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)
In response to the hypothetical regarding the stereotypical lazy student that succeeds academically, the GxE model relates to the seemingly damning phenomena in that the student, while currently lazy, may have grown up in an environment in which he or she was exposed to an extreme amount of learning activities at a young age, essentially learning passively as a result of resources present (by chance) at birth. For example, an individual who is born into the family of a diplomat would thereby have an easier time picking up languages and various elements of sociology and/or history. This is because the individual would’ve had very little choice in the matter of what information he picked up outside of formal schooling. Shenk makes a similar connection in the case of Mozart in that the child was seemingly destined to some extent of musical success as a result of the large amount of music education he was exposed to (the training of his sister) from birth. Having come from a family in which more then one member was a musician, a Lamarckian micro-culture may have developed, in which being successful or pleasing ones parents was directly associated with musical ability. In terms of the GxE model, Mozart could have had very few of the genetic “Gifts” and still would’ve been the artist we know him as today. In fact, the main factor in his success would’ve been the activation of epigenetic factors influencing his possession of both perfect and relative pitch, the latter being
ReplyDeleteHowever, when work ethic plays into later success, the passive effect of upbringing will have a smaller effect and therefore individuals with a greater growth mindset will be more likely to be financially successful. Since the stability offered with financial success, individuals possessing it will be more likely to survive and reproduce. When combined with the cultural tendencies encouraging a strong work ethic (Americans work a huge number of hours a week in comparison with Europe), the genetic and environmental factors influencing the development of a “Busier” person would be more desirable in a population. However, these factors would not necessarily be evolutionary on a species level, but on a social tendency level in which the breadwinner in the future may not necessarily be gender based as it was previously in Western society (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16730129).
(Alex Nye, alex.nye95@gmail.com)
The discovery that “high academic achievers are not necessarily born 'smarter' than others, but work harder and develop more self-discipline” supports the G X E model (51). It’s commonly thought that “geniuses” are born and smart people are just naturally more intelligent without having to do anything special. Yet this shows that environmental factors can affect whether an individual becomes a “genius” or not. Environmental factors, such as high expectations, parental pressure, and personal desires, can all drive an individual to study more and try harder. Even though an individual may learn slower and have a harder time grasping concepts, if they put in enough effort, they will eventually become smarter. Often it’s those people who make the extra effort that are the so-called “geniuses”. On the other hand, those who are born smarter may not be as successful as those who work harder. Though these individuals may grasp concepts easier, their lack of motivation may lead to laziness and they become “slackers”. Therefore, though genes may provide an initial advantage/disadvantage, environmental factors are what shapes a person and determine the final outcome. A person may overcome his/her initial disadvantage by putting in extra effort, but similarly a person can also eliminate his/her initial advantage by failing to put in effort.
ReplyDeleteYet some may protest that some of those students who are lazy still do well on tests nevertheless. Their “smarter” genes appear to put them at a level that no amount of effort can match. This is not true, since a test doesn’t evaluate an individual on “smartness” but on his/her knowledge of a certain topic. Therefore, if an individual puts in enough effort into learning the material thoroughly and study hard, he/she will able to do just as well if not better than a “naturally-smart” but lazy individual. Also even though a lazy student may be able to pull off a good test, his/her academic success wouldn’t be able to match a student who works harder. In modern times, homework and projects may account for just as much if not more of the final grade than tests do. So often, individuals who spend the effort and time to complete their homework well earn higher grades than those who are lazy and blow homework off. I also agree with Alex that it’s likely someone born with “smarter” genes would also be born into a smarter family. Better circumstances and more exposure would tend to put these individuals at an even higher advantage. Yet at the same time, I believe that even this can be overcome with hard work. In the diplomat family example, the individual born into that family may be exposed to more languages and therefore pick them up easier. But an individual not given that advantage can still be more successful by putting more effort into learning those languages. By taking classes or even through self-studying, this individual can learn to speak the languages just as well if not better than the diplomat-family individual.
Christine Zhao (c_zhao@ymail.com)
(continued)
ReplyDeleteEvolution is “the theory that groups of organisms change with passage of time, mainly as a result of natural selection, so that descendants differ morphologically and physiologically from their ancestors” (http://necsi.edu/projects/evolution/cover/evolution_cover.html). The traditional way of looking at human evolution has been through genes. For example, in trying to understand why humans are intellectually superior to primates, it has been found to be because of extended synaptic development. The process synaptogenesis is defined as “the foundation of learning and memory in the brain” and “involves the formation of synaptic connections, strengthening useful connections and eliminating useless connections” (health.usnews.com/health-news/news/articles/2012/02/03/why-human-brains-are-smarter-than-chimp-brains). In humans, peak expression of synaptic genes doesn't occur until about age five, while in primates, the peak occurs in their first year of life. This extended synaptic development allows for human babies’ mental abilities to continue to develop and absorb information and experiences from the environment in a way that surpasses their primate relatives. In evolutionary history, this extended synaptic development was probably a selective advantage since it increased ability to learn and intelligence, thus increasing chances of survival and reproduction.
Yet even looking at evolution through genes, the G X E model can be seen. Philipp Khaitovich of the Chinese Academy of Sciences and the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology reports that due to extended synaptic development, "Our findings suggest that the human brain remains extremely plastic and susceptible to environmental input during the first five years of life” (health.usnews.com/health-news/news/articles/2012/02/03/why-human-brains-are-smarter-than-chimp-brains). This evolution in the expression of synaptic genes works hand in hand with environmental factors to increase intelligence. This goes with the concept that “lifestyle can alter heredity” (161). This concept suggests that it is possible that hard-workers can change their gene expression and that change in the epigenome can be inherited. Therefore, though an individual may be born with less “smart” genes, their hard work can lead to not only them becoming smarter but their children as well. Though there were passed less “smart” genes, they in turn can pass “smart” genes to their children. This suggests that human evolution may not be solely based on genetic variation in a population. Instead it’s possible that environmental factors can cause human evolution by affecting the genes of one individual and then the genes of all future generations.
Christine Zhao (c_zhao@ymail.com)