The Genius In All Of Us..

[Fumesucker]

http://www.salon.com/books/what_to_read/index.html?story=/books/laura_miller/2010/03/07/genius_in_all_of_us

David Shenk's new book, "The Genius in All of Us: Why Everything You've Been Told About Genetics, Talent, and IQ Is Wrong," is 300 pages long, and more than half of those pages are endnotes. You need to offer up a lot of evidence when your goal is to overturn a concept as commonplace as the idea that genes are the "blueprints" for both our physical bodies and our personalities. Above all, what Shenk wants to communicate is that "the whole concept of genetic giftedness turns out to be wildly off the mark -- tragically kept afloat for decades by a cascade of misunderstandings and misleading metaphors." Instead of acquiescing to the belief that talent is a quality we're either born with or not, he wants us to understand that anyone can aspire to superlative achievement. Hard, persistent and focused work is responsible for greatness, rather than innate ability.

Shenk does have a lot of evidence for this assertion, most of it coming from geneticists and other biological researchers who are perplexed at the way their disciplines get depicted in the media. "Today's popular understanding of genes, heredity and evolution is not just crude, it's profoundly misleading," Shenk writes. While most scientists long ago rejected the idea that nature and nurture are two separate factors competing in a zero-sum game to dominate human behavior, laypeople still cling to the idea that whatever aspect of ourselves isn't caused by our environment must be caused by our genes, and vice versa. In recent decades, heredity has gotten most of the credit; the host of the brainiest NPR talk show in my area inevitably prompts every expert to confirm that whatever they're discussing -- mathematical ability, wanderlust, ambition, mental illness -- is genetically determined.

According to Shenk, and he is persuasive, none of this stuff is genetically determined, if by "determined" you mean exclusively or largely dictated by genes. Instead, "one large group of scientists," a "vanguard" that Shenk has labeled "the interactionists," insists that the old genes-plus-environment model (G+E) must be jettisoned and replaced by a model they call GxE, emphasizing "the dynamic interaction between genes and the environment." They don't discount heredity, as the old blank-slate hypothesis of human nature once did. Instead, they assert that "genes powerfully influence the formation of all traits, from eye color to intelligence, but rarely dictate precisely what those traits will be."

Shenk's particular interest is talent, genius and other instances of extraordinary ability, whether the skills be athletic, artistic or scientific. Musicians and athletes most often get held up as examples of the triumph of innate gifts. According to Shenk, we are erroneously led to believe that stars like Tiger Woods and cellist Yo-yo Ma were born to climb to the top of their fields, when in fact the environments they grew up in are just as responsible (if not more so) for their spectacular feats. To prove this point, he methodically debunks several widely cited examples that supposedly prove the reality of inherited gifts: child prodigies, twin studies and geographical pockets of excellence at particular sports. In all of these cases, he demonstrates, observers have ignored and downplayed the enormous role of environment (especially in early childhood) in favor of touting the preeminence of genetics.

<snip>

More at the link..

[Heidi]

1. This is fascinating

and I say that as an adopted person with some knowledge of the circumstances of a half-brother and half-sister who share half of my genetic background and were not adopted.

Recommended.

[Fumesucker]

2. I think you'll also enjoy this article about a different facet of the same subject..

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/03/the-science-of-success/7761/

[Heidi]

4. Yes! Thank you.

I'm interested in all science related to this topic. :thumbsup:

[G_j]

3. K&R

good reading

[Maru Kitteh]

5. Bookmarking for later. Thanks for posting.

[MilesColtrane]

6. After meeting and observing thousands of musicians in my life.

I can offer the anecdotal evidence that I have never met a great player who doesn't have to, or never did have to practice.

Almost all of the best musicians spent a time during their lives in which they practiced 8 hours a day, or more, for a period of many months.

I've read that the innovators practiced incessantly.

Charlie Parker practiced 11-15 hours a day for over 3 years.

Van Gogh painted and drew all the time. He even painted over old work when he ran out of canvas.

I think the myth of the artistic genius springing fully formed from the womb exists to make those that don't want to face the hard work feel better about themselves.

[Heidi]

7. To some extent, I very much agree.

I didn't paint between sixth grade and age 36. Then, boom. Much of what others call "genius," I call "passion for craft." And don't get me started on folks who spend more time talkin' about their passions than LIVING them.

[unblock]

8. first, i think it requires BOTH innate talent and much hard work

and second, i think the focus and hard work and so on IS part of what we call genius.

i don't think you can just say "anyone can become a brilliant musician through hard work and focus" in part because not everyone CAN focus and diligently practice 8 hours per day. some people don't have the patience, temperament, discipline.

personally, i have music in my genes, and i was a child prodigy at age 5. but by age 6, i learned frustration and my music has never been the same. i think i have the part of musical genius that's the innate understanding and appreciation -- i can compose wonderful music in my head -- but i can't really express it because i just can't get it out properly, because i lack those other ingredients that lead to what we really think of as actual musical genius.

and it's not just sitting down at the piano for 8 hours per day. that i could do. it's being able to actually LEARN from what you're doing for those 8 hours, and choosing wise things to PLAY so that you're learning the right things.

personally, again, i go straight to beethoven's hardest sonatas. i have no patience for scales and the boring, "simple" works. and therefore i'm unlikely to ever really progress.



on the other hand, there are plenty of people who can rack up a gazillion hours singing, playing a musical instrument, or whatever, and they'll never be good. you need some real starting point.