Worse yet, he demolishes some of the foundations of my higher education in Psychology as recent as 1993 when professors still taught that intelligence was an inherited trait, just like eye color and height. Worse yet, some insisted that intelligence varied by race, a shock to my liberal left leanings.
Shenk approaches the issues surrounding talent, giftedness, IQ as if most of us were born as equally clean slates, full of potential only needing development. But it is a special kind of a process that produces the high achievers (or any achievement?) If anyone can develop any talent (like one for taking IQ tests, no matter if they measure nothing definable) by dint of a lucky coincidence of genetic and environmental interactions, then anyone can qualify for Mensa — but they don't. Less than 98% of any population that takes any standard IQ test measures higher than the arbitrary cutoff score for membership.
Shenk might argue that they just didn't try hard enough — needing the special training and "deliberate practice" he lists as key factors in developing high achievers, along with a mysterious superdrive like Ted Williams had for practicing hitting baseballs. He might also suggest that those who don't hit the 98th percentile in IQ just haven't tested their limits yet. (How many IQ tests would it take? How do you study for an IQ test?) And how does this notion of limits square with Shenk's initial arguments that most all of us have endless potential?
Indeed, after demolishing the ideas that outstanding talent and IQ are inborn, then describing how anyone can achieve greatness, he ends with this cryptic statement:
"Somewhere in a freshman writing class, a kid with more ability than I'll ever have is wondering if he could ever write books for a living. The answer is yes, if he never gives up and is lucky enough to get with the right people." (Italics mine.) It seems that words like "ability" and "limitations" have rather vague, shifty definitions, given their various uses.
Article comments
1 - David Shenk
Hi Georganna,
Thanks for your consideration of my book and sorry it didn't resonate with your personal experience.
I have to admit that I was very surprised to read that, "Shenk approaches the issues surrounding talent, giftedness, IQ as if most of us were born as equally clean slates..."
Surprised, because three times in the book I explicitly distance my ideas from the outdated notion of the blank slate, including this passage:
"Nothing in this book, therefore, is meant to suggest that any of us have complete control over our lives or abilitiesâ€"or that we are anything close to a blank slate. Rather, our task now is to replace the simplistic notions of “giftedness” and “nature/nurture” with a new landscape: a vast array of influences, many of which are largely out of our control but some of which we can hope to influence as we increase our understanding."
I also write in the book's Introduction: "This is not to say that we don’t have important genetic differences among us, yielding advantages and disadvantages. Of course we do, and those differences have profound consequences."
I do think the public is capable of understanding that genes obviously have influence but don't determine our abilities directly, and that describing the intelligence as a process isn't the same thing as saying that we can completely control that process.
I also wonder if it would have been reasonable -- since you mention some nameless online criticism of my interpretation of the science -- for you to mention as well that the book has been endorsed by a number of extremely prominent scientists and award-winning science writers.
I'd be happy to discuss any of this further, online or privately. I'd be curious to hear more about which parts of the book you think I got wrong.
best,
David Shenk
2 - Georganna Hancock
Undoubtedly my ramblings were unclear. I wrote from an emotional perspective rather than an intellectual analysis. Perhaps I should have used a term like "equal slates" or not mentioned slates at all, since that seems to be a hot spot, as is "nature vs. nurture", a phrase which you do, indeed, demolish.
Simplification runs the risk of leaving out aspects that another person feels are important or that refute a stance. It appears to me that THE GENIUS IN ALL OF US builds support for the idea that almost anyone can develop any talent, and then the writing waffles and fudges the point with passages like the ones you cite here.
Did I get that wrong? Perhaps all the hype and positive testimonials--that are difficult to miss--skewed my impression of the thrust of the work. I purposefully did not identify other naysayers because I do not want to fuel further dispute over Herrnstein & Murray's ideas, at least not now.
Anyone who visits the book's page on Amazon can find general support for it and for parts of it as well as the popular science writing. I don't see anyone standing up for the main idea and shouting, "He's got it! This is revolutionary thinking, and we must design confirmatory studies right away to prove this theory."
I'm still hoping to obtain responses from Mensans, especially ones who can articulate better where the logic fails and results are misinterpreted. Or not. That's a conversation I'd like to share with you.
I plan to elaborate this review with more personal material, especially about my experiences with giftedness and Mensans, in another review available in the Kindle Store on Amazon. I'll be happy to send you a copy.
Thank you for your time and attention. I'm flattered that you'd bother to find my little blog and respond there.
I do appreciate and admire all the research, notes and citations your book provides. My readers know I'm a big fan of back matter. In that, THE GENIUS IN ALL OF US certainly satisfies.