Books and articles that emphasize the "non-cognitive" determinants of genius and elite performance are all the rage these days. (I put non-cognitive in quotes, because the line between "cognitive" and "non-cognitive" traits is much more blurred than popular journalists make out. I'll write more on that in later posts.)

A recent book on the topic (which has just been released in paperack) is David Shenk's book "The Genius in All of Us: New Insights Into Genetics, Talent, and IQ". To be fair, the book hits the mark in so many ways. Shenk does a great job reviewing some of the cutting-edge research on epigenetics, and does a service emphasizing the importance of nature/nurture interactions. Like Jonah Lehrer (see his latest Wall Street Journal article "Measurements that Mislead") and other journalists writing on this topic, Shenk discusses the important role of deliberate practice, grit, and character. I also love the idea that since we don't know at any point in time the full range of a person's potential, we should help everyone maximize their potential. This is all great stuff, and backed by solid data. There is no doubt: the environment matters quite a lot, and skills and dispositions other than that which are measured by standardized tests contribute to greatness.

Unfortunately, the book also misses the mark in important ways. Granted, greatness is a difficult topic to scientifically study. Only very few people reach genius level, and no two paths are exactly the same. Also, there is a "restricted range" issue often at play when studying the best of the best: those without the requisite abilities have already been weeded out of the competition, so those skills will no longer be as predictive of performance. Finally, it's important to distinguish between expertise and greatness: what distinguishes elite performance from great performance? While delibrate practice is necessary to make you an expert, can it carry you all the way to greatness? At what point does creativity and non-conformity come into play, where you end up inventing a whole new path of deliberate practice for others to follow? And anyway, while deliberate practice is necessary for acquiring expertise in any domain, is it reasonable to suppose that in any domain it is also sufficient (although, intriguingly, prodigious savants appear to display expertise that they never formally learned or practiced)? These are thorny issues that must be dealt with when studying greatness.

Shenk does discuss some of these complexities, but I think large parts of the story weren't told in full or at least as critically as I would have liked, particularly when Shenk discusses the predictive value of IQ, creativity, as well as numerous talents, interests, and personality traits. All of these traits contribute to greatness, in differing degrees and combinations depending on the domain. Athletic greatness surely draws on a different set of skills, dispositions, and cognitive abilities than academic/scientific greatness. And both forms of greatness differ from what is required for artistic and performance/entertainnment-related greatness. Even within domains, there are different skills and dispositions required (think about the difference between poets and science writers-- both are writers but seem to come from a different species sometimes)!

Of course, none of these traits are completely deterministic, but then again no one claims they are. Scientists will be the first to admit that no trait comes fully formed at birth and there is plenty of variation unaccounted for to leave room for late bloomers and prodigies that burn out fast. Also, many so-called "non-cognitive" traits such as persistence, perseverance, and even self-belief have a heritable basis. This simply means that many interacting genes contribute to the trait (perhaps by facilitating the rate of learning in a domain), not that the genes predetermine the trait (they don't), or that the trait is immutable (it's not) or even that the many genes that contribute to the trait don't depend on the environment for nurturance (they do, very much so). I also don't think Shenk covered the full range of life experiences and early developmental experiences - many that are quite harsh and traumatic- that shape drive and passion.

In my opinion, these parts are even more fascinating as they demonstrate the wide variation we have in our species. I think such a fuller understanding can help us appreciate the richness of individual differences. Nonetheless, I recommend the book, if only because it raises a lot of important issues we should be thinking about as a society.

Read here for my full review written in collaboration with John Protzko at NYU and published in the peer-reviewed journal Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity and the Arts. If you are interested in reading more on the debate about innate talent, I highly recommend reading K. Anders Ericsson and his colleagues' target article in the journal High Ability Studies as well as commentary by me and my colleagues, and their response to the commentaries. I also highly recommend Dean Keith Simonton's delightfully comprehensive and timeless book "Greatness: Who Makes History and Why" as well as his more up-to-date recent book "Genius 101".

I would love to get your thoughts. This is a topic that fascinates me, and I find much enjoyment looking at all sides and possibilities.

© 2011 by Scott Barry Kaufman

Follow me on Twitter or Facebook. Contact me here!

Most Recent Posts from Beautiful Minds

New Sensitivity Gene Discovered

A new gene was discovered that is highly sensitive to supportive conditions.

Social and Mechanical Reasoning Inhibit Each Other

The brain can't engage social and mechanical reasoning at the same time.

The Pesky Persistence of Labels

Just because a label has been lifted doesn't make it disappear.