Customer Reviews

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

5 star:		(28)
4 star:		(14)
3 star:		(6)
2 star:		(3)
1 star:		(8)

 

 

"This book is not a dispassionate presentation of all scientific points of view. Instead it embraces the arguments of the Interactionists, whose views I came to trust most after much reading, conversation and consideration."(p. 148)

So writes David Shenk in The Genius in All of Us, and true to his word he is. Shenk's book is not a strictly scientific investigation of intelligence or giftedness, but a personal presentation for the case that intelligence is highly malleable, and that it emerges from the interaction of genes and environment. His case differs from many mainstream representations of intelligence in that he finds environment plays a far greater role than many intelligence theorists acknowledge. Intelligence, states Shenk, is a process, more so than a discrete entity which sits in the physical structure of the brain. He writes:

"...intelligence isn't fixed. Intelligence isn't general. Intelligence is not a thing. Intelligence is a dynamic, diffuse and ongoing process." (p.42)

So, David Shenk does not even attempt to be even-handed, and barely addresses the criticisms to the interactionist position. Some readers won't like the book for that reason.

I had no problem with reading the book. There is no law which says that a non-fiction book has to take a critical approach to its own thesis. If you are looking for a look at the arguments from multiple perspectives, this is not the book for you. You might instead try Howard Gardner's Intelligence: Multiple Perspectives, or Ken Richardson's brilliant little book, The Making of Intelligence (though both books largely comply with Shenk's position). These are very readable and concise volumes.

Personally, I liked The Genius in Us All a great deal, and no doubt this reflects the fact that I agree with Shenk's essential argument. I have spent many years investigating cognitive development, including researching and practicing "learning how to learn", accelerated learning, intelligence theory, and neural plasticity. On top of this I have explored other ways of knowing, including the meditative and intuitive. Many years ago my older brother (who just happened to nick-name me "Dope" as a child - children are cruel!) was diagnosed with some mental problems. He was given an intelligence test. His IQ attribution was about half of the score I have been assigned in such tests, and it struck me that genetics are probably a poor explanation for the very different adults we had turned out to be. As a child, my brother had no interest in the scholastic at all, while I was obsessed with reading and writing. Later I developed myself further through years of mental work. I have come to strongly believe that mental ability is far more malleable than what is popularly depicted in mainstream science and the mass media. Given this, I am very sympathetic to Shenk's argument.

The Genius in All of Us is well written. Shenk's writing style is highly lucid, and he embellishes his ideas with interesting examples from real-life case studies. The book is divided into two sections. The first is some 130 pages of easy-to-read prose, which outlines Shenk's thesis, without the interruption of excessive references and quotations. These he leaves for the second half of the book. Those who wish to follow up with a more critical investigation of the subject, can proceed to this section after completing the first. Personally, I found the second half just as fascinating, but many may wish to conclude with the first. In short, The Genius is an excellent layman's account of the argument for the plasticity of intelligence. Shenk's enthusiasm for the subject shines through on all pages, and so I give it five stars. It achieves exactly what it sets out to do.

David Shenk believes that the concept of "g" (IQ), may have developed from the fact that western education teaches the very abilities that IQ tests test for. The entire IQ game then become a self-fulfilling prophecy, as those who work hard and succeed in the education system then test higher in IQ assessment. An interesting aside, although Shenk does not state this himself, is that the success of Asians in IQ tests can probably be attributed (in part) to the endless schooling and tests they do in their exceedingly rote-centred education systems (I have taught in Asia for ten years at all levels of the system). In this sense, IQ tests may reflect academic achievement as much as innate intelligence.

Shenk does not dismiss genetics and natural ability altogether as contributing to human intelligence. He simply states that their contribution is overstated. Something as complex as intelligence cannot be attributed, reductionist style, to the micro-processes within cells. Shenk quotes Cambridge university psychologist Patrick Bateson as saying that genes:

"...store information coding for the amino acid sequences of proteins... That is all. They do not code for parts of the nervous system and they certainly do not code for particular behavior patterns." (p. 21)

Hard work, discipline and self-sacrifice lie at the heart of many a story of "genius", Shenk finds. Amongst many examples, the author refers to the biography of Mozart, whose life is often cited as an example of innate giftedness. In fact, according to Shenk, Mozart was exposed to an extraordinarily stimulating musical environment almost from the moment he was born; and thus his remarkable achievements were at least in part a function of the environment in which he was raised, not to mention his extreme dedication to his chosen profession.

A related point raised by Shenk is that some evidence suggests children diagnosed as "gifted" rarely go on to be adult creators of note. Citing research from Stanford psychologist Carol Dweck, Shenk argues that a belief that intelligence is innate, rather than an interactive process, actually retards the full development of ability. Those with an interactionist perspective of intelligence tend to be far more intellectually ambitious and successful. (p. 235). It may be an irony that thinking you are born smart makes you dumb - well, dumber than you might otherwise have been. Further, child prodigies can become "frozen into expertise", and turn into risk avoiders. In short, their capacity for innovation is reduced by attitudes which emerge from their childhood self-concept and worldview. The reverse side of this coin is where people believe that they have an innate lack of intelligence and ability, and don't even try to express their potential capacities.

One recurring reference in The Genius is that of the Flynn effect - the fact that IQ scores are increasing about three points per generation. A fascinating statistic is that ninety-eight per cent of IQ test takers do better today than their counterparts did in 1900. Shenk rightly points out that if intelligence is purely genetic, IQ scores should remain stable from generation to generation. Clearly then, there is something important happening here. Shenk puts it down to the demands of modern education, and the fact the industrial and information society demand the development of a greater cognitive complexity, especially in the workplace. Increased leisure time may be another factor, including the influence of radio, television and the internet placing increasing demands on the intellect. Shenk also argues that dominant concepts within society help facilitate the expansion of intelligence. Recent centuries have seen the emergence of the idea of evolution, and the development of abstract thought, and the deep questioning of information. Flynn himself described the generations expansion of intelligence as a "cultural transition from pre-scientific to post-scientific thinking", and that it represented "nothing less than the liberation of the human mind." (p.36) These culturally mediated shifts in thinking are deeply ingrained in western populations today, but this was not always the case.

Another strong theme in the book is that genes do not encode for intelligence, and that the function of genetics in intelligence theory has been overstated (and in many other domains of inquiry). This oversell has occurred both in scientific and popular circles.

Personally, I would go even further than Shenk in the evaluating the implications of intelligence as malleable process.

Shenk states that the developmental paradigm "will... require not just a new intellectual leap, but also a moral, psychological, and spiritual leap." (p. 95) He cites biological, economic, cultural, nutritional, parental, and ecological" influences on cognitive development." (p.95). Quoting neuroscientists Mark H. Johnson and Annette Karmiloff-Smith, Shenk finds that cognitive development "is an activity-dependent process at the molecular, cellular, and organismal levels involving probabilistic epigenisis (biodirectional relatio0ns between genes, brain and behavior)." (p. 106)

Shenk is right to point out (citing McGill's Michael Meaney) that the intracellular environment (within cells) emerges from the genetic makeup of the cell and the extracellular environment (e.g. hormones, the immune system, neurotransmitters and nutrients), and that these in turn are influenced by the individual environment (p. 159). Neurotransmitter and hormonal activity, for example, are influenced by social interactions.

Yet beyond all these regulators of cognitive development there is the domain of "motivation", and this is what really fascinates me. Shenk addresses human intention briefly, but does not explore it depth, preferring to leave it as a kind of mystery. The author quotes Ellen Winner as saying that creators have a desire to shake things up, and are restless, rebellious, and dissatisfied with the status quo. They are "courageous and independent" (p. 226) But where do such qualities come from? It is here that mainstream science is at its weakest, and quite surprisingly, Shenk also.

At this juncture we begin to address the intangible, qualitative domains of consciousness, and ultimately the "spiritual". What is it that drives a person to dedicate the "magic" figure of 10 000 hours to develop his/her genius to a level of mastery?

Shenk has stretched the dominant paradigm -but I believe that it will be stretched even more in the coming decades and centuries, and that eventually it will "bust". Constricted by an overly reductionist model of mind and biology, Shenk stops enticingly short of expanding into the real frontiers of human intelligence - consciousness itself. He states that "any individual gene or environmental event produces an effect only by interacting with other genes and environments." (160, my italics) In other words intelligence is only ever gene or environment mediated. This is an unnecessary delimitation.
For example, he writes:

If genes are merely the bricklayers, where's the foreman. Where's the architect?
Amazingly, there's no architect. Like ant colonies, galaxies, and other complex emergent systems, the human body is a dynamic assembly abiding by certain strict laws of science but not following any master set of instructions. The outcome is a function of the ingredients and the process. (p. 159)

It appears that Shenk sees ontogeny (individual development) as an essentially random process, parroting the very worldview of the mechanistic views of mind and body that he seeks to discredit. This is an almost inexplicable contradiction to Shenk's a central tenet of his main thesis - that motivation is a prime driver in the development of intelligence and genius.

The next great step in the examination of intelligence will incorporate an expansion of the understanding of consciousness itself (though this may be a long way off). At one level, for example, we have human intention - the myriad of thoughts and emotional energies that run through the mind, generated both consciously and unconsciously by the individual. Thinking affects physiology, and in turn, the expression of genetic potential. So, first-person thought, or human intention will have to be added to the genetic and environmental mediators of intelligence that Shenk refers to . This is just common sense, and a surprising omission from Shenk's thesis.

Yet this is only the tip of the iceberg. Increasing evidence points to the fact that consciousness, like intelligence, is not a discrete entity which exists in finite brains, but is a system of information (much as I hate the word, I cannot think of a better one) which transcends the brain. There is no physicalist framework which adequately accommodates this expression of mind. Ultimately we will need to incorporate the concept of consciousness fields.

It won't be long before the whole book has to be re-written. In just one recent paper published in Nature (463, 644-647 -4 February 2010). Elisabetta Collini and other scientists presented evidence " that long-range quantum coherence between molecules can... be sustained in complex biological systems." The evidence is only going to become greater, and it won't be confined to cellular biology. Once it is established that "environment" incorporates consciousness fields that extend (theoretically) into infinite space (and beyond), the entire field of cognitive development, indeed cognitive science, will have to expand massively beyond its currently narrow confines. Once that happens, David Shenk's thesis will not appear so outrageous - in fact it will appear relatively conservative.

Flynn saw the development of scientific thinking as liberation from pre-scientific thinking. But the liberation is not yet complete. This recent "critical rationality" (as I call it) will eventually be enhanced by an intelligence which embraces the transrational intellect, and which incorporates brain-transcendent cognition - or what I call "integrated intelligence".

Still, one cannot blame David Shenk for simply "nibbling" at the periphery of the frontiers of human intelligence. As futurist John Naisbitt has commented, if you get too far ahead of the parade, nobody will be able to see you. No doubt I've lost a few readers since the beginning of this review!

David Shenk is correct. A whole new definition of intelligence will soon be required, and he has done a noble job in getting the ball rolling.

Marcus T. Anthony (PhD), author of "Integrated Intelligence" and "Sage of Synchronicity"

Sometimes journalists can make sense of complex scientific topics and sometimes they can't. Unfortunately, in this book, David Shenk falls into the latter category. "The Genius in All of Us" is another example of the romantic fantasy that is gripping some realms of popular psychology and all of public education at the moment (think No Child Left Behind). Yes, human nature is plastic, but it is not as yielding as Shenk would like us to believe. In the real world, our genomes impose tighter constraints. For instance, I doubt that David Shenk has an IQ of 85 which he has re-worked through 10,000 hours of writing practice culminating in the publication of a book.

To be sure, every person can learn and as a result become "smarter." And this process can be optimized through some of the environmental methods Shenk promotes. But the impact of environmental interventions are not nearly as powerful as he implies. The creation of unrealisitcally high expectations can be just as damaging as low expectations to the extent that they result in a mis-match between the individual and the learning strategies that yield the best long-term results. One size does not fit all in the pursuit of maximum potential.

Mr. Shenk's attempt to link epigenetic proccesses to learning capacity is weak, as even he seems to admit. "No one can yet measure the precise implications of these (epigenetic) discoveries, because so little is known (p.129)." Yet, he seems content to generalize like crazy as if the epigenetics knowledge base was robust. He tries to connect the biological dots in his story line with very long, faint, serpentine, dashed lines.

For those of you who read and agree with the general tenor of this book, I urge you to also read Steven Pinker's book on the same topic, "The Blank Slate." Pinker, a Ph.D. psychologist and professor at Harvard, does a much better job of assembling the relevant research and reaching defensible conclusions. Read both books and decide for yourself which is more accurate.

Or simply take a pass on "The Genius in All of Us" as it doesn't offer a realistic or useful perspective on human potential.

Worth reading for a perspective on the debate BUT I call this the Gladwell effect (as in Malcolm). Choose an alluring thesis and ram it home with historical anecdote and a study or two. It makes for an entertaining reading but I couldn't help feel manipulated and skeptical about the writer's fervor. Back in the day, writers felt compelled to present all sides. NOw everything feels so one sided in the service of entertainment.
Plus, the book was very short. More like an magazine piece. Also, if he's going to cite a few scientists over and over, couldn't he have gone to interview them in person? I want to know where they live, who they are, what they look like, how they came to think the way they do....

The following review is also available on my education blog at: [...]

On March 9th a book will be released that all educators should purchase so that they may be offered a glimpse into modern beliefs and research on genetics, IQ, and talent. The Genius in All of Us by David Shenk (@dshenk) does a nice job of explaining some very complex genetic theory in terms that anyone can understand. In addition, he offers information that should push us to think critically with regards to developing kids' cognitive abilities and pushing them to new heights.

One of my favorite points of the book is when he is discusses achievers vs. nonachievers with regards to their process. Here is an excerpt:

"Rather, nonachievers seem to be missing something in their process- one or more aspects of style of intensity of practice, or technique, or mindset, or response to failure."

He goes on to discuss deliberate practice and how it can make or break the success of an individual over time. It is this type of rational thinking and logic that will have any educator considering the implications that his knowledge and information can have on each of our classrooms.

Those that have an affinity for Malcolm Gladwell (10,000 hours discussed on page 57) or Daniel Pink (motivation is a theme throughout the book) will find Shenk's work to be a great addition to their knowledge and theories albeit more science-based.

I found Shenk's work to be the type of book that forces the reader to stop, think, and ponder every couple of pages. As an educator, there are too many circumstances to consider where his findings are relevant and will urge us to revisit what we do on an everyday basis in our classes.

Upon completing the "meat" of the text, the reader has the opportunity to read through the Sources, Notes, Clarifications, and Amplifications. Much of the information in this section is dense, but the beauty is that it affords the opportunity to investigate different parts of the text that are of particular interest to the reader.

As an educator, I am always curious about new research that will help me in understanding my students' minds and how to maximize their potential. Shenk's book will have you walking away feeling confident and reassured that none of our kids are destined to a life of mediocrity or servitude based on some heretical trait. All students can achieve greatness if we aid them in uncapping their potential.

If you are interested in more of Shenk's work, he maintains a blog that also has posts allotted for comments on individual chapters. I hope you enjoy the book as much as I did. Please feel free to read and leave comments here if there are any specific aspects you would like to discuss. If you put comments on Shenk's blog, please let me know as I would love to join the conversation.

The author makes clear what his goal is in the appendix to this book: to create "a new lingua franca" to discuss human genetics, and to persuade everyone to start using the "helpful new phrases and metaphors" he has provided as a new vocabulary in which to discuss the topic. He claims that there is a group of scientists out there who call themselves "interactionists" who have a formula that they use for a new way to discuss gene-environment interactions, "GxE" ("genes times environment" instead of the old paradigm of "genes plus environment"). The GxE formula, as far as I can tell, comes entirely out of the author's own head; I suppose the author thinks that we, the lay public, will be more likely to believe in the rigor of his new paradigm if he can attach a mathematical formula to it. The formula of course is meaningless, but it is annoyingly repeated over 30 times in a book that is barely over 100 pages: in other words, the author's mechanism to create a "new lingua franca" is to try to beat it into our heads.

This is actually a good metaphor for the book's overall message, which is that many of those we think of as geniuses - Mozart, Beethoven -- became so not by receiving a special gift or message from on high, but by their parents beating something into their head (or their bodies) at a young age. What the parents of these geniuses did to their children, however, would be termed child abuse by 21st century parents. The author does not advocate that we beat children in order to get them to sit at the piano at age 2. What then is he advocating? He cannot really get around the fact that we know that genes play a huge role in determining our individual fates. His ultimate goal is to get us essentially to ignore what we know about genetics and focus on the environment. How to get from what we know to this counter-factual goal?

First, he tries to undermine the most powerful evidence we have of the huge effect of genes, the studies of identical and fraternal twins. Both types of twins share the same environment but the fraternal twins do not share all of their genes. This fact has allowed scientists to make very precise measurements of the effect of genes on a person's intelligence and personality. The author ignores these studies and focuses on the alleged defects of other studies of identical twins raised apart. He claims that the identical twins raised apart actually had more contact with each other than the studies would lead us to believe. But so what? Shenk thinks that pointing this out (and pointing it out again and again, ad nauseum) self-evidently makes his argument for him that genes alone don't make a difference. Without something more, this argument fails. Second, he claims that science has shown that environment plays a huge role in gene expression. He goes so far as to claim that Lamarck was correct in his essential argument and that what we eat, learn, etc. can have an effect on the gene expression of our offspring and their offspring as well. One of his examples is the fact that a cloned calico cat will look nothing like the parent.

All of this is hugely overstated. We know that human genes have some plasticity: gene expression responds and adapts to the environment. We know that this adaptation could last a few generations, but will then usually revert. We know that females have two X chromosomes in each cell and that in order for the organism to function properly one has to be turned off , and in placental mammals the particular X chromosome that is turned off is random. The X chromosome that is turned off is coated with the product of an RNA gene, called X-inactive specific transcript. In other words, it's not the environment that determines which X will be turned off, but the particular random product of genes. In a calico cat each cell will randomly have either an orange fur color gene turned off or a black fur color gene turned off. If you pick just one cell of a calico cat to clone, you are going to get only one or the other, not both, so the clone will not be calico. We also know that diet can affect gene expression, as can cold or heat and many other things. Nothing in this evidence shows that Lamarck was right or disproves the significant body of evidence we have that intelligence and personality are in large measure inherited.

Lost in this maze of dumbed-down science and manipulative language is the fact that we really do not know much about gene-environment interactions. In the face of radical uncertainty our best public policy option as a society is to assume that each individual is infinitely plastic and to try to create learning environments in which humans will have an opportunity to live up to their potential. In part because of the public's belief in deterministic genes, we are too ready to believe that the inner-city child fails because of his innate lack of intelligence, when what we should be focusing on is the poor environment that s/he has grown up in - devoid of encouragement and even of words compared to middle class peers, according to the author -- and doing more to compensate for deficient early environments. What we actually need is a mechanism to allow us to identify and address these deficient environments without being termed racist or paternalistic. On the other end of the scale, those parents who insist on labeling their children as "gifted" by sending them to "gifted" schools or "gifted" summer programs are doing them a disservice because, as established by Carol Dweck, students praised for innate intelligence rather than their effort are afraid to fail. These children won't try new avenues because they are afraid they will be "found out" as "really" no better than anyone else. Finally, those parents who believe that their children are geniuses (just about every upper middle class parent I know) and who chauffeur them around from one activity to another waiting for their gift to descend from the heavens, are also doing these children a disservice. The best thing a parent can do is to be as informed as possible and to encourage a child to focus on a few things at an early age in areas where parents themselves have some talent and can therefore contribute to the child's development. In sum, the book has some valuable things to say in the interstices, but the overall exaggerated environmentalist message is just as wrong as the straw man genetic determinism that the author tilts at, which no scientists actually believe.

The Genius in All of Us: Why Everything You've Been Told About Genetics, Talent, and IQ Is Wrong," is a new book by David Shenk, who takes the position that "Talents are not innate gifts but the result of a slow, invisible accretion of skills developed over time." Few are genetically handed greatness, fully formed, and 100% gift wrapped. Even fewer are biologically restricted from attaining greatness.



Nate Colliers blog summarizes the book well:

Intelligence is more a process than a fixed given. The critical difference between success and failure, between achievers and non-achievers, lies with a broken link in their process:

"...non-achievers seem to be missing something in their process--one or more aspects of style of
- intensity of practice, or technique, or
- mindset, or
- response to failure."

Anders Ericsson's powerful concept of deliberate practice** is covered, as well as Malcolm Gladwell's 10,000 hours (from "Outliers": It takes 10,000 hours of work/practice/effort to become good at anything).

"The Genius in All of Us" makes the important point that developing talent should not be left to parents alone, that every society that wishes to strive should foster values that bring out the best in people. The down side of our culture of entitlement is obvious. We promote lottery tickets as the path to prosperity and somehow it has become the unspoken birthright of every American to experience freedom from poverty or want without the responsibility of work. Sort of like the "right" to good health via expensive health care without having to exercise or practice good nutrition habits.

**Deliberate practice, Cliffs Notes version: 1. Focus on technique as opposed to outcome (accept the process), 2. Set specific, measurable, quantifiable goals, 3. Get PROMPT feedback from knowledgeable people; APPLY it immediately.

It is easy to like or dislike this book from a casual reading based on how you feel about the premise: that everyone has the potential for genius, and that heredity is not destiny in any sense.
This sounds at first like a liberal political statement, but Shenk's treatment is far more nuanced than that characterization would imply.

In brief, Shenk's book is a very good deconstruction of hereditary talent, a competent but one-sided (or upon reflection I'll say very selectively focused) review of supporting research in several fields, and an interesting but abbreviated practical introduction to the interactionist (gene X environment) paradigm of development.

Just to be clear, this book is not about the psychometric definition of genius in terms of how far down the bell curve one is on Raven's Progressive Matrices or standardized tests of any sort. Nor is it about clever calculating tricks or precocious abilities, although it does do a very nice job putting those into a larger perspective. This book is more centrally about the expansive and inclusive sense of genius meaning people that accomplish something truly special and significant, and the potential that any given person may be able to get to that point. Somehow. And that's where the nuance is needed and appropriate.

Ok, I didn't like this book all that much when I first read it, and I at first gave it a mediocre 3 star rating on Amazon. I felt it did a great job deconstructing the concept of hereditary talent, but I strongly criticized it for leaving a gap where we need a better theory of where talent comes from and what it is, since obviously we don't all become true geniuses. Even among the folks who appear to have the seeds of genius in them from early on, most don't become genius adults in the broader sense.

In my original review I said this was a one-sided review of the evidence for the interactionist model. I do think it's a very selective review, but one-sided implies that he deliberately ignores contradictory evidence. He doesn't do that. He just doesn't talk about the evidence that led to the model Shenk says is obsolete, that genes are akin to blueprints. That is, the evidence that different variations of allele sometimes have strikingly specific effects in a seemingly "normal" range of environments. The case for the model of heredity that Shenk is deconstructing is not entirely ignored, but it is glossed over in order to make his case for the interactionist model. I think that is why hereditarians like Galton, Spearman, and Charles Murray get so apparently shorted in this book, Shenk focuses entirely on what they get wrong and glosses over the things they may get right. I suspect that we do inherit "predispositions" in some form under a very wide range of conditions, even if the underlying mechanism is more complex than we previously assumed. Even if changes in environments do alter the expression of genes, something like inheritance of traits clearly does happen in a wide range of "normal" environments, and we can't just ignore that completely because of additional complexity and things that change at the extremes. That's why I say this is a very selective review. But no, it isn't really one-sided, the selectiveness is appropriate for a deconstruction, although it does mark this as a deconstruction rather than a scholarly review.

The more important problem is that the model of talent that arises from this book is not particularly easy to understand. The author is strongly against thinking of genes as predispositions, and rather offers the perspective that genes are akin to "settings." So it would be easy to conclude that the author is saying that we have the ability to make anyone a genius just by tweaking a few settings. He isn't. Or, if you read it as I did upon my first reading, you might hear the author saying that "anyone can be a genius, but talent is complicated process, we don't know what is happening at each step, and so we don't know how to help people get there, but we know it's possible." That's perhaps a little closer to the truth, but it didn't seem very helpful to me.

The reason I updated this review and why I'm now expressing more appreciation for David Shenk's accomplishment here is that while the "settings" model of genes doesn't quite convey the message, I did find upon close reading and careful reflection that the author captured a lot with his examples and case studies of individuals. The thing that is missing is some way of tying together how people manage to select and shape environments for themselves to accomplish great things, in spite of all the cultural, social, and physical constraints that tend to make environmental factors very hard to change for most of us. Shenk assiduously avoids attributing "predispositions" to genes, but then speculates that epigenetic factors may predispose us to things like musical ability. If non-genes can do this, why not genes? He just seems a little *too* intent on crushing hereditary talent in some places.

Geniuses don't just see things differently (although that is sometimes also going on), they don't just have unique abilities (although sometimes they do) geniuses are most distinct in that they manage to carve their own niche, exploiting their own uniqueness in a process where they are driven to mastery and are amazingly persistent, even where the goal seems way out of reach. This runs contrary to our popular wisdom that it makes sense to work toward small easily attained goals in most things. What we think of as really deep talent actually requires really deep faith in the long term process and the motivation to keep going. Shenk captures the significance of motivation, but I had to look very closely to see the patterns for it. It requires willingness to do things that others may find bizarre and to learn freely from what is available. The author illustrates this but seems to have a hard time really tying it all together, at least he did on my first reading. I've come to think of it in terms of niche construction, which to me really captures what exceptional people do that brings out and shapes their unique gene x environment combination in a targeted way. My reversal in the rating reflects my feeling that capturing this idea is more important than giving it a catchy name, which is really what the author is missing.

We don't know exactly how to take advantage of the dynamic nature of heredity and development, although the study of achievement and expertise reviewed by Shenk gives us many tantalizing clues to go on. And if knowing that the potential is there inspires the faith to keep going, then more and more of us will eventually learn to become better and better at using our minds, constructing our own niches from our own individuality, and the promise of "The Genius in All of Us" will eventually begin to be realized. There is a lot in this book that will repay careful reading and re-reading, as I discovered by doing exactly that.


Related Reading:

See also this classic manifesto of genetic interactionism: The Triple Helix: Gene, Organism, and Environment(Lewontin R (1998/2000) Triple Helix: Gene, Organism, Environment. Cambridge, MA, Harvard)

This superb earlier popular introduction to the emerging model Shenk offers: The Agile Gene: How Nature Turns on Nurture(Ridley, The Agile Gene)

This similar treatment of trait development in interactionist terms, but focused on personality: The Temperamental Thread: How Genes, Culture, Time and Luck make Us Who We Are(kagan, temperamental thread)

This alternative and original interactionist account of how personality develops: No Two Alike: Human Nature and Human Individuality (Judith rich harris no two alike)

This interesting challenge to some widely help assumptions about influence: Stranger in the Nest: Do Parents Really Shape Their Child's Personality, Intelligence, or Character?(Stranger in the Nest, D. Cohen)

This little known treasure by an old friend that offers its own unique challenges about human uniqueness and what it means: rebellion: physics to personal will (Brody, Rebellion)

This psychometric study of what distinguishes geniuses in terms of personality: Genius: The Natural History of Creativity (Problems in the Behavioural Sciences)

This on the classic view from the perspective of behavior genetics: Genetics and Experience: The Interplay between Nature and Nurture (Individual Differences and Development)(Plomin, Genetics and Experience)

This on the fascinating broader biological implications of interactionism from a gene perspective, how the genes of organisms construct niches even beyond the organism itself: The Extended Organism: The Physiology of Animal-Built Structures(Turner, The Extended Organism)

And finally this wonderful broad account of biology and the role of heredity that appreciates the complexities of gene function in a demanding but uniquely engaging way: The Logic of Life(The logic of life, francois jacob)

Elegantly written and accessible, The Genius in All of Us explodes our collective understanding of the biological basis of innate talent and achievement. This book covers territory similar to Malcolm Gladwell's book Outliers, but where that book focused on the sociology of achievement, Genius looks deeply into the most current notions about the interaction between our inherited biology and our personal choices.

As a music teacher, I want to hand this book to every student - and to their parents. By turning views about "giftedness" upside down, this new look at achievement could lead teachers like me into bigger, better practices by looking directly at the cultural myths about talent.

The most exciting chapter in the book is the last, and, alas, the shortest. It's a teaser about genetic expression, the next frontier of our understanding about the interaction between individual biology and the mind. It's exciting to think about a next book by David Shenk, because of the clarity and precision of his research and language, and I hope he follows that trail.

I'm convinced that technology will provide the bridge between learning theory and teaching practice in higher ed. The gap between what we know and what we can actually accomplish is always large. For instance, we know that the best learning takes place in a seminar setting, with students and teachers sitting around a table and constructing knowledge through conversation, dialogue, and opportunities for active learning. The problem is that the resources do not exist to turn every class into a seminar, as the seminar method does not scale. Instead, we have lecture courses. When I first started teaching at WVU my intro to sociology class had about 200 students. It was my efforts to use technology in these courses (in 1998) that first got me interested in learning technology.

Which bring me to David Shenk's new book: The Genius in All of Us: Why Everything You've Been Told About Genetics, Talent and IQ is Wrong. Shenk's basic argument is that we need to leave behind the "nature vs. nurture" debate, and begin to see achievement as a function of genes times environment. Genetics and experience cannot be separated when it comes to understanding or predicting someone's life path.

Shenk dissects and demolishes the notion that some people are "born geniuses" through a careful examination of the biographies of a number of high achievers. From Yo-Yo Ma to Michael Jordan, the common thread that runs through each high achiever is passionate and directed practice and preparation. Someone may be pre-disposed to love art or writing or running, by without the thousands of hours of intense practice (and a social and familial situation that supports this preparation), "genius" will never emerge. This book is a good companion piece to Malcolm Gladwell's Outliers: The Story Of Success, covering much of the same academic research but with greater attention paid to the role of genetics.

Technology can be a tool we use to assist learners in getting the necessary practice they need to become high achievers. Using Shenk's framework on success, we can think of 3 specific ways that technology can be utilized:

1. Support: Shenk stresses that everyone is capable of excelling in any given task, as long as "failure" is not seen as a mark of inadequacy but rather as an opportunity for learning. The bar should be set high, with the assumption that everyone can achieve the goal if they receive the proper support. Self-paced Web-based tutoring modules and computer graded formative assessments are one way to provide learners with support. Some students will take longer to work through the materials, and will need to participate in learning units over-and-over again. Other learners will need to work through assessments multiple times before they can demonstrate mastery of topics. The LMS, Web-based modules, and testing platforms provide scalable and affordable systems to allow this type of support for learning.

2. Repetition and Practice: Understanding that none of us have any in-born shortcuts to learning can help us see the need for repetition and practice. Lecture capture systems allow students to review difficult concepts multiple times. Competency quizzes allow for the concepts to be reinforced through low-stakes quizzing. We should not set an artificial limit on the frequency that learners can interact with the materials. We should expect that everyone will reach a high level, and provide opportunities for practice and repetition that will allow them to reach this goal.

3. Flexibility: Our genes and experiences predispose us to favor certain tasks over others. We are all creative people, we just express our creativity differently. One way we can get the best out of our students is to provide a number of ways they can meet our educational and learning goals. Writing a paper or giving a presentation is not the only method to demonstrate knowledge and skills (nor is taking a multiple choice exam!). Competency in writing might be one of our learning outcomes, but students who are drawn to media projects can demonstrate this skill (by writing a script), while working in a medium that plays to their strengths and passions.

Too often we assume that some of our students are "naturals" and others are just not cut-out for our disciplines. These assumptions can influence how we design our courses and asses our students. I hope that The Genius in All of Us is widely read and discussed among educators, and that all of us take a hard look at our own assumptions.

What are you reading?

Shenk: The genius of all of us.

And, the good news is: No-one is genetically doomed to mediocrity!

The great thing about Shenk's book is that it casts out the belief in the immutability of intelligence. I grew up with the concept of "g" (general intelligence) and saw its profound effect on education. It suited stratified societies to continue the myth of "g" but it couldn't explain away drive and motivation. Yong Zhao (2009) also warned of the educational problem of high scores, low ability.

In an equation that acknowledges that intelligence is a function of environment (G X E), the triggers for intelligence growth were identified as:
1. Speaking to children early and often;
2. Reading early and often;
3. Nurturance and encouragement;
4. Setting high expectations;
5. Embracing failure;
6. Encouraging a `growth mindset'. (pp. 39-40)

Suzuki in developing a world famous violin pedagogy, started with a belief that every student has enormous potential, and then with parental support that potential is developed.

Shenk says that at birth the parents of the child have two alternatives:
a. The prodigy that is pushed by narcissistic parents, and then fall back into mediocrity in adulthood; or
b. The emotionally balanced child who will gather skills and develop greatness as an adult. Walter Mischel's marshmallow experiment of delayed gratification is still as relevant today as it was thirty years ago.

Epigenetics is an area of genetic study that is developing, and it claims that the effects of events and trauma can be transferred across generations. John Cloud wrote in Time magazine- Why Your DNA Isn't Your Destiny (January 6, 2010), which shows support for the genetic plasticity theory.

Shenk's contribution to genetics, education and life is his belief in the plasticity of human potential. All educators need to rejoice at this conclusion, and the book should be compulsory reading for all teachers and aspirant teachers.