David the Dandelion
I might have four orchid varients among the Big Ten, my wife might have two, and my brother five. So everyone -- if this isn't getting too cute -- some orchid in him and quite a bit of dandelion. So it's not that a person is either plastic or not. The malleability runs along a spectrum, and is a matter of hue as well as intensity. And the consequences of that malleability, of course, depend heavily on experience, context, etc. But the more malleable folks are shaped more dramatically by their experience and react more dramatically, in temperament and behavior, than the less malleable.
But what exactly is more plastic and reactive in orchids? Is this the same plasticity we talk of when we talk about learning and the mastery of skills and expertise? One is temperamental plasticity; the other is cognitive plasticity. There is surely some overlap.
But at least by the terms of this orchid or sensitivity hypothesis, the genetic underpinnings and dynamics of temperamental plasticity are not those of cognitive plasticity. So I am not suggesting -- and I don't believe those working up this hypothesis suggest -- that those with so-called dandelion genes are destined to a hearty mediocrity. Rather, the hypothesis asserts that, as with orchids, a dandelion's ultimate endpoint and accomplishments will be determined by a complex mixture of temperament and cognitive and other skills -- but the dandelion's path to wherever will likely be bit steadier and less likely pushed up or down by great or horrible fortune.
Shenk retreats to his corner to tape a small cut. Tosses away gloves, pulls out sword: Before I dig in again, I want to first repeat that I applaud you for exploring the dimensions of this new hypothesis and working to translate it to public consciousness. When you discuss stuff like multigenic effects and temperamental plasticity, and describe genes as "shaping" rather than causing, and talk about the spectrum of effects, you are conveying some very important nuances about how genes actually work. Even though many scientists understand this stuff, the public has no real clue, and a shocking number of science writers are so far resistant to abandon outdated metaphors and determinist phrases.
I have to be honest that I'm not entirely sold on all particulars of the nuanced science you're conveying. But that's for another forum, and for time and more studies to clarify. What I want to focus on here is what I see as the only serious problem with your message, which is your metaphor as you are currently using it.
And I have a specific suggestion about how to fix what I perceive as the problem. You say above that every metaphor has its limits, and I completely agree. Metaphors can only be used to convey a basic essence; on closer inspection, the analogy to the more complex reality never holds. I have no intention of holding you to an unrealistic standard. My problem is with the essence of your metaphor as you are using it. In your Atlantic piece, the very purpose of the metaphor is to convey that there are two distinct types of kids, the orchids who have much temperamental plasticity and the dandelions who have little.
The very first line in the piece is, "Most of us have genes that make us as hardy as dandelions. So this is my plea, as you begin expanding this into a book: Instead, apply it only to the genetic ingredients in people. I realize this approach has less literary cachet, and may constrain your evolutionary argument. But it also doesn't build in a dramatic misperception from the get-go. I can understand your problems with my message and the metaphor -- and I may or may not yet change either the way I use this orchid-dandelion comparison or use something else. That said, I'm not convinced the problems are as serious as you think.
Editorial Reviews
I could be wrong about this, of course, and would love to hear what other readers think -- if very many are confused, thrown off, etc. First, the metaphor is used in the Atlantic piece not primarily to distinguish between stable dandelions and more plastic orchids, but to use that admittedly stark possibly overly stark?
The reactive and less reactive replace the vulnerable and the resilient. As to the first words of the piece: The passage you quote is actually a sort of deck to the article, added by the editors.
Follow the Author
It is a bit misleading, and arguably too stark and absolute, and if I had to do it over again, I would have changed the language there so it was less so. I failed to because it was added very late in the going, and I didn't examine it hard enough amid my concentration on reviewing again the story and some last-minute changes in it. My bad; I can see how it frames the metaphor as you say, very A or B.
That said, I think most people recognize that decks or editorial synposes, like titles, contain some oversimplification, and that readers need to see the article for the full story. More important, I think most people accept contrasting terms such as orchid v dandelion, when used to refer to people, as types that represent either end of a spectrum. That's the case when we talk of extroverts and introverts, for instance; we use those terms all the time, and everyone understands that we're talking about people on one half of spectrum or another.
Likewise, I'd guess, with orchids and dandelions. There's obviously a danger if a writer presents these outright as distinct types with no overlap. You seem to feel I've done so; possibly so. I think if a writer provides the fuller story behind a contrast like this, most readers understand that the shorthand refers to types at either end, not two mutually exclusive categories with no overlap. That said, I'm pondering this and will continue to consider whether the orchid-dandelion scheme is the best way to denote this difference in temperament.
A metaphor or distinction like orchid versus dandelion can have great value in giving people a concise image or idea around which to gather a broader and more complex idea; the many, many readers who have reacted strongly and with good understanding of this story -- readers who get its essence quite clearly -- makes me think the orchid-dandelion contrast has that value here. At the same time, that strength is a weakness whoa! Though most of the misunderstanding seems to come from people who have not actually read the article. Before deciding whether to abandon the orchid-dandelion language, I've love to get a better sense of that balance that is, how many readers it worked well for and how many it misled -- and to consider as well how a book-length treatment might overcome any shortcomings.
In any case, your cautions and criticisms rise from healthy concerns, and while I'm not sure we'll meet more than halfway, I value the prod, the critique, and the attention to subtleties of language, whether in title, flap copy, or text. With luck, readers will chime in and give us both a better read on how well the orchid-dandelion distinction works for them. Both men collapse on floor. Medics rush in with protein smoothies and the latest issue of Nature Genetics.
Alas, I don't think the default is to view introverts and extroverts as two ends of a continuum, although it obviously should be. You'll probably need to be more explicit, as you were here, and discuss multiple genes, to get the point across efficiently. That said, unless Shenk has another analogy that better suggests the continuous variable aspect, I don't think you need to chuck the orchid-dandelions. Though one wonders where hydrangeas come in It doesn't have to be a binary or a continuum: A problem with the orchid and dandelion image, most people don't know that much about orchids.
Dandelion (American band)
Orchids are thought of as picky and difficult plants, not really as being plastic and adaptive although they are actually very easy houseplants. Also, aren't dandelions quite responsive to their environment? And they are fun and you can eat them. There has to be more than 10 genes that influence the human psyche. And its not really accurate to classify each allele of such genes as steady or adaptive even on a continuum. There is an infinite variety of possible circumstances to respond to, and our current ideas about these genes are based on very limited data.
And what about epigenetics and all the rest? Anyway, fantastic to use a human as flower image, we could use more acknowledgment of flowers. Don't know if I'm doing this right, but I want to say that the Dobbs-Shenk exchange was most enjoyable, and Dobbs wins on points! Please do keep the flower metaphor, delimiting and qualifying it as you have done very well so far, and it'll continue to be a very useful shorthand and reference point for usall.
I like the metaphor, but I agree with Becca that many to most people don't tend to think along spectrums, but in binaries. It needs to be made very explicit that the number of genes is quite large and not nearly so fixed in their varying levels of plasticity, and that we're talking about a truly rainbow sort of gradient.
One could have many orchid genes leading to greater plasticity related to depression and anxiety and a handful of other things , and be described as an orchid blue, while another could have only the genes related to depression with high plasticity and be described as a dandelion blue, and so on. I think that there may be evidence that mechanisms similar to those you described in humans the SERT gene and it's effect on serotonin metabolites are also important in some very adaptive species like domestic dogs. I consider myself an educated logical thinker, but do not come from a scientific background.
My mother and my aunt were raised in the same horrible circumstances.
- The Boy and The Monster;
- Navigation menu.
- Beziehungen mal anders (German Edition).
My aunt is a productive, functioning person. Your article was enlightening and let me see that there was a basis for what I have observed. My understanding and interpretation simplified from your article is that my aunt has enough of the dandelion's ability to thrive despite her environment and my mom needed more fertilizer in order to do well in that same environment and didn't get it.
I'm a lay reader of the original article. Had no trouble seeing beyond the surface simplicity of the metaphor. I saw it as an elegant corrective to the cultural bias against various minority traits associated with fragility.
Metaphors always have limits; most adults should understand that intuitively. A really great metaphor challenges us to see something in a new way, make new connections, and think more deeply. This metaphor was engaging because it really illuminates our assumptions and turns them upside down. That said, I can see how the metaphor would rub wrong for some.
No one wants to think of themselves or, even worse, their child as a "weed" in need of eradication. I wonder if dandelions the plant are so reviled in Sweden, where the metaphor is part of folk wisdom? Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.
Main navigation
April Learn how and when to remove this template message. Retrieved from " https: Alternative rock groups from Pennsylvania Grunge musical groups Musical groups established in Musical groups disestablished in Musical groups from Philadelphia. Articles lacking sources from April All articles lacking sources Articles with hCards All articles with unsourced statements Articles with unsourced statements from September Wikipedia articles with MusicBrainz identifiers.
Views Read Edit View history.
This page was last edited on 20 November , at By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Alternative rock Hard rock Grunge Heavy metal. Ruffhouse Records Columbia Sony.