Argument- The Puzzle Test

On page 98, Shenk describes an experiment that regards the conditioning of children when it comes to challenging themselves. When the child completed the puzzle, they either were complimented for intelligence, or complimented on their hard work. These children were then told to complete a second puzzle. Either another very easy puzzle, or a more challenging puzzle. More than 50% of children praised for their intelligence chose the easy puzzle. 90% of children praised for their hard work chose the more difficult puzzle.
Why did the children praised for their intelligence chose the easier puzzle? Why did the children praised for hard work choose the more difficult puzzle? Does this experiment support the argument of a growth mindset? How does the environmental factor of praise affect the progress of children? Could this praise lead to cyclic behavior?

Argument- The Marshmallow Test

On page 140, David Shenk describes an experiment conducted by a Stanford psychologist that tested the self-discipline of 4-year olds and how it affected their future academic success. In the test, children were given the option to accept a single marshmallow right away, or wait an indefinite amount of time and receive two marshmallows. In the study, about equal numbers either: A) accepted the initial single marshmallow B) waited for a short while for the two marshmallows, but eventually settled for the single or C) waited a full fifteen minutes for two marshmallows. The study then tracked the SAT scores of the subjects fourteen years later. The group that was able to wait for two marshmallows scored an average of 210 points higher than the groups that could not wait.

How does this experiment support Shenk's main argument and how does it go against his main argument? If the same study were conducted again with the same subjects, how might their behavior differ? Use you knowledge of animal behavior and classical/operant conditioning. Also, how does the second part of the experiment (141), demonstrate Shenk's philosophy of of GxE?

Jonah May (jonah2020@aol.com)

Argument - Culture of Excellence

In chapter nine, Shenk describes the best way to create a "Culture of Excellence" by giving many examples of previous cultures. Near the end he writes that a great culture should, "set high expectations, but also show compassion, creativity, and patience" (153).  If these ideals are applied to society theoretically then the community of people would excel compared to the other communities.

Compare this to the theme of interdependence in nature, how would this ideal to become more intelligent in a society push an individual to become better? Do you think Stevenson fosters the same ideals to prepare students for college? Where does the drive to become smarter come from, Stevenson or family? What would happen if the smartest students at Stevenson were transfered to a less competitive school, would they continue to excel and help bring the new community of students to become more competitive? Or will the students at the less competitive high school lose their motivation and stop trying as hard? Will the transferred Stevenson student stop their progress and blend in culture around them? How would Stevenson suffer or become better if the smartest students left? How would this disturbance influence both Stevenson and the less competitive school (Look at 54.3 in Campbell)?

Ayana Dambaeva (adambaeva@gmail.com)

Argument- Black Power

David Shenk talks about the racial, yet humorous, adage that white men can’t jump. By extension, he incorporates general athletics such as the 2008 Olympics and Jamaica and Kenya’s impressive competitors. His main point is that a “culture of extreme excellence…begets success” (105). He disproves the gene-centered theory of natural ability by ethnicity or even region.

How does this apply to the biological system of “positive feedback loop[s]” (108)? Use specific examples from class or Campbell and relate it to the culture of track and field in Jamaica or running in Kenya. Would small, seemingly isolated, regions of athletic success support a Darwinian example of natural selection? Take into account that on page 101, studies show that Jamaicans had the highest percentage of ACTN3 gene that allows for “forceful, speedy muscle contractions.” Is there at least some truth to genetic advantages?

Argument- IQ Fluke

Starting on page 36, Shenk breaks down the concept behind the IQ Test and its inability to “objectively” measure intelligence (39). Different assessments have been made in the past, such as the SAT test, Spearman’s “general intelligence” test, etc. that try to track a person’s abilities in the world. However, such tests are unable to measure other intelligence aspects like the “carton calculus” situation (48).

In that specific “carton calculus” incident, does/should intelligence measure less noticeable factors, like a worker’s ability to maximize efficiency? Is there truth to the biological niche in humans, that some people are better suited for “blue collar” jobs as opposed to “white collar” (49)? Possibly apply this to Ivars Peterson’s A Dog, a Ball, and Calculus, where his dog similarly functioned like a dairy plant worker to fetch a ball the fastest way possible. Are Shenk’s and other real-world examples a case of innate learned abilities?

Nathan Ro (nathanro94@gmail.com)

Argument-Competition

Shenk talks about learning from failure and using competition to improve oneself. Michelangelo and Da Vinci, for example, had a lively rivalry that developed from their culture. This would push them to create better works of art. (146-147) In nature, too, there is intraspecies competition, but there is also interspecies competition.
How is competition between humans different from competitions in the animal world. Are there any similarities between the two? What types of results come from such types of comeptition?

Argument: teaching an old dog new tricks

There is an old saying that says "you can't teach an old dog new tricks." According to Shenk's model (pg 31) of "dynamic development" (Pg 33) is this true? If genes, environmental factors, and proteins all interact in both ways to influence cells and traits, is the following truthful? There is no doubt that over time, a person learns how to deal with environmental stresses better, how to faster and more easily adapt, learn, and improve their environment. Also, the interaction between their genetics and environment becomes more and more dynamic, with added factors which would minimize the significance of other factors. Thus, would an older, wiser person's environment begin to have less and less effect on their genes? Therefore, it would be harder to teach them new tricks, because their genetics would become less and less influenced by their environment.

Josh Weisberg (superswimmer51@sbcglobal.net)

Evidence

In footnote 26 (page 190), Shenk describes the new development as scientists begin to shift away from the genetic-only model and into the gxe model. The example is that the effect of the bar-eyed genotype on eye facet number of Drosophilia is very dependent on the temperature the flies were in. Something like phenotype which is usually associated with genetics, turns out to have environmental influences as well. Thus the new formula of genes multiplied by environment. Shenk presents that “nature or nature” is not valid, instead it is believed to be a combination of genes and environment. Mendelian genetics is far too basic to be accurate.

Do you think either environment or genetics has more weight in the equation or are they equal? How does evolution account for both environment and genetics? What about Mendelian genetics is inaccurate?

Gabriella Veytsel (geminizire@hotmail.com)

Argument

One of the most convincing arguments in the book for me has been the story of Ted Williams. It’s tempting to attribute someone’s skill to an innate ability so that you don’t have to face the idea that someone is better than you just because they work harder. This idea undermines people’s potential and their effort. It is essentially saying that “your intelligence [or ability] is something you were given, not something you earned” (Shenk 39). It’s much easier to say that they have a natural ability, which would then excuse you from your own lack of achievement. On the other hand, the idea that you could reach such ability with “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” (Shenk 67) is, besides extremely daunting, an idea that is quite inspirational.

Do you think physical ability is differently achieved then mental ability? Can practice, which may be enough for a sport, be enough for learning? What would account for people’s different potentials? Where have you seen an example from biology that mirrors the cabdriver’s increasing size of their hypothalamus from memory practices? How could prodigies and geniuses be explained?

Argument-Training the Mind

Shenk talks about people in poor countries like Kenya or Jamaica who have astounding athletic abilities even though they live in a life of poverty(104-109). They are able to succeed mostly because of their unique mindset. Being raised in a poor background gave them motivation to win competitions, and it gave them many opportunities to excessive. Running is also a part of the lifestyle in Kenya and Jamaica. Because of these environmental factors, the runners have a unique psychological build that pushes them to run.
How else can the environment affect a person's mind, and can a person's mind affect their physical capabilities? Hormones released by the brain might affect their body, and a person might also be able to push themselves more if they have a certain mindset, for example.

Argument - Mutations to Adaptions

Using the car analogy, Shenk explains that "a genetic defect causing a series of problems does not mean that the helathy version of that gene is single-handedly responsible for normal function" (25). So although there are many single-gene diseases that exist, little genetic fragments or changes in structure that may cause a few problems could potentially be an adaptation if GxE is true.

Based on what we know about genetics (Chapter 17 of Campbell), we already know that structure and function are closely related, but for how long do they have a direct effect on human development? In a GxE world, when does environment come into play? Could interdependence in nature affect our genes and mutations?

Agnes Kwon (akwon0215@gmail.com)

Evidence (95)- Rage to Master

In footnote 95, Winner writes about the "fervent, never-let-go willfulness and focus" (292) that she calls "the rage to master" in gifted children. She states that these children "combine an obsessive interest with an ability to learn easily in a given domain [which] leads to high achievement" (292). Shenk shows evidence of this with young Michael Jordan, young Yo-Yo Ma, and young Mozart.

What kind of environment was it that stimulated this intense interest at such a young age? Using evidence, explain how you think this "rage to master" is formed. Winner calls it innate, Shenk calls it "a psychological mechanism forming out of some family/social/cultural dynamic" (292). Considering the theme of Interdependence in Nature, would something like competition keep this motivation going? What other factors could be the cause?

Agnes Kwon (akwon0215@gmail.com)

Argument-Speaking to Babies

In the Argument section on pages 45-47, Shenk explains the effects discovered of talking to young children often and very early. By observing the average number of words spoken to children of professionals, working class children, and welfare children, researchers showed that children growing up in professionals' homes were "exposed to an average of more than fifteen hundred more spoken words per hour than children in welfare homes" (45). This led to a higher level of vocabulary even before the kids started school, and in turn resulted in higher academic achievement. Taking advantage of the early development of children is critical to shaping a child; how does early gene expression and body development tie in to our embryology unit? Do you think that reading/playing music to babies still in the womb can affect gene expression? Why or why not?
-Akila Khan (starlight608@gmail.com)

Argument-Changing Bodies?

In the Argument section on page 65-66, Shenk argues that the bodies of highly accomplished people physically change over long periods of practice. Changes in the "muscles, nerves, hearts, lungs, and brains" (65) of very specialized, talented people are noted even in intellectual talents as well as athletic talents. Shenk also notes, most importantly, the vast changes in the brains of the subjects he studied and their changes in the ways they think (66). How do these changes illustrate the theme of relationship between structure and function? How does the changing structure of our bodies as a result of continuous practice relate to the function those changes serve? How do changes in the body systems we have learned about in class (excretory, circulatory) affect their functions?
-Akila Khan (starlight608@gmail.com)

The Argument-

Shenk states, "handful of famous memory experts ('mnemonists') who've been able to recall prodigious amounts of new and disconnected information" (Shenk 53). Then Ericcson and Chase wanted to know if the mnemonists had innate memory gifts or they have "acquired" their extraordinary skills. Therefore, Ericcson and Chase decided to do an experiment. While the student with the initial S.F. was being tested by memorizing a string of letters and numbers, it showed that S.F. was able to memorize the numbers very fast and efficiently, on the other hand, having a bit of trouble with memorizing long strings of letters. After this experiment, Ericcson and Chase have concluded that "with an appropriate mnemonic system and retrieval structure, there is seemingly no limit to improvement in memory skill with practice" (56).

What do you think was S.F.'s method for memorizing the string of numbers? Why was he unable to memorize a long list of letters in the same way he has memorized the string of numbers? How could S.F. adapt his method for memorizing numbers in order to memorize the long list of letters more efficiently? Just from what the book said (especially the end of the study), would it be accurate to call S.F. a mnemonist? What can you analyze more about the study? Relate back to the Campbell, specifically in 51.2 in order to relate your discussion with the questions. What type of biological concept or theme would this relate to?

-Sally Park (sypark1029@gmail.com)

The Evidence-Footnote #25

On page 190 of the evidence section, David Shenk cites Godfrey-Smith in order to state, "All the genes can code for, if they code for anything, is the primary structure (amino acid sequence) of a protein" (Shenk 190). What does this exactly mean? How can the genes only code for the amino acid sequences? What about the rest, such as secondary, tertiary, and quartenary structure of proteins? Would they be affected strictly by the environment? If genes only control the primary structure of proteins, how can genes have any control over other protein functions? Can the environment affect primary structure as well as the three other protein structures by changing the transcription factors that causes the gene expression? How would the environmental factors have an impact towards structural characteristics of secondary through quartenary structures, for example, beta-pleated sheets and disulfide bonds? Try to think of this prompt by relating to the biological theme, structure and function. Refer to chapters 5 and 18 for protein structure and transcription factors and gene expression in the Campbell. How would the environment affect the protein structure and its functions?

-Sally Park (sypark1029@gmail.com)

Evidence ~ Different Bodies of Identical Twins

In chapter four, Shenk addresses the idea of how the environment can drastically change the body type of person. On page 266, Michael Rennie wrote that the body type is influenced half by environment and half from genes. If two identical twins have the ability, “to sculpt their bodies by different training regimes” (266) which gives two different body types.

How does this idea of having the environment shape the body relate to the theme of relationship between structure and function? If the environment is the same could people have the same body type if they followed an identical lifestyle? Do you think animals have the same ability to change body types due to the demand from the environment?

Argument- Gene Expression

Shenk states that "precisely, which genes do get switched on, and when and how often, and in what order, will make all the difference in the function of each cell- and the traits of the organisms” (32). From this quote, try to describe specific processes in which genes may be switched on or off in animals. How does timing of these genes being switched on and off affect gene expression and the traits that come with. Go back to the Hart and Risley experiment and look again at how "genetic differences do exist" (46). Include the triggers to answer how we can ultimately change our certain traits through environmental influences?

Susie Shin (susieshin94@gmail.com)

The Evidence: Vocal Imprinting

In Footnote #94, Levitin and Deutsch of the University of California in San Diego believe that everyone is born with perfect pitch or absolute pitch. (pg. 288-291) They present evidence that the key to absolute pitch is early exposure to music. We can all differentiate between different pitches and may inherently know the difference between notes. However, the problem here is that we don’t know how to label them. Absolute pitch is pretty rare with only about 1:10,000 or 1:2,000 ratios of people having it in the general population. Absolute pitch is a skill of varying degree as well; we all have the innate ability to hear different pitches. The labeling comes with childhood training and development.

Like early imprinting of young geese caused them to recognize Lorenz as their mother in Chapter 51 of Campbell is that same concept to be applied to humans as well? Meaning, does imprinting at an early age really that essential like in those young geese? Is the evidence given by Deutsch enough to support the idea that early childhood exposure to music is important to developing absolute pitch?

Ellen Zhou (ellenzhou2006@gmail.com)

Evidence- Changes and Evolution

David Shenk makes it clear in his book that nothing is fixed and that we can become more intelligent. "[Some] assert that an individual's intelligence is a fixed quantity which cannot be increased. We must protest and react against this brutal pessimism" (198). Shenk also goes to say that natural intelligence "is "not directly measurable," that it is not one general ability which can be scored, and that is not inherently limiting" (231). According to these two statements Shenk has made, do you think that every human individual can succeed in knowing fully when they achieve their level of expertise? How do we know if there is no more room for one to become more intelligent and skills to be modified, for example, when an individual reaches a certain age or time?

Susie Shin (susieshin94@gmail.com)

The Argument: Artist Wars

In Chapter Nine there is a story about the rivalry between Leonardo Da Vinci and Michelangelo. According to Shenk, this rivalry, although brought on many nasty insults and heavy competition between these two geniuses, supposed brought out the greatness and the genius behind their great works whether it is the Mona Lisa or the sculpture of David (pg. 144-146) We already know that the environment effects the way we develop and not solely reliant on genetics as explored by previous chapters. However, in this chapter the question on how we attempt to build a society that fosters genius. Shenk is suggesting that a competitive environment is the best way for everyone to have a chance to develop their own genius.

We learn in biology about interdependence in nature and how competition is important to contributing to the stability and growth of an ecosystem. Therefore, does that mean competition is also essential in fostering growth of a community of people as well? Consider the different factors that come with competition such as motivation levels and personality type. How can we insure that all different types of people can foster in such an environment? Although Shenk cites the Greeks and their public forums as an example of how the community fosters competition for human development, can it work in the modern world with our communities being much larger or are our communities much too diverse? (pg. 148)

Ellen Zhou (ellenzhou2006@gmail.com)

The Evidence - We all have same African ancestors!

In the Evidence section of the book, Shenk writes that all human beings are descendd from the same African ancestors. He wrote on footnote 106 that the existing fossil evidence suggests that anatomically modern human evolved in Africa, within the last ~200,000 years. Later, fossils of Neanderthals in Europe and Homoerectus in Asia was found. These were earlier species of humans around 160,000. Fossils of the earliest anatomically modern humans found outside Africa are from two sites in the Middle East and date to a period of relative global warmth, ~100,000 years ago. What are the difference in Neanderthals and modern human form that made Neanderthals to live far away from Africa?

Kitae Seong (skt07071994@hotmail.com)

The Argument - Human Babies are Special!

In chapter 8 (pg 131), Shenk describes how human babies are special. He said that what makes us special is that we are born not so intelligent but we are designed to change our minds when faced with data. He says that intelligence is not fixed but waiting to be develped and same for athletic prowess and musical ability. If human babies have ability to develop their intelligent, how come some people that good at developing their intelligent eventhough they are in same environment?

Kitae Seong (skt07071994@hotmail.com)

Evidence: Why not learn/read as a newborn?

According to Footnote 47,"Speaking to children early and often. This trigger was revealed in Hart and Risley's incontrovertible study and reinforced by the University of North Carolina's Abecedarian Project, which provided environmental enrichment to children from birth, with the study subjects showing substantial gains compared with a control group(224). On page 47, it states the triggers to more "intelligence"by "speaking to children early and often, reading early and often, nurturance and encouragement, setting high expectations, embracing failure, and encouraging a "growth mindset." And to tie this all together will come to the GxE paradigm, on how all these "triggers" the expressions on genes for reading, speaking, etc.

The Flynn effect shows that over year generation's IQ increases. As China's scores are above United States by average 30 points, should America try to get children to start learning at a younger age so we can catch up with the IQ gap of China and other countries that seem to be higher up in the IQ scale? If we want the future of our children to be successful and all be geniuses, why aren't these rules being implemented?

Sruthi Merneedi (gangasruthi@gmail.com)

How can we discover our individual potential?-Argument

In the Argument, Shenk proposes that every individual has potential but, "very few of us ever get to know our own true potential." According to his equation GxE, the genius within each self is from genetics and the environment, but how can one individual achieve their potential, when they don't know what their potential is? What is the significance of GxE on discovering one's true potential?  As Shenk says that Genetics and Environment change the way each of us become who we are, does our potential change also?

Sruthi Merneedi (gangasruthi@gmail.com)

Evidence-The Termites

Terman's experiment was to see whether children who were exceptionally smart during childhood would become successful when they became adults. (278-279) In the end, while the students he selected to monitor were somewhat successful, many people that he had passed over during inspection became famous intellectuals such as Nobel Prize winners. The students were judged by their IQ score. They were also picked by their teachers. This would have some bias, as socially awkward students or students that the teacher did not like would not be picked, while social and friendly students would have been more likely to be chosen. Also, the majority of students were white and middle class. This narrow range of subjects could also have skewed the results of the experiment. Terman also altered the results by making it easier for his students to get into good schools and to succeed.
Was Terman's experiment proof that environment has a large influence on a person's development? Was his experimental design flawed so that the result wasn't accurate? Or could it be both?

Evidence - talent and money

Shenk describes the old paradigm: "exceptional abilities were things bestowed upon a very lucky person" (58), and "the word 'talent' goes back much further and was used first for many centuries as a measurement of weight and then as a name for currency" (244). He also explains how judgment and hard work, more than any flash of inspiration, make the talent/genius.

Explain the correlation between money and talent here and how this displays the popular belief of talent as a natural ability.Using information from the book and themes of natural selection/evolution, argue the advantages (and disadvantages) of talent and the reason why talent may have seemed a type of genetic currency before the advent of the G*E theory.

Emily Reinherz...ereinherz@aol.com

Arguement - Maze Rats

In the Cooper-Zubek experiment on maze bright vs maze dull rats in different environments, it was found that the enriched environment highly reduced the expected number of errors of the maze dull rats while the restricted environment increased the expected number of errors of the maze bright rats (27-30).

Explain how these results correlate with G*E more than G+E. Additionally, what are the implications of these results on our society and our reaction towards delinquents or 'mess ups'? Do you believe that the science resented with this experiment and G*E will majorly effect the initiation of future prevention techniques rather than punishment techniques?

Emily Reinherz...ereinherz@aol.com

Evidence- Gene Expression

Shenk clarifies the idea of gene expression in footnote 19, where Moore explains that gene expression is influenced through several mechanisms and that experiential factors that influence gene expression can be "turned up/down/on/off at any time-- by another gene or by any miniscule environmental input" (183). This evidence is an example of gene-environment interaction (GxE).

Given this information and what you already know about gene expression, discuss how this demonstrates that an organism's phenotype is an example of interdependence in nature. What significance does GxE hold for for diseases such as Type II Diabetes where an individual is more susceptible to the disease in a particular environment due to genetic factors? How does GxE relate to the concept of epigenetics?

-Jessica Hua (jhua33@yahoo.com)

Evidence- Is Talent Real?

Shenk  explains that many people have the "belief in inborn gifts" (117). They believe that certain people were born with certain talents that set them apart from everyone else. But as Shenk reveals, Beethoven suffered "horrific abuse" from his father (116) to become one of the most famous musicians of all time. But to most, the idea of talent "relieves a person of the burden of expectation" (117).

To what extent is talent real? Is it healthy for parents and/or friends to push someone like Beethoven's father pushed him to become well known or the best at something? What are the benefits of depending on one another to become the best we can be?

Lili Malone (lilimalone@ameritech.net)

Argument- Overcoming limitations

In Chapter 7, David Shenk addresses the concept that greatness is a result of innate giftedness, suggesting that society holds this view because it relieves us of the idea that we could have achieved greatness if we only tried. He states that in order to achieve greatness one has "to go farther, harder, longer, than almost everyone else, to push well past the point of logic of reason" (124). Overcoming the limitations to greatness goes hand-in-hand with the idea of the growth mindset-- that talents and abilities are not fixed but rather can grow with time.

What evidence from genetics and evolution demonstrates the growth mindset? Is there a certain point where a plateau has been reached and growth is no longer possible? Can we overcome our limitations through sheer willpower or are we limited by our biology? How are organisms that are able to grow and overcome limitations at an evolutionary advantage?

-Jessica Hua (jhua33@yahoo.com)

Evidence - Same attainable intelligence

"Evidence"- Footnote 88 (273-274)

Considering the futuristic society in the movie Gattaca, where the process of birth is highly controlled and even calculated in order to produce the ideal children. Given this society, without manipulating the genes, would all individuals be able to reach the same level of intelligence? If genetics does not play a critical role in the development of intelligence, does that not mean every individual should be able to achieve the same level of intelligence when they grow up with the same living conditions?

-Sachin Vasikaran (sachinvasikaran@gmail.com)

"The Argument"- Evolutionary Motivation

"The Argument"
David Shenk claims that motivation is key in increasing your personal IQ and succeeding in life. He refers to the 1981 movie Chariots of Fire to emphasize the stark differences of people with different motivating factors (121).

Do you think it is possible that motivation could be potentially passed down through genes? In the sense that one individual might have a higher propensity to be motivated than another. Would this be an evolutionary benefit?

-Sachin Vasikaran (sachinvasikaran@gmail.com)

Argument-The Child Has No Choice?

In the book, Shenk gives several examples of children who were brought up at a very young age to learn a certain skill. Yo-Yo Ma, for example, was taught by his parents and immersed in music ever since he was born to become a great instrument player(93). Beethoven was forced by his father to study music and play the piano and violin(116-117). Mozart was also surrounded by music and his parents made him play music at a very young age(61).
Was it right for their parents to force them into music at such a young age? At that point in their live, they do not know enough about the world around them to think about what they will do when they grow up, yet their parents, by constantly making them study one thing, have limited their child's future because now their child only studies one thing. Is it okay for parents to choose their child's life for them? Future experiences, for example, might have shaped their children through GXE to become something else that they chose for themselves, instead of something chosen by their parents.

Evidence: Fruit Flies vs. Humans

In the evidence section, footnote 9-10, Shenk writes that "if humans were fruit flies, with a new generation appearing every eleven days, we might be tempted to chalk it up to genetics and rapid evolution" (174). In comparing fruit flies with humans, think about Shenk's claim that talent is a process (10), made up of different environmental effects influencing our genes and gene expression. So if fruit flies have such short generation span, their process is based on adaptation and evolution. Compare these short life span adaptations with the process humans go through over their lifetime, averaging between 70 and 80 years. Which process develops more? Obviously, the human's is not an adaptation, and will not carry over to the next generation, but still, which process is more efficient and successful? Connect back to the biological theme of evolution and natural selection, and compare the two organisms as well as the two processes in general.

-Josh Weisberg (superswimmer51@sbcglobal.net)

Argument- Stereotypes

People all over the world create stereotypes for one another based on observations or experience. Whether intentional or not, we notice that certain traits may be apparent in a group of people of the same ethnicity, believing its due to their genetic make up. We say that asians are smart and short, African Americans are good at sports, American kids are lazy, and as the New Yorker's Burkhard Bilger writes, "We assume they [Mexicans] were born to be small" (27). Similarly, Shenk states, "Born to be small. Born to be smart. Born to play music. Born to play basketball. It's a seductive assumption, one that we've all made" (27).

Even though we know that stereotypes aren't necessarily true, there has to be some truth to them for us to create these stereotypes. For example, many of the best long distance runners are Kenyan. Is their beneficial body type and ability genetic or environmental? What certain traits constitute as genetic or environmental? What kind of environmental factors could possibly affect genetically inherited traits? Can some of these truthful stereotypes become genetic if they continue to be common among certain ethnic groups?

Lili Malone (lilimalone@ameritech.net)

Evidence - Where's the line?

In footnote #47 Schenk explains that not only is it beneficial for a child to be exposed to more encouraging feedback in order to excel, but also that it has to balance with the amount of discouraging feedback. That the wealthier families have a ratio of 6 encouragement to 1 discouragement where as the welfare families had a ratio of 2 encouragement to 1 discouragement. This along with setting high expectations and embracing failure while trying to reach beyond ones current skill level helps to mold a child into a gifted young adult. This supports the widely followed positive reinforcement techniques when raising children. 

But it's also believed that there is a line to how high expectations should be set and how positive a parent can really be. Where do you think this line would be, or does it exist at all? How would crossing this line affect the development of the child? And is it better for the parents to give the line a wide berth and try and walk right next to it?

Evidence: How to measure Intelligence

Shenk refers to footnote 50, in which Sternberg compares intelligence tests and achievement tests, such as the SAT. Sternberg realized that it was hard for him to find "any real difference between them" (230). He found that the actual tests aren't the distinguishing factors, but how "psychologists, educators, and other interpret the scores on these tests" (230). Footnote 51 goes onto say how intelligence isn't fixed, but rather a dynamic and ongoing process. Sternberg argues how "no current tests actually measure built-in intelligence and that intelligence tests are rather measuring how well a child learned" certain skills at school (231).

So Do you think there is any way to measure innate intelligence? Is there even such a thing as innate intelligence? How much does it affect actual intelligence and learning abilities? Are these IQ tests accurate? If not, then what is the purpose of IQ tests?

-Arjun Ahuja (aahuja12@gmail.com)

Evidence- An entirely new understanding of Genes

According to Shenk, "over the last two decades Mendel's ideas have been thoroughly upgraded". However, "it has received little public attention... the result has been a growing public disconnect between genetic understanding and genetic reality".

This change parallels the emergence of theories of evaluation which ultimately resulted in Lamarck's theory of soft inheritance (inheritance in which anything that occurs to a parent is passed down to offspring) being all but abandoned. Shenk seems to suggest that there may actually be reason to return to Lamark and that our straight forward Mendel view of genetics is flawed.

In what ways can the actual truth about evolution be considered a consolidation of multiple view points on evolution? Is Lamark's theory of soft inheritance at all corroborated by Shenk or should it continue to be discredited as incorrect? What of Shenk's evidence suggests that even with new research we may not have a complete understanding of genetics?

Argument- Human Biology is a Jukebox

Argument-

According to David Shenk, "Dynamic development is why human biology is a jukebox with many potential tunes - not specific built in instructions for a certain kind of life, but a built in capacity for a variety of possible lives" (33).

Following this view, psychologist John Watson's claim of "Give me a dozen healthy infants, well-formed, and my own specified world to bring them up in and I'll guarantee to take any one at random and train him to become any type of specialist I might select" holds more truth.

Furthermore, dynamic development also helps to back Rousseau's explanation of tabula rasa in which each person is born with a blank slate and able to gain knowledge from experience and perception.

In what ways can dynamic development be seen as a natural progression of the ideas of both Rousseau and Watson, and how is it a completely new idea all together. Furthermore, how might the ability to adapt to a number of circumstances have played a part in evolution; is it possible dynamic development is actually a result of evolution?

(Jacob Yomtoob, jakeyomtoob@gmail.com)

Evidence-Work Hard For Your Grandkids

In the footnote 162, Shenks cites a study that used mice with memory-impairing genetic defects. The mice were then exposed to a "stimulating environment"(348). This stimulating environment not only increased the memory of the mice, but also the memory of their offspring. In essence, environmental factors and choices affect the genetic makeup of future generations.

Will this change in genetic makeup necessarily be advantageous to future generations? Why might they not be advantageous? If a family is made up of all skilled athletes, why might a future offspring not excel as an athlete? In your response, comment on the relationship between epigenetics and evolution.
Jonah May (Jonah2020@aol.com)

The Argument: Factors of Environmental Factors

In the first part of "The Argument" (pgs 5-12), Shenk talks all about Ted Williams ability to hit a baseball based on his genetics, or natural ability, and his environmental factors, or practice. He presents his argument about how Williams's practice had a larger effect on his ability than the genetics he started out with. He also covers his opposition, that genetics are the deciding factor in a person's ability. However, he never examines genetics other than talent that could've lead to Ted's success. For example, to practice the way he did, would take a great deal of motivation and drive. These personality traits along with many others also set us humans apart. In the relationship between environmental factors and genetics which results in gene expression, is it possible that these personality traits along with many others such as stubbornness, ability to deal with stress, will power, and many more could effect how much the environment affects our gene expression? For example, if one person deals with stress better than the other, would environmental stressors affect the higher stressed person's gene expression more? Relate this back to our gene expression unit, and think about the chemicals and hormones involved. Also, in what other ways is Shenk's proposed environment-genetics relationship more dynamic than he suggested?

-Josh Weisberg (superswimmer51@sbcglobal.net)

Argument: It's a Process

In the first chapter, Shenk talks about the extraordinary talent of Ted Williams and how he was “considered the most ‘gifted’ hitter of his time” (5). He was thought “to have laser-like eyesight,” which would allow him “to read the spin of a ball as it left the pitcher’s fingers and to gauge exactly where it would pass over the plate”(5-6). Yet Shenk argued that Ted Williams was a perfectly normal person, with just an uncanny motivation to practice, practice, and practice. Williams saw greatness not as a thing, but as “a process” (7). When Ted enlisted in the navy, mandatory eye exams revealed his vision to be “well within ordinary human range” (9). Shenk also explains how “most underachievers…have so far been unable to tap into their true potential” (11).

What do you think David Shenk means when he talks about how most underachievers have not been able to tap into their true potential? Was Ted Williams able to achieve this feat? Along with superior practice techniques, can evolution, such as mutations, also be beneficial for ones achievements? And how can it help? And do you think natural selection works for people without genetic advantages such as Ted Williams? And if so, how does it?

-Arjun Ahuja (aahuja12@gmail.com)

Argument- What Was Mendel Thinking?

Throughout the first chapter of the book, Shenks opposes the idea that traits are as clearly defined as the genetic model that Mendel created. He argues that all traits can not be evaluated with a simple punnett square. While Shenks does admit that many physical traits such as hair color and eye color are "near Mendelian", he also notes that this does not mean a "gene-environment interaction" did not occur (24). Even in these clear-cut examples of inheritance, the environment is still interacting and affecting the genes.  Shenks also says that as traits grow in complexity, they act less and less Mendelian.

What causes the variation in trait predictability? Is Mendel's approach to genetics incorrect? Do you foresee a day that more complex traits can be predicted? In your response, comment on the types of traits that Mendel first observed (Campbell 262-269). Also, comment on the number of genes/proteins involved in simple traits such as hair color versus the number of genes/proteins involved in complex traits such as personality.

Jonah May (Jonah2020@aol.com)

Evidence: Human Evolution...

In Footnote #106, Kate Berg elaborates on the origin of the modern day human, which dates back 200,000 years to Africa (304). She also lists characteristics of an “anatomically modern” human, deeming that he/she should possess “a high rounded skull, facial retraction, and a light and gracile…skeleton” (305).

Why do you suppose natural selection has favored these or other specific traits of humans? Discuss the reasons behind why natural selection has favored three specific traits (3 minimum). You may want to consider traits such as bipedalism, imposable thumbs, etc. Also, will humans continue to evolve drastically, or have we reached a relative “perfection” so much so that evolutionary changes that follow will be slight? Are the forces of natural selection acting on humans the same as they were hundreds of thousands of years ago? If not, how have they changed?    

-Diane Kuai
(dianekuai@gmail.com)

Evidence - Savants

Shenk's evidence in footnote 89 describes the interesting phenomenon of savantism that is especially common in those with mental disabilities and damage, with around 50% of savants being autistic, and the other 50% having some other mental issue (274). While there is a sizable population of savants in the world, Shenk says there are only around 100 that can be considered "prodigious savants"; those that have abilities that would be amazing even in a non-disabled person (275).

Savants have some amazing abilities that would give them a very good chance at success in life, but unfortunately these savants have hindering mental disabilities that come with these mental super-abilities. Are these savant skills able to be unlocked in any person? Are they only caused by these genetic mental problems, or is there an environmental force at play, just like with any other trait according to the GxE model? If so, are savant skills and otherwise normal mental functions mutually exclusive? Why would prodigious savants be so rare if there indeed was an environmental cause? And if these traits hypothetically could be produced in any person, is it moral to push a child down a path with a certain savant ability to give them an amazing and rare chance at extraordinary achievement, or should they be left to their own choices?

David Whisler (dwhis428@gmail.com)

Argument - A Parent's Responsibility

In Shenk's argument, he describes the critical role of the environment on an organism's future characteristics and traits, replacing the old model of G + E with GxE to demonstrate the myriad complex interactions between genetics and environment (20). Mice with exactly the same genome raised in different locations with no obvious source of environmental difference have been shown to have very different characteristics from each other (129). All organisms have this potential for environmental influence, but humans, with their remarkably plastic brains and intelligence have an exponentially larger capacity for environmental influence (131).

This being said, parents, being the most present influence in a child's life, have an enormous potential to shape their child's personality - for better or for worse. The recent discovery of the epigenome that is exponentially more complex than the traditional genome proves that a parent's own lifestyle choices and environmental influences can be passed down to future generations. The parent's role in their child's future is enormous. With this knowledge in mind, should parents actively try to plan for their child's future? How would they be able to carefully select the right environmental influences to give their child the best characteristics possible for success? And with the possibility of epigenetic markers from a parent's own good or bad life decisions being passed down, should they actively make the best decisions for their child's future? Is this level of planning even possible at all? Or should they just leave it to chance, knowing that these interactions are likely too complex to directly plan for?

David Whisler (dwhis428@gmail.com)

Argument: Is cloning impossible?

In chapter 4, Shenk discusses further about Ted Williams, the extraordinary baseball player with uncanny skill and determination. Williams’ son, John Henry, realized the value in his father’s genes and remarked, “What if we could sell dad’s DNA and there could be little Ted Williamses all over the world?” (73). In other words, his intent was to clone his father. But, as determined by Shenk, it is simply impossible to bring him back to life “quirk for quirk and swing for swing” (73).

With this new model of GxE, exactly how close can we get to creating a near “carbon-copy” of a human, or any organism for that matter (if at all)? What types of environmental conditions would have to be present in order to create this replica? Why would some organisms seem to be easier to clone than others? How is cloning related to the various modes of reproduction found in nature? And what are the evolutionary benefits of having a carbon-copy of oneself, versus a genetically different one?

-Diane Kuai 

(dianekuai@gmail.com)

Evidence: Continuity of Life

At the end of chapter two, Shenk explains basically why we must, as our classroom posters tell us, have a growth mindset rather than a fixed mindset. He writes, "We can trick ourselves into thinking that measuring a person's intelligence is like measuring the length of a table. But in truth, it's more like measuring a five-year-old's weight" (51). Then in the evidence in portion we learn that according to Sternberg: "One moves along the continuum as one acquires a broader range of skills, a deeper level of the skills one already has, and increased efficiency in the utilization of these skills" (235).


What would be an example of how intelligence is merely a snapshot in time? We know that life is an ongoing process. That being said, what are some evolutionary advantages of utilizing motivation as a driving force for self-betterment. How does this concept change the way we should look at our individual lives? (Hint: Continuity and Change is one of our 6 themes of biology- use this to formulate your response)

(Jane Rose)

Argument- Regulating Environment

Shenk summarizes Monsieur Lamarck's discovery of epigenetics as, "what an individual does in his/her life before having children can change the biological inheritance of those children and their descendants" (161). This is basically saying that heredity does not come from genetic makeup alone, but also from lifestyle and environment patterns; therefore, natural selection is not as random as it once seemed. 

Does this idea explain why animals have certain ways of learning or behaving to find a mate? How about the other physiological adaptations? Is it the mutations and genetic recombination that cause heritable variations (as evolution is understood) or is it the constant change in behavior due to environmental conditions that is the "primary vehicle of evolution" (161)?

Evidence-Memory

In the evidence section, footnote 53, Shenk gives us an excerpt from his previous book The Forgetting. Here he describes the case of a Russian reporter who could remember virtually every single detail in his life. He took his memory for granted and could easily memorize enormous lists of numbers within minutes and never forget them even after twenty years. However, the reporter was plagued by the inability to see meaning in what he memorized. He could not distinguish simple patterns unless they were pointed out to him. (236-239)

Do you believe that having a perfect memory is an evolutionary advantage? A flaw? Do you think that forgetfulness is actually helping you by allowing you to erase useless information? If given the choice, would you want to have such an ability? Why?

Vlad Miskevich (vladmiskevich@yahoo.com)

Argument- Are Nature and Nurture Reversed?

In the heading of Chapter 7 of the Argument section, Shenk says that "we have far more control over our genes -and far less control of our environment -than we think" (115). The conventional paradigm of nature vs. nurture as we generally know it is that nature is what we don't have control over (i.e. genes) and nurture is what shapes us (i.e. our environment). By stating that we have more control over our genes is almost completely flipping the nature/nurture paradigm on its back, but necessary for Shenk's argument to make sense: its not always one or the either.

If we don't have as much control over our environment than we think, how is human evolution different from the natural selection that dictates the rest of the world? Other animals truly don't have much control over what influences them, but humans are different in that regard. But does this mean that humans are less "free" than we like to think because our environment restricts us? Which oppresses us more than? Genetics or the habits that shape our environment?

Agnes Kwon (akwon0215@gmail.com)

Physically fit for talent - Argument

In the argument section on pages 65-66, Shenk talks about how the way people practice, the intensity of that practice, and the long term commitment to it can actually change our physical bodies, such as in the muscles, nerves, heart, lungs, and brain. This enhancement of features, especially in the brain, lead to precise task knowledge, a shift to intuitive thinking, and elaborate self monitoring that allow for adjustments in real time.

If this is true, what kind of physical changes can occur and how long would they take? Can anyone decide that they are going to start practicing at something, and have their body and brain start changing? Does a faster changing and adapting body and brain make someone more skilled than another, and does starting with certain natural physical attributes for their skill propel that person forward at the start?

(Kenny Nelson) kenny@shimanek.org

Evidence-Undefined Intelligence

In the Evidence section of Shenk's book in footnotes 51, he describes how innate "intelligence is not directly measureable" (231).The tests that our society uses to measure such intelligence is flawed because it's based on how well the person was taught in school with the skills that the test measures. Shenk states that "all we're really learning from intelligence tests is that some kids do better than others in school" (231). Many children in different societies possess different skills such as running businesses and surviving in the wild which our society refuses to acknowledge. Huge tests such as the IQ test, ACT, and SAT define what category of intelligence we're in. According to Shenk, "intelligence is not how good you are at something. It's how good you are on your way to becoming" (235).

Does this mean that there is no way to classify how intelligent a human being is? How would you test intelligence if you could? Does intelligence come from nature or nurture? Both? Does how a person performs on a written test reflect the DNA passed on from their parents? Does this passing of DNA stay relatively constant in relation to intelligence, or does it change from offspring to offspring?

(Anisha Ghosh) nishx6@aim.com

Is the Future Smarter?

In the argument section of his book, David Shenk uses Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart as an example of how a known child prodigy only resulted from an "extroidinary upbringing" (61).  His father, Leopold Mozart was an Austrian musician, composer, and teacher who was very successful throughout his life and focused most of his attention on Mozart when he was born. Shenk also mentions that Mozart had a "fast-devloping ear [and] deep curiosity" (63) for music. Many people believe that Mozart inherited those exceptional traits of composing and playing music because of his ablitity to compose and play music at a very young age.

If Mozart's father hadn't given him that much attention, do you think he would've become a prodigy? Why or why not? We know that children inherit some traits from their mother, and some from their father according to a scientist named Mendel. Could this have had any influence of Mozart's extroidinary abilities? Do you think as time goes on, evolution makes it possible for human beings to do things that couldn't be done in the past?

(Anisha Ghosh nishx6@aim.com)

Evidence- Jacked like Schwarzenegger

From pages 307-312, footnote 107, Shenk talks about skeletal muscles (“all voluntary muscles” (308)) and how the different musculatures seem to support the idea that those traits were determined “merely by genetic instruction” (107). He then goes on to explain slow-twitch and fast-twitch muscles; slow-twitch fibers are for aerobic exercises like running, and fast-twitch are for anaerobic exercises like weight lifting. However, Shenk argues that the varying proportions of slow-twitch and fast-twitch muscle fibers in adults are not due to genes, but are actually a result of “genes multiplied by environment” (GxE), based on “process” (20-21). Shenk further argues that these differences in musculature are because “muscles are designed to be rebuilt” therefore have the potential to convert slow-twitch fibers to fast-twitch, or vice versa (312).

How does Shenk’s assertions seem to contradict the widely accepted concepts of different body types: endomorph, ectomorph, and mesomorph (you may have to look this up if you’re unfamiliar)? Is there a common ground that concedes that both theories are true (i.e. can the human body evolve out of endomorph into mesomorph)? Relate these ideas with the biological theme of how structure fits function. See Campbell section 50.5 for more information on muscles. 

Nathan Ro (nathanro94@gmail.com) 

Argument- Mendelian Genetics

On page 26, Shenk talks about the gene-environment complex, specifically with height. As he mentioned earlier, our culture is “indoctrinated with Mendelian genetics” (21). That is, we tend to perceive external factors (especially less complex ones) to be simply a result of strictly Mendelian fate. Shenk counters this argument by stating that height is determined by “interacting vigorously with the outside world to produce an improved, unique, result” (27). In Greulich’s experiment, Japanese kids were raised in California and Japan, but since California offered better nourishment, it allowed for an “astonishing five inches taller on average” (27). Shenk then supports this paradigm shift, saying that Mexicans are also inaccurately generalized to be small when they should be “tall and slender,” but can’t because of “poor diet” (28).

What possible flaws do you see in Shenk’s, or his research’s, arguments? Can you relate this phenomenon to any other current event, in which malnourishment seems to hold more weight than genetics? Do different ethnicities really share the same potential to be the same size, or is there evolutionary evidence/reasoning that supports the opposite may be true?

Argument- The End of Giftedness

In the argument section, Shenk explains the experiments of Ericcson and Chase with their subject S.F. They wished to test if a person may increase their short term memory capacity by practicing for long periods of time. He proceeds to explain that S.F. created methods of memorizing long sequences of numbers by grouping various number sequences together. S.F. progressed to the point where he could store over 80 unrelated digits in his short term memory whereas the normal human can only remember approximately 7. There are also other tricks for storing information such as the use of places to remember names or items. (52-57)

Why do you think it is easier for people to remember a sequence of small groups of numbers and difficult to remember a long chain of them? How could this have evolutionarily helped our ancestors in the past? Explain why you think some people are capable of remembering nearly every word said during a class period whereas others can barely grasp the previous sentence?

Vlad Miskevich (vladmiskevich@yahoo.com)

The Evidence: Innate Ability vs. Training

On page 217-218, it says that in 2000 Ellen Winner responded to the idea that hard work and training does not outrule the role of innate ability in a person. Ericsson's research said that "intensive training is necessary for the acquisition of expertise, but not that it if sufficient" in regard to replacing innate ability.

Winner argued that gifted children have a deep intrinsic motivation to achieve, are independent,  and have naturally hard-working parents. She said that these gifted children all had these abilities due to innate ability or nature over nurture.

Do you agree with Winner about how innate ability may play a larger role over nurture and working hard to learn? Due you believe that children are born "gifted", or does their environment and upbringing control their "gifts" or talents? Or do you think it is a mix of both? Explain.

The Argument: Genetics in Relation to Athleticism

Starting on page 81 and the chapter "Can White Men Jump?", Shenk brings up the common belief or stereotype that race can determine athletic ability. One example is how the small island of Jamaica captured six gold medals in track and field and eleven medals overall in the 2008 Olympics. He wonders how such a small place can win so many medals in a specific event. Within hours of the wins geneticists studied what force it was that drove Jamaicans to be such fast runners. They discovered that 98 percent of Jamaicans possess the gene variant called alpha-actinin-3.

What does the gene alpha-actinin-3 actually do? What actually causes certain populations to be better at a sport than other populations? Do you think certain abilities have evolved more in African countries as opposed to North American or European countries due to natural selection? Give an example. Are racial and ethnic groups generally genetically different?  Overall, do you think genetics or something else allows for some populations to produce better athletes than other populations?

The Evidence- Intellegence is Now a Sound

In footnote #37 Shenk addresses the idea of the developing definition of intellegence. He mentions and analyzes how the word has moved from having a true definite meaning to a vauge and very general understanding of what is truely intended when using the word. He also implies that those who use the words so loosely and so unclearly are the biggest culprits in that they are perptuating a fallacy in humans to overgeneralize and put people in compartments. This compartment however is not univerally characterized and when "two dozen prominent theorists were recently asked to define intelligence, they gave two dozen somewhat different definitions" (206).

How do you see the misinterpretation of the word intellegence? How can his definition be used as a globally accepted definition? How does this connect to the idea of growth mindset and the ever-changing, and superficial definition of intellegence that has been develping?

Hannah Perl (hannahperl94@gmail.com)

The Argument- The Irony of Talent

Shenk refers to achievment and ability as a "long-term attitude" and a "process rather than any particular age-based talent" (98). He makes this observation and the term "attitude" sticks out to me.

How is state of mind related to that quote and the growth based mindset exemplified through this quote?
Also how is the idea of perserverence and the idea of minds who seek out knowledge instead of comfort shown in this section of the Argument. How does the affect of a natural inclination affect the work ethic of humans and how does this change the courses of choices they could potentially take in an effort to remain in the higher mind set? Also note the irony of the situation and the idea of setteling that is presented in this section.

Hannah Perl (hannahperl94@gmail.com)

Evidence-Geniuses are just lucky people?

In the evidence section in footnotes 56 and 57, Shenk provides evidence corroborating that people who were remarkably talented in one area such as music, sports, memory, etc. were limited in their expertise in just that one area, which proves that they were “acquired skills” not the product of some innate genius. From an evolutionary standpoint, do you think it would be more advantageous to be terrifically talented in one domain or area, or to be normally/mediocre talented in all areas.

Then in footnotes 62-64, Shenk describes how Mozart became the musical genius that he is largely due to that he was born into a unique situation that greatly fostered his musical abilities: his parents, the support, the expectancy, the family history. Are geniuses, then, normal people who are extremely lucky, people who were born into a setting that made them into an extraordinaire? Also in animals, a trait that proves advantageous is most likely passed on to offspring: evolution. If genius is something that cannot be passed on genetically, then can humans ever really go through evolution? i.e. can humans ever evolve to be smarter, more talented? Or will we always have to rely on advancements in culture and advent of technology?

Sara Lee(Yoojin3795@hotmail.com)

Argument-Let's all go to Kenya!

David Shenk spends the entire Chapter Six refuting the idea that certain sports abilities and greatness are attributed to specific cultures, ethnicities, etc. For example, Shenks examines the case of the “running Kenyans”. (102) He argues that it is not the Kenyan’s ethnicity that gives them special genes that make them the fastest runners in the world. Instead, environmental aspects strongly contribute to their successes. “Kalenjin kids tend to run long distances as a practical matter.” “Running in Kenya has become a rare economic opportunity to catapult oneself into Western-level education and wealth.” (105) This cultural inclination towards running is what contributes to what seems  like an abnormal number of Kenyan runners.

Does this necessarily mean that if someone wants to be a great runner, he should go to Kenya because the culture there cultivates running abilities? Describe how the physical and social environment of Kenya could have contributed to the development of great running skills. Are there any other examples that you can think of of the culture or a certain ethnicity providing a platform or the cultivation of a certain skill?

Sara Lee (yoojin3795@hotmail.com)

Evidence-The Influence of Culture-Footnote #105

In the Evidence section on p.302, Shenk cites evidence that is used to support his claim that a culture that encourages achievement for all personality types--competitive and noncompetitive--better utilizes the talents of its people. HAM's, or people who enjoy and thrive in competition, and LAM's, or people who are noncompetitive and prefer improvement instead, are not genetically determined. Rather, they are greatly influenced by the culture in which they live in- the patriarchal Maasai society had more male HAMs, but the matriarchal Khasi society had more female HAMs (Shenk 150).

To what extent does our culture influence our motivation and achievement? Do the population dynamics of a culture such as age structure, population density, infant mortality, or life expectancy play a role in that culture's achievement? (See Chapter 53 in Campbell). If so, how? If not, why not?
Akila Khan (starlight608@gmail.com)

Argument-The Power of Epigenetics?

In the Argument section on page 159, Shenk argues that another biological factor plays a role in heredity besides DNA: epigenetics. While studying 2 types of the toadflax plant, scientists realized that the DNA of both plants was identical; the reason for their different appearances was their histones and chromatin-the packaging that surrounded the genes. It was later discovered that epigenetic changes can be inherited, just like genes. The packaging of DNA can alter appearance, such as the fur color of mice (Shenk 159), and even increase risks of diseases such as colon cancer (Shenk 160). In other words, the environment we live in presently and the influences we expose ourselves to can affect not only our own gene expression, but our descendants' gene expression as well.

We have learned that histones and chromatin play a role in gene transcription and expression. How might environmental influences physically change an organism's histones to regulate the expression of a certain gene? (see Chapter 18 in Campbell p.356-358). What implications does the malleability of our epigenomes have on our lifestyles, from what we eat, to the chemicals we use, to how we study? Do you think there are any limitations on the kinds of traits that your epigenome can influence?
Akila Khan (starlight608@gmail.com)

Early Learning = Better Learning?

In the Argument section, Shenk discusses the background of Yo-Yo Ma, a talented piano player. From a very early age, Yo-Yo Ma was exposed to music. As a child, he had an “intensively conditioned musical brain, world-class teaching resources, and a desperate personal desire that researchers universally agree is the key to precocious success” (95).

However, what would happen if these same environmental conditions appeared later on, perhaps when Ma reached adulthood? Would they still have the same effects? Is it really true that it gets harder to learn new things as we age? If yes, why does this happen? Can this “early learning” be related to a sensitive period? How are the two related?

Diane Kuai 

(dianekuai@gmail.com)

Argument ~ Taxi drivers

In the argument section, Shenk talks about the taxi drivers in London who have, “a greatly enlarged posterior hippocampus” (35). The experiment took place in London by Eleanor Maguire in 1999. She found out that, “the longer the driving career, the larger the posterior hippocampus” (35). In other words as taxi drivers gained experience driving through the streets of London they were spatially learning the streets which enlarged the part of the brain which specializes for spatial skills.

How do you think the GPS is affecting the brains of the new generation of taxi drivers who might not need to learn as much information as the generation that did not have access to GPS? Do you think taxi drivers have a better sense of direction in an unfamiliar setting then another person with a less developed hippocampus? Does having a larger hippocampus help the individual have an easier time learning another skill?Is it possible that taxi drivers just memorize where the streets are or do you think the create a cognitive map in their mind to aid them when driving? Try looking in chapter 51.2 to refresh the different styles of learning

Ayana Dambaeva (adambaeva@gmail.com)

Evidence- Footnote #94

Because there has been a result showing that, "music can be considered a pre-linguistic language which is nourishing and stimulating to the whole human being, affecting body, emotions, intellect, and developmental internal sense of beauty, sustaining and awkening the qualities in us that are wordless and otherwise inexpressible," more and more pregnant mothers have stopped going to noisy locations and rather find somewhere quiet and soothing (Shenk 285). In another words, Shenk talks about the impact the sound a mother hears on their baby and the development of the baby's future life.

Humans are species with internal development. Relate your answer from the Campbell, chapter 47 and consider the species with external development. Would these individuals have a disadvantage because they cannot have their mother to experience these sensations? If it was considered as a disadvantage, would it have any effects on evolution? Or would it be an advantage to not experience the mother's sensation because they can experience various things during development themselves instead of through their mother? How would this have an impact on evolution? What about animals like kangaroos? They are born early, but they need the mother's care such as the pouch. Would it make any difference from different types of development?

Sally Park (sypark1029@gmail.com)

The Argument- Abiotic v. Biotic

Similar to what has been already posted about the Jamaican runners, it has been stated that "athletic clusters are not genetic, but systemic" (Shenk 101). This shows that the excellent athletes "emerge in geographic clusters" (101). This shows that species do not evolve over time, but instead evolve within their own population. In another words, they evolve due to the abiotic factors rather than the biotic. Relating this idea to a part on page 44, it states, "Every human being (even a whole society) can grow smarter if the environment demands it" (44). This shows Shenk's stress on the development of human having to do with different types of biotic and abiotic factors of the environment.

How does this relate to the theme of interdepence in nature? Does the Flynn effect illustrate how intelligence is related to environment? (42) How would this relate/provide an explanation to the Flynn effect by James Flynn? What is resource partitioning and how does Shenk's concept involve with this idea? (Try looking at chapter 54 in the Campbell.) How could you relate Shenk's theory in terms of different cultures? State some examples.

Sally Park (sypark1029@gmail.com)

How Many Genes Are There Really?

In the Evidence section, Shenk shows support for his statement "estimates of the actual number of genes vary" on page 19. He tells of how "the exact number of genes encoded by the genome is unknown". Estimates have included 19,599 protein coding genes with 2,188 more DNA segments that could code for protein and these numbers were thought to be low for our species. He also defends another statement said on page 19 which was " genes -- all twenty-two thousand of them -- are more like volume knobs and switches." He explains that this statement was merely a metaphor to capture how genes work in a general sense (182-183).

How is the number of genes low for our species? Why is the number of genes that code for proteins so low in our species? (Explain how the number is so low (i.e. what happens within genome to make it so low)). Does the gene number of any other species come close to ours? Explain Shenk's metaphor of how genes are like volume knobs and switches. (Regan Frieling, regan1995@yahoo.com).

In the Arugment section, Shenk talks about two individuals: Da Vinci and Michelangelo. Leonardo Da Vinci was a man of many talents and excelled in several fields from science to art. Michelangelo was the great sculptor of his time and for a while lived in Florence along with Da Vinci. Since both of them were exceptionally great men, with personalities and attitudes to match that greatness, a tense rivalry existed between the two men. Shenk attributed the success of these two men to the culture of innovation in Europe during the 12^th century.  He said that “every culture must strive to foster values that bring out the best in its people” (146). Using this and Greek culture, Shenk claimed that what made these cultures great was the fact that competition was at the center of their culture.

                In evolutionary biology, we know that competition and the environment is what drives changes in the gene pool. But competition in nature tends to be for food, shelter, survival, and reproduction. In modern day society, is Shenk correct to say that competition is what great societies need? Why or why not? If not, what should be done to promote a great society? If so, what need to be done to promote competition? Can cultural changes affect our genetics and gene pool? How? (144- 154)

Alvin Varghese (alvin.varghese@hotmail.com)

Genes don't Dominate???

David Shenk describes the interaction between genes and the environment as a complex and dynamic process. Genes are not "straightjackets holding us in place; they are bungee cords waiting to be stretched and stretched." (46) He portrays the environment as a stimulus, whether it be positive or negative, the environment affects the development of our genes and can largely influence the expression of our genes. Environmental triggers such as speaking to children early and often, reading early and often, nurturance and encouragement, etc. are all environmental "stimuli" that positively influence the expression of genes in a child. (47) How do you think that these external actions can act as a positive influence to the extent that it affects the turning on, off, and the expression of genes. Do you think that these stimuli have only a single influence on a gene or as in epigenetics have an effect on multiple genes? Does this place a greater influence than ever before on the importance of good parental care and social influences?

Also, Shenk also states that "'children develop only as the environment demands development." (47) For example, Shenk stated one of the big reasons of Mozart's greatness was that he was "expected to be the pride and financial engine of the family." (63) Do you think then that having wealth, security, and complacency surrounding you is actually an evolutionary disadvantage?
Sara Lee
(yoojin3795@hotmail.com)
Argument

The Secret to Genetics Uncovered?!?!

In Chapter 1 How Genes really work, David Shenk discusses the irony of our past paradigm of G+E. Scientists have always viewed nature and nurture as separate components, and the irony of trying to distinguish the two is that it is the very opposite of what we need to be doing, which is "understanding how nature and nurture interact." (32) Understanding the interaction between these two components and not trying to find out how they are distinct will allow scientists to develop a much deeper understanding of genes. The key to this understanding is "precisely which genes do get switched on, and when, and how often, and in what order, will make all the difference in the function of each cell-- and the traits of the organism." (32)

What types of biotechnology have we learned about that allow us to accurately know when, which, how, and the functions of each cell? How do you think that knowing these things will apply to understanding the traits, the "temperament, intelligence, and talent" (32) of individuals? How do you think that this knowledge can be combined with our knowledge of the environment to even further understand the complexity of genetics?
Sara Lee
(yoojin3795@hotmail.com)

In the Evidence section, Shenk provides back up for his ten thousand hour phenomenon quote on page 70 with a quote from Levitin. The quote says that it takes at least ten thousand hours, about 3 hours a day for 10 years, to be exceptional at an art, including pianists, writers, and even athletes. It also references a chess study that confirms this in terms of starting age and practice. This evidence is used to further counter the concept of geniuses through genetics alone. (pg 256)

                Is there any evolutionary advantage to long term practice, in this case ten thousand hours, and hard work? Explain why or why not and use examples if appropriate. This book has addressed the GxE dynamic pushing the human limit in terms of racing speed and various other activities. Will it be possible to reduce this ten thousand hour mark? If so, what would be the best way to do that?

Alvin Varghese (alvin.varghese@hotmail.com)

Why Is Track And Field Dominated by Jamaicans?

Over pages 106-111, Shenk talks about the advantages that Jamaicans have which make them better at track and field. He states that it is not completely the genes and definetely not the race, but it is mainly their motivation or mind set which helps propel them to win so many Olympic Medals.

How does Shenk's discussion of the Jamaican lifestyle demonstrate natural selection/evolution? In what other instances could mind set influence an adaptation or give advantages to an organism? What are some similarities and differences between different races? Will other countries be able to produce as great of track and field athletes as Jamaica? Explain. (Regan Frieling, regan1995@yahoo.com)

Argument

Is Genius Inborn Or Does It Come From The Environment Surrounding Us?

Shenk talks about Mozart and how he was able to surpass the musical limits of other kids his age due to the resources he had around him which included his family members and their musical backgrounds. He began composing and playing music as soon as he was able to at the age of three; however, he would only copy music he had heard previously. It wasn’t until a later age that he started to implement his own themes and style (60-64).

In the case of Mozart, could this form of learning be considered imprinting? Also, determine what kind of learning this is, operant or conditional. Include what imprinting is and how you came upon your conclusion. Are there any other instances where this kind of learning happens? (Regan Frieling, regan1995@yahoo.com)

Argument

What are your limits?

On pages 53-56, Shenk talks about an experiment where a college student's memory was tested by having him try to remember a string of digits. It was seen that his short-term memory performance started to improve after a few sessions. The scientists found that the college student did not have a special talent but merely used a different strategy to get around his natural limits.

In the case of the college student, is strategic thinking favored by natural selection in every situation that it is presented in? Give examples and explain how they are or are not favored by natural selection. Do you think there are limits to the human body or are there ways to get past all the common limitations that are placed on the body now? Explain how genes can be involved in helping get past limitations.
(Regan Frieling, regan1995@yahoo.com)

Argument

GXE vs G+E

Over the course of approximately pages 18 through 33, Shenk defines and explains why the old theory of G+E is no longer acceptable and what the newest theory, GXE exactly represents. Genes multiplied by the environment is very different than the former genes plus the environment. Shenk even compares GXE to baking a cake saying:
"A hundred cooks may start out with nearly the same ingredients but will in the end produce very different cakes" (23). Why and how did the maze rat experiment demonstrate the GXE theory and why is this significant to modern day biology? What other examples can you find that support the newest paradigm? Do you agree with the idea that "every level influenc[es] every other output" (Shenk 33) as shown in the diagram on page 33? Why or why not? (Jane Rose) How does this change or enhance our knowledge of evolution as a biological theme?

In the Argument section, Shenk tries to make the point of development dynamics by referring to the work of Darold Treffert, psychiatrist at the University of Wisconsin. Treffert is a leading expert in what is known as “savant syndrome”. Savant syndrome is illustrated with men like Daniel Tammet, who lives with autism but can recite 22,514 digits of pi, and Kim Peek, a man who is extremely disabled physically with a low IQ score but can memorize thousands of books. Treffert says that these examples are caused by a damaged left hemisphere which allows the opportunity for the right hemisphere to develop further. Allan W. Synder provided evidence in his 2003 experiment for Treffert’s and Shenk’s claim that savant syndrome can potentially develop in anyone.

                Although these savants have incredible abilities, they also have severe impairments as well. But since Treferret suggests that 1 in 10 patients with autism have savant abilities to some degree, whatever genes that are part of the autism dynamic still exists in the gene pool. Could savant abilities be or have been an evolutionary advantage despite the physical damage it brings? If so, what environmental factors could have promoted them? If not, why are they still prevalent today?  Could nature select the “right brained” people over the left? Explain your answer. (85-90)

Alvin Varghese (alvin.varghese@hotmail.com)

Shenk attempts to make the case that IQ exists in a dynamic between nurture and genetics in the Argument section. In 1904, Charles Spearman formed an equation to measure IQ which was then “updated” by Lewis Terman in 1916 using standard deviation (pg 40). Although a similar system is still used today for both IQ and standardized testing for schools, Sherman and Key found in 1932 that these scores can change over time and James Flynn found that present day IQ levels are higher overall than 100 years ago. Due to the fact that IQ levels were changing among individuals and our nation over time, Shenk suggested that this phenomenon proved our social atmosphere and demands were also factors on IQ levels. 

Since IQ is a level of abstract and hypothetical reasoning and problem solving, is there an evolutionary advantage to having and maintaining or obtaining a high IQ level?  If so, what would be that best way to do that? If not, what should be tested and strived for in order to better our gene pool? Explain your reasoning. (pg 35-51)

Alvin Varghese (alvin.varghese@hotmail.com)