Todd's Review of Range by David Epstein

Range: Why Generalists Triumph in a Specialized World
by David Epstein
New York, Riverhead Books, 2019

Review by Todd I. Stark

This is a beautifully written and well justified discussion of the various specific things that are not taken into account by the widespread cultural emphasis on early specialization for success and our popular model of performance in terms of domain-specific expertise.

This takes the form of a single conclusion which I would paraphrase as: "we need to be able to play and explore widely and to color outside the lines for a while in order to become very good at solving the difficult problems we later encounter.  But our cultural obsession with specialization pushes counter to that." 

There is a constant tension of the author's confidence in his conclusion that generalists are uniquely valuable and desperately needed and his recognition that he is fighting an almost Quixotic uphill battle against powerful cultural trends and incentives for specialization. 

What he means by specialization and the factors closely tied to it:

1. Head Start: Encouraging children from an early age to narrowly pursue things they seem talented at or have an interest in.
    
2. Domain-Specificity: Training with heavy emphasis on the specific narrow range skills we know we will need in the target environment and assuming far transfer of skills from other activities will be limited or non-existent.
    
3. Disciplinary Focus: Viewing learning as consisting of accumulating facts and theories specific to a particular field or subfield of study in order to become highly skilled at working in that narrow field.
    
4. Persistence:  The idea that we should identify a passion early and stick with it no matter what because it’s what we’re good at and enjoy and so can become successful at it if we manage to persist.
    
5. Fast and Efficient Short-Term Learning:  The assumption that we are learning better when we feel familiar with the material quickly and that we are then learning more efficiently. 
   
   
    
   Against those powerful and popular specialization factors, Epstein presents several compelling lines of evidence:
    

1. Domain-Specificity varies with Kind vs. Wicked Learning:  The argument for early specialization and domain-specificity is based on the observation that we need a long period of deliberate practice to accumulate the patterns and skills specific to performing in that specific activity and that practicing or exploring other activities is unlikely to do anything helpful for our performance in our specialty.  Epstein counters that on closer inspection we find a crucial distinction between different kinds of domains and learning environments, where in some of them deliberate practice reliably makes us better but in others deliberate practice either helps much less or can even make us perform more poorly under some conditions.  So not all domains or learning environments are equally specific and the head start is not equally helpful in all activities. 
2. Creative Performance comes from early exploration and interdisciplinary learning:  Given the domain-specific view of expertise we tend to assume that in order for someone to perform at a high level in any activity, since they need expertise, they need to specialize in that activity.  Epstein counters that when we focus specifically on creative performance, we find that deep expertise can be invaluable but is not enough.  In order to come up with truly novel solutions to problems we need to make use of analogies that cross different domains while sharing deep structural similarities.  That means being familiar with a wider range of ideas and ways of thinking than just those in our specialty, and so Epstein says creative performance is found more in people with broader backgrounds.  Epstein argues that outstanding creative performance also tends to be associated with early exploration of different activities more than with early specialization. 
3. The Efficiency We Perceive from Narrow Immersion is Very Often Illusory: We tend to assume that when we feel more familiar with the activity or material that we are learning it.  That’s part of the strong intuitive appeal for immersion in an activity comes from, it feels like we are learning more when we are more immersed.  Epstein argues that the evidence from learning research show quite often exactly the opposite, that the learning we think we are doing under conditions of immersion is either much less or much shorter lived than we assume.  Robert Bjork’s concept of “desirable difficulty” in learning and the evidence base behind it plays a central role in this argument.   This, Epstein argues, tells us that “slow learning” which helps us make new connections between a wider range of experiences is much more conducive to learning in the long run than fast, efficient learning from immersion in a narrow subject matter.
4. Match Quality is Not Necessarily the Same as Early Passion: Part of the argument for early specialization is based on the assumption that people have certain interests and talents from early on and if they can find something that matches them well and start early, they can align their passion with a successful career in that activity.   Epstein argues that what we know about lifespan development tells us that people’s passions are not so fixed or narrow and finds a number of cases of exceptionally successful people who spent their lives exploring and trying different things before finding a match that was truly satisfying and successful for them.   

Range is an appeal to encourage exploration in our lives from early on and for experimenting and experiencing broadly in our learning, even though it may seem to be inefficient or slow.  Epstein does not deny the immense value of long deliberate specialized practice in “kind” domains or the value of having deep specialized experience in some areas, but he has also made a passionate and well-argued case for making better use of a completely different dimension of performance.  A dimension rooted in longer term developmental outcomes, more exploratory or playful learning, and an ongoing search for ever better matches between our interests and abilities and our activities. 

Review on Amazon:
https://www.amazon.com/review/R3I57PTPZXSYU4/ref=cm_cr_srp_d_rdp_perm?ie=UTF8

Why is the problem of obesity so damned tricky?

1. Why is the problem of obesity so damned tricky?

 

A lot of us are fat. Fatness increased dramatically in the 20th century, especially since the 1980's in the US.  We don't like being fat in general.  When it becomes extreme, body fat usually doesn't look good to us and can lead to health problems, diminished longevity, and restricted quality of life.  Some distributions of body fat are worse than others for health or for appearance, but at some point it eventually looks bad to us and detracts from our lives.  

 

1. Just Theories are Well Communicated and Popular but Wrong

 

If we find fat so problematic, why haven't we simply found good solutions for it and begun to apply them?  Most people can lose some body fat temporarily by some combination of depriving themselves of some particular kinds of preferred foods, trying to force themselves to eat less,  and trying to force themselves to be more active.  Most people end up going back to their original body fat levels, or greater, after a few weeks, months, or years of that effort.    There is no lack of simplistic just theories about why this is happening:

 

Fat people are just lazy and not exercising enough self-control over their eating and exercise

Fat people are just gluttons who eat too much

Fat people are just eating too much carbohydrate

Fat people are just eating too much starch

Fat people are just eating too much sugar

Fat people are just eating too much fat

Fat people are just maintaining their weight at a genetic set point

 

Although each of those ideas is wrong in its own particular way, and they are each perhaps partly right in some sense,  it is the just part that is most wrong of all.  The just theory is a special kind of problem in itself that is part of the reason fatness is so difficult to address.

 

Here's my central claim: scientific consensus is not just a matter of certain opinions winning out over others, the problem of obesity is understood in broad form as a scientific consensus even though many the details are complex and some of our knowledge of the factors is undoubtedly incomplete.  There is a rough scientific consensus about various aspects of obesity across fields of physiology, nutrition, psychology, neuroscience, and medicine.  It is not just the confusing mess that appears in popular media.

 

I also claim: this consensus understanding is not what is published in most diet, fitness, and weight control books.  In fact, a sizable number of popular books on diet and weight control conflict dramatically with the scientific consensus, but are marketed as if they were new and revolutionary new findings.    This has contributed heavily to the confusion and so added to the problem. 

 

 

B. The Scientific Consensus is Poorly Communicated

 

In the stories that journalists tell to try to communicate their own interpretations of the obesity and health research, they have often engaged the science compellingly but not faithfully.  We now know some very useful things that are not well communicated, or are even ignored or denied by popular authors with their own agendas, or get lost in the media confusion:

 

1. The theory that people can control their weight by exercising self-control at each eating or activity decision is simply wrong.  

 

No one has that much self-control against an environment that constantly tempts them.  The psychological study of self-control reveals that variation in impulsiveness is indeed a factor in all sorts of problems, including obesity, and that people can often learn skills to compensate for impulsiveness, but these do not rely on individual acts of self-control.  Self-control is always finite, and we successfully compensate for impulsiveness by not just exercising self-control in each decision, but also even more importantly by altering our environment and altering our habits so that we reduce the need to exercise our always finite capacity for self-control.

 

2. All of the theories of specific  macronutrients causing  us to become fat are simply wrong.

 

The theories of metabolic advantages of particular diets (low carb, low fat, vegan, paleo, etc.) have all been falsified scientifically so far.  Obesity is in general at the population level not caused by everyone's metabolism being "broken" by certain foods nor is it "fixed" by eating certain foods. 

 

We know for a fact for example that low carb diets do not cause people to lose weight by any special "fat burning mode" as is often claimed in popular diet books.   We know that simply eating a lot of fat or a lot of sugar while keeping energy intake constant does not cause us to gain more body fat.  We know for a fact that the theory of obesity being caused by insulin levels rising due to eating  too much starch or sugar is simply wrong.  People become fat when they take in too much energy regardless of the source and they lose body fat when they take in less energy regardless of the sources they eat less of. 

 

That doesn't mean people respond equally to every kind of diet.  It's just that the reasons are not metabolic.  The reasons have to do with reward, satiety, and sometimes individual differences.  But the metabolic differences between different macronutrient strategies is based on thinking that has already been tested and falsified.  

 

Also  this wouldn't have to be true necessarily.  It isn't a logical necessity that foods have no powerful differential effect on absorption and conversion to fat and fat storage.  It's not just a matter of thermodynamics or conversation of mass and energy.  It is possible that our biology might have allowed us to take in some kids of nutrient, extract energy or chemicals from it, and excrete most of it without gaining body fat.  But it turns out to be false.  The reason is not conservation of mass and energy, the reason that our biology is particularly efficient in using nutrients and in storing the surplus energy. 

 

We might truly have discovered some  differential metabolic effects that prevent us from processing certain foods into fat (and that is exactly what many popular authors have claimed) but … it turns out that it doesn't seem to be true in general, and certainly not as a reliable  way to lose body fat permanently.  The small differential effects of nutrients on metabolism are sometimes used to good effect in short term efforts at bodybuilding and fitness, but they are not a reliable approach to obesity in general.

 

3. Consequently, No macronutrient restriction strategy is a best practice diet for everyone. 

 

Framing the problem of fatness as if we  need to choose between popular branded diets is more often part of the problem than part of the solution.  Branded diets are generally based on a particular just theory.  

 

Debates over low carb, low fat, low sugar, low starch, low glycemic, high fiber, vegan, paleo, and so on are mostly based on asking the wrong question: "what specific food is making me fat?" 

 

Cutting out problematic "trigger" foods can be helpful for particular people, but not for metabolic reasons.  Also cutting out entire classes of food can help at least temporarily lose weight.  This is also not for metabolic reasons.  This is because we tend to reduce intake more than we compensate, at least for a while, when we cut out entire classes of food. 

 

Some of those strategies work better than others in the short run.  But it turns out with those macronutrient restriction strategies that it really doesn't matter which class we chose to cut out in the long run. 

 

People who successfully reduce intake by restricting carbohydrates and people who successfully reduce intake by eating vegan or by eating "paleo" are all losing weight because they are taking in less energy, not because of metabolic advantages. 

 

So long as we can sustain the calorie deficit with that strategy, we lose body fat.  That's wonderful for the people who end up with a strategy they can sustain, and we can find some success stories for many different strategies.  Strategies that restrict entire classes of nutrients end up being unsustainable for most people  in the long run though and the claims often made about any of these having unique metabolic advantages for weight control have been soundly falsified.  

 

4. People do not regulate their weight to a particular inherited set point.

 

This is the opposite problem from the panacea solutions.  This one reinforces our tendency to give up.  Fatness and leanness often run in families, but not because our genes have a built in weight that we are fated to maintain.  It is because of all of the various factors that go into activity, reward, impulse control, individual metabolism, and habit formation, how those interact with specific environments, and because we often inherit things in addition to our genes.  Animals in their native ecological niche tend to regulate their weight very tightly and people who try to lose weight often end up back at the same weight.  But these are as much a result of stable aspects of their environments as stability in their weight regulation.  When we re-engineer out environments we end up altering weight regulation.  The efficiency of our biology and the stability of our dispositions are powerful factors in making obesity a difficult problem but they do not  make it impossible to solve. 

 

I'm going to try to do more than just add my own personal just theory to the already confusing and conflicting list.  What I'm going to try to do is navigate the available evidence to show what is going on and make sense of why the problem is so difficult and what people are doing when they do manage to succeed.

 

3. The Backlash Culture Against Obesity Does More Harm Than Good

 

So the "obesity epidemic," as it has often been called, has led to a culture of backlash against fatness.  By that I mean a commonly shared negative attitude toward fatness and toward fat people.  We have mobilized mightily against the problem in all sorts of ways.  Some of those have unfortunately probably made the problem worse. 

 

The backlash against fatness might have been a good thing if it had led to a problem solving culture that recognized the biological, psychological, cultural, and economic dimensions problem realistically, helped us understand it, and began providing realistic solutions.  Obesity researchers have sometimes attempted to offer realistic solutions, especially focusing on preventing obesity in children where we can potentially have the most effect.   

 

But realistic problem solving is definitely not most of what has happened so far.   What we have instead is:

 

1. The problem remains: most people who try to lose body fat end up going from diet to diet or from one exercise program to another , succeed for a while, and then give up.  Eventually many give up on the problem entirely as hopeless.  In effect, we often give up on ourselves.  This is especially true when we buy in to the popular misconception that obesity reflects a simple failure of willpower.  Fat people are often stigmatized as lazy and they feel like failures, which generally makes the problem worse rather than better.

 

2. The food industry exploits the situation by creating and marketing niche "diet" and "health" products that supposedly address the problem but which rely on outdated theories, popular misconceptions, and strategically selective interpretations of research.  The market for high density rewarding "diet" foods for example was created to exploit medical advice to eat less food by eating less fat.  The advice was oversimplified and the new market for diet foods probably added to the problem significantly by exploiting it.  Their goal is selling more food product rather than improving health, which most often turn out to be conflicting priorities.     They become part of the problem by flooding us with false solutions and misleading information. 

 

3. The fitness industry exploits the situation by creating complex dietary and exercise programs that are oriented to short term bodybuilding or fitness goals and then marketing those as solutions to obesity. 

 

4. Popular authors tout their range of idiosyncratic interpretations and solutions, each trying to make sense of the confusion but they mostly end up increasing it.  Popular diet just theories by journalists and doctors very often end up inadvertently creating even more confusion.  

 

So the backlash culture in these various dimensions,  far from helping to lessen the problem, has exacerbated and perpetuated it in several specific ways:

 

• It increases the difficulty of the problem for individuals psychologically, by fostering confusion and then discouragement and self-loathing.  By emphasizing willpower in unrealistic ways, and relying on solutions that require extraordinary short term efforts, we make people less able to succeed rather than more able to succeed in the long run.

 

• It adds to choice confusion when we try to make decisions and are led astray by the marketing of product rather than decisions in our own best interests.  Unless things like "diet foods" and "bootcamps" and "extreme weight loss" are themselves actually viable solutions to obesity (which they are not in general) they become new sources of both confusion and discouragement.

 

• It reinforces the epistemological problem of cynicism.  Thinking we are all scientific experts  who are well situated to simply choose between the popular diets and popular theories that seem most plausible to us prevents us from learning from the actual research and prevents us from moving toward more realistic solutions.  We become easy prey for every scheme that comes along. 

D. Science Cynicism and Overly Broad Mistrust of Expertise

 

Journalists writing about the problem of obesity have responded to this ongoing confusion by either claiming we don't know what causes obesity or by trying to promote a particular new finding.  The problem is very complex in some ways, but it is very misleading to say that we don't know enough about it to move toward better solutions.  The journalists who say we don't know the answer are a minor concern though, they are at least sincerely trying to be good communicators of the science and clear up the confusion.  The ones who are really dangerous are the grandiose prophets of false information. 

 

What we usually have is a theory that catches the interest of the journalist and then they confirm it by gathering information and telling stories that reinforce their own theory.  This is a compelling and powerful way to communicate, but it offers no assurance that they are getting the science right.  And while we sometimes find out about truly revolutionary ideas this way, as it turns out, these "sciencey" storytellers are most often getting as much of the science wrong as they are getting right.   

 

These "sciencey" journalists often end up asking bad questions and then we end up talking about the wrong things.  I think this is a big part of the problem and the reason I have written this book.  I hope to describe what we know about the problem of fatness without falling into the common trap of arrogance and confirmatory bias, but of course I can only argue my own perspective.  I could be wrong about the scientific consensus, but I will do my best to communicate it as faithfully as I can. 

 

The unconstrained confirmatory bias by journalists wouldn't be so bad by itself in some cases, since they do sometimes bring information to light that was not previously well known.  At least some people would benefit from some of this information.    But these folks often then read some scientific literature to try to bolster their articles and books and I feel they often do a hatchet job on it.  They can't reconcile their idiosyncratic theories with the existing evidence so they start claiming that the evidence that conflicts with their own theory was due to "corrupt researchers."  This ad hominem strategy has been a highly successful one for some authors, but it is an unfair way to argue and much worse, it plays into general cultural cynicism of science.  That part is extremely bad for the rest us.  It means we perceive the science as arbitrary or a matter of choosing sides based on what sounds plausible or what seems to work for some people.  It feeds the popular trend for imagining that everyone is naturally capable of evaluating scientific evidence by virtue of "common sense." 

 

What often happens, I believe, is that we end up mistrusting expertise, which is in itself a very serious problem.   That fact that we find so many false or misleading claims of expertise makes the problem of finding, trusting, and interpreting legitimate expertise even more of a challenge.    Nutrition and health sometimes involve on complex technical knowledge and interpreting rich patterns of seemingly conflicting evidence.  This kind of interpretative skill and knowledge is not something we possess as part of our "common sense."  It is something that requires not only understanding "critical thinking" in general, but also requires domain-specific knowledge in the specific fields in question. 

 

The backlash culture and especially cynicism of real expertise has fed bias and arrogance by various popular journalists who then set the tone for popular conversations in unproductive ways.  Although they may have a lot of charts and graphs and selectively cite and interpret a lot of research, rarely do journalists engage the research deeply and competently and systematically and put it into context.  Rarely do they make a distinction between different kinds of evidence and different quality of evidence in order to do a skilled job or drawing general conclusions from the existing science. 

 

The biggest problem with many of these popular authors is their grandiosity.  They think they've discovered a pattern that everyone else has missed or they have some limited success with some people and they proclaim to the world that they have the solution.  Grandiosity exploits uncertainty and cynicism to produce cults of misinformation that are self-perpetuating and extremely difficult to address with reasoning and evidence.  

 

 

Summary of Why the Big Fat Problem is So Tricky

 

Summary of broad factors making the Big Fat Problem so nasty:

 

Problem Factor	Class of Factor	Associated Bad Thinking
We tend to think in terms of simple actionable heuristics we can act upon when we make decisions.  What food is causing me to get fat, so I can stop eating it and lose weight?  What foods should I eat to lose weight instead?  Our need for actionable heuristics makes us especially vulnerable to just theories, and just theories of complex outcomes are typically wrong.	Oversimplification	"Obesity is just a matter of eating more of … or eating less of  …"
The science is often distorted into oversimplified advice.  The scientific consensus relies on expertise to understand and is hard to communicate in terms of actionable steps so it gets lost in the confusion of just theories.   We end up systematically asking the wrong questions and arguing without regard to the existing patterns of evidence.	Oversimplification	"One study constantly contradicts the previous one, so it's all really useless information, we should just pick the authors we agree with and follow their advice"
Our collective cultural assault on fatness has led to a backlash culture that makes things worse and leads to additional problems.	Unintended Consequences	"Being fat is really bad, stop being so lazy!  Just do this… "
Journalistic arrogance and widespread science cynicism exploit the problem of ubiquitous expertise	Knowledge Cynicism	"We're all scientific experts, including me!  Forget the scientific consensus, this sounds like a good way, follow me!"
"Sciencey" storytelling journalism	Poor science communication	"Telling stories about research and researchers is a great way to learn the science!  The details of weighing evidence are boring and irrelevant and people aren't able to handle it."
Industry interests driven by economic and business concerns that often end up conflicting with public health or individual interests of consumers	Economically Driven Consumer Culture	"People citing research in their ads and branding their products for health are generally offering valuable new choices for us."

Book Review: "Are We All Scientific Experts Now?"

Highly recommended.  Brief book with a very high level argument relying a lot on his experience but I think it has some deep insights into how science is done, our shifting conception of how it is done, and the way it is communicated. 

Three big ideas are covered in this book.  First, a three wave conception of how science has been conceived since the mid-20th century:

(1) idealistic deference to science focusing selectively on fairy tale versions of its history and overly focusing on the heroic successes,

(2) cynical deconstruction of science as nothing special and decloaking of experts by adopting a symmetry of explanations regarding what is true and what is false, making science just another storytelling activity and focusing selectively on failures and controversies and social and political influences on science, and

(3) a more realistic wave that accepts the messy processes of doing scientific work and the requirements for doing it well along with the ethos that makes sincere inquiry into nature legitimately special. This is where we need to be now in his view, and I agree strongly with him.
The second wave Collins associates with the problem of "default expertise," the idea that since it is nothing special we can all directly understand scientific ideas and primary sources, learn from them, and make competent and useful evaluations of them, without any specialist knowledge or skills.  He ultimately finds the concept untenable and a notion drawn from significantly overreaching the real insights that were drawn from the second wave that revolted against the privileged scientific priesthood.

Second big idea, a model of different kinds of expertise and its relationship to tacit knowledge, recognizing especially the difference between things we pick up ourselves and things we pick up by interacting deeply and systematically with other people.

Third big idea, distance lends enchantment.  The farther we get from being researchers directly discussing their work with each other in a field day to day, the more the conversation changes and becomes more idealized regarding how it might be applied and the farther we get from actually understanding it.

My summary from the review:

"We are all ubiquitous experts but we are not all scientific experts in the sense that not only are we not all domain specialists in the fields we want to think about but we don't even widely share the ethos of inquiry that is common to scientists. Even specialist scientists vary in how highly they value aspects of that ethos.

The conclusion is that it is vital to both protect the scientific ethos and have a more realistic understanding of the kinds of expertise and the messy processes that make it work and cloud our communications about it when we go to make decisions from scientific work.

This kind of nuanced, important thinking about science and expertise is a wonderful gift from Collins that I truly hope we don't squander."

Full review on Amazon:

http://www.amazon.com/review/R29W32NZEDCBIA/ref=cm_cr_rdp_perm

Book Review:  Ungifted by Scott Barry Kaufman

Todd I. Stark  5/29/2013

Link to review on Amazon

Intelligence turns out to be a difficult topic, for reasons that aren’t at all obvious at first. Our understanding of mental ability has been captured in several independent threads of research that are surprisingly oblivious of each other for the most part.  Our stereotypes of the gifted and the ungifted often miss the details of what is going on.  The study of individual differences in general, while useful, doesn’t just de-emphasize, but actually systematically misses some of the most important things going on when people become exceptionally successful contributors.  

The author of Ungifted is well situated to make an important contribution to our understanding of intelligence.  He has made a deep academic study of a wide span of existing research programs, he has worked directly in collaboration with many of the leading researchers in several related fields and he has passionately engaged these ideas since childhood when he became  painfully aware of the academic sorting process for giftedness, and he himself is a wonderful example of many of the principles that emerge in his new book.  This is not another book that just starts out with a vague progressive vision of education and ability that everyone is a potential “genius” and then fills it in with wishful thinking.  No, this is a book that dives very deeply and realistically into the literature of psychometrics, heritability, cognitive neuroscience, and expertise.  It looks closely at patterns from the span of phenomena of human differences, including savantism, prodigy, autism, schizophrenia, personality, g factor, motivation, and creativity.

Ungifted is so compelling, rich, and significant a book for me that most of it was well worn by the end of the first day it arrived. What makes this book so rich is the unique combination of personal passion, strong but not intrusive scholarship, deep domain expertise, clear analysis, and all tied together with an original new and constructive perspective. Hard to ask for more than that from a non-fiction book. Every chapter is a stimulating lesson in an important topic that brings together a broad range of data, ever heading toward the book’s conclusion, nothing less than a complete rethinking of human intellectual ability, consistent with considerable evidence gathered along the way.

The most impressive and distinctive aspect of the author's thinking is his consistent and effective use of perspective-taking. In each case where a controversy is identified, each side is explored with great depth and sympathy to understand what its advocates understand that those on the other side seem to miss. It isn't difficult to do that for the side of an argument we agree with but it is an impressive achievement to do it for different sides and then to synthesize the perspectives into an overlapping understanding. This ability is particularly relevant to topics like IQ, giftedness, and learning disabilities, where sharp controversy shapes conversations at every turn.

Ungifted is about how we conceive of mental ability in general. Some people manage to accomplish much more with their mind than others do. There’s no escaping that basic observation, nor the fact that it has immense significance for political and educational thinking. What is the difference that makes a difference? The answers we get depend on the kinds of questions we ask.

Ungifted is in part the story of how the important questions have changed over time and why. There seem to be two tragic errors that we’ve fallen into historically. For one, we’ve often ignored the differences between us and tried to force everyone into cookie-cutter educational molds that well serve only a minority of the people they are intended to serve. Most of us appreciate this personal plight, as does the author in his "subjective" voice and personal experience throughout the book.

The other tragic error is ironically the reverse. In trying to appreciate the differences between people we’ve taken the opposite extreme of becoming obsessed with stable, predictive individual differences. We test ourselves and compare ourselves with each other and we look for the numbers that tell us who deserves what because we assume we are identifying potential. The author appreciates the motives and sometimes successes of this approach when done well, but the focus of Ungifted is on how we can do better.

It is the tragedy of our obsession with individual differences that Ungifted in the author's "objective" voice most eloquently addresses. We assume that testing people against each other will tell us how to best teach each person by identifying what makes people different. Ungifted describes in great detail and punctuated by the author’s own personal life story why that well-intended approach has failed us time and time again.

It isn’t simply as many politically motivated accounts would have it, that IQ has no meaning, or is too culture bound, or just measures test taking ability. IQ and similar kinds of tests when given and interpreted intelligently provide a useful and well-validated way of identifying the lion’s share of variation in human intellectual ability across a wide range of situations and this has some very real correlations with meaningful life outcomes. The problem is not that the tests are useless but that they have come to be misconstrued as if they measure a single stable ability that resides in each person and predicts what that person is capable of accomplishing. People who do well in IQ tests do tend to be smart people in general. But so are many people who do more poorly in IQ tests, and doing well in IQ tests doesn’t provide any guarantee that we also have persistence, motivation, or other qualities so important to making the best of our abilities.

A number of theorists have made useful additions to the body of well validated tests, but these are still tests of static abilities and they don't solve the most basic problem identified in Ungifted. The reasons the individual differences approach has failed us in the broad global sense that we have tried to apply it are that while effectively explaining variation between people in the same population, it has not taken broader environments into account, it has not taken the course of development into account, and it has not taken the dynamic differences into account that make the most difference in human lives over time.

A number of fundamental misunderstandings of heritability, genetics, development, and psychometric research have been exploited, often through politically motivated movements, to obscure the larger vision of intellectual ability. Ungifted makes a serious bid to help correct these fundamental misunderstandings.

Do some people have more of a critical trait or traits from the start, or do some people learn more from their experience, and in either case how much can we influence our abilities over the course of our life? The traditional dialectic of nature vs. nurture seems to have its own unavoidable groove in our thinking that we rarely manage to escape. Yet as long as we have been studying human ability scientifically, there has been evidence that the dichotomy is inadequate. 21st century research has given us some useful insights into the specifics. Ungifted summarizes the most important lessons from a wide range of data about human abilities, and the author is particularly careful to distinguish his subjective passion for the subject (which is often in evidence) from his more detached coverage of the data in the various fields.

Ungifted starts out with a concise summary of principles of the 21st century picture of development, setting the background for the rest of the book. The concept of traits is explored, and the patterns by which they develop.

Then we have a tour of the ways we have tried to measure human mental ability and our reasonable motivations for the various testing innovations over time. From the measurement of ability, we then see how measurement slides into the sorting of people into categories for practical purposes and the allocation of finite educational resources. We see the well-motivated practical reasons for labeling people, but we also get a sense of the often tragic real world limitations of that way of thinking.

We are introduced in an understandable but expert way to the real strengths and weaknesses of IQ testing, and to the best available model of how its scales map to specific cognitive abilities. This prepares us to begin to understand the different ways that "giftedness" has been defined and measured and why we are still so far behind where we need to be to cultivate the best in every individual. We also are given enough background to begin to appreciate the unique challenges of being different, whether perceived as higher or lower in ability than others around us. Ungifted artfully blends a sympathetic understanding of the needs of researchers and testers with those of teachers, and the diverse individuals just striving to do their best.

Then we are introduced to the core concept that distinguishes this developmental reframing of human mental ability, the concept of engagement. Engagement brings together the factors that distinguish the learnable, experiential aspects of intelligence from those that seem particularly stable. Engagement is the hinge that swings the big door to individual potential. Engagement is built on a number of factors that are particularly malleable and context-dependent, so it is of particular interest to the way education is done. Once we have a sense of what engagement is about, we take a fresh look at human abilities in terms of what is known about their development over time. The role of engagement over time in development begins to become clearer as we tour through the critical concepts of intelligence, creativity, talent, and expertise, and begin to see how they each relate to development over time. At the end, the key points learned along the way are summarized to give the outline of a new theory of intelligence.

For me the theory of intelligence introduced here is distinguished by two critical characteristics: (1) it emphasizes what happens in the individual over time rather than differences between people, and in so doing draws on different kinds of data, and (2) it is synthetic in spirit, emphasizing multiple ways of achieving the same outcomes by drawing on different resources, rather than looking for additional ways of distinguishing the abilities of different people. These two characteristics make this theory very different from most of the alternatives that are intended to address some of the same gaps in our intelligence models, alternatives such as “multiple intelligences,” “emotional intelligence,” and so on. Rather than just identifying more things that we think might be missed by IQ testing, and turning them into new sources of labeling and categorizing, the personal developmental theory of intelligence assumes that there are many different components to be identified, but places them into an overarching biological framework where ability is developed over time by identifying, selecting, modifying, and constructing niches suited to the thriving of the individual.

Several important shifts of emphasis emerge:

1.      Away from reliance on studying stable individual  differences and toward the details of person-centered development

We have focused primarily on measuring stable individual differences, whether “general intelligence” or other kinds of “intelligence” or personality in order to support research and allocate finite educational resources.  What this approach misses is the details of development within each individual over time.  It turns out that these two approaches, individual differences and person-centered, are not just different but produce incompatible results.  So this is a very important source of new information about how mental ability arises.  It is common for authors to point out that nature and nurture are an archaic dichotomy and that it is the interaction that matters, but the details are generally left vague.  There’s a need for specific research programs that focus on the development of ability over time.  The developmental approach is not just a detail, it is a separate source of crucial empirical data.

2.      Away from viewing the positive manifold of abilities on tests (“g”)  as a single ability in each person, and toward understanding its value in conveniently capturing most of the variation an array of mental abilities that collectively underlie many different kinds of tests.    

3.      Away from seeing intelligence as a number or even a trait, and toward seeing it as the adaptive fit between the individual and their environment by finding, selecting, shaping, and creating niches they can thrive in.

4.      Away from focusing on cognitive skills in isolation, and toward consideration of the motivations, strategies, and experience that turn those skills into practical abilities over time.

5.      Away from the focus on being able to measure abilities that represent potential in a brief test, and toward finding the best way to engage and cultivate each person.  Active engagement with the world and ability are inseparably intertwined in a mutual feedback process over time.

6.      Away from focus solely on controlled cognitive processes underlying reasoning, and toward better understanding of the role of both controlled and spontaneous processes in intelligence.  Being smart involves flexible use both controlled and spontaneous mental processes, and using the right resources when needed, rather than relying on one to the exclusion of the other.

7.      Away from fixed rules about how long it should take to become good at something or what special levels of ability provide thresholds, and toward seeing our “readiness for engagement” as a better indicator of potential.

8.  Away from seeing intelligence and expertise as independent (and one inborn and the other learned), and toward seeing the overlaps between them as cognitive abilities,personality, and motivation support the acquisition of expertise, and cognitive expertise is part of what shows up in testing for ability.  One of the most remarkable findings in the book that links intelligence and expertise is that chunking in memory, a key aspect of organizing knowledge in memory involved in expertise, activates the brain structures involved in fluid reasoning, a central component measured by tests.  

The resulting view of intelligence doesn’t see everyone as equal by any means, it seems unavoidable that some people will not be able to excel at some things relative to other people.  Stable individual differences do not somehow disappear because we shift emphasis to the person and their development.  However we do begin to see the real value of changing the nature of education to focus on the fit between people and niches rather than selecting people for special treatment via brief tests and subjective judgments of merit.  Several practical working examples of programs that successfully accomplish this change are described in the book.

I place this book alongside two others in a trilogy that for me represents a broad understanding of the nature of mental ability as it is best envisioned at the current time.

1. "Surpassing Ourselves" is about how outstanding performers learn differently.  It shows expertise as a distinctive way of learning rather than just an endpoint of domain specialization. By comparing the same person over time as they develop, rather than just comparing novices with experts, we get an understanding of the process by which people become smarter.  This is very similar to the shift made with intelligence in Ungifted, but applied specifically to expertise and shows again how the shift to a process perspective captures additional important information.  Surpassing ourselves also introduces  the reinvestment perspective, which looks at the growth of ability in terms of becoming more efficient over time and then reinvesting the saved time and energy in new learning, which seems to be a big part of how people who ultimately become exceptional learn differently from those who do not.
http://www.amazon.com/Surpassing-Ourselves-Inquiry-Implications-Expertise/dp/0812692055/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1369837497&sr=1-1&keywords=surpassing+ourselves

2. "Outsmarting IQ" is about learnable intelligence.  It shows how experience, stable cognitive abilities, and strategies work together to navigate realms of knowledge and let us apply our knowledge.  It gives a good account of the role of strategies, including learnable strategies and cognitive expertise, in trading off between cognitive abilities in order to make the best of our existing stable cognitive abilities. 
http://www.amazon.com/Outsmarting-IQ-Learnable-Intelligence-ebook/dp/B001D1Y8Z8/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1369837528&sr=1-1&keywords=outsmarting+iq

3. "Ungifted" combines the intrapersonal process perspective with a developmental model and an overall hierarchical model of cognitive abilities, consistent with the other two books in this list and yet going way beyond them to explain in much greater detail where “IQ” and other tests scores come from and what they tell us, and how stable cognitive abilities, expertise, creativity, and personality all interact to produce intelligence. 
http://www.amazon.com/Ungifted-Intelligence-Redefined-ebook/dp/B00B3M3UME/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1369837581&sr=1-1&keywords=ungifted+intelligence+redefined

Update 5/29/13 1PM:  Link to abbreviated GoodReads version of review:

Ungifted: Intelligence Redefined by Scott Barry Kaufman
My rating: 5 of 5 stars




View all my reviews