areas, barring geographical differences, historical origins, and cultural roots. For instance, in a city brimming with genetic talent, people could watch superstars in sports compete with one another at the superhuman level; listen to new and interesting sounds from musicians not previously tested; devour interesting combinations of cultural foods from chiefs drawing upon the strength of all the different cultures; read new forms of literature from writers imperceptible to what we know today. The city would be dynamic when talent coalesces with other talent.
(TO BE CONTINUED)
Footnotes
- https://www.pixiv.net/en/artworks/107046087 ↩︎
- https://toptieradmissions.com/resources/college-acceptance-rates/harvard-university-acceptance-rates/ ↩︎
- https://www.thecrimson.com/article/1981/1/8/college-admission-is-easier-but-harvard/ ↩︎
- https://www.prepscholar.com/sat/s/colleges/Harvard-sat-scores-GPA ↩︎