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

[sol invictus]

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

Just to be clear, I don't think that either. I just find arguments about which (nature versus nurture) is more important to be pointless.

 

[Kuko 4000]

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.

Thanks for sharing Ethan.

Couple of points to think / discuss about. How early did she start training, and was the training of exceptional quality? How does her training schedule and methods compare with the leading international gymnastics (if this was the aim, I think this should be the comparison)? From what I've seen of the Chinese gymnastic tradition, they sacrifice very large parts of their early childhood for their success. Was she motivated to train hard and with intensity and meaning? Having real burning motivation makes the required sacrifices much easier. How long had she trained before she decided that she couldn't do it? What are her own thoughts about why she didn't "make it" as a gymnastic, and does she feel that there are some things that she or someone else could've done better?

I don't mean to sound rude, and maybe this is getting too personal for an internet forum, but these are some of the first questions that came to my mind. No offence meant at all.

The point, however, is not that we can all be the best or geniuses, but that we don't know our capabilities until we really test them. And by testing I don't mean just going along with the rest of the class for 10-15 years and doing fine or even performing the best in said class - but instead very motivated and systematic, exceptional quality training. I feel that only a very small percentage of people (and parents) are willing to go this far (or actually even know what it would entail), I also feel that many people could in many ways train better even if they are clocking in the hours.

 

[xjx388]

This is one of those fundamental debates that keeps cropping up in just about every thread I've participated in thus far . . .

Obviously, the environment you grew up in is crucial. If Michael Jordan, Wayne Gretsky, Mozart, Bach, etc. had grown up as abused children who were kept locked in a closet until they were 18, I don't think they would have developed their talents to the extent that they did. The potential to be great would have been inside of them but never expressed.

However, their genetics were at least equally important. For example, how many kids grow up wanting to be the next Michael Jordan? They play basketball and work hard at it all through elementary school and high school. Some don't even make college teams. Even if they do, most are not good enough to play at any professional level. Even if they make it to the NBA, the vast majority don't even approach MJ's skills. You can probably count on one hand the players that have been anywhere near as good.

So, in my view, both are pretty equal. But for most of us, this point is irrelevant. How are we going to change what our environments and genes have done to us? If anything, this book (and I'm only going by what's on here, I'll probably end up buying the book) should influence how we bring up our children.

 

[Kuko 4000]

However, their genetics were at least equally important. For example, how many kids grow up wanting to be the next Michael Jordan? They play basketball and work hard at it all through elementary school and high school. Some don't even make college teams. Even if they do, most are not good enough to play at any professional level. Even if they make it to the NBA, the vast majority don't even approach MJ's skills. You can probably count on one hand the players that have been anywhere near as good.

MJ didn't make it to his school's basketball team at the age of 16. Also, according to his coaches, the main point that differentiated MJ from the others (when he was starting to get noticed) was his approach to training and his overwhelming will to win, it was way beyond the other guys of his team. The intensity and the meaning of his training was on another level, for example, he would specifically look for the weaknesses in his game and started practising those repeatedly even if it meant repeated failures. The coaches also described his brother as being the greater "talent" at the time.

Anyways, I think the real question is, how did the training and the attitude of all these other kids compare to the training of MJ?

 

[xjx388]

MJ didn't make it to his school's basketball team at the age of 16. Also, according to his coaches, the main point that differentiated MJ from the others (when he was starting to get noticed) was his approach to training and his overwhelming will to win, it was way beyond the other guys of his team. The intensity and the meaning of his training was on another level, for example, he would specifically look for the weaknesses in his game and started practising those repeatedly even if it meant repeated failures. The coaches also described his brother as being the greater "talent" at the time.

Anyways, I think the real question is, how did the training and the attitude of all these other kids compare to the training of MJ?

Granted. MJ had a greater "will" to win and get better. Perhaps a better question is, "What made MJ have a will beyond that of his peers and even his own brother?" His brother (who presumably had nearly the same environment) never reached MJs skill level, despite being seen as a greater talent. I think that even things like an individual's "levels" (for lack of a better term) of "willpower" and "desire" are inborn and not taught. Of course there is no way to really answer this question that I can think of.

 

[Perpetual Student]

I agree with s. i. that the nurture vs. nature debate is basically meaningless in that it is not possible to come up with percentages like 50/50, 60/40, which we sometimes see.
Nevertheless, when this subject comes up, an anecdote comes to mind. I had a very good friend in graduate school who was an interesting case in this regard.
He came from a somewhat dysfunctional blue collar family, was a disruptive child in school, became a truant and did not complete high school. He joined the US Navy, where due to his performance on some aptitude exams, he was trained in electronics. It was there that he was first exposed to mathematics, which he discovered he loved and excelled in. After the Navy, he completed high school, went to college and eventually earned a PhD in mathematics. He was quite brilliant. It's very difficult to find a nurture element to account for his personal history. So, how does one account for someone like him?

 

[Perpetual Student]

And, what about this guy?

Srinivasa Ramanujan
LINK

 

[tsig]

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.

OMG a "Nature/Nurture" argument.


ETA: tips hat to si

 

[Kuko 4000]

I think that even things like an individual's "levels" (for lack of a better term) of "willpower" and "desire" are inborn and not taught. Of course there is no way to really answer this question that I can think of.

I think this is connected to the study I referenced in the OP:

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.

It's my understanding that, on average, those two paths lead to very different end results. Personally I can see how the path of challenging yourself more can logically lead to having more willpower and desire to achieve things more often that choosing not to challenge yourself. There are also direct behavioural studies that suggest how children can be thought more willpower and self discipline and how this correlates with success later on in life, for example variations and follow ups of the Stanford University's marshmellow studies:

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

There are of course many ways in which people can learn the importance of hard work and self control, or just doing things differently from their peers, but it seems to me that this "skill" is very much mouldable. It's quite feasible that a person can learn something important by watching his brother or sister live his everyday life and train his game, etc.

 

[Kuko 4000]

OMG a "Nature/Nurture" argument.

Actually it's a book about:

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

Naive nature versus nurture debates assume that variation in a given trait is primarily due to either genetic variability or exposure to environmental experiences. The current scientific view is that neither genetics nor environment are solely responsible for producing individual variation, and that virtually all traits show gene–environment interaction. Evidence of statistical interaction between genetic and environmental risk factors is often used as evidence for the existence of an underlying mechanistic interaction.

And how the general public seems to have a different / old fashioned understanding of our abilities to develop our skills and habits than the leading scientists.

 

[Kuko 4000]

And, what about this guy?

Srinivasa Ramanujan
LINK

Yes, it would be interesting to hear what the author has to say about him (I would like to know more about his childhood, the WP page was very limited on that), just to make sure, Shenk is not denying the importance of genes. Anyways, from a completely different perspective, the abilities of people like Kim Peek and Daniel Tammet are incredibly interesting to me. I will update the thread if he talks more about this in the book, I've now read the main thesis of the book, the final half is all about clarifications, evidence and source material.

 

[Perpetual Student]

Yes, it would be interesting to hear what the author has to say about him (I would like to know more about his childhood, the WP page was very limited on that), just to make sure, Shenk is not denying the importance of genes. Anyways, from a completely different perspective, the abilities of people like Kim Peek and Daniel Tammet are incredibly interesting to me. I will update the thread if he talks more about this in the book, I've now read the main thesis of the book, the final half is all about clarifications, evidence and source material.

I read this LINK biography by Robert Kanigal some years ago. It seems his extraordinary skills were there with few environmental influences, but exactly what activities did he engage in when he was 1, 2 or 3 years old? How could anyone know? The very personal nature of our early (pre-memory) experiences and influences are never really known. But the author of this biography did not recall any strong mathematical influences in his latter childhood or adolescent years, -- that I recall.

 

[Kuko 4000]

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.

They definitely did not have the same environment as Wolfgang (that's pretty much impossible no matter how hard you try anyways), my info about Mozart's process to becaming extraordinarily skilled comes mainly from the excellent TTC lecture series:

http://www.teach12.com/tgc/courses/course_detail.aspx?cid=752

You learn about Mozart's:

Journey from youthful prodigy to posthumous deification
Difficult relationship with his father
Tours to London and Paris
Struggles for a successful career
Marriage to Constanze Weber
Triumphs and disappointments in Vienna
Relationships with Haydn, Emperor Joseph II, and librettist Lorenzo da Ponte.

David Shenk seems to be on the same page, on this Cato Institute video interview he talks about the Mozart example, starting at about 26:10:

http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/26575

 

[Kuko 4000]

Nature's audio interview here:

http://www.nature.com/scitable/blog/natureedcast/episode_6_the_atlantics_david

There's also a full transcript.

 

[sol invictus]

MJ didn't make it to his school's basketball team at the age of 16. Also, according to his coaches, the main point that differentiated MJ from the others (when he was starting to get noticed) was his approach to training and his overwhelming will to win, it was way beyond the other guys of his team. The intensity and the meaning of his training was on another level, for example, he would specifically look for the weaknesses in his game and started practising those repeatedly even if it meant repeated failures. The coaches also described his brother as being the greater "talent" at the time.

Anyways, I think the real question is, how did the training and the attitude of all these other kids compare to the training of MJ?

Evidently there is a very strong effect of age on eventual success in athletics, in the sense that children born at times during the year where they are among the oldest kids in their age group do much better (even later in life) than kids that are among the youngest. The theory is that success breeds success, and children older by six months or so have a significant advantage.

It makes you wonder about parents that are always trying to push their kids into skipping grades etc.

 

[Rrose Selavy]

Any relevant data on identical twins? Separated or not? Where one has excelled?

 

[Kuko 4000]

Yeah, he writes about identical twins, but I've not yet gone through the evidence and sources part of the book. I'm in the middle of moving right now and the book is in my new house, I'll report back later...

The Gotham Skeptic blog criticises him about his interpretation of the twin studies, as does some professor in David's blog:

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

http://geniusblog.davidshenk.com/2010/03/welcome-to-genius.html

Indeed, if one looks closely at the research, it is clear that IQ has is predominately determine by genetic influences. The problem here is the author is not statistically literate. Of course it is possible to stifle IQ by deprivation, but when one looks at the variance attributable to natural occurring variance in environmental enrichment in the US, it is indeed a small influence on the variance in IQ. His interpretation of the twin studies is totally wrong. When we examine the relationship between identical twins raised apart, and hence pseudo-randomly assigned to homes with varying levels of enrichment, we find that correlation between identical twins is very close to one. In fact, there are much more sound methods of estimating heritability indexes than are commonly used and understood. He also confused about how to interpret statistics when he maintains group means are irrelevant. Overall, this is a popular science book that is misinformed about how to interpret statistical finding.

We should not expect science to be politically correct

Clarence D. Kreiter, Ph.D.
Professor
Office of Consultation and Research in Medical Education
Department of Family Medicine
University of Iowa
Roy J. and Lucille A. Carver
College of Medicine
Iowa City, IA 52242
(319) 335-8906
(319) 335-8904 (fax)
clarence-kreiter@uiowa.edu

http://www.uihealthcare.com/depts/med/familymedicine/faculty/kreiterc.html


Francis Galton was right!

 

[Roboramma]

One of the interesting issues raised is this: let's say that we find that two people with identical genetics but in two very different environments have similar outcomes. Let's say we find that this is even systematically so. Does this imply that environment has less influence than genetics? It may lead us in that direction, but I think we have to go back to what sol said earlier: basically the two cannot be untangled.

Why? Because the fact that two random environments interact with genes in one way doesn't mean that two other environments will interact with the genes in the same way. And that is what I find interesting about the book mentioned in the OP. I haven't read it, of course, but the suggestion seems to me not just to be some feel good "you can rise above your potential" or something like that, but rather, let's look at how some particular environmental influences affect outcomes.

I may have genes that in environment A will lead to a high level of success in activity Z. You may have genes that in environment A will lead to a low level of success in activity Z, but in environment B will lead to a high level of success in activity Z. I don't know that there's evidence for this hypothesis, but it doesn't seem ruled out and it seems at least possible to me.
I don't know how much it's been considered, and it certainly complicates matters if it's true.

What he seems to be suggesting of course, is that systematic practice and proper training (of any skill or ability from hockey playing to intelligence) is the most important factor. That seems to jive with what sol pointed out about the older kids in their age groups excelling at sports, at least it fits with the hypothesis that the older kids are the ones who excel early, who are encouraged, who thus work harder, get better training, etc. and continue to excel later in life.

The question though, is how does that mindset get instilled into some children (or adults) and not others? Is that genetic? Is it environmental? Is it a part of the quantifiable environment (Ie. dependent on your parent's socio-economic status, the area you are born in, how much you're read to as a child, etc.) or the so far unquantifiable environment (based on the chaotic outcome of perhaps forgotten experiences that so far we know accounts for a great deal of variation in humans but we have no idea of exactly what it is). Of course, like everything else it's probably some complex interaction between these things. But it's worth looking at least at what aspects of it is susceptible we can effect.

 

[icerat]

Sounds like this book might cover a lot of the same material as Malcolm Gladwell's Outliers. Also a great read by an entertaining author.

It's the old "10000 hours" thing - put in 10000 hours into pretty much anything, you'll be world class. Folk like Mozart or Tiger Woods just put that time in a lot earlier than most!

Gladwell reports some interesting studies on the effect of timing as well, such as the "older kids" thing, with studies showing the month you were born can affect your success in sports (thanks to arbitrary age group cut off dates leading to the older kids getting more practice - ie closer to the 10000hrs - not thanks to the position of the planets )

Got myself a kindle this week, so ziiippp ... now I have the Shenk book - thanks for the tip!

 

[mike3]

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.

However, a lo of those factors are not in your control any more than is genetics, except the last one on the list. And if you miss that "childhood window", then what? (Remember: in that window, because you are naive by definition, you cannot choose which teachers you get -- your parents do that for you, and you can't choose your parents, and, well...)

In other words, I think the question should be more one of "what is in your control vs what is not in your control" instead of "genetics vs environment". Genetics is not in your control, but there are also many environmental factors that aren't necessarily in your control either. For example, if you're born into a poor family, your choices are limited by that. Do you control that you were born into that? Nope, not any more than you can control what genetic stock to come from.