Welcome to GENIUS

 

"A deeply interesting and important book."
-- THE NEW YORK TIMES BOOK REVIEW 

"Profound."
-- LONDON EVENING STANDARD 

"The Genius in All of Us has quietly blown my mind."
-- LAURA MILLER, SALON

  

 

Is true greatness obtainable from everyday means and everyday genes? Conventional wisdom says no, that a lucky few are simply born with certain gifts while most are not. 

The new science of human potential suggests otherwise. Forget everything you think you know about genes, talent, and intelligence, and take a look at the amazing new evidence.

 

A New York Times bestseller.

A London Guardian BookShop bestseller.

An ABA IndieBound Bestseller

Shortlisted for the 2011 Bristol Festival Best Book of Ideas

MORE REVIEWS  

 

 "A welcome new book...compelling...Shenk's thesis is that intellectual capacity is not a gift, fixed permanently in our cells.  It's a process."

-- THE BOSTON GLOBE     

"I wonder whether, finally, it's beginning to sink in among policymakers that the richness of people's lives depends on the richness of their environment, and not on the idea that some are doomed to be born thick. David Shenk's [book] should be read by anyone persisting with that myth."
--  THE GUARDIAN (UK)

"Cogent and compelling...[Shenk's book] will convince many readers that the conventional wisdom about talent is due to be overthrown. Shenk gets that revolution well under way."
-- THE WEEK

 "A thinking man's Outliers."
-- NEW YORK MAGAZINE

"Engrossing...revives faith in not just practice and determination but also parenting and lifestyle."
-- BOOKLIST (starred review)

"Readable and well-researched...The big idea in this book is that talent is not a matter of genetic endowment, but of an ongoing interaction between genes and environment. The nature/nurture debate is therefore dead (or should be)."
-- THE INDEPENDENT

"Inspiring." 
-- THE SCOTSMAN

"An incredibly well-researched meditation on the nature of human talent."
-- KEVIN ROBERTS, CEO WORLDWIDE, SAATCHI & SAATCHI

"One of my all-time favorite books."
-- KRISTEN PHILIPKOSKI, GIZMODO

"One of the best books I have read in the last year...Many of my favorite non-fiction books of recent years have been in different ways about the process of human improvement – Non-Zero by Robert Wright, The Rise of Theodore Roosevelt by Edmund Morris, Good to Great by Jim Collins. I would add The Genius in All of Us to this list."
-- RUFUS GRISCOM, BABBLE

"Rather than championing nurture and downplaying nature, [Shenk] paints a picture in which genes and environment interact in a much more complicated way."
-- THE LONDON OBSERVER (Paperback Book of the Week) 

"Outstanding."
-- EXAMINER.COM

"The Genius in All of Us will give new hope to those of us who have not yet written a classic sonata or played center field for the Yankees. With a flair for explaining scientific research, [Shenk] debunks outdated assumptions that genes are destiny and shows how environment and mindset are just as important."
-- THE DAILY BEAST (A Book Pick)

"Shenk dissects and demolishes the notion that some people are "born geniuses"...I hope that The Genius in All of Us is widely read and discussed among educators, and that all of us take a hard look at our own assumptions."
-- INSIDE HIGHER ED 

"Teachers, parents and anyone else who is guilty of setting low expectations for American boys should read The Genius in All of Us.
-- EDUCATION WEEK

"Empowering...myth-busting...entertaining."
-- KIRKUS REVIEWS

"Startling."
-- MIDWEST BOOK REVIEW (Reviewer's Choice)

"Surprisingly compelling...vivid and eloquently described...equally suited to the bookshelf of a philosopher, educator, or popular science reader."
-- PHENOTYPE JOURNAL

"Shenk robustly disputes the popular belief that intelligence and talent are genetically predetermined and methodically explains the thousands of hours of practice behind the “genius” of a host of musical and athletic superstars (and those amazing London cabbies)."
-- FREAKONOMICS BLOG

"Clear and exciting prose...[this is the] one book that will change your thinking about intelligence, genetics, [and] the role of schools in creating learning."
-- CINCINNATI METRO NEWS  

MORE FROM THE NEW YORK TIMES BOOK REVIEW :  "It’s ambitious indeed to try to overthrow in one go the conventional ideas and images that have accumulated since 1874, when Francis Galton first set the words “nature” and “nurture” against each other. Yet Shenk convinces the reader that such a coup is necessary, and he gets it well under way. He tells engaging stories, lucidly explains complex research and offers fresh insights into the nature of exceptional performance….. Just how tall a task Shenk took on is evident in his voluminous endnotes, which go on as long as the main text and are just as interesting. Here the author allows us to watch him working his way through the literature, inquiring, arguing, marveling, as he wrestles a new understanding into being."

 

SPEECHES:

 

• The Commonwealth Club, March 18, 2010

• TEDxSF, March 27, 2010

• The Wellington School, November 10, 2010

• Kickoff lecture for 2011 Virginia Festival of the Book

 

 

TV/VIDEO:    

  

 

• Tavis Smiley on PBS. Video here. Transcript here.
• The Agenda with Steve Paikin on Canada's TVO. Video here.
• Edinburgh Book Festival interview.
• Bloggingheads dialogue with Will Wilkinson.
• BigThink interview.
• "Good Day Columbus" morning TV interview

 

NPR: 

• Talk of The Nation
• KERA's Think with Krys Boyd (Dallas)
• WOSU's All Sides with Ann Fisher (Columbus OH)
• Minnesota Public Radio's Midmorning with Kerri Miller
• KUER's RadioWest with Doug Fabrizio (Salt Lake City)
• Tech Nation with Moira Gunn
• The Takeaway
• WYPR's Midday with Dan Rodricks (Baltimore)
• WNPR's Colin McEnroe Show (Connecticut)
• Aspen Public Radio's Page by Page, with Jonathan Bastian 
• KQED's Forum with Michael Krasny (San Francisco)

    

MORE INTERVIEWS AND EXCERPTS:

 

Freakonomics Q&A 

Nature podcast 

Wall Street Journal excerpt

New York Times Learning Network

BBC News Magazine 

TheAtlantic.com  

Babble.com interview & excerpt

Brown Alumni Magazine

My answer to the Tiger Mom, on Babble.com

 

Brazil Edition

German Edition

Spain Edition

Korean Edition

 

Estonia Edition

   

 

UK Edition

 

 

PUBLICITY CONTACTS:

 

US: Russell Perreault, Vintage/Anchor: RPerreault [at] randomhouse.com

UK: Henry Lord, Icon Books: Henry.Lord [at] iconbooks.co.uk

AUS: Abba Renshaw, Allen & Unwin: AbbaR [at] allenandunwin.com

____________________

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Comments

[Clarence-kreiter]

Indeed, if one looks closely at the research, it is clear that IQ has is predominately determine by genetic influences. The problem here is the author is not statistically literate. Of course it is possible to stifle IQ by deprivation, but when one looks at the variance attributable to natural occurring variance in environmental enrichment in the US, it is indeed a small influence on the variance in IQ. His interpretation of the twin studies is totally wrong. When we examine the relationship between identical twins raised apart, and hence pseudo-randomly assigned to homes with varying levels of enrichment, we find that correlation between identical twins is very close to one. In fact, there are much more sound methods of estimating heritability indexes than are commonly used and understood. He also confused about how to interpret statistics when he maintains group means are irrelevant. Overall, this is a popular science book that is misinformed about how to interpret statistical finding.

We should not expect science to be politically correct

Clarence D. Kreiter, Ph.D.
Professor
Office of Consultation and Research in Medical Education
Department of Family Medicine
University of Iowa
Roy J. and Lucille A. Carver
College of Medicine
Iowa City, IA 52242
(319) 335-8906
(319) 335-8904 (fax)
clarence-kreiter@uiowa.edu

http://www.uihealthcare.com/depts/med/familymedicine/faculty/kreiterc.html

Francis Galton was right!

[Smart_Trading]

I have always believe that what you can conceive you can achieve. Talent is good. A little bit of connection is better. However, you can do away with all these if you think you can accomplish what you're thinking.

[Lara]

Hi, I have been thinking about this for a long time, and one of my favorite books dismantling the gene blue print metaphor and the whole notion of anything being innate is Susan Oyama's: Cycles of Contingency: Developmental Systems and Evolution.

I have always thought this way and I have always read nothing along the lines of how I felt genes play a role in our outer appearance/characteristics, Susan Oyama has come the closest to my views. Even though I do not believe that genes are these innate, non changeable things that we are born with, that doesn't mean that we can change are "environmental" factors easier then genes. In fact there are parts of our development/ environment that are harder to change then playing with our genes in a lab.

I heard you on NPR talking about trying to find a new metaphor for genes as a blue print. Well this is my metaphor of how I look at it, everything are ingredients that make a Cake. Everything that goes into making a cake has to do with its taste and flavor, change any small thing or detail and it is a different cake. Having said that, there is not any one ingredient that is more important then another as far as the flavor or taste is concerned. And the ingredients are not all that goes into baking a cake, also the baking and the water used and everything and every little change, changes it. We have so many ingredients that go into us, genes being a very small part of us. Some things may be controlled, but some may be so hard to even now how to control. Who says that the water we drink doesn't have to do with what make us, or what happens developmentally for the whole 9 months inside the stomach, the chemicals in there, the environment in there, the Mother, what she eats, whether she exercises or not, what she lives, the air she breathes.

Anyway, I have not read your book, but I have always believed that what makes a person who there are is a complicated mesh of ingredients, not any one being more important then another. I think studying genes as well as developmental stuff as well as environment is all great and important, but I also think that we will never find a full proof recipe for genius or any other thing. I also have a bit if Thomas Kuhn in me, and no science is full proof, but I do think we have done so much with science that it something we as humans love and gets us far and so we should never give up on. Just because full proof theory is never attainable doesn't mean that our knowledge and science is meaningless, we have done so much with it and will continue to.

[Steve Sailer]

Here's my new review of the "The Genius in All of Us:"

http://www.takimag.com/article/practice_makes_perfect_or_how_to_raise_a_sports_genius/

You can comment upon this review in the comments section at:

http://isteve.blogspot.com/2010/03/genius-in-all-of-us.html

[naturevsnurture]

Sucess and raw ability are not one and the same- the people who suceed in our society have the personality trait of perserverance and tenacity to drive them to sucess, on top of their raw talent . There are many more people in this world with the intellect or athleticism that may not use it to gain worldly success or develop it to its potential, and yet will have that ability all their life. So, I believe the raw gift of intellect or atheleticism is present at birth, but to manifest it into todays society's version of sucess takes that additional trait of perserverance, which probably is inherent also?

[tom merle]

Ironically, the message of this book, like Gladwell's, is really quite damaging. Those who already know about diligence and practice and proper attitude will achieve some degree of success. But those lacking the raw material will become ever more resentful of society for keeping them down and continue to turn to dysfunctional and patholocial behavior. On the supply side, it plays into the hands of the teachers unions and latte lefties who want to spend more public money (which we don't have) to "get it right" in the schools.

A sobering 27 cents of every dollar collected at the state or local level is consumed by the government-run K-12 education. According to Adam Schaeffer: "The most widely reported per-pupil spending figures give a grossly inaccurate impression of the resources that Americans devote to public education. Taking five representative metro regions and DC, real spending per pupil ranges from a low of nearly $12,000 in the Phoenix area schools to a high of nearly $27,000 in the New York metro area. The gap between real and reported per-pupil spending ranges from a low of 23 percent in the Chicago area to a high of 90 percent in the Los Angeles metro region. public schools are spending 93 percent more than the estimated median private school."

[NoDoubt]

I feel sorry for you poor buggers who have no hope. I guess your Mother is to blame for your sorry state.

I believe in the potential of the Human Spirit and in the ability of humans to achieve remarkable things. It has been proven the opinion of a scientist or author is irrelevant.

But, I am looking forward to reading the book. I might learn something and the whole goal of learning is changing for the better. So, stick your head back in the sand and sing "poor me" some more.

[Alex K Alexander]

I used to be a genius, but I tried too many things, and did too many interesting things. It was fun. Now, unfortunately, I'm getting old, I'm unknown, and I'm really not comfortably off. I hewed to the idiotic statement "If you want to get things done, let others take the credit." Yeah. I helped make others famous. Statesmen. Musicians. A couple of sociopaths. The world is a better place for my efforts, but so what? Also, I live in Canada. It's hell here in the winters. I'm hate freezing rain. I hate freezing, period. I should be able to spend winters on the Cote d'Azore. Or Montpelier. Or Montego Bay, near where I grew up.

So, forget this genius business. Become a plumber or a baker or a draughtsman or build small houses one at a time and sell them. and save your money. Which I did not do, although for a time I was a master draughtsman.

[B. Roth]

Another book promising that "everyone" can be a genius. Poppycock. While everyone can "improve" or "maximize their potential," there is definitely "something" that can loosely be defined as intelligence, and everyone knows that some people have more of "it" than others do. This is another book full of pseudo-science in this "self-improvement" crazed society, like a promise of "something for nothing" for intelligence. It's meant to sell books, pure and simple, and will be quickly forgotten—because if "everyone" could be a "genius," they already would be. And you can always get some (carefully selected) "academics" to agree with anything—there are academics with PhDs who teach that Cleopatra was black, for instance, even though she wasn't even (by ancestry) an Egyptian—she was Greek.

[John Smith]

"But this isn't some lazy effort aimed to tell people what they want to hear."

Politically/ideologically, what were you hoping to hear? And how close did your wishes align to your book's conclusions? As a science writer, did you go into the project seeking to disprove your pre-existing assumptions and desires?

I look forward to reading the book.

[David Shenk]

JL: Sounds like you've ben burned by other books in the past that weren't properly grounded in science. But this book is. I vetted this book by quite a few scientists as I wrote it. Patrick Bateson likes it. Harvard geneticist Rudy Tanzi likes it. Steve Hall, who may be the best science writer in the country, likes it. Mark Blumberg, editor in chief of Behaviorial Neuroscience, likes it. I've heard back from people at Nature who think it's spot on.

There will be some criticism from scientists to be sure -- because, as I include in the book, there's some disagreement on how some of the science is to be interpreted. But this isn't some lazy effort aimed to tell people what they want to hear. Why don't you dig into some of the free excerpts online and tell me what you actually disagree with.

best, David

[CJ]

It also sounds like _The Outliers_ by Malcolm Gladwell, with a biology spin. And mix in a bit of "The Secret," which says that if you think you can do it and spend all of your time trying and thinking about it, you can. It reminds me of the old saws that, if you try hard enough you'll succeed, "practice makes perfect," "Try, try again," and "repetition unto success."
But despite that, it'll be interesting to look at. I'm curious if the science argument in it is supportable.

[JL]

Yawn. This sounds like another one of those books that will be praised by literary intellectuals, and panned by the academics who actually do research on these topics.