Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Why do people say Asian students are good at LG?

LSATakerLSATaker Free Trial Member
in General 250 karma
Is it because of math?
How is math related to LG? :(

Comments

  • Not Ralph NaderNot Ralph Nader Alum Member Inactive Sage Inactive ⭐
    2098 karma
    Because there is this guy, I cannot remember his name started with J I guess who solved each and everyone of the games with great explanation check him out he is on YouTube :)
  • LSATakerLSATaker Free Trial Member
    250 karma
    @"Not Ralph Nader"
    lol
    No, seriously...
    I wonder why people think Asian students are good at LG...a prof (Chinese professor) I met said no prob on LG, but...why he said so??
    I don't see any perticular math related problem...
  • Jonathan WangJonathan Wang Yearly Sage
    6866 karma
    LG really is just a dressed-up math problem because logic is just a branch of mathematics; just go look at any university course catalog for an abstract logic class and see what department it's classed under.

    As for why people say it - it's because people love making racist, heavily-stereotyped statements about Asian people.
  • LSATakerLSATaker Free Trial Member
    edited October 2016 250 karma
    @"Jonathan Wang"
    Actually, I saw it's under philosophy department...is this class helpful for LSAT logic?? :(

    Btw if it's math problem, shouldn't students focus on quality instead of quantity? After all hard questions are just combinations of easier questions...if it's math.
    I don't know this applies to LG cuz sounds like people are doing so many games to do well.
  • inactiveinactive Alum Member
    12637 karma
    @"Jonathan Wang" said:
    it's because people love making racist, heavily-stereotyped statements about Asian people.
    http://24.media.tumblr.com/07e8af495862d33646cdf071e06688fc/tumblr_mnyyiffbua1qlt87mo2_r3_500.gif
  • blah blahblah blah Alum Member
    edited October 2016 111 karma
    @LSATaker
    Actually, I saw it's under philosophy department...is this class helpful for LSAT logic?? :(

    Btw if it's math problem, shouldn't students focus on quality instead of quantity? After all hard questions are just combinations of easier questions...if it's math.
    I don't know this applies to LG cuz sounds like people are doing so many games to do well.
    To your original question, stereotypes that stem from racism. The suggestion isn't so much related to the nature of mathematics, but rather the idea that Asians, in virtue of being Asian, are good at doing things mechanically over and over again (i.e., good at the way in which many people get good at high-school math and logic games). My diagnostic was -0 in RC and -8 in LG, lol.

    Regarding your logic course being listed under the philosophy department, this is fine. Philosophy majors at my school are required to take a logic course in the philosophy department and it's cross-listed with math and comp sci. courses (so, math/comp. sci. majors take a logic class that's taught in the philosophy department.) Taking that course should be sufficient for the LSAT – and will likely go over and beyond what's needed. (Assuming it's a symbolic/propositional/first-order logic class, and not just here-are-some-fallacies course)
  • AlexAlex Alum Member
    edited October 2016 23929 karma
    @LSATaker said:
    Is it because of math?
    How is math related to LG? :(
    I've never heard anyone say "Asians are good at logic games." That would be a super-specific stereotypical comment, though.
    @LSATaker said:
    Actually, I saw it's under philosophy department...is this class helpful for LSAT logic?? :(

    Btw if it's math problem, shouldn't students focus on quality instead of quantity? After all hard questions are just combinations of easier questions...if it's math.
    I don't know this applies to LG cuz sounds like people are doing so many games to do well.
    I think the reason many people would recommend doing a great quantity of games is binary. First, there are so many different variations of games that the way to solve them efficiently is by recognizing game breaking inferences. And the only way to really develop these deductive reasoning skills is to see and solve many of the variations of games. The second reason is speed. You want to get really fast at these games. After all, the LSAT is a timed exam. So doing a lot of them is a great way to expose yourself to the many different variations of say grouping games while also working on your speed/inference making skills.

    Also, I don't think quality and quantity are necessarily mutual exclusive. I also think students should focus on quality. That is why the 7Sage fool proof method to a perfect score on LG instructs students to constantly redo problems until they can solve them under time, get a perfect score on, and feel like they "own the game." So quality review of the LG section is just as important.
  • Heart Shaped BoxHeart Shaped Box Alum Member
    edited October 2016 2426 karma
    I'm Asian (I think..?) lol but I was horrible at games. I still wouldn't claim I am good at them now, but a lot better than before. Though I do think having a mathematical/engineering background would help. My totally white buddy (non-Asian) who has a engineering degree is much MUCH more intuitive on those games. He wasn't even taking the LSAT, never seen any of them before, and I showed him some of the games (Miscellaneous ones) that were really hard for me (at the time), he was talking himself thru it while reading the stimulus/rules, and then he figured it out. He didn't solve it or anything, but he figured out the game board and told me how to diagram it, which is exactly the same reasoning as in JY's explanation. Now, he was a little slower than LSAT required timing, and probably will make small errors on details if he were to go in all the way solving them. But then again, he wasn't trained to do this at all and has never seen LSAT before. So you can only imagine for ppl like him with proper training and some practice, he'll master games in no time.

    But he did suck at reading. I showed him a passage, he read like 3 lines and goes "fu$k it" lol

    My point is, I don't think it's simply a matter of race but one's strong point in academic background. If you are a engineering major, you "might" be more intuitive on sections like LG, if you are a history major, reading comp "may be" your thing. For someone like me who is good at nothing (still Asian), I just have to work my ass off extra hard to compensate for the shortage of those natural talents. lol
  • LSATakerLSATaker Free Trial Member
    250 karma
    Ahh thanks for your answers guys, didn't expect I will get this many replies so glad :)
    I'm not that good at math neither actually so seems like I'll just have to work hard...
  • dennisgerrarddennisgerrard Member
    1644 karma
    Answer: Stereotype.

    As an Asian(Chinese), I'm good at math but not at LG initially. LG requires accuracy and consistency .
  • nessa.k13.0nessa.k13.0 Inactive ⭐
    4141 karma
    LOL @"Not Ralph Nader"

    Yeah, Jonathan said it best:
    @"Jonathan Wang" said:
    because people love making racist, heavily-stereotyped statements about Asian people.

    Friends don't let friends spread ignorance. Definitely pass this^ along to whomever is telling you that.

    image
  • nantesorkestarnantesorkestar Alum Member
    431 karma
    I don't know. I'm Jewish and pretty decent at LG. Maybe I'm Asian too?


    Probably not.
  • AlejandroAlejandro Member Inactive ⭐
    edited October 2016 2424 karma
    @"Jonathan Wang" I get your point, but isn't logic a branch of philosophy?
  • tomiwa.botomiwa.bo Free Trial Member
    37 karma
    @LSATaker Hey! I actually took a logic course with my school's philosophy department. The material is mostly irrelevant to LG. I'd advise consultation with the professor before enrollment.
  • LSATakerLSATaker Free Trial Member
    edited October 2016 250 karma
    @tomiwa.bo Oh...thanks, I'll talk with my prof then :)

    And thanks for the additional comments!
  • Cant Get RightCant Get Right Yearly + Live Member Sage 🍌 7Sage Tutor
    27809 karma
    @Alejandro said:
    isn't logic a branch of philosophy?
    I think they definitely overlap. Philosophy in spirit, math in practice.
  • blah blahblah blah Alum Member
    edited October 2016 111 karma
    @"Cant Get Right" said:
    @Alejandro said:
    isn't logic a branch of philosophy?
    I think they definitely overlap. Philosophy in spirit, math in practice.


    They do overlap (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-classical/#1), though the suggestion that logic is math in practice is misleading. There's just many different types of logic, some of which that do not have any application in math (http://plato.stanford.edu/search/searcher.py?query=logic). It also can't be taken for granted that math is logic (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/philosophy-mathematics/#Log)
  • quinnxzhangquinnxzhang Member
    edited October 2016 611 karma
    @"Jonathan Wang" said:
    logic is just a branch of mathematics
    Oh man, don't tell the mathematicians this.

    There's a somewhat famous story about Paul Cohen (mathematician) looking down on logicians and trivializing their work. In response, some logicians challenged him to answer one of the unsolved problems of logic at the time: is the continuum hypothesis independent of ZFC? To their dismay, Cohen took their challenge and proved that the continuum hypothesis was indeed independent of ZFC, developing a completely novel (and now widely used) technique called forcing in the process!

    In any case, I think this discussion about whether logic is more math or philosophy is pretty irrelevant to the original question because LSAT logic games have little to do with the academic study of logic in the first place. Rather, the kind of precise, rigorous thinking involved in solving LGs is similar to the kind of thinking involved in studying logic/math/CS/related fields.
  • blah blahblah blah Alum Member
    111 karma
    @quinnxzhang said:
    In any case, I think this discussion about whether logic is more math or philosophy is pretty irrelevant to the original question because LSAT logic games have little to do with the academic study of logic in the first place. Rather, the kind of precise, rigorous thinking involved in solving LGs is similar to the kind of thinking involved in studying logic/math/CS/related fields.
    The distinction is definitely irrelevant for the LSAT, though conditional/in-out games will likely be easier if you have taken a class on first-order logic (e.g., I didn't have to go through any of the logic related lessons in the syllabus and, while I was terrible at most logic games, I found any game involving conditionals to be straightforward). To be more precise, the disconnect between the a basic logic class in college and the LSAT logic games is that for the latter, you have to be writing and making inferences quickly and efficiently – things that are a bit superficial in the former.
  • Jonathan WangJonathan Wang Yearly Sage
    edited October 2016 6866 karma
    @quinnxzhang said:
    There's a somewhat famous story about Paul Cohen (mathematician) looking down on logicians and trivializing their work. In response, some logicians challenged him to answer one of the unsolved problems of logic at the time: is the continuum hypothesis independent of ZFC? To their dismay, Cohen took their challenge and proved that the continuum hypothesis was indeed independent of ZFC, developing a completely novel (and now widely used) technique called forcing in the process!

    Eek. Yeah, might not want to stir that hornet's nest. I might get intellect-shamed to death :D

    Agree generally that the distinction is mostly irrelevant for the LSAT. I think the comment about the analytical thought process is much more spot on than just a flat "philosophy or math" categorization.

    But really, I think I posted mostly so I could get some snark in here about how Asian people are constantly stereotyped, and nobody seems to notice. Chris Rock made an Asian sweatshop joke at the Oscars this year (which was supposed to be a protest against the lack of diversity in Hollywood, for those who don't remember), and then followed it up with a joke about Asian kids being accountants. For christ's sake, man.
  • Cant Get RightCant Get Right Yearly + Live Member Sage 🍌 7Sage Tutor
    edited October 2016 27809 karma
    @"Jonathan Wang" said:
    Chris Rock made an Asian sweatshop joke at the Oscars this year (which was supposed to be a protest against the lack of diversity in Hollywood, for those who don't remember), and then followed it up with a joke about Asian kids being accountants. For christ's sake, man.
    Yeah, that was really bad. Race can be a legitimate object of comedy, but it really depends on how it's dealt with and what the underlying meaning of a joke is. If it doesn't have any meaning deeper than throwing around a racist stereotype, then it's kind of just a racist stereotype. Chris Rock really fucked up with that one. It's interesting that some racism is considered more or less in/appropriate depending on the group in question.
  • nessa.k13.0nessa.k13.0 Inactive ⭐
    edited October 2016 4141 karma
    Yeah, that Chris Rock Oscars joke left a bad taste in my mouth. He completely failed to address the issue of representation on the big screen in a meaningful way. Racism towards Asians is definitely an issue that is overlooked. It sucks that it is excused because some people think it is a complement.
    @"Cant Get Right" said:
    It's interesting that some racism is considered more or less in/appropriate depending on the group in question.
    Yeah I think that's unfortunate for the general public that this is the rub. Some comedians have provided pretty hilarious and insightful comedy about race and how it differs/what is excused in America. Aziz Ansari, Trevor Noah, Ronny Chieng, and Jessica Williams have some great pieces on race.
Sign In or Register to comment.