Argument -- Competition

Shenk emphasized that the environment strongly influences the abilities of a person. On page 105, Shenk mentions that Navy SEALs train in a very competitive environment. This strong competition and pressure helps them to become the best trained fighters. And when thinking about Jamaican runners they also raised the best runners because of the environment.
Compare this idea of the strong influence of the environment to the theme of interdependence in nature. Do you think everyone will have the ability to become a strong fighter or runner even trained properly? What kind of impact does this training have on the genes? How healthy do you think the children of the fighters will be? 

Argument - Location location location

On page 129 Schenk describes how mice of the same genes acted differently depending on there location. "In Edmonton, the genetically altered mice tended to be just as active as the wild mice, whereas they were more active than wild mice in Portland and less active than wild mice in Albany" He also talked about the different locations bringing out totally different characteristics in the mice. And all of these mice were "perfect genetic copies being raised in painstakingly identical environment."

Does this, then, also apply to us? Does being raised in Illinois versus the UK change how our development could have occurred? What could possibly be the cause of these differences based solely on location? And would it then, in turn, be beneficial for our children to move to certain areas in order to raise them to be the best they can be?

Argument

Shenk dispels the idea of cultural superiority in chapter 6. I thought this was of great relevance to our school because there’s not a day where I don’t hear some stereotype about some ethnicity being tied to some level of intelligence. I’m not going to go into specifics, but we as a school like to attribute one’s intelligence to their race. One nationality specifically report having their own grading scale. An “A” for one person may be surprising or expected just based on race alone. I think Shenk’s point that there is “roughly 10 times more genetic variation within large populations than there is between populations” (Shenk 106). We need to stop justifying our own faults with external ideas like “oh, they’re just smarter than me because they’re (fill in the blank).” Like Shenk repeats numerous times, we often make excuses so we don’t have to face our shortcomings. We make it seem like our deficiency in intelligence is out of our control. Really, we’re just making excuses.” All human beings are descended from the same African ancestors” (Shenk 106) and we are more similar than we think. Therefore, cultural superiority or inferiority is, besides invalid, insulting.

Why would society use cultural standards on intelligence? Why would different ethnicities score differently on IQ tests? Can an IQ test be universal? How would isolation change a culture’s intelligence? Relate this to the biological theme of interdependence in nature.

Gabriella Veytsel (geminizire@hotmail.com)

Argument

Shenk’s of genetics multiplied by environment seems like the idea that we as a community grew up with. When we were asked, specifically in my AP Psych class, which determined a person’s identity, nature or nurture, most of us said both. Shenk’s formula, however, is much more interesting than genetics plus environment. Shenk described the experiments from the” temperature surrounding turtle and crocodile eggs determined their gender” (Shenk 30) to lizards changing color based on a blackened environment to locusts developing vastly more musculature than locusts in less crowded conditions. We thought that nature and nurture combined to form a person’s identity. Shenk explains that “nature/nature” must be replaced with a whole new term entirely, “dynamic development” (Shenk 33).

How would Shenk’s formula explain the process of natural selection? How would this influence Galton’s view on genetics? What makes gXe a more dynamic process than simply nature vs. nurture? How does this discovery influence the idea of intelligence or a lack thereof? Why are genetics and environment inseparable according to Shenk? Think of an example of dynamic development.

Gabriella Veytsel (geminizire@hotmail.com)

Argument – Conditioned Behavior

On page 47, David Shenk describes several factors that trigger changes in development such as amount of encouragement or expectations. He talks about how different parents act out these factors differently and how this type of “nurture” has a great deal of influence on a child. Talk about how parents affect their children’s learning patterns and how they are taught to develop this behavior. Discuss behavior and forms of learning (Chapter 51.2) in the context of development, and thematically relate this discussion to either the development of “genius” via evolution or interdependence in nature of how a human child is dependent on their parents to learn and will not survive without them. Talk about imprinting and how even though humans do not have this instinct, we are even more attached to our parents than animals, or that we have the choice, unlike animals to not be like our parents. (Liz Gorelick lizgorelick@yahoo.com)

Evidence - Competition vs. Determinism

In footnote 38 on page 208, Shenk quotes Mitchell Leslie in an article he wrote about IQ testing. In this foot note, Leslie mentions that “proponents (of IQ testing) considered intelligence the most valuable human quality and wanted every child and adult to get tested in order to determine their place in society”. They argued that our country would be more efficient if student with high IQ’s were sent into more challenging classes to prepare for college, and students with lower scores got less demanding course work with dimmer job prospects”. Discuss if students being “classified” into knowledge categories may actually stifle their educational growth. Contrast this method with the biological concept of competition in nature promoting natural selection. Discuss how natural selection based on intelligence would affect humans as a species. (Liz Gorelick - lizgorelick@yahoo.com)

Argument – Practice Makes Perfect

On page 67, Shenk describes a study by a scientist named Ericsson who writes that “frequent intense engagement in certain types of practice activities is shown to induce physiological strain which causes biochemical changes that stimulate growth and transformation of cells, which in turn leads to associated improved adaptations of physiological systems and the brain”. Keeping in mind the biological themes of regulation using feedback systems, structure and function, and homeostasis, describe some “biochemical changes” that can “stimulate growth and transformation of cells,” as well as the “improved adaptations” that would make body function more efficient.  These changes can relate to an activity such as running or fighting disease. Mention concepts that were learned in the Circulation/Respiration unit or the Immunology unit.

Argument - Effect of Cultural Patterns on Gene Selection

On p.103 Shenk talks about a Kenyan tribe that has a long standing tradition of training all of the young children to run over a hundred miles per week. Shenk also states that because running was used in raiding cattle, the better a man could run, the more cattle he owned. As running faster gave men an economic advantage, they could now marry more women and the more he could pass down his genetics to his children. This shows that while genes can determine a persons ability, the surrounding society has an influence on what genes are passed on. Discuss the natural selection of certain genes through economic or social influence. Discuss how this affects the argument of nature vs. nurture as it brings up a completely separate element of genetic social Darwinism. (Liz Gorelick - lizgorelick@yahoo.com)

Argument - Heredity altering lifestyles

In chapter ten (pages 155 to 163) Schenk describes how flowers with the same genes can look different due to the environment and lifestyle provided to that flower. Lamarck was one of the first to suggest an "inheritance of acquired characteristics" and was mocked for what was deemed as" crude, pre-Darwinism conception of evolution" (155). We know now, however, that Lamarck wasn't that far off in his concepts, biologists starting to accept that biological heredity and evolution are very intertwined, and that although natural selection isn't invalidated, it is now a lot more complicated (161). 

But how exactly can ones life style affect their heredity? Can your perfecting a talent make it easier for your children and grandchildren to also learn that skill? Or can bad choices, such as substance abuse or lack of any higher education affect your descendants 2, 3, 4 generations down the line? How intertwined can lifestyle truly be with our evolution as a race?

(kenny@shimanek.org) Kenny Nelson

Argument- What made IQ score increase?

In the argument section, page 43, Shenk wrote that 98 percent of IQ test taker now days score better than the average test taker in 1900. IQ test stands for intellignce quotient test and it measues a person's cognitive ability compared to te population at large. IQ test is something that can't be studied.
If this test i something that can not be studied, what do you think is the catalyst for the dramatic improvements in the IQ test scores? Does school educaton help people to improve their IQ test score?

Argument: Cattle-raiding Kenyans

On page 108 Shenk brings up an alternate view of cattle-raining Kenyans shared by developmental biologists; that is, instead of the quickness genes being passed on and driving natural selection towards better runners,  “crucial external ingredients” such as as “propitous attitude and habits”, “access to the best trainers”, and “leisure time to pursue training” are passed along.

Relate to the biological themes of evolution and change. Using examples from modern society and/or science are the “external ingredients” or “quickness genes” more influential? How could this apply to the biological system of a positive feedback loop?

Argument: The Beauty of Effort

On page 126, Shenk notes that "to see the evolution of a particular work of art is to behold how nothing slowly and painfully becomes Something." Additionally, he references legendary musician and artist Brian Eno, who made the memorable claim that "it would be very interesting for people to see how beautiful things grow out of s**t" (Shenk 126). He explains how beautiful forests start from tiny seeds, but asserts that "the most promising seed in the wrong situation turns into nothing."

How does Eno's metaphor apply to "prodigies" such as Mozart and even the common man. How can this apply to the theme of Interdependence in Nature. What kind of environment best allows the human "seeds" to thrive? How does intense effort allow "nothing" to become "something?"

Laura Perlman  (laura4@comcast.net)

Evidence

Shenk mentions how important practicing is on the changing of the body," Researchers have recorded a constellation of physical changes...in the muscles, nerves, hearts,lungs, and brains of those showing profound increases in skill level in any domain( 65)." 


Why do you think practice so important to Shenk's argument? Is there proof of mental and physical changes in the body from practice? Also why is it that some people have to practice for a longer period of time to get the same task done, while for other's it's more simpler? How does practice change parts of our body as Shenk mentions and how does evolution play a role in this?  Support(using biological theme) and give examples. 

EVIDENCE- What does personality have to do with the genius in us?

Shenk expresses, that even if people are cloned, they won't be exactly the same, and that their personalities would be different (74).  But on page 75, he talks about two identical twins named, Jim Lewis and Jim Springer, who both lived away from each other but had such similar lives. Without having the same personality, how does one have the same events that occur in each others lives?

Would you think that they should have an intelligence test on both of these identical twins along with a personality to test to see if having same genes proves the theory of having different personalities correct or wrong? Also for the animals that are cloned, is there specific tests that can tell your personality?

Ganga (gangasruthi@gmail.com)

Argument- The Accuracy of Tests

Argument:

Most of us are familiar with standardized tests; and most of us have probably stressed over them at one point or another. The ACT, as some of us view it, is a benchmark for intelligence that will help determine where we go for college.  “Revealing each person’s intelligence would, they believed, help individuals find their rightful place in society and help society run more efficiently” (pg. 36). This ideology has led to the development of the ACT, the SAT, and the IQ test. Although these measures of intelligence are widely used, they have aroused much criticism. Critics claim that these tests are not conclusive on what they measure, that one’s true level intelligence cannot be determined from filling out bubbles on a scantron form. Even worse, it is suggested that these tests are used as tools to support negative ideals, such as “profound racism” with “alleged proof of biological superiority” is shown through these tests (pg. 39).

To what extent do you think that tests that measure intelligence accurately reflect someone’s actual intelligence? Is a “perfect test” possible? Are there different kinds of intelligence that cannot be measured through a written test? How do conclusions from intelligence tests relate to other, seemingly more scientific test, conclusions that are made? Allow me to clarify: if the data gathered from intelligence tests is subjective/ inconclusive, what does this suggest about results and conclusions from other scientific studies?

Lauren Young (laurenyoung19@aol.com)

Argument- Granted or a Given?

Argument

In his discussion about the origins Mozart's musical talents, Shenk points out that "the reality about Mozart turns out to be far more interesting and far less mysterious. His early achievements-while very impressive, to be sure- actually make good sense considering his extraordinary upbringing." (pg. 61) Shenk is not denying Mozart’s amazing musical talents, but rather suggesting that his talents should not have been unexpected considering his upbringing. Because he was raised in such a musically supportive environment, he grew up very musically inclined.

Do you think Mozart would have achieved the same level of musical genius had he not grown up the way he did? To what extent did his upbringing influence him? Could anyone (for example, had the Mozarts adopted a son or daughter instead of having their own biological children) have achieved what Mozart did had they been raised in a similar environment? Or was Mozart an oddity? Based on the last two questions, to what extent do either genes or environment play in determining someone’s talents?

Lauren Young (laurenyoung19@aol.com)

Evidence- the younger sibling (62)

Wolfgang Mozart was introduced to the music at a much younger age than his sister Nannerl, who was four and a half years older than him. Because of the combination of the earlier exposure to music and his parents' experience at teaching Nannerl, Mozart was able to learn extremely efficiently. Similarly the three Polgar sisters in Hungary were all raised to be exceptional chess players. Each sister was introduced to chess earlier than the previous one, leading her to become a better player than each older sister. Eventually, the youngest sister, which was introduced to chess at the youngest age, "became the youngest grandmaster in history at the age of 15," (Shenk 215).

Can the timing of introduction to a subject truly cause greatness? Were Mozart and the Polgar sisters the beneficiaries of innate genius that allowed them to master their subjects, or was their accomplishment based on their achievement as young children. Were the younger, more accomplished siblings simply benefiting from the older siblings' knowledge of learning their respective subjects and their parents' knowledge of teaching their respective subjects? Would having more siblings increase the chance of achieving great accomplishment?

Laura Perlman (laura4@comcast.net)

Argument- The Illusion of Free Will

Shenk states "To begin with a simple example: food. We theoretically choose what we eat, but in reality almost all of us conform to established cultural norms- we eat what our family eats, what our friends and neighbors eat, what our local community eats, what our nation eats." and also "Nothing in this book, therefore, is meant to suggest that any of us have complete control over our lives or abilities- or that we are anything close to a blank slate." Shenk implies that our choices and beliefs are simply moldings of what the people around us or society has imprinted onto us. Choice, is but a representation of what has been done to us multiplied by our own genetic blueprints to come up with a result. (118-120)

Can something so small as hitting your funny bone against a desk have enough impact to change the choices you make for the rest of your life? Can being bitten by a dog turn your world view upside down? Permanently change your attitude towards animals? If you believe the above examples would not create a sizable enough change, provide an example of an event you believe would demonstrate how the world around you can shape the choices you would have made for the rest of your life.

The Argument: One of a Kind

The Argument: One of a Kind

The crux of the argument for the entire book is that we have control over our genius. Even our own genetic code can be altered and changed by the environment and lifestyle we choose to live in. (pg. 163) Even small mice can manipulate their fur color by simply changing their diet. (pg. 159) It seems like choice have a bigger dictate over our lives than natural selection. That is what this whole book has been about, proving to us that our destiny has not been predetermine, instead we have the ability to shape the raw talent within us to become something greater through lifestyle changes with biological evidence such as epigenomes.

What question that really is begging to be asked is what makes us, humans so special? Choice in changing our destiny seemed to always put us apart from animals but with discovery of epigenomes that kind of changes that perspective. What differentiates us from other animals, when their choices can affect their success and failure in life as well? Or are we more closely related to our primate friends than we believe to be?

Ellen Zhou (ellenzhou2006@gmail.com)

Argument- Child Raising

On page 137-139, David Shenk states that parents should "show faith in the child's ability to seek achievement for his or her own inner satisfaction" (139). Shenk is claiming that parents should express physical and emotional detachment to some extent so that the child can grow to their full emotional potential. 

On the other hand, Dr. Benjamin Spock published The Common Sense Book of Baby and Child Care in 1946 which argued a more gentle and affectionate approach to bringing up children.

Who do you agree with more on the method of child rearing? Dr. Benjamin Spock or David Shenk? Why did you choose who you did and not the other? How do you believe the differences in child rearing affect a child's success or lack of success? Do you feel one child rearing approach produces smarter and more confident children and adults?

-Sachin Vasikaran (sachinvasikaran@gmail.com)

Argument-Greatness needs Competition

Many great achievements only occur because it is spurred by competition. Leonardo Da Vinci and Michelangelo had a rivalry during their time period which only made them try harder to make their artwork greater than the other. Without this rivalry, the Mona Lisa or the statue of David may never have been created. "At its essence, humanity is a social and competitive enterprise" (Shenk 146). People are constantly comparing information, and are competing for recognition for their work. In Greece, "Competition...was central to that culture, where rivalries were encouraged not only in sports but also in oratory, drama, music, and politics" (Shenk 147). Many people believed that the Greeks made their education system based on competition in order for people to achieve greater success.

Do you think competition leads to greater success? Or do you think people can achieve this level of success without competition? Is the education system today too soft? If so, does this prevent society from advancing? Do you think competition has affected evolution and the way humans have adapted and grown? How so?

Anisha Ghosh (anishaghosh16@gmail.com)

The Argument: Flexible Heritage

The Argument: Flexible Heritage

In Chapter 10, Shenk mentions this idea of Lamarckism which was this hypothesis of Jean-Baptiste de Lamarck, a French biologist who believed that inheritance could also be used to inherit certain characteristics as well. (pg. 155-159) This is different than the whole idea of natural selection where the reason why, for example, a giraffe has a long neck is because that giraffes with that genetic mutation that causes them to have longer necks cause them to survive. This is an idea that is well established in many biology books, this idea of “survival of the fittest”. (Chapter 22 of Campbell) It is also a well-established major theme of biology of continuity and change with natural selection. However, with the discovery of epigenomes does the whole idea of genetic mutations get thrown out the window?

With the introduction of epigenomes we now know appearances can be altered without the DNA itself actually being altered. (pg. 159) Does that mean that maybe are whole idea of genetic mutation being the crux of changes in evolutionary behavior is rendered false? Since epigenomes are mostly decided by environmental factors, does that mean that most “mutations” or evolutionary characteristics are mostly environmentally caused, not just perchance?

Ellen Zhou (ellenzhou2006@gmail.com)

Argument - Appreciating Failure

In our society, we are constantly being pushed to succeed. This is especially relevant in our modern schools, but this emphasis on success often glosses over the many lessons to be learned from failure. Shenk argues that in order for children to develop to their fullest they should: 1.Be spoken to early and often, 2. Read early and often, 3.Be nurtured and encouraged, 4. Have high expectations, 5. Have a growth mindset, and 6. Embrace failure (47-48). However, much too often this last point can be left out.

How do you think failures should be explained and addressed to young children? Is it beneficial to focus on failure, or should the focus be on the successes a child has? Does focus on failure increase motivation in children, or does it catapult them into hopelessness? What is the evolutionary basis for a focus on mistakes and failures, and how can this be applied to help children become as successful as they can? Is the ability to focus on failure and past mistakes due to environmental factors, genetic factors, or a combination of both according to Shenk?

David Whisler (dwhis428@gmail.com)

Argument- Mind over Matter

In the argument section, Shenk quotes Jamaican coach Fitz Coleman, "It's the mind-set. We're small and we're poor, but we believe in ourselves." Shenk also tells us that science has demonstrated that a person's mind set has the power to dramatically affect both short-term capabilities and the long-term dynamic of achievement. (110)

How do you believe the ability to affect performance using ones mind set allowed our ancestors to survive in the wild? Could it have acted as a disadvantage in some ways? Do you believe that your personal mind-set has ever helped you perform better in a sport or on a test? Has it ever harmed your performance?

Vlad Miskevich (vladmiskevich@yahoo.com)

Argument - Perfect Age?

Shenk mentions in his argument several child prodigies that developed into extremely successful adults, such as Copernicus, Rembrandt, Bach, Newton, Kant, da Vinci, and Einstein (86). Prodigies such as Yo-Yo Ma began work on the piano at 3, and the cello at 5. Others, such as Michael Jordan, however, developed their skills comparatively later in life, not even making the varsity basketball squad in his sophomore year of high school.
So, with the widely varying ages at which great achievers gain their talents, what do you think is the "perfect" age to start working on potential talents? Is there a scientific basis on when the human brain is the most malleable, and is the best time to start learning a new skill? Can you teach "an old dog new tricks"? Is trying to work on a skill at a more advanced age futile, or is the only important factor the mental discipline and determination? How do environmental and genetic factors play into all of this?

David Whisler (dwhis428@gmail.com)

Argument: Your attitude, not your aptitude, determines your ultimate altitude

David Shenk looks at motivation as being a critical part to achieving things in life. He states how "the single greatest lesson from past ultra-achievers is not how easily things came to them, but how irrepressible and resilient they were" (120). Motivation makes one passionate about something, and this leads one to work overtime and harder than ever before. Shenk uses the example of two twins, Otto and Ewald, to show how even when two people are born with similar genes and raised in similar environments, it is their motivation that makes them into who they are (83).

After reading Shenk's novel, do you think motivation has a big part to play in the ultimate shaping of individuals? Are people born with motivation (innate behavior), or is it a learned behavior? What other factors determine the final altitude of individuals? How important do you think each is? What do you feel is the best thing a human being can do to achieve their goals?

-Arjun Ahuja (aahuja12@gmail.com)

Argument - The Difference of a Mentor

David Shenk points out another contributing factor to one's success being inspiration and determination caused by a teacher or other mentor. "Most students who become interested in an academic subject do so because they have met a teacher who was able to pique their interest" (127).

Do you think a mentor or "teacher" is necessary in order to obtain success? Do you agree or disagree with Shenk's point that a mentor helps facilitate and breed a person's interest in any given subject? Is there a psychological impact that older mentors have on growing individuals? Reference either Campbell or an online source when answering. Can having a mentor possibly illicit some negative behavior or cause a person to stray from their own individual success?

Sachin Vasikaran (sachinvasikaran@gmail.com)

Argument: Unfair Blame

In his novel, David Shank reiterates his belief on how becoming a success and a talented person is done through "years and years and years" of hard work and perspiration (120). When people fail, many of them turn and blame their own genetics as being faulty which in thus caused them to fail. Shenk argues how "the worst kind of blame, and the most common, is on one's own biology" (123). He also comments on how he believes that "the very belief of possessing inferior genes is perhaps our greatest obstacle to success" (123).

What do you think about Shenk's position on this matter? Do you agree or disagree? Explain Why. What factors influence how successful and talented a person can be? How does this belief relate to growth vs. fixed minded people? Are these state of minds innate or are they created through experiences? If so, what type of experiences would lead and foster to the creation of fixed minded people? Growth minded people?

-Arjun Ahuja (aahuja12@gmail.com)

Argument: Memory Tricks

Argument: Memory Tricks

When S.F. was given memory tests to determine how many numbers they could memorize and recite. After S.F practiced for over 250 hours, he was able to recite over 80 numbers after hearing them spoken in one second intervals. In addition, it was concluded that, "with practice... there is seemingly no limit to memory performance" (55). However, when he was tested with letters instead of numbers, his ability to memorize them reverted to a normal level, signifying  that had not augmented his short term memory capacity. S.F. was able to memorize so many numbers by grouping them into fours and relating them to running times, which connected this new information to existing information he had about running.

What are the implications of expanding one's ability to recall information through the use of existing information in the brain? How is this technique similar and different to expanding one's memory? Are there any plausible ways to teach mnemonic devices and retrieval systems that can be widely applied or taught to students in order to increase the capacity to recall information for a generation?

Laura Perlman  (laura4@comcast.net)

Argument-Let's Change Our Genes

Most people think that DNA can't be changed as it passes down from generation to generation, but recent discoveries says it can. On page 159, Shenk states that "histones protect DNA and keep it compact. They also serve as a mediator for gene expression, telling genes when to turn on and off." These histone packagings are called epigenomes, which can be altered from the environment. Geneticists Morgan and Whitelaw did an experiment and discovered that "their batch of genetically identical mice were turning up with a range of different fur colors" (Shenk 159). They discovered that these mice changed their epigenomes by what food they  ate. Other experiments show similar results of how genetically identical organisms have differences.

Does this mean that a person's lifestyle will affect future generations? How much of an impact will the structure and function of the epigenome have? Do you think people will be able to deliberately change their genes to benefit their children in the future? How? Do you think this discovery will make people work harder in order to achieve success for themselves and their kids?

Anisha Ghosh (anishaghosh16@gmail.com)

Argument- Plasticity

Shenk mentions many instances where abilities come from repeated experiences, and not innate skill as previously thought. For example, everyone assumed that the great European chess masters of the late nineteenth century had "innately superior visual memories", but in actuality " their abilities sprouted directly from specific experiential memories that they had created over the years" (170). Similarly, the size of taxi London taxi drivers' posterior hippocampuses correlated with the drivers' experience, meaning that repeated experiences caused their spatial skills to become better (35). Skenk postulates that these learned abilities come from the brain's "plasticity", or its "built-in capacity to become, over time, what we demand of it" (35).

Does the concept of plasticity solely apply to humans? What evolutionary advantages does plasticity have? How does the idea of abilities coming from repeated experiences compare with animal learning processes that we learned about such as imprinting and operant/classical conditioning?

Jessica Hua (jhua33@yahoo.com)

Argument: IQ Test Retraction

Lewis Terman, Edward Lee Thorndike, and Carl Bringham have all greatly contributed to the measurement of intelligence. According to pages 38-39 of the book, the US has utilized IQ for army recruitment, creating a meritocracy, and even eugenics. However, according to page 39, SAT creator Carl Bringham disavowed the test and called it "one of the most glorious fallacies in the history of science, namely that the tests measured native intelligence purely and simply without regard to training or schooling."

 How accurate is this claim? Would this claim help debunk the ethnic discrimination that "white Protestants used to keep blacks, Jews, Catholics, and other groups out of the higher ranks of business, academia, and government"(39)? Could this complaint be ignored if it were given to people with similar schooling or students graduating from the same high school or college?

Laura Perlman (laura4@comcast.net)

Argument: Parents or Peers?

On page 109, Shenk cites Harvard psychologist Howard Gardner as saying that "on average, parents and peers will turn out to have complementary roles" in a child's development (109).  According to Gardner, parents tend to be more important for education, discipline, responsibility, orderliness, and other ways of interacting with authority figures. On the other hand, peers play a large role in areas of learning how to cooperate with others. Do you agree with Gardner and Shenk that parents and peers have equal roles in a child's development, or do you believe that one side has a larger influence than the other? Will being able to cooperate with people rather than respond well to authority help in the future or vice-versa? Use examples from the book or your own experiences to explain your position.

Argument: Why the Myth of Giftedness Still Exists

On Page 49, Shenk lists off three ingredients for why the myth of giftedness still exists up to this day. The three ingredients he argues are:
1.) The unexplained phenomena of child prodigies and "savants"
2.) The myth of genes as blueprints
3.) No compelling alternative

Based on these three ideas, Shenk seems to be saying that scientists in general have just accepted that giftedness exists because it is conveniently simple. Shenk then goes on to provide examples which should immediately shut down the the convenient idea of giftedness. After reading what Shenk has to say on the matter, do you still believe that some people are just naturally "gifted", or do you think there is more of a background to their talents? Explain. Cite examples from the book or just your own knowledge to support your answer.

Argument- Kenyan Training

In chapter 6, Shenk mentions that some of the crucial elements to the Kenyans' successes are "high-altitude training and mild year-round climate" (105). Many endurance athletes also train at high altitudes. However, at high altitudes, though the percentage of oxygen remains the same, the air is thinner, meaning there are fewer molecules of oxygen. Why would training at high altitudes be beneficial to athletes considering that there is less oxygen available at higher altitudes? Consider how the human body adapts and relate your answer to the circulation and respiration unit. In addition, explain how the oxygen dissociation curve would change in an environment with lower levels of oxygen. How do the adaptions the human body goes through at high altitudes relate to the body's need to remain in homeostasis? What specific examples of the body trying to maintain homeostasis show the theme of regulation?

Jessica Hua (jhua33@yahoo.com)

The Argument- Tests Put To The Test

"Everything about IQ's crispness and neat classifications fit perfectly with the American hunger for enhanced social, academic, and business efficiencies." (p. 38)

At this point in his argument, Shenk is discussing the idea of Americans' obsession with an easy means of "classification". This obsession that has historically always been something that not only Americans feel the need to do. It is human nature to want to group things, in this case people, together by "class" so that they are more easily identifiable and easier to understand. This however, Shenk argues, is not fair or at all accurate. In every situation there are so many variables to the reason for their scores that the score is overall incorrect.

Do you think that it is fair that people are still so much judged on their score on either an IQ or ACT test today even when we understand the circumstances? Is it worth having the quick fix of compartmenalizing people to judge them on an instantaneous basis? Could there be a potential biological solution to classifying people in a more genuine manner?

Hannah Perl (hannahperl94@gmail.com)

The Argument- Learned Mindset

"Around the world, researchers were able to replicate the basic finding that identical twins had a higher concordance than fraternal twins of intellect, character, and just about everything else. This certainly helped put to rest the old arguments from the past that every individual is a blank slate completely shaped by his or her environment." (p. 78)

Here Shenk addresses the blank slate idea and completely dismisses it. He argues how identical twins start off similar and develope similarly becasue of the environment that they initially start in, in the womb, and how they are raised in the same environment as children. He makes the argument however, that there is no possible way that the twins can be one hundred percent the same. He has seen that there are many differences that twins have and that develope later in life due to the fact that they do not have identical experiences and identical means of dealing with those experiences. 

How can growth mindset and fixed mindset be seen as a possible difference for twins? Is it possible for these traits to be pre-determined or is the groth mindset and fixed mindset learned as well? In other words, does the environment that a child grows up in able to determine whether or not they will have a fixed or growth mindset? Also, what sort of environment would create each?

Hannah Perl (hannahperl94@gmail.com)

Argument - Talent vs Skill/Ability

"truly outstanding skill in any domain is rarely achieved in less than ten thousand hours of practice over ten years' time" (70).

While Shenk asserts that no talent or ability is innate and that talent is a product of persistence, overwhelming motivation, and a dialogue of environment and gene., there are many biological processes that seem to be innate, that require no practice at all. Some species of fish, when born, know where to swim and take the exact same paths as their parents, though they have never met them. Breathing is an automatic response, as are so many other things needed for survival. What is the difference between these skills and other talents/abilites? Include a discussion of evolution and current human biology and progression. Bring examples from the natural world and human society to back up your argument.

Emily Reinherz...ereinherz@aol.com

Argument - A Critical Period

A critical time is a limited time in which a transformation can occur (Wikipedia.org). Though this time can be very obvious in other species, such as some birds which has imprinted on the first moving organism that they see after coming out of their shells, in humans, not much is known. From reading Shenk's book, the question arises of whether after childhood, we are destined to the path we have selected or if greatness is still possible.

Shenk argues that "freedom from genetic oppression doesn't make us all equal, or truly free" (119). In what ways does he argue for more of a societal oppression instead of a cultural one? Does this ultimately illustrate that despite perfect efforts, some people can never reach greatness? Can you name any examples of a critical period in humans?

In addition, Shenk argues that "while genes themselves do not change... from generation to generation, the epi-genetic instructions can change" (118). Through this lense, how does each individuals efforts towards greatness become more important for their future children? Is freedom from biological oppression really all that significant if our lives are subject to societal oppression? To what extent can we shape our own destinies once old enough to understand the implications of our actions?

Jacob Yomtoob (jakeyomtoob@gmail.com)

Argument: Culture and Competition Breed Excellence

Shank argues that "every culture must strive to foster values that bring out the best in its people" (Shenk 146). This means that individual achievements can actually be seen as production of a population rather than an individual. This parallels an evolutionary concept that it is not individuals that adapt but rather populations over time.

In what ways is Shenk arguing that ideological evolution parallels evolution in nature, but at a much faster pace? Is it possible for great thinkers to come out of time periods where little competition is present? If so, what might be the biology and motivation behind this?

Earlier on, Shenk mentioned the Flynn effect in which IQ tests as a whole have illustrated a rapid increase in intelligence over time. Is this increase in intelligence purely a cultural phenomenon of increased competition? If so, will it ever cap off or is our capacity for intelligence unlimited? In what ways could the Flynn effect and increased competition also be explained by genetics and biology?

(Jacob Yomtoob
jakeyomtoob@gmail.com)

Argument: Parenting Personality

On page 47, Shenk lists the factors that go into a young child's intelligence. In the first section he discusses that the more a child is spoken to, the more their intelligence grows. In the nurturance and encouragement section, he provides proof that encouragement also aids intelligence. Finally in the last section on page 48, he says that a "growth mindset" leads to success.

If parents take this information, is it possible that they could actually shape their children's personality with the content of their talking to the child? For example, (just a simplistic generalization) could talking about a basketball game instead of a baseball game lead to a favoring of basketball? Then a little later on in their life, could they provide encouragement in basketball and discouragement in baseball, while providing a higher goal in basketball to do the same? Could the content of talking to children not only improve their intelligence, but shape their intelligence? Think of the old theory that playing Beethoven can improve intelligence of a baby. Would this make the baby enjoy classical music when it grows up? Connect your answer to what we learned about conditioning. If you answer this prompt with a qualification, provide examples of which personality traits can and can't be shaped early on.

-Josh Weisberg (superswimmer51@sbcglobal.net)

Argument-Rain Man

Shenk gives multiple examples of people, such as Kim Peek, "the real Rain Man" (89), who are mentally challenged in one way but brilliant in another: physically disabled but musically talented, autistic but great memory skills, etc. Researchers were able to confirm that by shutting off one side of the brain, which is responsible for certain aspects, the other side, which is responsible for different aspects would have to work harder "to compensate heavily for the loss" (89). This explains the drastic difference in the Rain Man's skill level between different subjects.

Psychiatrist Darold Treffert thinks there may be "a little Rain Man in each of us" (90). Do you think the Rain Man in us or the environment has a bigger impact on our skills and knowledge? Would it be safe or affective  to manipulate a brain in order to improve a certain aspect or type of knowledge? Think of how this manipulation would affect evolution in humans and in animals if this was done often.

Lili Malone (lilimalone@ameritech.net)

Argument- gaining personal desire

Shenk used Michael Jordan as an example of a man who had the "willingness to do anything to improve his skills" (96), which he explained was the reason he became one of the best basketball players of all time. His "desperate personal desire" (97) to be the best is what got him to where he is today.

Jordan didn't achieve this desire until he was in tenth grade, while many gain this desire as a child, becoming prodigies. Do you think, between achieving desire at a young age and as an adult, one is better or more favored in nature? What are some specific differences between the environment that gives a child the desire and an adult the desire? Does this catalyst for desire have to continue for the drive to continue or can one incident change someone's attitude?

Lili Malone (lilimalone@ameritech.net)

Evidence- Finding your cultural twin!

On page 265, We see the quote from the bottom of page 82 onto the top of page 83. It tries to prove that Jim and Larry were in fact similar because they were raised in similar environments and not because they have almost genetically identical DNA. The explanation proceeds to pose the question, "Do you, reader, perhaps have a 'cultural twin' out there who you've never met?" (265). How would you respond to this question? Can it be that we all have cultural twins if no two environments or childhoods are truly identical? What implications on evolution as we know it would this revelation have?

Jane Rose 5-6A

Argument: Flower Power!

The Newer "Peloria" toadflax flower and the ordinary toadflax flower have identical genetic coding. Yet, the two flowers look very different. How can it be that the same genetic strand gave rise to two very different flowers? What major implications will we see as a result of histone mutations being inherited, thereby acknowledging that epigenetics too are passed from generation to generation? Do you feel more responsible for the integrity of your epigenome and what you will pass onto generations to come? Think about how this discovery alters what we know about evolution.

Jane Rose (5-6A)

Argument - Twin Studies

"As Steven Pinker notes in The Blank Slate, studies of identical twins raised apart have demonstrated that only a small portion of personality is due to socialization [and that] the rest is shaped by genetics" (50 Psychology Classics 93).

Discuss the reliability and possible flaws in experimental design of the study mentioned in the above quote in the context of Chapter Four (pg 72-83), The Similarities and Dissimilarities of Twins. Some things to include in your response are environmental factors and (early) development.

Emily Reinherz...ereinherz@aol.com

Argument: Parenthood

            On the discussion of parenting, Shenk explains that while parents are not the sole determinants of the development of their children, they are not entirely “uninfluential” either, as claimed in Harris’ The Nurture Assumption (133). Specifically, Shenk describes that it is the parents’ job to “find the process that produces the best possible individual.” (132).

           

            However, considering all the various factors such as genetic inheritance, epigenetic inheritance, and GxE, to what extent can parents truly have control over the development of their children? Why do you think parental influence has reached this level? Also, why is it that human offspring require so much care  and attention compared to other species, whose parents provide little to none? 

-Diane Kuai 

(dianekuai@gmail.com)