The Genius in All of Us: Why Everything Youve Been Told About Genetics, Talent, and IQ Is Wrong by David Shenk

The Genius in All of Us: Why Everything Youve Been Told About Genetics, Talent, and IQ Is Wrong Reviews

• 
  David

  In my opinion, this book is superb, but many vehemently disagree. Shenk examines Nature vs. Nurture in the light of modern science and makes the argument that genes have less control over our outcome than has been popularly believed. But he doesn’t contend that environment is the sole influence on outcomes, either. Genius and giftedness are misunderstood, according to Shenk, and the capacity for high level performance is not left to fate. Reviews in Amazon have chastised Shenk as a naïve romantic, or a polemicist. Yes, this is written by a trade writer, not a dispassionate scientist, and his objective is to express a conviction, not test a hypothesis. But he deals in facts, exhibits a solid command of the subject matter, and makes some excellent and important points. Critics offer Steven Pinker’s Blank Slate (which I haven’t read) as the best refutation. Pinker is an academic of the highest caliber, and Shenk’s may be too much of a polemicist for hardline academics, but this book is more than just a manifesto of political correctness or cry for social idealism. Besides, after countless generations have subjected their children to a psychological straitjacket regarding their individual potential and when societies have for millennium assigned their fellows to rigid class hierarchies, I find something disturbing in complaints that Shenk is overly permissive with individual potential. I’m more inclined to go the other direction and say that every parent and every teacher should be required to read this book and risk thinking too hopefully of their child or student, rather than subject them to the soft bigotry of low expectation. You rock, David Shenk!
• 
  Alisa Kester

  I've long noticed that people who say they "aren't creative" never seem to actually try to do anything creative. They admire different things I've made, then shake their heads and say "But I could never do that, because I'm not creative." I've never actually said anything to those people, but I always walk away with a tinge of annoyance. Creativity is a thing you DO, not a thing you ARE. Sure, you probably won't be able to sit down and make a masterpiece your first time out, but you know what? Neither did I. In fact, I still haven't. No matter what I do or how good it turns out, I always see the room for improvement, and so I keep trying, and I keep improving, and that makes me happy.
  
  The Genius in All of Us proves my point. No one is born with genius, no one just "is" something without having had to learn it, practice it, and struggle with it. The opening illustration is about baseball legend Ted Williams, who was considered the most 'gifted' hitter of his time. Only it turns out to have been a gift, but pure hard work and obsessive focus that made him what he was. From age six or seven, all he did was practice hitting, every day, every free moment. He paid kids with his lunch money to hit balls to him. He practiced until blood ran down his wrists. He didn't go to movies because he was after they would weaken his vision. He didn't date as a teenager, he just kept hitting. He made himself what he was, he wasn't born with it.
  
  Beethoven wasn't born a genius either - he had a father who was determined to create one. His father made he play the clavier even when he wept. If he stopped, he was beaten. When he was allowed to stop, it was only to play a different instrument, or to study musical theory. He was locked in the cellar and beaten almost every day. He woken up at midnight for more hours of practice. He was four years of age. Twenty years later, he was heralded as a natural genius.
  
  Genius (or any other kind of physical or mental achievement) is not in our genes - it's in our environments, our interests, and our hard work.
  
  A fascinating book.
  
  
• 
  Tony

  Absolutely incredible. Written and expressed with passion and backed up with solid research and references.
  
  I cannot praise this enough.
  
  Especially if you want advice on how to ruin your children. (And therefore of course, how not to!)
  
  So it goes.
• 
  Andi

  This book had so much potential, but it performed abysmally. Even the organization of the book sets it up for failure. The author divides the book into 'The Argument' and 'The Evidence'. 'The Argument' is 134 pages including the epilogue. 'The Evidence' is 143 pages. At first glance, this seems pretty awesome - look at how much evidence there is to support what this guy claims - FANTASTIC. Only, not so. The so called evidence is nothing more than his chapter notes. 143 pages of notes on 134 pages of book. I tried reading the notes concurrently with the text and it didn't work. I tried reading the chapter notes as a separate entity, also did not work. Completely useless.
  
  So, casting aside 'The Evidence', we are left with 'The Argument'. The premise, that intelligence is not G+E, but instead G*E, where G=genetics/nature and E=environment/nurture, is a very intriguing one. Unfortunately, he fails to address this very premise. His arguments about nature are extremely outdated (perhaps this is because it took him three years to write the book?), poorly presented, and his conclusions are flawed. His discussion about E has an entirely different problem - his presentation comes across as a purely E supporter, despite a few half-witted attempts at saying "but I'm not saying we're blank slates" when, in essence, that's almost precisely what his writing conveyed.
  
  One example of the poor execution of his argument lies in his examples of seemingly low-IQ scorers who have a superior talent. He speaks of IQ scores and intelligence interchangeably, but it's a commonly held belief that IQ scores are not an indication of general intelligence, simply an indication of 2 specific types of intelligences and have no ability to accurately assess intelligence in any of the other intelligence areas. The author speaks nothing of this POV, strongly undermining the validity of his arguments (that he's so desperately trying to demonstrate). His entire argument is that what we know about IQ is wrong, i.e. out of date, and yet, he presents readers with out of date arguments himself.
  
  It gets better. In his discussion of E, he quotes Howard Gardner. Howard Gardner is well-known for his theory of multiple intelligences. Is Howard Gardner discussed, mentioned, or hinted at when the meaning of intelligence is discussed? Most definitely not. Instead, the only reference to multiple intelligences is through a quote by the ever-so-famous scientist...err rock star Bruce Sprinsteen. "One problem with the way the educational system is set up is that it only recognizes a certain type of intelligence, and it's incredibly restrictive..." Where does this information FINALLY appear? In a discussion about the role of motivation and its role in performance.
  
  There are so many examples of flawed logic and contradicting theories and examples that they are too numerous to list. One of my favorites - spending several pages talking about how genetics between races are inconsequential, far more similar than different and so intermixed that it's moot...the usual, which is all fine and good, then making a point by saying that Jamaicans are less genetically African and more genetically European and native American. I THOUGHT YOU JUST SAID IT DIDN'T MATTER AND COULDN'T REALLY BE DETERMINED BECAUSE WE MOVE ABOUT TOO MUCH! Make up your mind.
  
  The book wasn't a total loss. It was based on the right idea - that genetics and environment are very closely linked, that many people do not reach their full potential because they (and their parents) do not do the things necessary to achieve success of Mozartian proportions, and that such genius does not come without its own price, usually in the form of detriment to other parts of living. It just could have been presented a lot better.
• 
  Lan Tô Thị Hoàng

  THIÊN TÀI TRONG MỖI CHÚNG TA và những nghiên cứu đột phá về tiềm năng con người
  Mình muốn bắt đầu việc chia sẻ về quyển sách này bằng câu cuối cùng của quyển sách:
  "Sự khác biệt giữa thế hệ trước và thế hệ này là cha mẹ đã chỉ bảo cho tôi bằng trực giác, niềm tin và kinh nghiệm, còn tôi nói với con cái mình bằng trực giác, niềm tin, kinh nghiệm và khoa học."
  Điều này muốn nói rằng, để nuôi dưỡng một đứa trẻ, chúng ta cần học hỏi mỗi ngày chứ không thể dùng những gì chúng ta đã biết hoặc đã được nuôi dạy để tiếp tục nuôi đứa con của mình. Làm cha mẹ cần tỉnh thức. Quá trình nuôi dưỡng con cái lớn khôn cũng đồng nghĩa với sự lớn khôn của chúng ta trong vai trò làm cha mẹ.
  Nội dung quyển sách này gồm 10 phần, tập trung vào hai chủ đề lớn: di truyền (gen) và cách tác động của chúng ta. Hai chủ đề này theo thứ tự trong sách được đan xen lẫn nhau. Nhưng vì mục đích mình đọc quyển này không phải để biến con mình thành thiên tài nên mình sẽ bố cục lại theo logic mà mình cần lưu trữ để dùng.
  1) Những nghiên cứu mới về gen và não:
  a) Trước đây, người ta nghĩ rằng gen là một bản thiết kế định sẵn chúng ta là ai và sự tác động môi trường chỉ giúp phát huy bao nhiêu % trong bản thiết kế đó. Nếu môi trường tốt, chúng ta phát triển 100% di truyền cho, ngược lại thì giảm đi. Nhưng một điều chắc chắn là chúng ta không thể vượt qua nổi cái giới hạn mà gen đã định sẵn cho ta. Kiểu như suy nghĩ của mình khi xưa là: mình (và chồng mình) không có gen A nào đó thì lấy gì con mình giỏi giang được trong lĩnh vực đó.
  Đây là sơ đồ theo quan điểm cũ: gen --> protein --> các tế bào --(môi trường)--> các đặc điểm.
  Tuy nhiên, những nghiên cứu mới dẫn đến một lý thuyết khác là gen tương tác với môi trường trong một qúa trình năng động, liên tục sản sinh và sàn lọc để tạo nên một cá thể. Nó không phải là bản thiết kế cho sẵn. Các gen (khoảng 22000 gen) giống như các nút bấm và thiết bị chuyển mạch trong mỗi bảng điều khiển khổng lồ bên trong mỗi tế bào cơ thể. Những nút bấm và thiết bị chuyển mạch này có thể được bật lên/tắt đi vào bất kỳ thời điểm nào bởi một gen khác hoặc một tác động nhỏ khác từ môi trường. Hoạt động bật và tắt diễn ra liên tục. Nó bắt đầu từ khi đứa trẻ được thụ thai và không ngừng hoạt động đến khi con người đó trút hơi thở cuối cùng. Thay vì đem lại những chỉ dẫn rập khuôn hướng dẫn cách thể hiện một đặc điểm, quá trình tương tác giữa gen và môi trường tạo ra sự phát triển đặc biệt khiến mỗi cá nhân đều có nét độc đáo riêng. Quá trình này được gọi là "GxE" (Genes x Enviroment). Chúng ta không thừa hưởng các đặc điểm trực tiếp từ bộ gen. Thay vào đó, các đặc điểm được phát triển thông qua quá trình tương tác năng động giữa gen và môi trường.
  Đây là sơ đồ theo quan điểm mới: (gen, protein, môi trường tạo thành tổ hợp tương tác 2 chiều)--> các tế bào --> các đặc điểm.
  b)Trí thông minh không phải là năng lực bẩm sinh mà là một tập hợp những kỹ năng phát triển được định hướng bởi sự tương tác giữa gen và môi trường.
  Võ não có một khả năng đáng chú ý là tự tổ chức lại khi có sự thay đổi về môi trường. Đây chính là tính linh hoạt của chúng ta: bộ não mọi người được hình thành với khả năng thu nhận, theo thời gian, nó trở thành những gì chúng ta yêu cầu. Tính linh hoạt không có nghĩa là tất cả chúng ta được sinh ra với những khả năng giống nhau tuyệt đối mà nó đảm bảo rằng không có khả năng nào cố định. Và thật ra, chính tính linh hoạt khiến nó gần như không thể quyết định giới hạn trí tuệ thực sự cho bất kỳ cá nhân nào, ở bất kỳ lứa tuổi nào.
  c) Những nghiên cứu trên động vật cho thấy những thay đổi hành vi của con vật (ăn, uống, kích thích) làm thay đổi sự di truyền đến các con con. Từ đây người ta đưa ra giả thuyết mọi thứ chúng ta làm, chúng ta ăn hoặc hút thuốc đều có tác động đến sự thể hiện gen và tác động đến các thế hệ tương lai. Những hành động mà con người làm trước khi có con có thể thay đổi sự di truyền sinh học của những đứa trẻ và con cháu sau n��y. Ngoài ra, sự thay đổi hành vi chọn lọc tự nhiên không phải lúc nào cũng ngẫu nhiên. Sự biến đổi mang tính di truyền mới có thể phát sinh để đáp ứng điều kiện cuộc sống.
  Kiểu như nếu chúng ta muốn con cái chúng ta giỏi giang hơn thì chúng ta có thể bắt đầu điều chỉnh lối sống lúc chúng ta 12 tuổi chẳng hạn, trước khi cả chúng ta biết yêu và kết hôn.
  Một điều chắc chắn là: tất cả những yếu tố hình thành nên mỗi cá thể con người đều có thể hữu hình hoặc vô hình, và nó bắt đầu tác động để thay đổi sự biểu lộ của yếu tố di truyền của chúng ta ngay khi chúng ta được thụ thai cho đến khi chúng ta chết đi. Những yếu tố đó phần lớn là chúng ta không thể kiểm soát được và có thể cũng không kịp nhận ra.
  2) Tác động của chúng ta:
  a) Có hai nghiên cứu đáng chú ý phá vỡ những quan niệm cũ về tác động nuôi dưỡng:
  Nghiên cứu năm 1958, Rod Cooper và John Zubek của trường đại học Manitoba đã đưa ra một kết luận về trí thông minh của loài chuột. Có hai giống chuột tốt và chưa tốt được nuôi trong 3 điều kiện sống khác nhau:
  - Môi trường chất lượng cao: các bức tường được trang trí đẹp đẽ, có đồ chơi kích thích.
  - Môi trường bình thường: những bức tường bình thường và một ít đồ chơi.
  - Môi trưởng bị hạn chế: chỉ là 1 ổ chuột cơ bản với đồ ăn thức uống.
  Kết quả: trong điều kiện môi trường bình thường, các con chuột có gen tốt thì làm tốt hơn các con chuột có gen không tốt. Trong môi trưởng hạn chế: cả hai nhóm chuột này thể hiện hoàn toàn như nhau. Nói các khác, trong môi trường hạn chế, mọi con chuột dường như đần độn như nhau. Sự khác biệt về di truyền gần như biến mất. Điều tương tự với môi trường chất lượng cao: được nuôi dưỡng trong những môi trường sôi động và kích thích, cả hai nhóm chuột dường như thông minh như nhau. Một lần nữa, sự khác biệt về di truyền gần như biến mất.
  Giữa những năm 1980, nhà tâm lý học Betty Hart và Todd Risley của đại học Kansas đã nghiên cứu chương trình Head Start dành cho trẻ em lao động nghèo của Mỹ. Họ nhận ra thời điểm tác động chương trình là quan trọng. Họ phát hiện mối tương quan trực tiếp giữa cường độ trải nghi��m từ ngữ sớm với những thành tựu sau này (từ 3 tuổi trở xuống).
  b)Theo dõi cuộc đời và hoàn cảnh gia đình của các thiên tài, người ta nhận ra rằng:
  -Trí thông minh là kết quả của một tập hợp các năng lực qua quá trình phát triển.
  - Những người thành công trong học tập không nhất thiết sinh ra đã thông minh hơn người khác mà là người làm việc chăm chỉ hơn và phát triển tính kỷ luật cao hơn.
  - Những kỹ năng nổi bật luôn cần nhiều thời gian để luyện tập, kể cả với các thần đồng mà sau này thành thiên tài.
  - Tại một thời điểm nào đó, đứa trẻ có vẻ đặc biệt hay rất bình thưởng, thậm chí rất kém ở bất kỳ kỹ năng cụ thể nào thì sau này nó vẫn có khả năng phát triển thành một người trưởng thành xuất sắc. Bởi vì tài năng được kết tinh từ các kỹ năng chứ không phải là khả năng bẩm sinh, thành tích cùa người trưởng thành hoàn toàn phụ thuộc vào sự quyết tâm cũng như quá trình luyện tập hơn là bất kỳ tài năng đặc biệt nào.
  - Thiên tài không phải là siêu nhân với nguồn gen siêu hiếm. Thiên tài là những người sẵn lòng cống hiến nhiều hơn, sẵn sàng chấp nhận chấn thuương nhiều hơn, sẵn sàng đặt mình vào thử thách để có thể làm tốt hơn. Hầu hết chúng ta khước từ những điều này, nhưng đó lại là lựa chọn của các thiên tài.
  c) Từ đây, người ta đề xuất ra những cách tác động:
  Những đề nghị giúp trẻ đạt thành tích tốt:
  - Nói chuyện với trẻ sớm và thường xuyên (trước 3 tuổi)
  - Đọc sớm và thường xuyên (trước 3 tuổi)
  - Khích lệ và động viên
  - Đặt ra những kỳ vọng cao: trẻ em chỉ phát triển khi môi trường đòi hỏi sự phát triển
  - Chấp nhận thất bại
  - Khuyến khích tư duy phát triển: sự tin tưởng ở bản thân sẽ đạt được nếu cố gắng và chăm chỉ.
  Các cách thức để giúp phát triển tài năng:
  - Tạo ra những nhiệm vụ và có ý nghĩa
  - Rèn luyện có chủ đích những mục tiêu ngắn hạn hơn là tập trung vào một vùng rộng lớn giữa khả năng hiện tại và những ý tưởng xa xôi.
  - Phong cách thực hành là yếu tố quyết định: có cách thực hành đặc biệt buộc cơ thể và trí não phải thay đổi để hoàn thiện (giống như phải nén đủ thì lò xo mới bung được).
  - Tập trung cao độ trong một khoảng thời gian ngắn không tốt bằng sự luyện tập bền bỉ lâu dài.
  Các yếu tố để trở thành một thiên tài:
  Không có công thức cho việc trở thành thiên tài. Những yếu tố tác động nằm ngoài sự kiểm soát, nhưng hi vọng chúng ta có thể tác động đến một số yếu tố nào đó:
  - Tìm ra động cơ (lưu ý là nguyên nhân tạo nên động cơ thường rất khó hiểu, nghĩa là cũng là việc...hên xui)
  - Tự phê bình
  - Nhận thức được thất bại
  - Xác định giới hạn cho chính mình và vượt lên
  - Trì hoãn sự hài lòng và hạn chế tư tưởng thoả mãn
  - Có thần tượng
  - Có một người thầy thông thái
  Sau khi đã làm hết những điều này thì: đường tới thành công không nằm trong cấu trúc phân tử của một con người, mà nằm ở quá trình phát triển và xác định được những nguồn lực tốt đẹp từ môi trường xung quanh.
  Như vậy, nếu chỉ quan tâm đến việc phát triển tiềm năng của con cái, chúng ta cần nhớ:
  - Trò chuyện, đọc sách, tương tác bằng ngôn ngữ cho trẻ càng sớm càng tốt và bắt đầu trước 3 tuổi.
  - Tạo cho trẻ một môi trường xung quanh giúp phát huy sự sáng tạo của trẻ, khi đó, những hạn chế về gen sẽ tác động đến kết quả sẽ giảm thiểu.
  - Trải nghiệm là quý giá với trẻ. Hãy cho trẻ trải nghiệm thực tế nhiều nhất có thể.
  - Nếu muốn giỏi cái gì, phải được "tắm" trong môi trường đó sớm nhất có thể và cần rất nhiều giờ để luyện tập. Tài năng không đến trong chớp mắt.
  - Đừng lo lắng nếu chúng ta bắt đầu nuôi dưỡng một kỹ năng nào đó cho trẻ trễ. Bất kỳ lúc nào chúng ta cũng có thể bắt đầu được.
• 
  Gina Herald

  He's sugarcoating everything. You know when he uses as a central quote someone saying "genetics doesn't code for parts of the nervous system, and definitely not parts of personality" that something's fishy and the whole story isn't being told. Genetics does code for the development of our brains to great extent. The USE of those brain parts does effect size, but if you happen to have a genetically-more-apt specific part, things are just gonna be a lot easier for you from the get-go than somebody who doesn't. You don't expect that when he says "parts" he really means "parts", not the nervous system in general. I WOULD say the brain is a pretty big "part". I think the worst part is the fact that the title says "Everyone is a genius" and in the introduction he says "Everyone may not be capable of being a genius, but they sure can aspire to it!" Yee-haw. Talk about marketing to our inflated egos. I think I'll stick with Outliers and Talent is Overrated for a more honest opinion...it's more than GxE, it's the amount of practice that creates masterpieces.
• 
  Benjamin Zapata

  Everybody needs to read this amazing book,David Shenk takes us on a tour de force to understanding exceptional performance,and the reasons why we too can reach all the way to the top. What an exciting book! Inspiring and liberating! David Shenk handily dispels the myth that one must be born a genius. Anybody can be a genius,just find your motivation,and give it all. You have to want it,want it so bad you will never give up like Ben Franklin,Jerry Rice,Ted Williams,Mozart,The Polgar sisters in chess,etc.,all you need is a strong will and perseverance. Everything shapes us and everything can be shaped by us. The genius in all of us is our built-in ability to improve ourselves and our world.It's a real breakthrough! A very persuasive and inspiring book that will make you think anew about your own life and our shared future. Read it-it is truly research based,not only inspiring but enlightening!A terrific read all the way through.
• 
  Diane

  I think all of us probably know someone with superior intelligence who was born to parents of just average intelligence. How does that happen? In The Genius in All of Us , author David Shenk attempts to show the reader why genius is not all about the genes we were born with. Shenk explains why intelligence is more of a combination of genes and the environment we were raised in, along with outside stimuli, that determines our potential for greatness.
  
  Sadly, the majority of us never reach our potential for greatness in our lifetime. According to the author, if you want something bad enough, you must do it over and over and over again, never giving up until you succeed. Most of us give up on early dreams and sometimes even career pursuits when the going get rough. Why do some of us have more drive than others? Why are some of us quitters while others would never think of quitting?
  
  Studies have shown that children who early on have been spoken to often, read to on a regular basis, nurtured and encouraged to achieve, have a better chance of achieving greatness. There is one chapter in particular that I found very interesting called: How to Ruin (or Inspire) a Kid, proving parenting does matter.
  
  The author uses numerous examples and case studies where hard work and self discipline have resulted in outstanding achievement. One example was the famous baseball played Ted Williams who began hitting baseballs at the age of six every waking hour of free time. Reportedly he never stopped practicing until his hands began to bleed. He wasn't born talented, he just worked harder than everyone else at it.
  
  MY THOUGHTS - I really enjoyed this audio book, read by Mark Deakins. I found this book well researched and case studies just fascinating.
  RECOMMENDED - 4.5/5 stars
• 
  Shaun

  This book was really good and quite similar to another book I've read called, "Talent is Overrated." It basically says that our genes alone don't determine our intelligence or how good we can become in any particular activity. We become genius in anything based on a basic genetic ability, but also hard work and practice. The book calls this dynamic development. If you do any activity for 10,000 hours you can become awesome in this skill. 10,000 hours takes 10 years of 3 hours a day. It entails doing deliberate practice. Ted Williams was a pretty good hitter, but he practiced like 5 or more hours a day at hitting and was an incredible hitter. Michael Jordan was cut from his high school team in 10th grade, but came back with a vengeance. He practiced a ton and also has incredible competitiveness where he hates to lose. This combination of practice and competitiveness helped drive Jordan to become the best basketball player of all time. Most people become a genius in anything because of some level of ability or natural talent, but intense deliberate practice and hard work help them become truly an expert or best in the world. I know if I work at it hard enough and I truly want to obtain it, I can run a sub 3 hour marathon.
• 
  Jane

  My five-star rating reflects the importance of this book. Our genes really don't dictate our ability to achieve greatness. Instead, what we inherit is multiplied (not added to) environmental factors. We have less control over our environment than we may think, which means it is vital that our schools and society figure out how to motivate each child to achieve well in the ways that are fascinating to them.
  
  Way too many of us settle for mediocrity, believing the myth that only a few are destined for greatness. The book explodes the myths of innate ability in Mozart, Beethoven, Michael Jordon, Tiger Woods, Ted Williams, the chess masters...and recredits genius to their motivation, masterful instructors, and practice that concentrated on improving their weakness in their chosen field.
  
  AND, we are never too old to start working toward greatness. Our brains have plasticity and we can develop new competencies. On the one hand it's exhilarating. On the other hand, instead of blaming our genes, our parents, our schooling, etc., we need to get to work!
• 
  Richard

  Interviewed by Michael Krasny (who never quite "got" the fundamental message, it seemed) on KQED Forum. About 48 minutes; recorded 18 March 2010; available
  here at KQED.org as an MP3 download or streaming audio.
  
  Seemed several times to be extraordinary similar to
  Malcolm Gladwell's
  Outliers. But Gladwell, while a great popularizer, sometimes doesn't quite get the science right. At least that's what Steven Pinker claimed in a dust-up in early 2010. Moreover, Shenk sets aside half of his book for "evidence", e.g., end notes. While I doubt such a division works as a journalistic device, it does provide quite a bit of credibility.
  
  So it gets added to the already overburdened
  cognition shelf.
  ­
• 
  Bryan Oliver

  3.5 stars. excellent book and catalyst to new ways of thinking about and framing intelligence. Quick and easy read that I would recommend to just about anyone. Combine this book with a couple others on overcoming challenges and creating your own success and it would bump up to 4 or 5 stars altogether. Some arguments were a bit weak and supported with anecdotes. Refreshing read, maybe just not quite enough wow factor as I've been exploring the subject already for a couple years.
  
  Something along this genre should be required reading for all parents, educators, racists, and really all ends of the economic spectrum. Disadvantaged youth can replace self-defeating behavior with more focus on learning and practicing, while silver spoon success stories can better understand that their environment was likely much more of a determining factor for their achievements than anything resembling being extraordinary by nature.
• 
  John Scott

  This was a very quick, enjoyable, and important read. The author is an excellent writer which made the already interesting topic much easier to digest. The gist of the book is debunking the age old maxim that genes play an outsized role in bringing out the best traits in is. This book sets out to show that environment plays a role much earlier in the genetic process than we suspected, based on science which has really solidified this in the 21st century. Our traits are shaped by a continuous Gene X Environment process as opposed to additive where the environment is thrown in as something that plays a role right before our traits are developed. The continue Process is a reoccurring theme, and a eureka moment is that the way we conduct ourselves now in our environment can help shape genes for our future offspring.
  
  The supporting chapters are really interesting as they discuss some of the geniuses in their respective crafts, some of whom came upon their talent extremely young (i.e- Mozart) and others who didn’t develop into a great until later on (see Michael Jordan). What I didn’t know about some of the prodigious youth savants is most of them grew up in households which really provoked that learning from the get-go. That, and throughout the book, meaningful, sustained practice is discussed. The author clarifies the point which a lot us already know from “Outliers” and other reads: you need to do 10,000 hours of practice to become an expert at something; it’s important to note that 10,000 hours alone may not make you an expert...it’s the way you you practice with that amount of persistence and grit.
  
  I think a unique part of this book is how much time it spends talking about upbringing and the important role of parents as there’s even a short chapter devoted to how parents can assist in giving their children opportunities to excel. While there’s some scientific talk in here, the author writes for the common reader, and I found it to be enlightening.
• 
  Vy Trần

  Tác giả đánh giá quá thấp các khả năng bẩm sinh - gần 0% theo như lời tác giả - trong khi không chỉ ra được thí nghiệm hoặc thống kê nào để chứng minh cho con số đó . Đồng thời ông còn cho rằng một số đặc điểm (cả về hình dáng như màu mắt , màu tóc ) đều chịu ảnh hưởng của môi trường mà bỏ qua một sự thực là những trường hợp đó rất hiếm . Tác giả có nêu ra những thần đồng và cho rằng tài năng của họ không phải bẩm sinh mà không lý giải được tại sao , lại lái sang trường hợp những người tự kỉ . Các ý lặp đi lặp lại rất nhiều . Nếu tóm lại những ý chính thì chỉ cỡ 4-5 chương là đủ , thay vì 10 chương như vậy . Các ý cũng không có gì mới , chỉ là một sự tổng hợp , nếu cuốn sách này rút ngắn lại và đăng thành series 2-3 kì trên báo thì hợp lý hơn . Cách viết cũng ẩn chứa rất nhiều mâu thuẫn : phê phán chỉ số IQ trong khi cho rằng con người ngày này thông minh hơn năm 1990 vì IQ cai hơn (?) , cho rằng gen không mấy ảnh hưởng nhưng ở chương 10 lại viết nhờ thế hệ này mà các đặc tính tốt ( vốn không có ở đời cha mẹ ) có thể di truyền lại cho các đời sau (?) , phân tích những đặc điểm thể thao của người châu Phi trong khi chỉ vài chương trước lại viết con người có rất ít khác biệt giữa các chủng tộc (?) và phản đối khái niệm “thiên tài “ trong khi bản thân sử dụng từ này rất nhiều (?).
• 
  Ethan LeBoeuf

  Quick and easy with some easily digestible information.
• 
  Brenda

  As other reviewers have observed, the entire second half of David Shenk’s book consists of extensive endnotes. In fact, I’d say that despite being marketed as a work of popular science, _The Genius in All of Us_ wants to be much more. The second half of Shenk’s text is intended, no doubt, to be useful to academics and other researchers.
  
  Although I am a professor—and I read this volume with an eye to how its lessons might inform my classroom pep speeches—I doubt that I’ll be crafting any conference papers that incorporate passages from Shenk’s work. However, I can see how colleagues, whose research is more pedagogical in nature, could draw on this text as a secondary source. I can also see how this book might offer encouragement and/or solace to many of my creative writing cohorts (and others with callings that demand significant emotional investment and countless hours of effort, despite little obvious reward). In fact, I would love to hear/read others’ thoughts on some of the following passages, which struck me as especially stimulating:
  
  
  “Deliberate practice requires a mind-set of never, ever, being satisfied with your current ability. It requires a constant self-critique, a pathological restlessness, a passion to aim consistently just beyond one’s capability so that daily disappointment and failure is actually desired, and a never-ending resolve to dust oneself off and try again and again and again.” (67)
  
  “…nonachievers seem to be missing something in their process—one or more aspects of style or intensity of practice, or technique, or mind-set, or response to failure.” (69)
  
  “Other…experiments pointed in the same direction, demonstrating irrefutably that people who believe in inborn intelligence and talents are less intellectually adventurous and less successful in school. By contrast, people with an ‘incremental’ theory of intelligence—believing that intelligence is malleable and can be increased through effort—are much more intellectually ambitious and successful.” (98)
  
  “The single greatest lesson from past ultra-achievers is not how easily things came to them, but how irrepressible and resilient they were. You have to want it, want it so bad you will never give up, so bad that you are ready to sacrifice time, money, sleep, friendships, even your reputation (people may—probably will—come to think of you as odd). You will have to adopt a particular lifestyle of ambition, not just for a few weeks or months but for years and years and years.” (120)
  
  “In the sometimes counterintuitive world of success and achievement, weaknesses are opportunities; failures are wide-open doors.” (142)
  
  “Failure should be seen as a learning opportunity rather than a revelation of students’ innate limits…._Set high expectations, but also show compassion, creativity, and patience_.” (153)
  
• 
  Yash Wadhwani

  I was encouraged to read this book after receiving my Circle DNA results. 

Although my reports were fairly positive, the results were no less troubling. Something that I’d never interacted with in-person claimed to know my lifelong potentials (EQ, IQ, Entrepreneurial Acumen, etc).


  
  In my mind, genes represented a familiar toxic determinism of fate and astrology. However - unlike philosophical pseudos - genes are a terrifying scientific reality.
  
  And so, I wanted to learn more about what was being presented to me as my biological destiny. The Genius In All Of Us isn’t the most comprehensive text you can find on DNA. But, it is an approachable start on this deep concept.


  
  Here are the eight main takeaways from The Genius In All Of Us:


  
  “1) Genes are like a switchboard of 22,000 buttons in each cell.”


  Some of us are born with the bass ramped all the way up. Some of us are born with the treble at a low 1. But this is not a problem. How you interact with your environment - this being internal: mood, emotion, hormones, as well as external: climate, nutrition, peer & parent influence - will turn those nodes up or down. Hence, every moment is a choice. When confronted with an aggravating circumstance, you are deciding through your actions and temperament, what genes will be expressed and what genes will be subdued. Interestingly enough, your geographic location will also profoundly impact your physical and mental image.
  
  


“2) Genes don’t change. Epigenomes do.”
  

Genetic expression variation may not be the result of an absence or presence of genes. Your DNA is a compilation of 2 halves. Each half represents the carbon copy of one of your parents. However, your DNA coils around protein compounds called epigenomes. These are the instructions for gene expression. And these are incredibly malleable. They are also inheritable. Your decisions and gene expression today is changing your epigenome. This changed epigenome will be passed down to your children, later changeable by their own actions. Hence, every generation beyond married diversity, does build upon the last one.




  
  “3) You can never truly control your environment.”


  This book details a study in which 3 geographically separate sets of rats were monitored in an extraordinarily standardized lab environment. These rats were genetically near perfect copies of one another. You could say, these rats were clones of one another. 


  
  However, despite all variables being controlled - except for the city in which the labs were situated - these rats had startlingly distinct responses to narcotic stimuli. For eg: rats in New York behaved more lazily in response to alcohol vs. rats in Illinois. Everything was the same - the stimuli, the rats, the labs. The only difference was the city beyond the walls. 


  
  This surprising difference in genetically same subjects is replicated in clones. Take the case of Rainbow Cat and CC Cat (Carbon Copy). Despite being clones of one another, they behave distinctly different from one another. 

  
  The humbling implications are of unknowable environmental factors always at play.



  
  “4) Mozartian prodigies are false.”


  This should not imply that some of us aren’t born with genetic advantages. This should however imply that no one is born a wholly made talent. This myth has already been debunked by Anders Ericsson’s ’10,000 hours to mastery’ research.
  
  The real difference between the average person and Mozart isn’t that Mozart was born gifted by God to produce music. The difference is that Mozart’s own father was an accomplished pianist and the boy experienced extremely early exposure to the technicalities of symphony construction.
  
  Additionally, Mozart’s father Leopold, treated his infant son as a narcissistic project of vicarious achievement. This begs the question - born in a regular home, would Mozart’s probably advantaged genes result in him becoming an acclaimed musician?
  
  

“5) Give children high expectations. But don’t dangle love as a reward before them.”
  

In a dry and biological book, I found an instance that broke me down. It was a description of Ludwig Van Beethoven’s father, Johann Van Beethoven, beating his 4 year old son to complete his daily practice hours.


  
  Even if a child is genetically gifted, they will not thrive into happy and successful adults without unconditional support and compassion.
  
  

A study was conducted to understand the causes of verbal intelligence in four year olds. The sample was monitored from infancy to the fourth year. 
The findings showed that the only distinguishing variable between the most verbally intelligent and the least verbally intelligent children was not race or socioeconomic background - it was net encouragement.
  
  

By the fourth year, the most verbally intelligent children had received from their parents 500,000 more encouragements than discouragements vs. the least verbally intelligent kids, whose parents subjected them to 100,000 more discouragements than encouragements.
  
  

Granting kids love only in response to achievement is a sure-fire way to ruin them. 


  
  “6) Ethnically, no one has a superior genome.”


  Jamaicans are the fastest not because they are born with any unique advantage. They are the fastest because most Jamaica-based kids from school-going age run (or used to) an average of 8-12 kilometers per day. Distinct athletic differences are less a result of genetic advantages and more a result of culture and environment.
  
  “7) Agonist competitive cultures create high achievement.”
  

This is the explanation for why so many tech entrepreneurs sprung from silicon valley in the 70s. Or why the Italian Renaissance was a particularly creative period. It has to do with competition. Agonist competition - according to David Shenk - is mutual admiration and respect of combatants wishing to out do one another.
  
  

We are grateful for the gifts of Steve Jobs because he needed to be better than Bill Gates. We are grateful for the polymathic talent of Leonardo Da Vinci, because he felt it urgent to one up Michelangelo.
  
  

LAM (Low Achievement Motivation) individuals do exist. These individuals do not feel spurred to action through competition. Rather, they need an anxiety free environment to create. However, for most people, the spark missing in their purpose is a contest.
  


  “8) IQ is the worst way to judge intelligence and achievement.”

  
There are two facts that best argue the dead-weight of this metric. First is Dr. Carol Dweck’s Growth Mindset Vs. Fixed Mindset Studies. In these studies, individuals praised for their effort Vs. individuals praised for their gifted intelligence progressed more courageously against challenge and ultimately achieved more success as adults.
  
  Growth mindset individuals believe that intelligence is an elastic factor that can be enhanced through targeted effort. Therefore, failure is never looked at as a threat to ego. Fixed mindset individuals believe intelligence to be static. Hence, challenge is treated with caution lest it break the personal belief of giftedness.


  
  The second is Lewis Terman’s studies on high IQ children. Terman compiled a group of children whose IQs tested in the 0.1%, and followed their progress for several years. He found that adult achievement was dreadfully absent. Despite these children’s innate giftedness, most of his precocious subjects turned into astonishingly average adults.




  
  "Conclusion."
  I can’t say David Shenk’s The Genius In All Of Us should have the last word on talent, IQ, and genetics. The scientific consensus on these concepts is still contentious. He does however provide a more empowering perspective. No one is a blank slate. Genes are a quintessential aspect of a person’s living world. However, their expression - and that of future generations - can largely be impacted by us. 

• 
  Waven

  Firstly, don't dismiss this book as too demanding and scientific to be of interest. It's not dry, boring, condescending, or complicated, so you can't use those as excuses to avoid it. Secondly, this book is interesting, very accessible, and will likely change the way you think about talent, giftedness, and inherited genes. Which is a very good reason to give it a read.
  
  But this is not a light read, either - probably not something you would take to the beach or read on that flight from Chicago to Vegas. It is, however, a very worthy read. More than just a chain of progressive thought and references, The Genius In All of Us is essentially a call to arms, an inspiration to set aside our preconceptions and assumptions, to forget our old notions of limitation - no matter our current station - and be our best selves. "With humility, with hope, and with extraordinary determination, greatness is something to which any kid - of any age - can aspire," author David Shenk asserts. We have the power, he says, and he has the scientific papers and studies to back up his position. The entirety of the book contains a lot of research and is generally well-presented. Shenk takes his "argument," as the first pages note, and then goes about exploring it with clear, concise, rational points and even some humor. I found a few passages toward the beginning somewhat awkward, mostly from an incomplete understanding of his objective, but that smoothed out once the full goal became clear. The unusual two-part form of the book was also a bit distracting at first, but it allowed much greater accessibility for non-scientific readers without sacrificing the pertinent additional notes, points, and observations of interest to the more academic. All in all, a good, enlightening read.
  
  And at the end of the acknowledgments he shares perhaps his most important observation, writing, "The genius in all of us is that we each have the capacity to love and inspire one another."
• 
  Adam Ross

  This was a mind-blowing book. Shenk argues that the environment really does impact and change your genetic makeup. He presents a solid blow to the idea that we're simply stuck with the genes we receive from our parents, and analyzes clones, twins, child protégées (Mozart features heavily), and more, showing that through determination and hard work, the ordinary person can train themselves to be extraordinary.
  
  He finally (in my view) settles the racial IQ gap, as well as the rich/poor IQ gap (which are related). He shows that children which are spoken and read to from very early on - even in the womb - are exposed to millions of more words than those who aren't by the age of three. The more wealthy a family is, the more likely the children are to receive positive affirmation from parents, to the extent that rich children get 560,000 more affirmations than middle and lower class children, while middle class children get 100,000 more positive affirmations. Welfare children, on the other hand, receive over 150,000 negative affirmations before the age of three. Intelligence or not appears, surprisingly enough, to be more up to a self-fulfilling prophecy than what genetics you are given. If the parents aren't affirming in the first formative years of life, the child takes that self-perception on. If the parents encourage them to excel, they excel. If not, they don't. Even eye color, weight, chest size, and height are dependent upon a host of imperceptibly small environmental conditions, and are not dependent much upon genetics. A captivating book, and the first part is a very quick read. The rest of the book is comprised of sources, which I didn't bother to actually read. I'm not a scientist, so it made little difference to me, and the first part was convincing enough.
• 
  Brandon

  Certainly an interesting way of looking at genetic impact on intelligence and talent, but I'm not convinced of much after reading the book - and I'm not certain the author is either. The blurb "a thinking man's Outliers" was misleading: Shenk's book is divided into two parts (narrative argument and what Shenk calls "evidence"), the evidence is basically a regurgitation of the argument with the addition of in-line citations and notes - hardly compelling. Shenk definitely borrows Gladwell's recipe for this type of book, which I see as choosing an entertaining topic (the more controversial the better) develop a hypothesis (the more unconventional the better), find a few supporting studies and begin your narrative argument. Shenk doesn't explore dissenting views, neither does Gladwell usually, but Gladwell doesn't dare the extreme leaps that Shenk frequently takes. Shenk's "argument" should have been distilled into a magazine article, instead of - I guess - growing out of one, and the "evidence" wasn't so compelling to warrant a whole second half of a book - maybe in another ten years when the supporting research is there. I'd give it 2.5 stars if I could.
• 
  Jerry Michel

  Especially liked the layperson's description of how the brain is built for continual growth; enjoyed the first half better than the second half...the recommendations for giving parents/students/colleagues concrete ways to move neuroscience research into learning in the classroom and home are really helpful.
• 
  Matthew Skiffington

  Genes x Environment, not Genes + Environment.
  
  This book belabours this simple point and battles the myth of talent, prodigies and genius as genetic pre-determinism and instead emphasises the practical realities of achievement and intelligence as products of motivation, process, environment and, of course, chance. The book covers the hard science early on by summarizing the scientific consensus on the interaction of genes and the environment, though overall it leans heavier on psychological research and worldly observations.
  
  Two criticisms: I wish 'The Genius In All Of Us' had less observational evidence and cited more studies. That said, it's a book - not a review paper (certainly no in-text citations), and the author imbued a sense of heart and conviction in his writing. The breadth of the book also makes it feel a little unfocused - it's a mashup of two non-fiction genres: (implicit) self-help 30% and science 70%. Each of the chapters could easily be expanded into full works - fortunately, the bibliography and appendix are fairly extensive.
  
  I choose to engage with 'The Genius In All Of Us' as an evidence-based motivational book. It's a fundamentally hopeful message that resonates. No prescriptions or secret recipes, just knowledge both from scholarly literature and the real world to hammer home the point. Some of the ideas - IQ as an artificial, malleable and flawed latent construct, neural plasticity, the downstream result of a growth mindset, the effect of childhood exposure to enriching environments I was aware of, but most I was not.
  
  You'll come away from this book knowing more and feeling positive.
• 
  Josh Saleska

  "Talent and intelligence are linguistic apparitions."
  
  This book includes some counterintuitive arguments about the interaction of nature (our genes, our destiny) and nurture (our choices, our environment). There are some liberating ideas here. Namely, we are not limited by our given genetic makeup. We are not determined. Rather, our choices may impact our genetic expression and visa-versa. This circularity problem means our potential is unbounded. Out of nothing, the individual self actualizes.
  
  The truth of the above only extends so far. There is no reality where I am a Lebron James. But maybe there's one where I'm a Jose Altuve. Ah, what regrets.
  
  The other hidden secret of maximizing potential is the boring, repetitive work involved. An extraordinary amount of tedium and hard effort goes into making every genius. No one who's exceptional coasts to achievement. They are able to delay gratification for the long game. For some reason, we are attached to the idea that brilliance is endowed, not earned.
  
  "With everything perfect, we do not ask how it came to be. We rejoice as if it had come out of the ground by magic. The hidden act of becoming is to the artists advantage. Where one can see the act of becoming, one grows cool." -Nietzsche
• 
  Wayne

  I enjoyed this one. The author makes a compelling case for the theory of "nature x nurture" instead of the common "nature + nurture". Which basically asserts that your the expression of your genes are affected by your environment, not independent or despite them.
  
  The book calls on research in the fields of talent, performance, learning and creativity by authors of familiar research such as Carol Dweck, Anders Ericsson and Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi.
  
  As a father of four girls, the part that impacted me the most was that early childhood (0-3 y.o.) exposure is critical for setting the child up for success. Specifically if you read to them, speak to them often, and offer them more encouragement than negativity.
  
  All hope isn't lost for bigger kids. If the environment changes, where parents begin consistently modeling the behavior they want to see, so can the child.
  
  The book is very textbooky that's why it didn't get the final star. Also, there weren't hardly any original stories. All in all, good listen.
• 
  Travis Standley

  I found this book refreshing as it shows the scientific side of Carol Dweck’s research on the growth mindset. I learned from this book that the phrase “it’s in the genes” is false or at least only part of the equation. Genes and their interaction with their environment along with what activities and culture they are exposed to create a kaleidoscope of gifts and talents that we see out there. We grow and learn and train our brains and increase our capacity based on what we desire and what we work at. How that is manifest genetically is what makes it all unique and our own. No one person sees things the same way...much like Ted Williams can see the way the seams on a slider are turning. It’s a matter of training rather than innate gifts. 3 stars as I felt this jumped around what was being claimed and what the science states...it wasn’t clear in many places. Overall, it kept my interest.
• 
  X-Man Francis

  This author seems deeply western minded and covertly biased towards western/European cultures. I enjoyed reading this book until chapter 9 - "how to foster a culture of excellence." At one point, he insinuates that African universities aren't as advanced as western universities.
  
  His depiction of excellence only rests with all that is European/western and excludes the contributions of other cultures to art, science, technology, etc. Especially African culture.
  
  I agree with his main thesis - genius and talent are not inborn abilities solely determined by genes (it's in fact determined by an infinite number of variables including our environment). However, his philosophical and empirical analyses are culturally biased and he loses credibility for that reason.
• 
  Michael Gabriel Raphael

  This book offers interesting hypothesis of science and psychology on genius. I agree that intelligence’s not an innate gift but rather a process impacted by genes and environment. Comparing similarities and dissimilarities of twins is a good example of the lesson that “none of us is stuck in some sort of destined body or life. We inherit —and we also become.” It May be so that it’s in our genes that we do excellent in some activities whereas others don’t but it really depends on our attitudes towards competitions. Whether we want to win competition or not can affect how fast we can develop our skills. Certainly we need mentors to help us achieve our goals. I’m glad to have come across this excellent book.