1

UNDERDOG

UNDERDOG
Iris Kuo
February 10th, 2014
Honors 394C

2
UNDERDOG
ONE THAT IS AT A DISADVANTAGE
There are four requirements for evolution by natural selection to take place. First, there
must be variation among individuals. Second, variation is at least mostly inherited from parents.
Third, more individuals are born than will survive to reproduce. Fourth, and more importantly,
some variants survive and reproduce at higher rates than others. If these factors are all present,
then the composition of a population is said to change over time.
Humans, just like every biological creature on this planet, are susceptible to forces of
natural selection. Traits that are beneficial for survival will be selected for, and individuals
possessing those traits will live longer to give birth to children (who will eventually supply them
with grandchildren). This is a tough, cruel, and cold way to look at the world. Nonetheless, it is
how modern humans have advanced to this day and age.
I am sure that everyone has a personal, often instinctual definition of what intelligence
means. Yours is probably different than mine, while mine is different from my brothers. Most
dictionaries also disagree on how they define intelligence, but they tend to describe it as a
quality that involves deep understanding and the ability to respond to new situations. Supposing
that intelligence, if defined as such, is a desirable trait in modern society, does this imply that it
may also be a predetermined trait that has been selected for across generations? You may be
reacting with bewilderment (or even disgust) at this suggestion. I responded the same way when
the same question was first presented to me about three weeks ago.
On January 16th, 2014, I walked into my DNA & Evolution class, expecting another
riveting session from Jon Herron. Sure enough, he talked about things like catching black caiman
in a piranha-infested lake on an abroad trip he took to Manu in his younger days. He also
entertained the idea that birthweight, if heritable, may eventually spread out instead of being

3
UNDERDOG
concentrated around 7 pounds due to advancements in technology that allow lighter or heavier
than average babies to survive outside the womb. Then, in the last few minutes of the hour, Jon
said he wanted to talk about one last thing, and switched the slide to one that read as followed:
Assumption: The human population of Seattle is getting smarter over time.
Claim: The mechanism is evolution by natural selection.
I did what everybody else in the room did and looked at the person next to me. We could
see in each others eyes that our instincts told us this claim was a load of baloney. But, anybody
who has heard of Jon Herron knew that his lessons always had some sort of twist or angle that
delivered the final punchline. So, we murmured a bit amongst ourselves and waited for him to
play his cards.
After five minutes of discussion, Jon asked what type of evidence hed have to pull out of
his hat to convince us of his claim. We rattled off the four requirements for natural selection, and
he pulled up colorful graphs and charts accordingly. Some of the evidence was undisputable.
There was variation in intelligence among people. More people are obviously born than survive
to reproduce. As we ventured on, however, things started to look shaky. People of varying
intelligence marry and have children at different rates, but the scientific literature disagrees on
which direction the arrow points. Some studies have headlines dictating that intelligent men are
more appealing and are able to find mates more often. Other papers claim that intelligence can
actually decrease the amount of offspring a couple has.
Another criteria that Jon didnt produce solid evidence for was the requirement that
intelligence is inherited from parents. The bar graph he showed us plotted various cognitive
abilities (such as verbal/spatial skills and memory) against proportions of variability in genetics,
shared environment, and non-shared environment. Genetics only accounted for at most 60% of

4
UNDERDOG
variation, with large fluctuations between categories. For instance, genetics only accounted for
30% of spatial skills.
I dont know about you, but these terms and these numbers didnt mean a lot to me when
I first saw them, and they dont mean anything to me now. Do spatial skills really have anything
to do with intelligence? Since this was a crude observational study based on the averaged data
from biological twins, Jon did not show these results expecting us to be smitten. However, they
served his purpose in setting the tone for weeks to come. Might intelligence be inheritable? If so,
to what extent?
These are both interesting questions to ask. I would also argue that they are the wrong
questions to ask. Humans are more than just what they are born with, because they have the
capacity to learn along the way. However, pondering about the heritability of smarts can only
perpetuate the idea that intelligence is an arbitrary term given to an innate, fixed disposition.
Its like asking whether some people are simply born better than others, as if genetics are the
only thing that matters. Then again, considering the way our education system is currently set up,
this is probably exactly what society wants. It is also why we need society to reevaluate what it
means by intelligence if we want this system to change.
A PERSON WHO IS EXPECTED TO LOSE IN A CONTEST
David Epsteins The Sports Gene, a required text for Jons class, documents case studies
of extraordinary athletic performance. Sometimes they present themselves as success stories due
to hard work and sheer will. Usually, however, they are anecdotes about athletes who happened
to be born with the perfect set of genes. For instance, the average professional baseball player
doesnt necessarily have a faster reaction time than you or I do, but he probably has a visual
acuity around 20/13 in both eyes. Compared to the normal laymans 20/20 vision, this suggests

5
UNDERDOG
that a major league players superior batting average really is due to his inborn ability to pick up
earlier cues from flying balls (Epstein, 2013, p. 40-42).
This begs the question, is it fair to allow these gifted people to compete against average
folk who might not have perfect eyesight, but really, really love baseball? If so, then what
happens to the even playing field that the sports realm values? What if, for instance, a normal
person was allowed to legally use steroids to increase their vision or boost their muscles in order
to match up to those superhumans? Wouldnt this give everybody a fair chance to win?
Unfortunately, steroids are such a taboo that even thinking about them can get an athlete into
trouble. This would also leave out the people who choose not to use steroids in fear of side
effects. Are these individuals predestined to forfeit the game before it even started?
When Jon brought up this issue and sparked discussion by arguing for legalizing steroids
in a later session, the entire class (including myself) stood on the side of the superhumans. Jon
continued to play devils advocate until we eventually reached a draw. By that point, the lines
had been blurred so much that we werent sure what to think anymore. Prohibiting gifted
individuals from competing is discriminatory, while legalizing steroids is a touchy subject.
Neither side wins, and there doesnt seem to be a clear solution for this problem.
At one point during this conversation, I tuned out and my mind drifted to the scary
parallels between sports and education. There has always been the debate of nature versus
nurture in every domain of human performance, and intelligence is probably at the top with
personality and athleticism. As a nation, we pride ourselves with phrases like no child left
behind and equal opportunity, but its really not that simple. There are athletes who try to
build up stamina by running and working out for hours a day. They end up losing to people who
only had to run a few times because their bodies happened to be built in a way that responds

6
UNDERDOG
better to training. Similarly, we all know someone who has a natural talent for doing integrals or
memorizing biology facts without trying. You could say that they have a gift. Maybe they just
inherited better math or biology genes compared to everyone else.
For the sake of argument, lets say that these qualities are inherited, and therefore
unchangeable no matter how many supplementary classes you take. It makes sense that these are
the people we want to be our future accountants or future doctors. It also makes perfect sense
that the best way to filter out the best is by giving them standardized tests like the SATs, MCATs,
and what have you. After all, if perfect math skills are all you need to be successful on Wall
Street, then why would you want to be evaluated on anything else but math skills?
I think there is merit behind competition and testing. A lot of people push higher and get
closer to reaching their potentials if they are faced with a challenge. However, it is the way
authorities use these measures to distinguish between the desired and the undesired that I am
raising red flags at. Education has become a funnel to artificially select for qualities that we
believe are part of intelligence, but they provide nothing in helping someone face the unknown.
Learning about things beyond how to survive is supposed to be a human experience, but a lot of
standard curriculums focus so much on drilling basic facts that they forget how to teach students
to use them. In a way, society is breeding for winners in order to avoid losers that might corrupt
the system.
A VICTIM OF SOCIAL OR POLITICAL INJUSTICE
Forces of nature never stopped people from playing god. By selecting the two biggest and
fastest dogs from a kennel of smaller and slower ones, owners could force them to mate in the
hopes of getting bigger and faster pups in return. In fact, this was how the Alaskan Huskies,
originally bred for their love of running in order to compete in the Iditarod, came to be (Epstein,

7
UNDERDOG
2013, p. 231). Recently, technology has advanced so far that scientists now harness the power to
artificially select and breed for traits in humans.
It seems like a rather straight-forward concept, and anybody who first hears about it
probably has an initial gut reaction either for or against it. I was the same way until one day, Jon
put up a series of questions that would completely change the course of discussion for the rest of
the hour. They were as follows:
When is genetic testing okay?
1) For medical reasons?
2) For athletic/intelligence (or other such) purposes?
After being encouraged to talk to our neighbors, I distinctly remember having a short
exchange with my friend about how the first is probably okay in most circumstances, while the
second is never okay. Jon let the questions simmer for a bit in our brains. Then he told us a story.
A married couple gave birth to their first baby girl, only to find out later that she had a
blood disease caused by inheriting two mutated copies (one from each parent) of a certain gene.
A transplant of healthy blood cells into the girls immune system would save her life, but it was
difficult to find a donor whose DNA would be compatible with the patients body. To solve this
problem, the couple decided to use genetic testing to make sure they would give birth to a
healthy child that could provide the necessary cells for their daughter. It worked, and the
daughter survived.
After relaying the incident to us, Jon polled us on the questions. We had been talking
about bioethical issues surrounding genetic testing since the first week of lessons, so conflict and
moral dilemmas werent exactly new. Seeing Son conceived to provide blood cells for daughter

8
UNDERDOG
as the headline of an article that detailed this incident was a bit tough to swallow, but most
people still raised their hands in favor for genetic testing under medical reasons.
Surprised by the outcome, Jon asked us to explain our reasoning. People came to the
consensus that as long as the son turned out okay, and was living a full life, then why does it
matter that he helped save his sister? One person said, Also, people have been having kids for
random reasons since the very beginning. Like, there were people who had kids to help them
work on the farm. This prompted a lot of laughter from the class, including Jon. Thats true,
he said.
Eventually, the conversation turned to the second question regarding genetic testing. It
seemed like most of us were on the fence for this option, because only one or two people raised
their hands in favor for athletic or intellectual purposes. What was the difference between
breeding to avoid diseases versus to create intelligent and athletic children? The people who can
afford to do it are the privileged, explained a girl in the class. And genetic testing
overemphasizes the role of nature in the growth and development of kids.
But I would argue that were already genetically choosing what kids to have by deciding
who we have kids with, countered Jon, playing devils advocate. He once heard someone saying
I want to marry someone good looking because I want good looking babies! Then Jon asked,
If genetically selecting for certain athletic traits is taboo, then what about Yao Ming? Is he
considered illegal? Yao Ming was a 7 foot 5 inch basketball player whose parents were brought
together specifically by the Chinese basketball federation to copulate so the official team could
have a strong ace (Epstein, 2013, p. 135).
Its sufficient to say that genetic testing is nothing new. People have turned to the
wonders of technology to cure their loved ones of heritable illnesses and other mutations since

9
UNDERDOG
the method was first introduced. It is when the topic switches to that of athleticism or
intelligence that alarms go off. Why is that?
Paulo Freire, an advocate of the human right to live freely, is all too familiar with this. He
once wrote that oppressors accomplish through conquest by developing a series of methods
precluding any presentation of the world as a problem and showing it rather as a fixed entity, as
something givensomething to which people, as mere spectators, must adapt (Freire, 2000, p.
139). Genetically testing and selecting for traits that one considers to be desirable is such a
method. It basically means that you have a certain standard that you believe your child must fit in
order to be successful in present society. Furthermore, any situation in which A objectively
exploits B or hinders his and her pursuit of self-affirmation as a responsible person is one of
oppression (Freire, 2000, p. 55). Instead of advocating on behalf of your child, no matter how
he or she turns out, you cook up a formula that allows your child to fit into the mold. This denies
the child his or her right to dream.
The funny thing is, despite our tendency to react with disapproval regarding genetic
testing for personal gains such as breeding the perfect child, society as a whole doesnt do much
better when it comes to accepting diversity. There is certainly a formula for success that has been
engrained in our heads. It has become a mythical model that the bourgeoisie presents to the
people as the possibility for their own ascent (Freire, 2000, p. 147). Rather than letting people
define their own success and their own happiness, society defines it for them, and even makes
them think that theyre pursuing their own aspirations. Going far means completing a liberalarts education or earning top dollars in the corporate world. It is a fixed reality that denies the
possibility of other goals. It also takes away a childs right to learn through failures and mistakes.

10
UNDERDOG
A PERSON IN ADVERSITY OR IN A POSITION OF INFERIORITY
In How Children Succeed, Paul Tough describes the various trials and obstacles that
students, teachers, and schools from all over the country have had to face. Elizabeth Spiegel, a
tough chess coach, disciplines her students by telling them that you have to separate yourself
from your mistakes or your losses, because losing is something you do, not something you are
(Tough, 2012, p. 116). Theres nothing I love more than knowing about someone who, despite
all odds, triumphed because of his or her perseverance and strong will. People who make the
difficult and often painful choice to follow a better path, to turn away from what might have
seemed like their inevitable destiny, are inspirations to me (Tough, 2012, p. 197). Their stories
give me room to believe in the human factor and our capacity to overcome adversity. In fact,
theres something about rooting for the underdog that satisfies the heart.
However, I do believe that media has a tendency to romanticize the pitfalls of others by
crafting them akin to fairy tales. They are exaggerated, and they are not true to the original
person who had to face his or her fears. The moral of failure should not be putting others on
pedestals, as if they are somehow better than those who werent able to pull through. This just
makes them farther to reach. Rather, failure should be treated as simply another level on the
ladder to climb past. After all, people who reach the top are there only because someone helped
them take the first step (Tough, 2012, p. 197).
If losing is an action, not an embodiment of who you are, then why do we find ourselves
unable to explain the role of failure in nurturing growth? Why do we continue to put students
through competitions and rankings where losers are somehow below the winners without
giving them a reason to believe in this system? Are our instincts as biological creatures enforcing
the consequences of natural selection? Perhaps the same concept behind genetic testing applies

11
UNDERDOG
here too; maybe its in our nature to weed out the losers in order to provide the winners with
opportunities to move forward. Instead of encouraging students to think passionately about what
it is they want and how they will obtain it, the current education system forces them into our
stoic ideals of what being successful means. We want the strong to populate our governing
offices, while the weak are swept to the side. This is why losing continues to draw extreme
reactions from overprotective parents seeking to shield their children from this fake reality
theyve created for themselves.
However, true reality is really a process that is undergoing constant transformation,
and losing may very well be a natural part of life (Freire, 2000, p. 75). The real challenge isnt
avoiding setbacks, but finding out how to recover and move on from them. It means taking
failure in stride and knowing how to pick yourself up after a loss. It also means knowing when to
rely on others. Perhaps its time to start showing kids that this is okay, and is much more
valuable than memorizing facts.
A COMPETITOR THOUGHT TO HAVE LITTLE CHANCE OF WINNING A FIGHT
OR CONTEST
Regardless of what intelligence means and whether it is a fixed trait open to natural
selection or not, we know that evolution will always happen as long as those initial four
requirements are met. However, it is not the dominance of a trait that dictates its survival, but
rather the selective forces from the environment that decide how a population changes. Maybe
there is a way to use this to our advantage and move society away from clinging onto
meaningless definitions of intelligence and towards a new concept of success so that all
children benefit.

12
UNDERDOG
Lots of research on motivation theories and human psychology point towards having an
incremental learning mindset as a precursor to healthy outlooks on life. Failure is a common
experience for people of all ages, but different minds recover from it in a variety of ways. Some
bounce right back, while others dont recover at all. Is this due to the communicative
disconnection between teachers and students regarding what failing means? Phrases like hes a
delinquent or shes just not good at math are thrown back and forth. They only serve to
cement the preconception that certain abilities or traits are set in stone.
Phrases that are meant to promote positivity can also backfire. Praising someone by
saying shes an A student or that kid is a genius with natural talent also reinforces
concepts of fixed intelligence. Instead of using descriptors that focus on what a person is, we
should start using words that focus on what a person can become. Ground zero has always been
to be accepting of diversity in the first place. Changing the vocabulary used by society, however,
is the first step towards encouraging personal growth based on the assets you already have and
will gain along the way.
One day, technology may advance far enough for us to locate and pinpoint every single
gene in the human body. Perhaps we will eventually find out whether the population of Seattle
really is getting smarter. We might even be able to engineer children to be born with specific
skills, such as being proficient at calculations. By that time, I hope that the environment will
have changed to accept different perceptions of what success means. That way, selective forces
that initially preyed on arbitrarily defined traits will no longer be applicable to the population,
and all these questions wont matter anymore.

13
UNDERDOG
References
Epstein, David. (2013). The Sports Gene: Inside the Science of Extraordinary Athletic
Performance. New York, NY: Penguin Group.
Freire, Paulo. (2000). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York, NY: Continuum.
Tough, Paul. (2012). How Children Succeed. New York, NY: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.