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

[mike3]

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.

And it doesn't even have to be that extreme (abuse, repression, etc.). Poverty, for example, of the family. This would limit the ability of the family to provide for them, thus preventing them from being about to develop all that stuff.

Poverty is atrocious and the sooner we can purge it from the face of the earth, the better.

 

[Dorian Gray]

I think desire has a lot to do with it. What if you are naturally a good violin player, or could be a good violin player, but you can't stand playing the violin? Then you'll never know your potential. Also, you won't give a crap.

Take this to its logical conclusion and you get that quite often people choose being happy over being good at some talent or another. And quite often, people who are driven to excel at something are unbearable to be around. Thus, quite often, it's better to be happy than to be excellent at something (or put another way, it's better to be good at being happy).

I would agree with this, because you can be happy no matter what level of technology is reached or what types of inventions are created if you work at it. And for all you bargain hunters out there, being happy now is cheaper and faster than believing you'll be happy if you work very hard at something and get a great job and make a lot of money.

 

[mike3]

I think desire has a lot to do with it. What if you are naturally a good violin player, or could be a good violin player, but you can't stand playing the violin? Then you'll never know your potential. Also, you won't give a crap.

Sure. But saying that everyone has high potential is something different.

Take this to its logical conclusion and you get that quite often people choose being happy over being good at some talent or another. And quite often, people who are driven to excel at something are unbearable to be around. Thus, quite often, it's better to be happy than to be excellent at something (or put another way, it's better to be good at being happy).

Why is that?

I would agree with this, because you can be happy no matter what level of technology is reached or what types of inventions are created if you work at it. And for all you bargain hunters out there, being happy now is cheaper and faster than believing you'll be happy if you work very hard at something and get a great job and make a lot of money.

Why can't one find a way to be happy while doing it? And why care about how much money is made, or use the money to help other people, since that's what the inventions would do?

And are you saying just about anyone can be a great creative genius (since that's what invention requires) if they just "work" at it? That most of us could rival Einstein, Mozart, Picaso, Tesla, da Vinci, etc.?

 

[Kuko 4000]

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.

Mike, that's why I've stressed that understanding the science behind how people can develop their abilities better is a very potential tool for the parents to acquire. There seems to be very effective psychological ways to increase the "will to challenge yourself" kind of mentality and many others that on average lead to things that many of us value. The study I mentioned in the OP seems to clearly lead to two different paths, and the priming is subtle, I don't think that many parents right now realize stuff like this. Education like this can mean a world of difference.

 

[Kuko 4000]

One of the points Shenk discusses in the book is epigenetics:

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

In biology, and specifically genetics, epigenetics is the study of inherited changes in phenotype (appearance) or gene expression caused by mechanisms other than changes in the underlying DNA sequence, hence the name epi- (Greek: επί- over, above) -genetics. These changes may remain through cell divisions for the remainder of the cell's life and may also last for multiple generations. However, there is no change in the underlying DNA sequence of the organism;[1] instead, non-genetic factors cause the organism's genes to behave (or "express themselves") differently.[2]

The best example of epigenetic changes in eukaryotic biology is the process of cellular differentiation. During morphogenesis, totipotent stem cells become the various pluripotent cell lines of the embryo which in turn become fully differentiated cells. In other words, a single fertilized egg cell – the zygote – changes into the many cell types including neurons, muscle cells, epithelium, blood vessels etc. as it continues to divide. It does so by activating some genes while inhibiting others.[3]

Here's a small clip about Dawkins' take on epigenetics and how it relates to the current understanding of the theory of evolution:

 

[mike3]

Mike, that's why I've stressed that understanding the science behind how people can develop their abilities better is a very potential tool for the parents to acquire. There seems to be very effective psychological ways to increase the "will to challenge yourself" kind of mentality and many others that on average lead to things that many of us value. The study I mentioned in the OP seems to clearly lead to two different paths, and the priming is subtle, I don't think that many parents right now realize stuff like this. Education like this can mean a world of difference.

However, you have no control over what kind of parents you get. That's my point on this. How much you are to "blame" for your lack of ability in something vs. other factors. Genes are only one "out of your control" factor. Parenting is another, economic situation in childhood is another, etc. I'm not after questions of "genes vs. environment", I'm after questions of "what's in your hands vs what's not in your hands". Genes are not the only thing in the second category.

Also, it seems you're stuck on the "willpower" bit and avoid answering the question: do you think that, with enough willpower, most (>50% of) people could become a creative genius that could rival famous ones from history? If so, do you have evidence of it? If not, then I don't see what you're advocating here that isn't already a well-known, well-accepted and non-disputed fact.

 

[TjW]

Was she motivated to train hard and with intensity and meaning?

You've used this phrase several times. What exactly is training with meaning?

 

[Kuko 4000]

However, you have no control over what kind of parents you get. That's my point on this.

Agreed.

How much you are to "blame" for your lack of ability in something vs. other factors.

I think this comes down to questions of free will, I'm of the understanding that we don't have any contra-causal free will, so everything we do is dependent on other factors.

Genes are only one "out of your control" factor. Parenting is another, economic situation in childhood is another, etc. I'm not after questions of "genes vs. environment", I'm after questions of "what's in your hands vs what's not in your hands". Genes are not the only thing in the second category.

Agreed on your points, but I think that this question is besides the point of this thread. Have you been active in the free will threads?

Also, it seems you're stuck on the "willpower" bit and avoid answering the question: do you think that, with enough willpower, most (>50% of) people could become a creative genius that could rival famous ones from history? If so, do you have evidence of it? If not, then I don't see what you're advocating here that isn't already a well-known, well-accepted and non-disputed fact.

If this is the case, it's because I don't have ready answers. What I feel reasonable in David's position is that the general public has too limited understanding of how our genes actually work (to the point of negatively affecting their decision making) and have a more narrow and rigid understanding of "innate talent" and personality or their ability to develop certain skills than what the science seems to show.

As to your question, I don't know about most people becoming "geniuses", but I agree with Shenk that we don't know until we try our best in excellent environments for years and years. I also agree with him that this is not the point. The point is rather that how much could we improve if we really put in the effort and have (or search out for) a beneficial environment. I also agree that the sacrifices required of becoming "genius" are in many cases not productive to other kinds of things that we value.

I hope this was a reasonable answer.

The following points seem very interesting and important for me:

* Studies that show how things like "the will to challenge yourself", persistence, motivation, etc. can be developed with the right kind of guidance and / or mind set, this can be something very subtle as seen in the Carol Dweck study I quoted in the OP. Did you know about this study beforehand?

* Gene expression, epigenetics and GxE.

* Abilities like the absolute pitch are available to pretty much all of us in a favourable environment early on.

 

[Kuko 4000]

You've used this phrase several times. What exactly is training with meaning?

I think I can give the best example from team sports, because that's where I have considerable experience. First things first, even in the same training session everyone trains differently. A difference in intensity is something that's easy to adjust intuitively and it's also pretty easy to spot from the outside. Training with meaning is a wider subject (and it of course includes the intensity), it can mean the difference in how you watch a game from tv, do you analyze the movements and tactics purposefully and try to actively incorporate these things into your game in the training or are you just enjoying the game on tv and carry on training as usual.

It can mean that you intentionally try to practice your weak points instead of carrying on normally. Even on pro level football (soccer to you guys in NA), there can be unnecessarily big difference in skill level between your left foot and your right foot, or the way you score with your foot or with your head. It can mean the difference in the basic technique skills (passing, shooting, dribbling, heading, 1-1, 2-1, everything) that everyone does from training to training, it's very common to see people just "going along" or "doing by instinct" instead of really challenging themselves to perform game-like in these sessions or actively trying out new stuff.

“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."

I guess basically it means that you study the game from as many viewpoints as possible and then incorporate this to your training, rather than just "being there" and clocking the hours just like most of the people around. To understand and actively explore what you're doing, how you're doing it and why you're doing it. This is not what most of the people do, even though it's sometimes encouraged by the better coaches around. I think too little emphasis is put on this aspect even in the more serious training schools / academies for kids.

 

[mike3]

Agreed.




I think this comes down to questions of free will, I'm of the understanding that we don't have any contra-causal free will, so everything we do is dependent on other factors.





Agreed on your points, but I think that this question is besides the point of this thread. Have you been active in the free will threads?

Whether or not "real" free will exists is besides the point. There is certainly something we "perceive" as free will, and that's what I'm talking about here. The factors I mention are outside of that "perceived" free will's ability to control.

If this is the case, it's because I don't have ready answers. What I feel reasonable in David's position is that the general public has too limited understanding of how our genes actually work (to the point of negatively affecting their decision making) and have a more narrow and rigid understanding of "innate talent" and personality or their ability to develop certain skills than what the science seems to show.

As to your question, I don't know about most people becoming "geniuses", but I agree with Shenk that we don't know until we try our best in excellent environments for years and years. I also agree with him that this is not the point. The point is rather that how much could we improve if we really put in the effort and have (or search out for) a beneficial environment. I also agree that the sacrifices required of becoming "genius" are in many cases not productive to other kinds of things that we value.

Also, many people may not have such things available. What if you were born poor and grew up poor, with limited stuff available?

I hope this was a reasonable answer.

The following points seem very interesting and important for me:

* Studies that show how things like "the will to challenge yourself", persistence, motivation, etc. can be developed with the right kind of guidance and / or mind set, this can be something very subtle as seen in the Carol Dweck study I quoted in the OP. Did you know about this study beforehand?

This is not necessarily a surprise, nor does it have to do with my main point.

* Gene expression, epigenetics and GxE.

Again, timing is the thing. Gene expression and environmental factors that only matter during womb development or early childhood are examples of "out of your hands" factors.

* Abilities like the absolute pitch are available to pretty much all of us in a favourable environment early on.

Early on -- see, there you go, if you miss that childhood window (in which far less factors are "in your control"), then it's toast. Didn't have parents that told you about developing it? Didn't have a teacher about it? Didn't want it at the time but wanted it later? Tough, you're screwed. In a way I suppoes that last factor does imply a "will" effect to some extent, but there's also a naivete component: you probably don't understand this at that age.

What you do seem to make a good case for is that society and parents should guarantee everyone the ability to have an optimal environment for the free development of their potentials. Missing out on such stuff because of poverty and ignorance indicates a sorely broken and twisted society.

The whole idea here is that "success" is a combination of factors coming together, some of which must be supplied by the person's own will-power, and some of which cannot be so supplied. Nothing is simple and nothing is black and white.

And almost every famous "world class" anything usually evidences their talent early on. Granted, they must work hard to actually use it to its full potential, but if it ain't there in the first place... It's a combination, it's not one-or-the-other. E.g. Michael Phelps showed phenomenal swimming ability in single-digit childhood years. If you want to claim it's mostly "hard work", then I suppose you have to say that his mates did not work so hard. Or maybe they didn't, but maybe that's because they weren't getting ahead, they were "maxing out", so to speak. The best motivator, or one of the best, to work more is results. A lack of results can (though doesn't
always) indicate bumping up against an uncontrollable factor of some kind.

 

[TjW]

I think I can give the best example from team sports, because that's where I have considerable experience. First things first, even in the same training session everyone trains differently. A difference in intensity is something that's easy to adjust intuitively and it's also pretty easy to spot from the outside. Training with meaning is a wider subject (and it of course includes the intensity), it can mean the difference in how you watch a game from tv, do you analyze the movements and tactics purposefully and try to actively incorporate these things into your game in the training or are you just enjoying the game on tv and carry on training as usual.

It can mean that you intentionally try to practice your weak points instead of carrying on normally. Even on pro level football (soccer to you guys in NA), there can be unnecessarily big difference in skill level between your left foot and your right foot, or the way you score with your foot or with your head. It can mean the difference in the basic technique skills (passing, shooting, dribbling, heading, 1-1, 2-1, everything) that everyone does from training to training, it's very common to see people just "going along" or "doing by instinct" instead of really challenging themselves to perform game-like in these sessions or actively trying out new stuff.

“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."

I guess basically it means that you study the game from as many viewpoints as possible and then incorporate this to your training, rather than just "being there" and clocking the hours just like most of the people around. To understand and actively explore what you're doing, how you're doing it and why you're doing it. This is not what most of the people do, even though it's sometimes encouraged by the better coaches around. I think too little emphasis is put on this aspect even in the more serious training schools / academies for kids.

So if the practitioner gets better, then his practice had meaning. If he doesn't, then it's not because he's untalented, but because his practice wasn't meaningful.

 

[Kuko 4000]

This is not necessarily a surprise, nor does it have to do with my main point.

For me the idea that "everything is connected" is not a surprise, but the details / resolution of that study was something that was new to me and I can see the potential in it. Good stuff.

What you do seem to make a good case for is that society and parents should guarantee everyone the ability to have an optimal environment for the free development of their potentials. Missing out on such stuff because of poverty and ignorance indicates a sorely broken and twisted society.

Yeah, that's pretty much the main reason I'm interested about this message. Although I wouldn't go as far as "society and parents should guarantee", I'd be happy enough if more and more people just get the message, assuming that the science behind it passes the test, of course.

E.g. Michael Phelps showed phenomenal swimming ability in single-digit childhood years. If you want to claim it's mostly "hard work", then I suppose you have to say that his mates did not work so hard.

Are you suggesting that it can't be due to better training and overall environment early on?

Here's a good recent example of a 6 year old training better than most of his peers, definitely worth watching more than a few seconds:



He's been training well for a couple of years already. I'm pretty sure many people just call him a great talent with innate skills. I can also imagine other parents thinking that their kid is not as talented as he is, and how this can effect the psyche of their children when they're speaking with these terms.

 

[Kuko 4000]

So if the practitioner gets better, then his practice had meaning. If he doesn't, then it's not because he's untalented, but because his practice wasn't meaningful.

Nope, just that better training means better chances to succeed, and that many people are not even close to training as well that they could, I don't really see the problem here?

 

[TjW]

Yes. That's why better training is better. How does meaningful differ from better in this context?

 

[Kuko 4000]

Yes. That's why better training is better. How does meaningful differ from better in this context?

I was just emphasising one of the main aspects that makes better training better, and how many people don't realize the importance of this.

 

[meow]

i don't believe any of it. i've got this white trash moving in down the street from me in a trailer park that just opened and these people are beyond hope. 20 families within the last year and a felon in 8 of the trailers. their english is horrible. the few that work hold no better than minimum wage jobs.

it's all about the genes.

 

[mike3]

i don't believe any of it. i've got this white trash moving in down the street from me in a trailer park that just opened and these people are beyond hope. 20 families within the last year and a felon in 8 of the trailers. their english is horrible. the few that work hold no better than minimum wage jobs.

it's all about the genes.

1. "White trash" sounds racist. Racism is bad.

2. How do you know it's genes, as opposed to some kind of consistent non-genetic "bad" factor (e.g. bad home -> bad children -> bad home for the grandchildren -> bad grandchildren -> bad home ...)? Here we're talking about "genes" (actually, "uncontrollables") that relate to aptitude in things like sports, mathematics, science, music, arts, etc. not behavioral problems.

 

[Paulhoff]

it's all about the genes.

So tell us, which are the Right Ones to have.

Paul

 

[mike3]

For me the idea that "everything is connected" is not a surprise, but the details / resolution of that study was something that was new to me and I can see the potential in it. Good stuff.

I'd be more curious as to wonder who says nothing is connected.

Yeah, that's pretty much the main reason I'm interested about this message. Although I wouldn't go as far as "society and parents should guarantee", I'd be happy enough if more and more people just get the message, assuming that the science behind it passes the test, of course.

But "people" alone hearing would not be enough; you need change of the societal fabric to help ensure that. More responsibility to others.

Are you suggesting that it can't be due to better training and overall environment early on?

It could be both. Can't is a very strong word. Reality is a slippy beast that often doesn't like to get pinned down on one factor. But when you have two people training equally well in similar environments and getting much more unequal results, what does that imply?

And again, still, the "early on" still keeps biting: this critical period theory, so if your naivete and/or other outside-your-personal-control factors cause you to miss this, you're capped and thus a good chunk of maximum success is still seen to rest on factors that are outside your personal control. Genes are just one of them. So the thrust of my point -- that you shouldn't just go judge someone as "lazy" merely because of your perception of them having general "success" or lack thereof -- still holds quite strong. If they did train harder the parents, etc. then must have been able to get them to do it, i.e. overcome the naivete barrier. Thus if someone did not have that barrier overcome by having the fortune to get those kind of parents, then they are not so personally responsible for failing to succeed as much as someone who did.

And I'd still like to hear you answer yes or no to: Do you think that, without any sort of genetic changes or genetic engineering or whatever, that in theory, one could have a society in which 90% of the people have the genius of Albert Einstein or Nikola Tesla or other famous scientific geniuses, and the musical talent of Mozart, all in one? And how much do you think could be done by an "average" person who missed out on the critical childhood period? Like someone starting at something in their late teens or even their 20s?

 

[mike3]

"Why Everything You've Been Told about Genetics, Talent and IQ is Wrong" Part 2?

Hi.

I was curious about resurrecting this topic (see: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=195018). What I'd want to know is this:

1. how much worth is there to the "critical period theory", that is, that if you miss out on the childhood "golden years", you're greatly blunted? What is the level of "blunting" that occurs from starting at something in your teens or early 20s vs starting it at childhood (after infancy and on up to 12 years age)? In other words, how much does the "curse" of childhood poverty, for example, really hold one down, biologically? I know there seems to be a well-demonstrated CP for language acquisition. How does CP theory extend past that?

2. is it possible that the majority of people could theoretically achieve intelligence levels comparable to those of history's finest minds? That most of us could be Einsteins if we had the right environmental stuff, or that we could at least, theoretically, give our children what's needed (see point 1) so that they would mostly be Einsteins (or similar phenomenal "success" level)?

3. are these ideas generally accepted in the scientific mainstream? Any experts in this field here that would want to weigh in on this? It certainly seems to draw on real science, so I suppose it should not be too controversial, no?

4. some of these factors may be out of all our control ("happenings").

Overall, how much do "unchangeables" or "out-of-your-control factors" (of which Genes are but one) really limit? If you got bad OOCFs in childhood, esp. some sort of poverty, how much have you lost for life? And that this kind of "genius" doesn't happen more often seems to suggest that some kind of new type of training or experience is required. What would that be?

In addition, there are more "pure-science" questions I am curious if this raises. Does this lend more weight to the possibility that so-called "Lamarckian evolution" may be real and significant in the development of species in addition to conventional Darwinian evolution?

And also, what are the ramifications for human behavior and psychology if this is true? Especially with regards to, say, violence and fighting. Is it possible that not only do we have much more capacity for "genius" than we think, but also much more capacity for peace?