The Genius in All of Us by David Shenk review

This science-meets-self-help book joins Malcolm Gladwell's Outliers in arguing that talent is as much a
product of effort and determination as it is genetics

Jess Holland | Sunday 16 January 2011 00.04 GMT Last modified on Friday 8 January 2016 20.10 GMT

Mozart was nothing special, and Michael Jordan doesn't have magical powers. They just
worked really, really hard. That's the thrust behind this science-meets-self-help book,
which joins Malcolm Gladwell's Outliers in encouraging people who don't usually fall
for personal-development shtick that they, too, could realise their wildest dreams.

Some familiar studies are wheeled out to show that determination, practice and a
willingness to fail are what counts: the marshmallow test; the evidence that cabbies'
brains adapt to fit in more information; the experiment showing that students praised for
their effort are more intellectually adventurous than students told they are clever. "You
can do anything if you want it enough" is a truism, but Shenk's out to make it official.

There's some fresher material, too. Shenk's bte noire is the idea that it's our genes that
make us who we are, and that everything that happens after birth builds on that basic
blueprint. But rather than championing nurture and downplaying nature, he paints a
picture in which genes and environment interact in a much more complicated way.
We're jukeboxes, he says. Our genes don't programme us to play just one tune; and it's
what happens after birth that picks the record.

If you're sceptical that we can upgrade the goods we're born with, read up on
epigenetics: the science of the tiny proteins bound up with our DNA, which, scientists
say, can be altered by lifestyle and subsequently pass on traits to the next generation. It's
why an older dad has a greater risk of a child with schizophrenia, according to one NYU
study, and it could be why mice living in a stimulating environment give birth to
brighter offspring.

Geneticists reading the book as a piece of novel theory can browse the book's second
half, devoted entirely to sources and notes, to check that all this stands up. The rest of us
can focus on the uplifting message: none of us are born mediocre, and while it can be
difficult to change habits and cultivate motivation, it's not impossible.

"It's not that I'm so smart, it's that I stay with problems longer," Einstein is quoted as
saying, and that's something anyone can work on. The philosopher William James is
also cited for the book's opening epigram, which is worth taping to the fridge if you're
wrestling with new year's resolutions. "Compared with what we ought to be, we are
only half awake," he writes. "The human being lives far within his limits."

(unabridged from

http://www.theguardian.com/books/2011/jan/16/genius-in-all-of-us-david-shenk-review)
 Why genius isn't in the genes
The belief that a genius is the product of genetic make-up is as pervasive as it is wrong,
according to David Shenk

David Shenk: anyone can be a genius

Robin McKie | Sunday 2 May 2010 00.08 BST Last modified on Saturday 9 January 2016 06.31 GMT

Talent is like the marksman who hits the target others cannot reach; genius is like the
marksman who hits a target others cannot even see. Thus Arthur Schopenhauer defined
the concept of genius as a gift displayed by semi-mystic beings whose innate qualities
sets them apart from other mortals. Mozart, Einstein, Newton, George Best: all were
blessed by their genes and achieved a greatness that the rest of us cannot hope to
possess.

And that would seem to be that. Writer David Shenk, a contributor to the New Yorker
and other US publications, begs to differ, however. Every human has the potential to be
an Einstein, claims this affable 43-year-old in his latest book The Genius in All of Us
(Icon). There is nothing that special about being exceptionally gifted. It is a comforting
assertion. But is it justified?

You claim that everything that we have been told about genetics, talent and
intelligence is wrong. Why?

My interest was sparked when I stumbled into a body of research called expertise
studies. Anders Ericsson [of Florida State University] and other psychologists have
examined what processes make certain people so good at some activities. They are
trying to determine the ingredients of greatness, in other words.

For example, they looked at how [professional] violists practise. To the untrained eye
and ear, it seems obvious: they all do a great deal of practising hours, hours and hours.
But if you look very carefully at those who end up being the best, you discover by
doing intensive tracking of them that they do practise more, and better, than those in
the class below them.

That is a theme that extends to all achievements. There is a quantitative and qualitative
difference in the practice undertaken by the super-greats say in basketball and the
mere greats. They work hard at being great. It isn't bestowed at birth.

Most people look at child geniuses like Mozart and conclude that his gifts had to be
the result of fortuitous genes. Presumably you disagree?

Every piece of evidence we have about how genes work, how brains work, where
musicality actually comes from, are consistent with the idea that there is nothing that
mysterious about Mozart. I am not trying to diminish his achievements, of course. But
the more you look at his life, or the life of any other genius, you realise that this was a
process. He reacted to an environment that was almost uniquely perfect for moulding
him into a child star.
The myth of Mozart's innate talent persists because people conflate different things in
his life. We know he was interested in composing early on and we know he was a
prodigy as a performer. The untrained mind reacts by concluding he was born that way.
And that kind of reaction has been going for a century. Every time we are confronted
with prodigious talent, we say it must be genes because we cannot think of any other
explanation. In fact, in the case of Mozart, it is clear his upbringing was also remarkable
in terms of stimulating his abilities.

The trouble is that this problem is getting worse. The more we read about new genes
being discovered for human conditions, the more our belief in genetic determinism gets
stronger. Yet the vast majority of geneticists would not want that to happen.

You say Mozart's greatness was not innate but due to his drive. He practised at
playing and composing better than anyone else. But who is to say that drive was
not inherited? The source of his greatness would still lie in genes in that case.

I think there are genes that influence drive. But I do not think that it is a completely
innate characteristic. It becomes part of our personality and psychology and all of that is
developed. Resilience and motivation can appear at different stages in people's lives and
often appear in response to adversity, although I accept it will be more difficult for some
people to develop intense drive than others. But, fundamentally, it is a developed trait.

Do you think genetics research is going to provide us with more data that suggests
that genius is acquired rather than inherited?

Modern studies are only just beginning to unravel issues about gene expression and
epigenetics, the study of how the environment modifies the ways genes are expressed.
Genes are constantly activated and deactivated by environmental stimuli: nutrition,
hormones, nerve impulses and other genes. There is no golden genetic windfall
bestowed at birth, but constant interaction between the outside world and our DNA.

In other words, your genes do not place a limit on your potential in any way?

Yes. That is right. Our genes influence our lives, but equally our lives influence our
genes. And I think that that has important implications. Certainly, in the US, we tend to
quietly give in to the suspicion that some people are not as capable of being educated as
others.

The thing is that if we decide that we need to do a lot more to exploit human talent, then
we will all benefit. These things take resources, of course. But the overall message is
clear. Our problem is not that we possess inadequate genetic assets but that we are
suffering from an inability, so far, to tap into what we already have.

Few of us know our true limits and the vast majority of us have not even come close to
tapping what scientists call our "unactualised potential".

(unabridged from

http://www.theguardian.com/theobserver/2010/may/02/david-shenk-genius-genetics)