Another take on "genius"?

http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/26/the-science-of-genius-a-qa-with-author-david-shenk/

Frank and I have been discussing these “genius” questions for awhile, though from his side at a much more sophisticated level (I read Gladwell’s “Outliers” while he read “The Cambridge Manual on Expertise”). This short Q&A gets at the basic ideas rather well.

Of course, Frank and I then take these ideas in different directions. I tend to think that these concepts supported the whole “engaged learning” paradigm (one element of which is Strengthsquest) because “anyone” can be a “genius” if you find the right ways to engage people’s interests and help direct their efforts. My understanding of Frank’s argument is that the engaged learning paradigm (especially the Strengthsquest version of it) can pigeon hole people too much in terms of which expression of “genius” should be fostered and how instead of focusing on the malleability of the possible paths people might take and the “directed feedback” process that seems to be at the heart of effective learning. I think Frank’s arguments are a misreading of what engaged learning in general and Strengthsquest in particular are about, but I can understand why people view these efforts this way.