The Genius in All of Us - Book Review (or Trashing - Your Call)
Title: The Genius in All of Us: Why Everything You've Been Told About Genetics, Talent, and IQ is Wrong
Author: David Shenk
Number of Pages: 288
Genre: Non-Fiction
Book Number: 16
Review: This book had so much potential, but it performed abysmally. Even the organization of the book sets it up for failure. The author divides the book into 'The Argument' and 'The Evidence'. 'The Argument' is 134 pages including the epilogue. 'The Evidence' is 143 pages. At first glance, this seems pretty awesome - look at how much evidence there is to support what this guy claims - FANTASTIC. Only, not so. The so called evidence is nothing more than his chapter notes. 143 pages of notes on 134 pages of book. I tried reading the notes concurrently with the text and it didn't work. I tried reading the chapter notes as a separate entity, also did not work. Completely useless.
So, casting aside 'The Evidence', we are left with 'The Argument'. The premise, that intelligence is not G+E, but instead G*E, where G=genetics/nature and E=environment/nurture, is a very intriguing one. Unfortunately, he fails to address this very premise. His arguments about nature are extremely outdated (perhaps this is because it took him three years to write the book?), poorly presented, and his conclusions are flawed. His discussion about E has an entirely different problem - his presentation comes across as a purely E supporter, despite a few half-witted attempts at saying "but I'm not saying we're blank slates" when, in essence, that's almost precisely what his writing conveyed.
One example of the poor execution of his argument lies in his examples of seemingly low-IQ scorers who have a superior talent. He speaks of IQ scores and intelligence interchangeably, but it's a commonly held belief that IQ scores are not an indication of general intelligence, simply an indication of 2 specific types of intelligences and have no ability to accurately assess intelligence in any of the other intelligence areas. The author speaks nothing of this POV, strongly undermining the validity of his arguments (that he's so desperately trying to demonstrate). His entire argument is that what we know about IQ is wrong, i.e. out of date, and yet, he presents readers with out of date arguments himself.
It gets better. In his discussion of E, he quotes Howard Gardner. Howard Gardner is well-known for his theory of multiple intelligences. Is Howard Gardner discussed, mentioned, or hinted at when the meaning of intelligence is discussed? Most definitely not. Instead, the only reference to multiple intelligences is through a quote by the ever-so-famous scientist...err rock star Bruce Sprinsteen. "One problem with the way the educational system is set up is that it only recognizes a certain type of intelligence, and it's incredibly restrictive..." Where does this information FINALLY appear? In a discussion about the role of motivation and its role in performance.
There are so many examples of flawed logic and contradicting theories and examples that they are too numerous to list. One of my favorites - spending several pages talking about how genetics between races are inconsequential, far more similar than different and so intermixed that it's moot...the usual, which is all fine and good, then making a point by saying that Jamaicans are less genetically African and more genetically European and native American. I THOUGHT YOU JUST SAID IT DIDN'T MATTER AND COULDN'T REALLY BE DETERMINED BECAUSE WE MOVE ABOUT TOO MUCH! Make up your mind.
The book wasn't a total loss. It was based on the right idea - that genetics and environment are very closely linked, that many people do not reach their full potential because they (and their parents) do not do the things necessary to achieve success of Mozartian proportions*, and that such genius does not come without its own price, usually in the form of detriment to other parts of living. It just could have been presented a lot better.
*Brownie points to anyone who can determine the origin of this phrase.
Author: David Shenk
Number of Pages: 288
Genre: Non-Fiction
Book Number: 16
Review: This book had so much potential, but it performed abysmally. Even the organization of the book sets it up for failure. The author divides the book into 'The Argument' and 'The Evidence'. 'The Argument' is 134 pages including the epilogue. 'The Evidence' is 143 pages. At first glance, this seems pretty awesome - look at how much evidence there is to support what this guy claims - FANTASTIC. Only, not so. The so called evidence is nothing more than his chapter notes. 143 pages of notes on 134 pages of book. I tried reading the notes concurrently with the text and it didn't work. I tried reading the chapter notes as a separate entity, also did not work. Completely useless.
So, casting aside 'The Evidence', we are left with 'The Argument'. The premise, that intelligence is not G+E, but instead G*E, where G=genetics/nature and E=environment/nurture, is a very intriguing one. Unfortunately, he fails to address this very premise. His arguments about nature are extremely outdated (perhaps this is because it took him three years to write the book?), poorly presented, and his conclusions are flawed. His discussion about E has an entirely different problem - his presentation comes across as a purely E supporter, despite a few half-witted attempts at saying "but I'm not saying we're blank slates" when, in essence, that's almost precisely what his writing conveyed.
One example of the poor execution of his argument lies in his examples of seemingly low-IQ scorers who have a superior talent. He speaks of IQ scores and intelligence interchangeably, but it's a commonly held belief that IQ scores are not an indication of general intelligence, simply an indication of 2 specific types of intelligences and have no ability to accurately assess intelligence in any of the other intelligence areas. The author speaks nothing of this POV, strongly undermining the validity of his arguments (that he's so desperately trying to demonstrate). His entire argument is that what we know about IQ is wrong, i.e. out of date, and yet, he presents readers with out of date arguments himself.
It gets better. In his discussion of E, he quotes Howard Gardner. Howard Gardner is well-known for his theory of multiple intelligences. Is Howard Gardner discussed, mentioned, or hinted at when the meaning of intelligence is discussed? Most definitely not. Instead, the only reference to multiple intelligences is through a quote by the ever-so-famous scientist...err rock star Bruce Sprinsteen. "One problem with the way the educational system is set up is that it only recognizes a certain type of intelligence, and it's incredibly restrictive..." Where does this information FINALLY appear? In a discussion about the role of motivation and its role in performance.
There are so many examples of flawed logic and contradicting theories and examples that they are too numerous to list. One of my favorites - spending several pages talking about how genetics between races are inconsequential, far more similar than different and so intermixed that it's moot...the usual, which is all fine and good, then making a point by saying that Jamaicans are less genetically African and more genetically European and native American. I THOUGHT YOU JUST SAID IT DIDN'T MATTER AND COULDN'T REALLY BE DETERMINED BECAUSE WE MOVE ABOUT TOO MUCH! Make up your mind.
The book wasn't a total loss. It was based on the right idea - that genetics and environment are very closely linked, that many people do not reach their full potential because they (and their parents) do not do the things necessary to achieve success of Mozartian proportions*, and that such genius does not come without its own price, usually in the form of detriment to other parts of living. It just could have been presented a lot better.
*Brownie points to anyone who can determine the origin of this phrase.