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)
Shenk argues that “[greatness] transcends mediocrity, and it does so by taking one step beyond, then another step beyond…” (Shenk 124). This describes success as a series of efforts and discoveries rather than the popular mindset of something accomplished and held onto. In this way, one is required to continue their effort even after a goal is reached, constantly improving to keep up with the world. This is especially true considering the Flynn effect, and the fact that competition and an environment of success tends to require greater and greater achievement. Having said that, this largely parallels evolution.
ReplyDeleteEvolution is broken down into three subtypes. The first of which, “directional selection occurs when conditions favor individuals exhibiting one extreme of a phenotypic range” (Campbell 480). Evolution overtime thereby has favored certain outliers. In this way, in order to guarantee continued success in an environment, a population likely will be characterized of extremes one way or another. Even after a bottleneck effect in which “certain alleles may be overrepresented among survivors” (Campbell 476), variation tends to develop again. The consistency by which the natural environment has changed and favored new traits is much like the world of achievement has adapted and given rise to new celebrities with wild abilities. Though great accomplishments in music used to be characterized by grueling violin practice, in more recent years, popularity and success was based more on maintaining a proper image in a time in which everything is preserved in pictures. My point is that evolutionary rules do not only apply to nature. Success is also limited by a seemingly random selection of certain traits becoming favorable while others are not.
Shenk’s explanation for whether or not a plateau can be reached is best seen in his explanation of the experimentation between maze bright and maze dull mice. Though it was expected that the mice would do measurably different in extreme scenarios, the result was that “in both extreme environments, they performed virtually the same” (Shenk 29). This illustrates the idea that many organisms do not reach their potential if they are not pushed to the test. As humans, our potential is at times, limitless, and all it takes is more effort and more want to reach our new goals. That being said, we are still bound by the confines of the physical natural world, at least as we understand them today. However, to an extent, achievement is not limited by biology, or should not be considered that way, especially with the idea that epigenetics might allow the following generation to be an even great improvement on already great achievement.
Jacob Yomtoob (jakeyomtoob@gmail.com)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete*ignore my removed comment above; I forgot to add something*
ReplyDeleteAll species and organisms have evolved and continue to evolve, which reveals that organisms, especially humans, can respond to outside influences and make changes based on that. Even our genetics are liable to change, and often, develop to become more favorable. The discovery of epigenetic changes on the chromatin packaging of DNA, such as DNA methylation and histone acetylation (Campbell 358), further show that our biology itself is not fixed.
While our biology/genes do have a significant limiting factor on our abilities, we do not know-and might never find out-exactly what those limits are. This is because human creativity and determination constantly sets new records and accomplishes goals in new, uncomparable ways. Setting a limit that allows for no more growth is going against the very nature of our genes: responding and interacting with the outside to form a unique product. In a study by researchers from Trinity College and the Research Institute for a Tobacco Free Society, data showed that people who had quit smoking had undergone changes in their frontal brain lobes. The study demonstrated that current smokers have increased activity in the regions of the brain that controlled "willpower". Also, current smokers displayed "reduced functioning in prefrontal regions that are related to controlling behavior" (Nestor), as compared to non-smokers. Relating to the growth mindset, this shows that our actions and willpower can cause physical changes in our brain, showing that willpower has real and effective outcomes. Of course, our biology and functioning of our bodies cannot always be overcome, but the extent of our capacity for growth is so great that biology can still not rigidly control it.
Organisms with an increased capacity for change and growth have a stong advantage over organisms that do not have the variation to do this. In Campbell, "geographic variation" is defined as "differences in the genetic composition of separate populations" (470). This ability of populations to produce individuals that can grow and respond in different ways to the environment offers an evolutionary advantage because that population can better respond to and survive changes in that environment.
I agree with Jacob when he pointed out that change often occurs only if the environment and circumstances drive the organism to change; growth rarely happens by itself. This reflects an organism's energy saving tendency-there is no need to use energy to expand when there is no immediate catalyst or reason to. I also agree that the Flynn effect parallels evolution on a smaller scale because our surroundings, including our peers, influence our own development and mindset as much as inanimate physical factors.
(http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/04/110426102428.htm)
-Akila Khan (starlight608@gmail.com)