Merged Book: "Why Everything You've Been Told about Genetics, Talent and IQ is Wrong"

[Kuko 4000]

Book: "Why Everything You've Been Told about Genetics, Talent and IQ is Wrong"

I've wanted to start this thread for some time now, I bumped into this thread about epigenetics earlier today and decided that now's a good time for this.

The name of David Shenk's book is:

The Genius in All of Us: Why Everything You've Been Told about Genetics, Talent and IQ is Wrong

The book is aimed at the general public, I consider it as a scientific try at a "self help" or "inspirational / motivational" book, and in many ways it seems to succeed. I first heard about it from the following episode of Skeptically Speaking, take a listen here:

http://skepticallyspeaking.ca/episodes/54-the-genius-in-all-of-us

I have to say that the title of the book raised pretty much every red flag in me that I can think of. Still, the interview was very interesting and inspiring so I bought the book. I'm glad that I did, it's an inspiring book with very interesting studies and stories, it's a genuine page turner. David Shenk does not pretend to be an expert in this field, but he is a professional writer, he's clear, understandable and inspiring. As far as I can tell, he uses credible sources for the points that he wants to get across (sources, notes and more careful clarifications take up about 150 pages of the book's end), Patrick Bateson seems to be his go-to-guy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Bateson

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Shenk

One of the points of his book is not that we can all be geniuses, but that we don't know what our limits are until we really test them. And by testing he means rigorous training over many years in good environment, and in many cases, rigorous training from the very beginning of our lives. He repeatedly stresses the importance of the environment. He gives examples of Beethoven and Mozart and other highly skilled people that are called child prodigies or geniuses, and how pivotal a role a certain kind of environment played in developing their extraordinary skills.

His main point is that genes do matter, a lot, but to the end result, the environment matters even more. I don't think this is controversial at all, but he thinks that to the general public this message is not clear enough (I agree, and this is why the message is very important):

"Today, talk of giftedness still pervades our language, even among scientists who should know better. It trancends age, class, geography, and religion.

Why? Because we rely on the myth. A belief in inborn gifts and limits is much gentler on the psyche: The reason you aren't a great opera singer is because you can't be one. That's simply the way you were wired. Thinking of talent as innate makes our world more manageable, more comfortable. It relieves a person of the burden of expectation. It also relieves us of distressing comparisons. If Tiger Woods is innately great, we can feel casually jealous of his genetic luck while avoiding disappointment in ourselves. If, on the other hand, each one of us truly believed ourselves capable of Tiger-like achievement, the burden of expectation and disappointment could be profound. Did I blow my chance to be a brilliant tennis player? What could I have to do right now to become a great painter? In the GxE world, these are not only difficult questions to answer, they can be painful to ask."

GxE (Gene–environment interaction):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene–environment_interaction

Gene–environment interaction (or genotype–environment interaction or GxE) is the phenotypic effect of interactions between genes and the environment.

I have to say that the main message of this book (the importance of the environment when it comes to the end result) resonates greatly to my own life. I was a top level international athlete in my youth (up to age 18-19, which is when I stopped everything while still being at the top level and never went back), but did not have the guidance required to really understand what is happening around me and in my life, I've started to understand this piece by piece during the years. Since then I've seen many (about 15) friends of that era make it as top level international athletes (many of them "less talented" than I was), and many more as national level athletes, while I'm watching them from TV every week, sometimes with a bit awkward feelings.

I've now read about half of the book, and it's definitely the first book I'll pick up and finish as soon as I have enough time for that. Has anyone else read it? What do you think? If the overall science passes the test this will be a great book for parents and people who work with young kids, and to many people of all ages who are afraid of starting a new hobby because they fear that they will make mistakes or are bad at it.

Couple of good examples from the first half of the book:

One common characteristic in all successful adults is that, at some point in their lives, they come to realise how much the process of improvement is within their own control. That's also what Stanford psychologist Carol Dweck observed in a series of grade-school studies in the 1990's. In her central experiment, Dweck (who was then at Columbia) asked four hundred seventh graders (age 13-14) to complete a relatively easy set of puzzles and then randomly separated them into two groups. Individually, each student in the first group was complimented for his or her innate intelligence with the line, "You must be smart at this!"

Each student in the second group was praised for his or her effort: "You must have worked really hard!"

Then each child was offered a chance to take one of two follow-up tests: either another easy set of puzzles or a much harder set of puzzles that teachers promised would be a great learning experience.

The results:

More than half of the kids praised for their inborn intelligence chose the easy follow-up puzzle.

A staggering 90 percent of the kids praised for their hard work chose the more difficult puzzles.

An example given early on in the book, quote from Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene–environment_interaction

A classic example of gene–environment interaction is Tryon's artificial selection experiment on maze-running ability in rats.[2][3] Tryon produced a remarkable difference in maze running ability in two selected lines after seven generations of selecting "bright" and "dull" lines by breeding the best and worst maze running rats with others of similar abilities. The difference between these lines was clearly genetic since offspring of the two lines, raised under identical typical lab conditions, performed too differently. This difference disappeared in a single generation, if those rats were raised in an enriched environment with more objects to explore and more social interaction.[4] This result shows that maze running ability is the product of a gene-by-environment interaction; the genetic effect is only seen under some environmental conditions.

Other interesting things, off the top of my head, paraphrasing:

The development of "perfect pitch" is available to pretty much everyone, depending on the kind of environment you have as a baby and a growing child.

Michael Jordan did not qualify to his school's basketball team when he was 16. With very strong determination and extraordinary will to challenge himself day after day, he became one of the best players in the history of NBA.


Videos:

An hour long talk:



A talk with the New York City Skeptics:

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/293069-1

Whether you enjoyed his talk or disagreed with it, CSPAN’s Book TV has aired David Shenk’s talk to the New York City Skeptics. Shenk spoke the week of the release of his newest book The Genius in All Of Us, now a New York Times Bestseller. Many, including Massimo Pigliucci who Shenk consulted during his research for the book, agreed with his message. Some, like lalwawa, who wrote a critique of his book on Gotham Skeptics, have voiced disagreement with Shenk’s conclusions. Now see the talk and decide for yourself!

A TedX event:



Positive reviews:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/21/books/review/Paul-t.html

http://www.salon.com/books/laura_miller/2010/03/07/genius_in_all_of_us

PBS interview, text transcript, audio or video:

http://www.pbs.org/kcet/tavissmiley/archive/201004/20100401_shenk.html

Tavis: Why is everything we've been told about genius wrong?

Shenk: It's crazy, because scientists are in this 21st century world of understanding all these nuances about genetics and how they translate into abilities, and the general public is still kind of stuck in an early 20th century understanding of genes as being these blueprints which have this very specific information of what our traits are supposed to look like.

Negative reviews:

http://gothamskeptic.org/david-shenk-fails-to-deliver/


The blog of the book (more interviews, quotes, articles, videos, etc.):

http://geniusblog.davidshenk.com/

 

[Roboramma]

Listening to the linked PBS interview. It's interesting. I just recently read about some of the studies you mentioned above elsewhere.

Anyway, the title is attention grabbing but what he's saying makes sense.

 

[Eos of the Eons]

Not just genetics, no, but sometimes... like if you're born without legs, your chances of becoming a long distance runner in the olympics will be severely undermined. And how did mozart get an instrument to play in the first place? It seems that you need to be born with certain priveleges or parents that will help drive you from a young age to be ultimately good at something by adulthood. Tiger was given golf everything and lessons and a chance to play all the time.
An example from my local area is Wayne Gretzky. His dad made him play hockey in the backyard (he watered down the lawn in winter to create a place to skate) with a ball instead of a puck. It's much harder to control a ball on ice than a puck. He played constantly as a kid from a young age.

I find it is the same with music, the gifted kids get instruments at a young age and are encouraged to practice practice practice.

Privelege or opportunity, mixed with a chance to do it all the time makes one great. Genetics or physical ability makes it possible too. One can sing every day and be good, but not always the best. Mix opportunity/privelege and practice with the genes to actually be good at singing or sports or anything else, and you will get that chance to be the ultimate super at whatever right?

 

[steve s]

He gives examples of Beethoven and Mozart and other highly skilled people that are called child prodigies or geniuses, and how pivotal a role a certain kind of environment played in developing their extraordinary skills.

Tiger was given golf everything and lessons and a chance to play all the time.
An example from my local area is Wayne Gretzky. His dad made him play hockey in the backyard (he watered down the lawn in winter to create a place to skate) with a ball instead of a puck. It's much harder to control a ball on ice than a puck. He played constantly as a kid from a young age.

I find it is the same with music, the gifted kids get instruments at a young age and are encouraged to practice practice practice.

The problem with citing examples like this is that there are thousands of other kids that are raised in similar environments that never excel at that particular endeavor. It's just confirmation bias. We never hear about the ones who don't succeed.

I was raised in a musical environment. Some of my earliest memories are of playing around on our piano. But despite taking lessons from an early age, I was never able to sight read very well and so I eventually lost interest in piano. I eventually took up guitar and got pretty good at that, but nowhere near good enough to turn pro. And I still can't sight read.

Steve S

 

[Eos of the Eons]

The problem with citing examples like this is that there are thousands of other kids that are raised in similar environments that never excel at that particular endeavor. It's just confirmation bias. We never hear about the ones who don't succeed.

I was raised in a musical environment. Some of my earliest memories are of playing around on our piano. But despite taking lessons from an early age, I was never able to sight read very well and so I eventually lost interest in piano. I eventually took up guitar and got pretty good at that, but nowhere near good enough to turn pro. And I still can't sight read.

Steve S

Well yeah, that was what I was saying. You may have the opportunity and not the "talent". On the other hand, many more may have a talent and never the opportunities to exploit them. It is that special mix that makes it work. Like earth... it's not like mars, it has life on it, because of that special mix of being x amount of distance from the sun and everything else.

 

[Kuko 4000]

Steve, are you really saying you were brought up in a similar environment to Beethoven and Mozart? For the sake of simplicity, let's just compare the way your parents influenced you.

 

[Kuko 4000]

Eos,

the author of the book thinks that the "genes" part of the equation is being overplayed in the minds of the general public, I tend to agree.

 

[Eos of the Eons]

Eos,

the author of the book thinks that the "genes" part of the equation is being overplayed in the minds of the general public, I tend to agree.

Well, in a nutshell, why? If you don't have the genes for legs (or genes for legs are not expressed), then - like I said - you will have a difficult time winning a gold medal in the olympics for long distance running. Without the genes for the "heightened talent" (that talent selected for in that family gene pool), you will have a less of a chance.

On the other hand, I agree that you can practice and have some privelege others don't and not necessarily the BEST genes to become uber good at something to the point of being the best when under pressure when that talented is tested against others competing. Wayne Gretzky has no special hockey playing genes that I've heard of, but he did practice in a way that no others usually do and since he was very young. But, if he were obese because of genetics or something, his efforts would have been severely thwarted.

 

[sol invictus]

The problem with these nature versus nurture debates is that the question being asked is never clearly defined - and probably cannot be. As a result, the arguments go on forever.

Obviously if you're born without legs, you cannot be a runner. Obviously if you're never given a violin, you cannot be a violinist. Therefore both nature and nurture are important.

But how can we decide which is more important? What does the question even mean? Given perfect information or perfect data on millions of experiments performed on kids (varying genetics, varying environment, etc.) - how would you decide that question? I at least have no idea.

And further, what difference does it make? You don't choose your genes, but you don't choose your childhood environment either. Various environmental factors - during pregnancy, or after birth - may even determine which genes are expressed, which further blurs the distinction you're trying to make.

We are what we are.

 

[FireGarden]

And further, what difference does it make? You don't choose your genes, but you don't choose your childhood environment either.

Maybe people don't choose their own, but they can choose their childrens'. To an extent, anyway.

There have been programs involving 'genius sperm donors'. There have been hothouse programs where children are given a very enriched environment. Yet the controversy goes on.

 

[Kuko 4000]

Well, in a nutshell, why?

Because he thinks that people in general tend to underestimate (ugh, not the perfect choice of word here) what skills they could achieve with the aid of a better environment (training, persistence, guidance, healthy lifestyle, etc.), either now or when they were younger. The quote from my opening post is relevant here as well, it's easier to just blame the limits of your genes than carefully analyze the impact of your parents, your coaches, teachers, where you live, your own willingness to push yourself hard and in better ways, etc. I also agree with him that the fear of failure keeps many people from becoming better at many things.

If you don't have the genes for legs (or genes for legs are not expressed), then - like I said - you will have a difficult time winning a gold medal in the olympics for long distance running. Without the genes for the "heightened talent" (that talent selected for in that family gene pool), you will have a less of a chance.

I want to make sure were not talking past each other here, Shenk acknowledges this of course, he is talking about healthy average people with no inborn problems, such as missing legs, etc. Healthy, average Joes.

On the other hand, I agree that you can practice and have some privelege others don't and not necessarily the BEST genes to become uber good at something to the point of being the best when under pressure when that talented is tested against others competing. Wayne Gretzky has no special hockey playing genes that I've heard of, but he did practice in a way that no others usually do and since he was very young. But, if he were obese because of genetics or something, his efforts would have been severely thwarted.

I don't know enough about obesity and genes, but yeah, a quote from Michael Jordan is something that fits here pretty nicely:

“You can practice shooting eight hours a day, but if your technique is wrong, then all you become is very good at shooting the wrong way."

Also, there's only one who can be the BEST at something at any given time, there's not many of those guys around, and even they are not called geniuses always. What Shenk is talking about (mainly) is ordinary people becoming very good or great at something. And that it's very difficult to tell what one could achieve without trying extremely hard, for years. The emphasis of this book is on the crucial impact of very hard work + better environment.

 

[Kuko 4000]

But how can we decide which is more important?

I guess this is the whole point of GxE (and at least this book), they are so connected to each other that the whole dichotomy seems pointless. I think "CC" (carbon coby), the cloned cat is a good example of how important the environment is to the end result, their personality / behaviour is reportedly quite different as well as their physical appearance. So in this sense, the environment is more important, and I think that this is the scenario that we face in real life.

http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/tech/cloning/cloningmyths/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CC_(cat)
http://www.mun.ca/biology/scarr/Cloned_Cat.html

 

[Roboramma]

It seems to me that the point is not that everyone has the potential, with the right environment, to be the best in the world at something: obviously if genes have some impact at all, a person with "better genes" and the same environment, hard work, etc. will be better than someone else with "worse genes".

But, there is another question, which is, can someone with "average genes" get to be extremely good at something, even to a professional level, simply by being in the right sort of environment and applying hard work in the right way?
I think the answer to that is yes, but what kuku is suggesting is that most people assume that the answer is no.

And that's why the advice to "do what you love" makes sense, because if you love doing something you're much more likely to put yourself in the right environment to improve.

Another question is "should we encourage ourselves and children to look at the possible future outcomes as a result of hard work, or as a result of inborn talent?" Ie. should I (if I were a parent) encourage my child to find his talents and then follow them, or should I encourage him to find his passions and then passionately develop them, regardless of apparent talent?
Or perhaps a middle ground approach makes more sense?

I think these are all meaningful and answerable questions.

 

[Kuko 4000]

And that's why the advice to "do what you love" makes sense, because if you love doing something you're much more likely to put yourself in the right environment to improve.

Yes, but I want to add something. I think that "what we love to do" is also very largely dependent on our environments (parents, peers, culture, teachers, where we live, etc.).

Another question is "should we encourage ourselves and children to look at the possible future outcomes as a result of hard work, or as a result of inborn talent?"

The study I quoted in the OP suggests that this distinction is very important if we want our children to challenge themselves. AFAIK, it's pretty well established that challenging yourself more means that you will develop more. There are individual limits (you can work too much) of course, but as a rule of thumb it seems to be on solid ground.

I also have many personal experiences with this, and I have to say that having been praised of my inborn talent all my life, I became gradually afraid of making mistakes and eventually froze up. I'm fairly confident (at least it seems very logical and persuasive) that this plays a big part in my "naturally" lousy work ethic too, which is something that I'm trying to overcome these days. I'm used to being comfortable.

Ie. should I (if I were a parent) encourage my child to find his talents and then follow them, or should I encourage him to find his passions and then passionately develop them, regardless of apparent talent?
Or perhaps a middle ground approach makes more sense?

I think these are all meaningful and answerable questions.

I know quite a few people who were not considered that "talented" physically (they were not especially fast, not especially elastic, not especially strong, not especially co-ordinated, etc.) at the age 12-15. Yet, 2 of them are regulars in the Olympic games and multiple medal-winners nationally and internationally. I can imagine if their parents or coaches had looked at their "inborn talents" at that point and decided that they're never gonna make it as athletes. And this is in Track & Field, which is one of the more straightforward sports there is (there's not much room to compensate your lack of speed with a good "eye", etc.). I know many more from other sports where a compensation of some sort is more readily available.

It's an interesting question.

 

[sol invictus]

I guess this is the whole point of GxE (and at least this book), they are so connected to each other that the whole dichotomy seems pointless. I think "CC" (carbon coby), the cloned cat is a good example of how important the environment is to the end result, their personality / behaviour is reportedly quite different as well as their physical appearance. So in this sense, the environment is more important

In that case there were no genetic differences (or more precisely, there was no difference in DNA sequence), so of course environment was more important in accounting for differences - it was the only factor!

and I think that this is the scenario that we face in real life.

In real life there are both genetic and environmental differences, so how is that the scenario we face in real life?

I guess what you meant is that environment is generally a "more important" factor than genetics - but as I already said, I think that's pretty much meaningless.

 

[Ethan Thane Athen]

I'm not convinced by this. Obviously environment plays a part but even with non-extreme genetic cases it would seem that genetic limitations can still trump environment.

Warning, argument from anecdote ahead:

My eldest daughter does gymnastics. She had (not so much now she's 'blossomed') pretty much the preferred body shape (genetics and upbringing) so got selected by her club for further development over girls who were technically better at the time but who the coaches knew their body shape would limit how good they could ultimately get. She was an extremely dedicated and disciplined trainer and had all the support of her parents (my wife is a gymnastics coach after all). She did well, won medals and so on but, despite the hard work it did become evident that she was a good 'county standard' gymnast and would never make national standard. Luckily this became clear before she had to devote her entire life to it.

She still does gym (and trampolining and ballet!) and indeed, coaches as well but that facility for extreme talent in the sport just wasn't there - there were clearly kids who were just naturally better at it despite some of them not working as hard.

 

[Mark6]

Steve, are you really saying you were brought up in a similar environment to Beethoven and Mozart? For the sake of simplicity, let's just compare the way your parents influenced you.

Mozart had two brothers who lived to adulthood, raised in the same environment as he. They grew up skilled musicians, but they were not Mozart.

Bach also had two surviving brothers. Moreover, all of Bach's uncles were professional musicians, so not just his brothers, but his cousins (not sure how many) grew up in the same environment. Again, none of them were Bach.

 

[Bikewer]

Seems to me that if one has a nice, supportive environment and opportunity, then one can rise to whatever level is possible for you in whatever field you choose.
Certainly millions of people who have some degree of talent in whatever field never get that. They have neither the money nor the opportunity to achieve whatever they are capable of.
My mother, a child of the Depression, had a flair for art, and actually won a scholarship to a college-level art program. Reality intruded... Her parents in no uncertain terms told her there was no time for such foolishness...She had to go to work.

 

[Kuko 4000]

In that case there were no genetic differences (or more precisely, there was no difference in DNA sequence), so of course environment was more important in accounting for differences - it was the only factor!

In real life there are both genetic and environmental differences, so how is that the scenario we face in real life?

I guess what you meant is that environment is generally a "more important" factor than genetics - but as I already said, I think that's pretty much meaningless.

LOL, of course, I must've somehow mixed up the points I was trying to make, sorry. Take a look at the rat study quoted in the OP. In the book, and in the videos I've linked, Shenk talks about a very similar but older rat study, which shows the importance of the environment in genetically different mice.

I don't think that understanding (and speaking about) the role of a better environment is meaningless at all.

 

[Cavemonster]

Mozart had two brothers who lived to adulthood, raised in the same environment as he. They grew up skilled musicians, but they were not Mozart.

Bach also had two surviving brothers. Moreover, all of Bach's uncles were professional musicians, so not just his brothers, but his cousins (not sure how many) grew up in the same environment. Again, none of them were Bach.

I don't think the claim is that the basic environment guarantees phenomenal success. Of course there are other factors.

That said, I don't imagine that the environment was identical for all these brothers and cousins. In addition to the broadest sense of an environment that cherished music, they each had specific experiences. Just by virtue of order of birth they had a different childhood. There is a real difference between having older siblings vs. younger ones.

But, for all those differences, several members of the Bach family were successful enough as composers that their music is still played widely today, hundreds of years later.