Evidence: How early is too early?

On page 249 in number 62, Shenk references his other work's point about "three Polgar sisters in Hungary, all raised to be exceptional chess players. As each girl was exposed to chess earlier than her elder sister, she subsequently became the better player." (249). Shenk then connects this to Wolfgang's experience with his sister, Nannerl. These stories beg the question: is there a such thing as "too early" when it comes to teaching kids skills? What adverse effects could pushing too young of a child into something have on that child's development, and if encouraging kids to learn skills at a very young age has such a profound effect on mastery of that skill, why do most parents miss this supposed opportunity?

(Eric Savin, Dallastarsfan13@gmail.com)

Argument: Is Competition A Requirement for Success?

Shenk concludes that competition is what drives mankind to excel. As Nietzsche wrote “Every natural gift must develop itself by contests” (146).As Shenk further elaborates, “It cannot […] simply be left ogenes, vitamins, and parents to foster greatness; spurring individual achievement also must be the duty of society. Every culture must strive to foster values that bring out the best in its people” (146). Also consider Ericsson’s statement: “frequent intense engagement in certain types of practice activities is shown to induce physical strain which causes biochemical changes that stimulate growth and transformation of cells” (67). Given the previous, do you agree with this belief that greatness or success only comes with competition? Support your response with research, real life examples, or biological evidence pertaining to topics such as Gene Expression and Adaptation/Evolution. 

Bowen Jin (bowenjin2004@yahoo.com)

Argument: How Important are Genes?

Argument- How Important are Genes?

“Heredity, it turns out, is not as straightforward as we have been taught. Parents do pass unaltered DNA to children, but they also pass on additional instructional material-known as epigenetic material-which helps guide how the genes will be expressed. While genes themselves do not change (by and large) from generation to generation, the epigenetic instructions can change. This means that we can impact our genetic legacy” (118). Knowing this, are we in fact limited by our genetics? For example, are those of us who have parents that did not play basketball competitively at a disadvantage because of our lack of epigenetic instruction? Or are people whose parents did not attend college at a disadvantage intellectually? How does this affect the GxE model? Find evidence to support your answer and include references to Genetics (Chapter 20) Unit and incorporate the biological themes of Evolution and Regulation in your response. 

Bowen Jin (bowenjin2004@yahoo.com)

Argument: Jim and Jim

In the argument section of Shenk's book, he discussed the incident of when two identical twins named Jim were separated at birth and then reunited; there were a number of striking similarities much more than just looking alike and talking alike such as "they had each married and divorced a woman named Linda... they had named their respective first children James Alan Lewis and James Allen Springer," and more (75). Shenk attributes their similarities to early shared GxE as well as shared cultural circumstances. For example, he states that both Jims have the same genes and shared the same womb for 9 months as well as growing up in similar "working class towns seventy miles apart" (83). Why, then, do siblings, who also have very similar genetics due to having the same parents and who have shared the same maternal womb as well as the same household and cultural environments, turn out so differently sometimes? Shouldn't they be very similar according to Shenk's argument? Bring in how inheritance works and the passing down of genes from parent to child. Also include the potential genetic differences in siblings due to the complexities of genetics. Does this disprove Shenk's idea or strengthen it?

(Yanfei Gao, feifeiyg@yahoo.com)

Evidence: Indoctrinated by Mendelian Genetics

Shenk in the evidence portion of his book contrasts his idea of GxE to the widely known Mendelian version of Genetics. He describes the "built-in logical flaw" of the pea plant experiment because all the experiments were performed in a constant, consistent environment, so this eliminates any perceptible impact the environment could have on the pea plants. Obviously under the same consistent environment, only genetics could have an impact on the growth pea plants of the pea plants (184). Is Mendel's experiment and the idea of genetics determining everything less credible when considering this fact? Is this a flaw in his experimental design? Also, contrast Mendel's idea of genetics with the newly learned idea of epigenetic inheritance and the impact it can made on your genes. Also include how inheritance isn't as simple as how Mendel's pea plant experiment depicted it as (for example, bring in co-dominance, sex-linked genes, linked genes etc.)

(Yanfei Gao, feifeiyg@yahoo.com)

Argument: Academic Achievement

On page 51, Shenk relays the findings of Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, who stated that "high academic achievers are not necessarily born 'smarter' than others, but work harder and develop more self-discipline." How does this idea relate to the GxE model, and what causes those who excel to obtain this work ethic and self-discipline? How does this idea explain the stereotypical lazy student that does well on tests despite a poor work ethic and lack of self discipline? Finally, how does this finding relate to the course of human evolution and how, due to the idea that lifestyle alters heredity (page 161), can we interpret this finding and incorporate it into a more accurate view of human evolution?

(Eric Savin, Dallastarsfan13@gmail.com)

Argument- GPS vs. hippocampus

Argument:

On page 35 Shenk talks about london taxi drivers who have "a greatly enlarged posterior hippocampus” (35). In 1999 an experiment by Eleanor Maguire discovered that “the longer the driving career, the larger the posterior hippocampus” (35). This means that as taxi drivers drove longe,r through the streets of London, they were learning the streets leading a part of the brain to enlarge for the specializing for spatial skills.
 

With this in mind how does the GPS affect the brains for the new generation of taxi drivers, who might not need to memorize or learn as much information as those who did not have access to GPS? Does having a larger hippocampus help an individual learn another skill better? Does having a large hippocampus give better advantage to those in a foreign setting? Do the taxi drivers merely memorize the streets are they create a map in their mind to aid themwhen driving? Relate these back to the idea of different learning processes from class and from outside sources.

 

(Christine Park go2chritine@hotmail.com)