{"id":4762,"date":"2014-10-09T21:22:40","date_gmt":"2014-10-10T02:22:40","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/jimgworld.com\/blog1\/?p=4762"},"modified":"2014-10-09T10:06:59","modified_gmt":"2014-10-09T15:06:59","slug":"a-gene-test-for-future-quarterbacks-surgeons-opera-singers-etc","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/jimgworld.com\/blog1\/?p=4762","title":{"rendered":"A Gene Test for Future Quarterbacks, Surgeons, Opera Singers, etc."},"content":{"rendered":"

There was an article on Slate the other day about Malcolm Gladwell’s “10,000 hour rule” for success (i.e., Practice Does Not Make Perfect<\/a>, by David Z. Hambrick, Fernanda Ferreira, and John M. Henderson). Well, actually the article started off about Gladwell and his notion that personal success is mostly an issue of drive and a willingness to put the energy into mastering something — anything, really. But after that, the three authors took an interesting look at recent research about the relationships between genetics, human abilities and ultimate achievements in life. They basically concluded that Gladwell was wrong in that success is much more dependent upon inborn abilities than upon desire and discipline. While practice and drive certainly are a necessary part of any achievement, the bottom line is that people who don’t have the right bodies and brains (and history and environment) just aren’t going to become concert pianists or NFL quarterbacks or theoretical physicists or jet fighter pilots. <\/p>\n

It’s starting to look like “we either have it or we don’t” in terms of being able to get somewhere in life. The classic arguments on what drives our lives and who we are often come down to nature versus nurture. In regards to what we can or can’t accomplish in life, modern research seems to be putting more and more stock in “nature”, i.e. genetics. <\/p>\n

So, someday (probably soon), you might take a swab test and have a lab determine what you would be good at; i.e. what fields or endeavors that you would be a “natural” for. Hmmm . . . is this really a good thing? In some ways yes — sure, it makes sense that young people should be directed into fields where they can excel, and not waste time going up a career dead-end. But then again, some cross-training is also a good thing; artists need to learn a bit more science, and scientists need a bit more exposure to poetry. Philosophers need more athletic training and team sports, while football jocks need more literature. Computer geeks need more glee club singing experience . . . etc. Maybe this won’t happen so much if everyone stays on one track all their life, the track they can (theoretically) go farthest on.<\/p>\n

AND really, can the studies that correlate genetics with abilities that lead to success and achievement in various fields truly cover all of the routes to “making it”? Perhaps some people can and do find other ways to the top. Would someone with the potential to find a “road less traveled” to success be discouraged when a gene test tells her or him not to go into music or entrepreneurship or whatever? <\/p>\n

AND another thing — do we really want to eliminate all ‘career tragedy’ in the world, prevent all instances of people struggling but never really making it (or barely getting by) in the field that they had a passion for? What if someone really has a passion to be an opera singer, but just doesn’t have the pipes, genetically . . . do we really want to keep them from even trying? Sure, time and effort are wasted, but are we sure that there aren’t some subtle benefits to taking the shot even if you lose? Would human kind and life in general really be as interesting if everyone has a sure track to “excellence”? Isn’t there something to say for “having loved and lost”?<\/p>\n

AND finally, what if some people get reports saying “you’re completely mediocre, you don’t have any particular skill or ability that will make you a star in any field at all?” I doubt if genetic science will become completely comprehensive anytime soon, and it may well be that a lot of people would fit into a “gray zone” where their genes don’t correlate with any known pattern that correlates with success in any particular field. Wouldn’t this be kind of discouraging? Wouldn’t it throw cold water on people who might still have lived interesting lives by pursing their dreams, even if it never leads to excellence? <\/p>\n

Personally, I like the new emphasis on genetics in explaining why one person made it and another didn’t. As an older fellow looking back, as someone who never really did “grab the brass ring” in any of the various career and hobby fields that I have been involved in, all of this is a good palliative; it provides an excuse. I.e., I never became great because I didn’t focus myself in the area that I really had a knack for (whatever that might have been — maybe I should have been some sort of scientist or researcher). <\/p>\n

But as to whether I should have missed all the interesting stuff that I did in fact get involved in over the years because I knew at age 16 that I would do well in one particular field, versus all the diddling around that I did do (e.g., engineering school, law school, a masters in economics, working for a non-profit community agency, designing small databases, etc.) — if I could do it all over again with the benefit of a gene test — boy, that’s a tough question. I certainly would have been “a different me” had I taken that test. Not sure at all though if that would have been a happier me.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

There was an article on Slate the other day about Malcolm Gladwell’s “10,000 hour rule” for success (i.e., Practice Does Not Make Perfect, by David Z. Hambrick, Fernanda Ferreira, and John M. Henderson). Well, actually the article started off about Gladwell and his notion that personal success is mostly an issue of drive and a […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[17,22],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/jimgworld.com\/blog1\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4762"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/jimgworld.com\/blog1\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/jimgworld.com\/blog1\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/jimgworld.com\/blog1\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/jimgworld.com\/blog1\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=4762"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/jimgworld.com\/blog1\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4762\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":4772,"href":"https:\/\/jimgworld.com\/blog1\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4762\/revisions\/4772"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/jimgworld.com\/blog1\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=4762"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/jimgworld.com\/blog1\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=4762"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/jimgworld.com\/blog1\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=4762"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}