Many disbelievers in Shenk's theory are disputing it and arguing with him online. On the book's page at Amazon, you'll find an amazing array of customer reviews and a video that you can link to directly. A Google Search on the author's name will lead you to many sites where these issues are debated. Some people accuse Shenk of misinterpreting the studies he used and others point to faulty logic. The blizzard of data cited in the book tends to obscure the reality that he is theorizing a posteriori or post facto (after the facts), a practice frowned upon in research.
Despite all the high level scientific mumbo jumbo cited in the book, it is easy to read. Shenk writes in a very approachable everyday conversational style, which may have been just what the publisher wanted. Apparently with no advanced degree to boost credibility and no authoritative co-author, Shenk has pulled off a good one. The end notes are a fascinating read, and the bibliography provides a long term reading list.
Too bad he came to an inaccurate conclusion. All my 66 years of experience with giftedness, achievement (or lack or it), and people at the far-out end of the IQ spectrum provide a strong gut feeling of wrongness about The Genius in All of Us.
Perhaps journalists should stick to reporting the news from areas like epigenetics and cognitive science and the psychology of high achievement instead of creating a mashup that offers false hope and clashes with the realities of human life.
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Surprised, because three times in the book I explicitly distance my ideas from the outdated notion of the blank slate, including this passage: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.