Evidence- The standard misinterpretation is that peoples abilities are "in the genes" (180), as quoted by the Longly sports column. Furthermore, using the example of Michael Phelps mentioned in the book and other sports athletes and experiences, is it possible that genes truly give Phelps an "unfair" advantage over his competition? Using the GxE concept, can another competitor truly match Phelp's caliber of swimming despite his or her lack of genetic advantage? Is it truly possible that anyone can accomplish anything with the right mindset, or do genes truly determine the level of accomplishment and experience in the long run will not improve a person's abilities?
Sai Nimmagadda (saiguy@me.com)
Michael Phelps could be considered one of the greatest and most consistent swimmers of all time. In his first Olympics in 2004, he won six gold medals and two bronze medals. After another four years of hard work and competition, Phelps won a world record eight gold medals in one Olympic games in 2008. He has shattered many swimming records and has competed at the highest level consistently for over eight years. Many believe that he is too good to be true and that he can never be stopped. Many people have tried to postulate about how he is able to be so great. The easy explanation would be to say the Phelps is simply “blessed with so many gifts, he is nothing short of a freak of nature”(Shenk, 180). However, chalking up Michael’s accomplishments to being the results of the genes he was gifted with is not entirely accurate or fair to Michael. David Shenk believes that genes are not the only things that control ones outcome. While talking about the new model of GXE instead of G+E, he writes, “The new model begins with interaction. There is no genetic foundation that gets laid before the environment enters in; rather genes express themselves strictly in accordance with their environment” (Shenk, 21). Basically he is saying that it is the way that the genes act as a result of their interactions with the environment that create the final product. Genes do not play as big a role as previously thought. With this idea we can say that it is not Michael Phelps’s genes that make him great, its is the interactions that his genes have with the environment that allow him to be great. It was the very specific set of environmental conditions that allowed Michael Phelps to develop the drive to win. According to Science in Society “While it is true that being tall (basketball), petite (gymnastics), or having 20/12 vision (baseball), confers an advantage, it is more often hard work and training that differentiates the very good from the very best” (http://blog.scienceinsociety.northwestern.edu/2008/08/what-makes-michael-phelps-so-good/). Michael Phelps’s exposure to his environment gave him this desire to work hard and achieve. It is not his genes that give him an edge; it was his mindset and his work ethic that he has developed over an extremely long training period that allowed him to work to become one of the greatest swimmers ever.
ReplyDeleteIt is commonly understood that Michael Phelps in a truly amazing swimmer. Some wonder if his excellence can ever be matched. If we believed in the G+E model, then it would be possible that Michael’s genes could be so specialized that no person could every have the perfect genes like he does. However, we know that G+E is inaccurate a GXE model is really how things work. The GXE model does allow for somebody to match Michael Phelps’s greatness. New training regiments and other environmental factors can eventually allow somebody to surpass Phelps. Almost every record in sports has been broken. This GXE model shows that human potential is seemingly unlimited. We will always continue to grow and become better.
To be continued
Aaron Appelbaum (aaronbaron580@aol.com)
continuation from above...
ReplyDeleteWhen speaking with David Shenk in a lecture at Stevenson he said that he wanted to make it very clear that he does not believe that greatness is a choice. People cannot choose to be superstars. There is a very intricate series of interactions that are far beyond anyone’s control that will allow somebody to become great. That being said, it is not simply the mindset that will let someone excel. It is the combination of many factors that occur as a result of the interactions between ones genes and ones environment (http://www.emc.maricopa.edu/faculty/farabee/biobk/biobookgeninteract.html#Environment%20and%20gene%20expression). Ones physical abilities, mental capacity, and mindset are all results of these interactions. Only a perfect combination of all three will allow for somebody to become great. Greatness is far from a choice and the interactions that allow for the possibility of greatness occur every second of everyday.
A person’s mental and physical outcomes are a result of the interactions of the genome and the environment. This is an example of interdependence in nature. Interdependence in nature looks at the relationships between an organism and the abiotic factors around it. From conception many abiotic factors are constantly interacting with the body. The body is able to adapt to these different factors. The way the body changes is the result of environmental interactions. The outcome of people is dependent on these interactions between the organism itself and the different factors that it must interact with constantly.
Aaron Appelbaum (aaronbaron580@aol.com)
I disagree with the idea that people's abilities are "in the genes" because it is a misconception and is an inaccurate blanket statement to explain the success of "talented" people. Taking into consideration Shenk's idea of GxE, which is the main theme of his book, Michael Phelps' success isn't due to his genes. While he does have the ideal, stream-lined and efficient for cutting through water "swimmer's body" [triangular upper body with long arms (key when victory is a millimeter away), and double-jointedness which gives him more flexibility resembling flippers], it doesn't necessarily mean he was given an "unfair" advantage over his competition ("swimmer's body" information cited from http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=what-makes-michael-phelps-so-good). In fact, Phelps didn't even get to pick these traits, if anything, it was the DNA he received from both his parents. In this sense, he is the "lucky" byproduct of the combination of DNA from his father's sperm and mother's egg. In addition, traits like being double-jointed are actually DNA mutations caused by the "inactivation of the Gdf6 gene, which causes defects in joint, ligament, and cartilage" (http://www.mendeley.com/research/multiple-joint-and-skeletal-patterning-defects-caused-by-single-and-double-mutations-in-the-mouse-gdf6-and-gdf5-genes-2/). During his embryonic development during the sixth to seventh week, his mesoderm had begun to form the basic skeletal system and muscles, but Phelp's Gdf6 gene failed to turn on, probably due to some environmental factor such as nutrient deficiencies from the mother, and as a result, the formation of joints was disrupted, leading to the flipper-like flexibility of Phelps today.
ReplyDeleteHe does have desired traits, yet Kosuke Kitajima, standing at a much shorter height of 5'8" is shorter than the 6'4" Phelps; however, that didn't prevent Kitajima from winning the gold in the Olympic breaststroke. In fact, both men pale in comparison to 6'8" Matt Grevers, who failed to win in the Olympics. Their body physiques also vary and while Grevers is compared to a rectangular, straight tree trunk, Phelps is compared to a triangular otter, so there is no direct connection between success and genes. If anything, Phelps and many other athletes rarely if never claim that their genes are the reason behind their success; instead, they owe it to their years of training and devotion to the hobby. Even in Shenk's book, it discusses how prodigies like Ted Williams (baseball pitcher), Yo Yo Ma (musician), Mozart (musician), Michael Jordan (basketball star), Suzuki's students (musicians), and so many more people, even the cabbies, owe their success in their area of expertise to lengthy practice. Connecting to regulation, genes are turned on and off in response to environmental factors, which in return stimulate the brain and can lead to the growth of certain parts such as the enlarged hippocampus of the cabbies to aid with their daily need for spatial awareness as seen with Maguire's research (http://www.holah.co.uk/study/maguire/). All the extended hours of practice give rise to the brain's plasticity and how it is able to turn on genes to better enable itself to handle the environmental factors.
(Diana Liao, dianaliao3@gmail.com)
And yet, despite all these environmental factors, there is also evidence of genes helping out athletes. According to Shenk, alpha-actinin-3 is a protein that drives powerful and fast muscle contractions and is the reason why researchers believe Jamaicans are able to be such talented runners. Yet "240 million" people in America and "597 million" in Europe who also have ACTN3. While Daniel MacArthur states, "there's simply no clear relationship" between ACTN3 and how successful runners are, it is proven that ACTN3 does play a role in the success of some athletes (101). This is because according to Dan Peterson's report, there are various forms of ACTN3 produced depending on one's genes received from parents(http://bleacherreport.com/articles/97666-athletic-gene-actn3-all-children-test-newborn-to-3). This is an interesting variation among humans relating to heredity because some people can be born who don't even produce ACTN3, in a sense, it is a mutation too, a trait expressed when a gene fails to turn on during development.
ReplyDeleteIn conclusion, another competitor can match and actually surpass Phelp's claiber of swimming. See Ryan Lochte who beat Phelp's swimming records in the World Championships. Twice. Lochte wasn't recognized for his abilities - he has a more rectangular body and relies more heavily on strength in propelling himself than fluidity and less resistance like Phelps. He wasn't expected to beat Phelp's, yet it was with his constant practice and sheer determination, that Lochte believes contributed to his success. Thus, it is possible for anyone to accomplish anything as long as they have the right mindset for growth and a willingness to constantly practice and strive for their goals - genes play a smaller factor and do not have as much influence as people seem to believe.
(Diana Liao, dianaliao3@gmail.com)