Genius as a concept is notoriously difficult to define, and
sometimes it seems that only sex and politics attract more replies whenever the
subjects come up for discussion – and usually of an equally confused and/or opinionated
nature.
The word itself originates from the pagan belief in a
guardian or tutelary spirit said to watch over the individual from birth: their
“genius”. Later, the word started to be
used to refer to a “characteristic disposition”. The definition of the word that referred to a
person’s talent or ability appeared around the seventeenth century. It was not until the invention and widespread
use of psychometric testing that the word started being used to refer to a
person with a very high IQ[i]. Most dictionaries that carry this definition state
140 as the baseline level for a genius level IQ, but usually omit to say per
which test or scale.
Most online discussions I have run across tend to conclude
that genius is undefinable, but that “I know it when I see it!” I hope I am not alone in finding this
definition unsatisfactory.
In 1926 Catharine Cox Miles published her seminal work Genetic Studies of Genius: The Early Mental
Traits of Three Hundred Geniuses[ii]. While the work was thorough and ground
breaking for its time, the difficulty with only including famous geniuses is
that it raises questions as to how representative her subjects actually were of
geniuses in general. There is a
perception among the public that links genius to fame and fortune and vice
versa. I would argue that it is highly
unlikely that even a fraction of the geniuses that have ever lived attained the
levels of eminence of the subjects of the Cox study. The unfortunate corollary to the public
perception that genius=eminence is that when such status is not forthcoming, then the hapless
individual couldn’t have been all that in the first place, else he must have
self-sabotaged by having no social nous.
(I will leave aside for now arguments regarding motivation and finding
personal fulfilment in other ways.)
One of the most disheartening articles I ever read on the
subject of high intellectual ability was Rena F Subotnik’s paper A Developmental View of Giftedness: From
Being to Doing[iii]. While the author makes some good points, I am
disheartened at the theme running through the article that while a high IQ is
sufficient for the gifted label for a young child, an adolescent or adult is
expected to exhibit stellar public achievements in order to warrant the label. On the other hand, while I am not keen on the
way Linda K Silverman presents the argument from a female versus male
perspective, her article I’m Not Gifted,
I’m Just Busy at least articulates clearly the point that ability is inherent, while fame, recognition and
eminence are social constructs[iv].
Let’s examine why eminence is insufficient as a measure of
genius. Does the cream really always
rise to the top? Rather than choose
specific individuals’ stories (which usually only invites off-topic
nit-picking), I will keep the examples hypothetical.
Imagine, if you will, an individual who has all the ability
and drive to potentially equal the success of any of the subjects of the Cox
study. There are no fatal flaws in this
person’s character that might otherwise derail success, and we will assume no
weaknesses in social interaction that might cause him to be shunned. (I say “him”, but I wish to make it clear I
am not referring to a specific individual, and I need to pick a pronoun to
avoid grammatical clumsiness.) He goes
about his day, doing his genius thing and being productive. The only difference between him right now and
anyone on Cox’s list is the fact that they are known about and he is not. Is he a genius? Well, you might say, it is surely only a
matter of time. If he is really a
genius, there is still time for his work to be discovered and for him to be
propelled to fame and fortune.
Now let’s imagine that this individual lived 200 years ago,
and his life’s work was discovered locked in the drawer of an antique
bureau. Experts in his field are abuzz
with excitement, and are shocked at the fact that his work was never recognised
within his lifetime. Is he still a
genius? Obviously, since it is clearly
impossible for someone to “become” a genius after they are dead. It is just the world took a long time to
catch on.
Let’s take the scenario a step further. Imagine that instead of the old bureau being
found and unlocked and the documents falling into appreciative hands, the house
clearers take the whole lot to landfill and the person’s work never sees the
light of day again. I remind you that
this person has all the same cognitive capacities and personal characteristics
of anyone on Cox’s list. Is he still a
genius?
We could roll back the scenario still further. Imagine instead of our hypothetical
individual being productive in a field where it was possible to write up his
life’s work with nothing more sophisticated than a pen and paper, the most that
he was ever able to produce were theories and proposals. Much of his desired productive output
remained unrealised because it required access to particular resources (such as
specialised equipment) that was not made available to him. Bear in mind that this individual is still
every bit as capable of ground-breaking concepts as anyone on the Cox
list. Is he still a genius?
Our hypothetical example could even go beyond mere neglect
and the individual’s extraordinary nature could have been actively fought and
resisted, right from early childhood.
Jealous family members, jealous teachers and other school staff,
opportunities denied and withheld right from the beginning before the person is
even old enough to have formulated a self-concept to protect, the outcome is
the same, and that is inappropriate exclusion.
I reiterate one more time that he otherwise still possesses all the same
cognitive and character traits as anyone on Cox’s list. Is he still a genius? I suggest that it would be rather perverse at
this stage to argue that he is not.
The point of these examples was, of course, to illustrate
how being recognised as a genius involves so many other factors that may be
well beyond the individual’s control.
This is why I suggest that we need a definition of genius that only
considers traits within the individual, and does not consider extraneous
variables such as public opinion, socio-economic status, or the current
societal definitions of “success”.
There are always those who make claims along the lines of “genius
will always find a way.” I would simply
put the question back to them: where is the proof of that? The geniuses we know about are simply the
ones that became famous. But fame does
not a genius make. There are always
going to be those whose seeming sole ability in life is in self-promotion. And of course once one has a modicum of
financial success in life, one can simply pay a publicist to do it all for
them.
To attempt to narrow down where a proposed definition of
genius should be looking, let us explore an interesting development in
psychology research that came to be known as the Cognitive Revolution.
For most of the early part of the twentieth century,
behaviourism dominated research in psychology.
Observing what an animal would do in response to a given stimulus was
considered more “scientific” than trying to make inferences about motivation,
thought processes, emotions, and so on.
Anything that could not be directly observed was simply filed by the
psychologists of the day into a proverbial black box. Very little was known about brain systems or
cognitive processes; hence the “solution” was simply to disregard the internal
workings of the mind.
That was all to change during the 1950s and 1960s, when a
number of papers and books were published examining the information processing
capacities of the mind, for example Miller’s paper on working memory capacity The Magical Number Seven, Plus or Minus Two[v],
Chomsky’s criticism of Skinner’s book Verbal
Behavior[vi],
Neisser’s book Cognitive Psychology[vii],
and the attention experiments of Cherry and Broadbent. The invention of the computer provided a
useful analogy: that of a system where information went in, was processed, and
came out. The information processing
model provided the foundation for a paradigm shift in psychological research.
So how does all this help us define genius? I believe that the way genius is commonly
perceived is still stuck in its behaviourist era. Using metrics such as wealth, prizes and
accolades won, the amount of words of biographical data written about them, and
so on, might be easy to measure but since not everyone starts life with the same availability of resources or social expectations, this method of operationalising genius is particularly prone to leading to both false negatives and false
positives. If one insists on treating life as a behaviourist experiment, paying attention only to behavioural outcomes, then the outcome variable measured (i.e. accomplishment in the Western socio-economic sense) can only be considered valid, reliable, and unbiased if all the other experimental variables are the same. Otherwise, it would be such a poor study design that if it were an actual paper submission, one could expect it to be summarily desk rejected!
But life is not fair or equal or constant, even in the most egalitarian societies, so rather than add to the ages-old argument about who gets access to resources, I propose instead choosing a different metric than material outcomes. What we need instead is a cognitive approach to formulating an operational definition for genius – a metric that focuses on how geniuses perceive the world and how their mental functions operate.
But life is not fair or equal or constant, even in the most egalitarian societies, so rather than add to the ages-old argument about who gets access to resources, I propose instead choosing a different metric than material outcomes. What we need instead is a cognitive approach to formulating an operational definition for genius – a metric that focuses on how geniuses perceive the world and how their mental functions operate.
The good news is that we do not need to start with a whole new field,
but can rather extend existing ones. There
is a long history of psychometric testing, measuring such cognitive processes
as working memory, vocabulary, quantitative reasoning, logical inferences, and
so on. Over 100 years of psychometric research and validation has given us reliable and valid measurement tools. With exciting developments in neuroscience and brain imaging, we are now closer than ever towards working out how differences in intelligence, creativity, and specific talents map onto neural functioning.
When we are able to use these tools, and perhaps other techniques that become available in the future, to investigate what underpins ability all the way up and down the possible range of human functioning, then we may begin to see what "genius" is using the relative objectivity of cognitive neuroscience. Once that is achieved, then it is a matter for society's conscience whether it provides geniuses (in the cognitive sense) the necessary social platform etc. to do something world changing with their gifts. But even if it doesn't, and their extraordinary potential, wasted by society, goes with them to the grave, then they will still be a genius, because genius will have had its cognitive revolution.
When we are able to use these tools, and perhaps other techniques that become available in the future, to investigate what underpins ability all the way up and down the possible range of human functioning, then we may begin to see what "genius" is using the relative objectivity of cognitive neuroscience. Once that is achieved, then it is a matter for society's conscience whether it provides geniuses (in the cognitive sense) the necessary social platform etc. to do something world changing with their gifts. But even if it doesn't, and their extraordinary potential, wasted by society, goes with them to the grave, then they will still be a genius, because genius will have had its cognitive revolution.
[ii] Cox, C.
M. "Genetic studies of genius: The early mental traits of three hundred
geniuses". 2. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
[iii] Subotnik,
R. F. (2003). A developmental view of giftedness: From being to doing. Roeper
Review, 26, 14–15.
[iv]
Silverman, L.K. (2005). I’m not gifted, I’m just busy: unrecognized giftedness
in women. Retrieved from: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.579.7363&rep=rep1&type=pdf
[vi] Chomsky,
N. (1959). "Review of Verbal Behavior, by B.F. Skinner". Language.
35: 26–57.
[vii] Neisser,
U (1967) Cognitive Psychology Appleton-Century-Crofts, New York.
No comments:
Post a Comment