I heart xkcd

I heart xkcd
Art Project

Thursday, November 6, 2014

Gene Do Not Define Who We Are

     I read David Shenk's book "The Genius in All of Us" and interestingly Shenk argues that genes do not make up who we are and this contradicts what I knew growing up. Shenk discards this fact by stating "talent is not a thing, but a process". I have usually thought as talent as a unique attribute that an individual has been born with such as a remarkable basketball player, amazing singer, talent to remember things and so on. However, Shenk describes the work of the psychologist Anders Ericsson, who wondered if he could train an ordinary person to perform extraordinary feats of memory. When Eric­sson began working with a young man identified as S.F., his subject could, like most of individuals, hold only seven numbers in his short-term memory. By the end of the study, S.F. could correctly recall an astonishing 80-plus digits. With the right kind of mental discipline, Ericsson and his co-­investigator concluded, “there is seemingly no limit to memory performance.” The work of Anders Ericssons reveals that talents can be taught and worked instead of being a unique and born gift. David Shenk also discards the sayings "he gets it from me", "he is just like me", and "I wonder where they get that from". Shenk believes that a person is molded by the environment that the individual is around. According to Shenk's novel, “It turns out that the genetic instructions themselves are influenced by other inputs,”. “Genes are constantly activated and deactivated by environmental stimuli, nutrition, hormones, nerve impulses and other genes.” That means there can be no guaranteed genetic windfalls, or fixed genetic limits, bestowed at the moment of conception. Instead there is a continually unfolding interaction between our heredity and our world, a process that may be in our control.
     What do you think? Do you think that people are born with unique talents or are talents, as Shenk puts it, a process and can be developed through training? 

4 comments:

  1. I agree. People's personalities are heavily affected by their surroundings and the environment they grew up in. Although I think there are some things about a person that is affected by their genes. Mostly only things like genetic disorders though.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I couldn't disagree anymore with David Shenk's arguement. There are just some things that people are born better at doing based of there genetic history. Environment has nothing to do with talent because everyone has some unique trait and could live in a similar enironment. Talent is genetic and not something that comes from nowhere. Can someone convince me that im wrong?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hello mathew, i know how insane it sounds, if i wasn't reading The Genius in All of us as well I would probably be agreeing with you.
      Although, David Shenk uses many examples that truly changed my point of view. Environment has SO much to do with the way you behave and what your interests/talents are. Take yourself for example.. Do you ever find yourself stating a claim only to realize that your opinions sound like something your parents would say? (i know i do) Or maybe you smile like your mom? Believe it or not, you picked up on little habits like these from watching your enviornment do it on a daily basis. As for talent, shenk talks about concepts such as (GXE) genes multiplied by enviornment VS (G+E) genes PLUS enviornment.
      You should read the book :) he uses many examples to answer your precise questions

      Delete
    2. I agree with Matthew, environment has little to do with talent. Different people put in the same environment would react differently to the certain environment because their genes are different. Our minds' reactions in relation to the environment affect us, not the environment itself.
      Although, one does have to take in to consideration that we are all human and share similar thinking patterns. For example, if two average people were put in different households, one with a loving family and all necessities for daily life, the other with an abusive family and scarce necessities, the person with the loving family would probably be more successful than the person living in the other house due to the fact that we all share similar human wants and needs. However, if a genetic mutation occurred that caused the targeted individual to thrive on loneliness and pain, he or she would be much better off the the 2nd home (and also probably a psychopath by our social standards).
      I haven't read the Genius in All of Us, and I am tired so I may be incorrect and not even on the right topic

      Delete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.