Welcome to the legendary father of wisdom blog!: Genius!
My name is Samuel M Lee, and I was the leading figure of wisdom for 18 years. This is a website that is ran by your donations!
The Science of Genius
It is hypothesised that outstanding creativity in all domains may stem from shared attributes and a common process of discovery.
The identification of genius is an uncertain undertaking. For instance, consider the following ranking of "The Top 10 Geniuses" that was recently encountered on Listverse.com. The honourees, listed in order of merit, are as follows: The following list comprises a selection of notable individuals in the field of mathematics and science: Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, Leonardo da Vinci, Emanuel Swedenborg, Gottfried Wilhelm von Leibniz, John Stuart Mill, Blaise Pascal, Ludwig Wittgenstein, Bobby Fischer, Galileo Galilei and Madame De Staël.
The question of whether Albert Einstein or Swedenborg is the more appropriate figure is an intriguing one. It can be argued that a number of living individuals might also be deserving of this appellation. For example, Stephen Hawking. It is conceivable that a female genius, such as Marie Curie or Toni Morrison, might be considered a suitable candidate. If a chess champion, Fischer, is deemed worthy, then other geniuses outside the arts and sciences ought to be considered. Candidates could include Napoleon Bonaparte as a military genius, Nelson Mandela as a political genius, or Bill Gates as an entrepreneurial genius.
The range of questions and their potential answers can provide a rich source of material for stimulating conversation at social gatherings. The findings indicate a significant gap in our understanding of the origins of intellectual and creative eminence. Investigations of this enduring debate have historically sought to identify the common characteristics of geniuses operating within diverse domains. The existence of unifying threads, including genetic factors, unusually broad interests and a link with psychopathy, suggests that the mind of a genius has a discernible shape and disposition.
The objective of this study is to provide a comprehensive analysis of the thought processes that culminate in a prominent intellectual achieving a transformative epiphany, which may take the form of several such revelations. Whilst such breakthroughs may appear to occur instantaneously, the underlying mechanisms are likely to be considerably more orderly. According to a theory that was developed with assistance, a genius may be observed to pursue a solution to a problem in a wide-ranging manner, often without a clear sense of direction. This approach involves navigating through various dead ends and making repeated detours before ultimately arriving at the optimal solution. Should this line of research prove to be valid, it may then be possible to investigate the cultivation of genius, with the potential to generate a plethora of novel concepts for the benefit of all.
The Meaning of Genius
The primary challenge in the study of genius is the establishment of a definitive definition. The term itself is rooted in ancient Roman mythology, which held that every male was born with a unique genius that served as a guardian angel, and every female had a juno. Subsequently, following the Renaissance, the term came to be employed in a more exclusive manner, with only a select few individuals being regarded as geniuses. For instance, the renowned philosopher Immanuel Kant propounded the concept of genius as an individual who produces works that are both original and exemplary. The term did not acquire its scientific meaning until the late 19th century, when psychologists began to define genius in two distinct ways.
The initial approach adopted was to identify genius through the examination of exceptional achievement, as espoused by Kant. Such achievements are met with admiration and emulation from their peers and, in many cases, the general public. Exemplary works that embody this principle include Newton's Principia, Shakespeare's Hamlet, Tolstoy's War and Peace, Michelangelo's Sistine Chapel frescoes, and Beethoven's Fifth Symphony. While this definition can be extended to encompass extraordinary leadership, such as military brilliance, and prodigious performance, including some chess grandmasters, the majority of scientific research concentrates on outstanding creativity within the sciences or the arts, which will also be the focus here.
The second definition of genius coincided with the emergence of intelligence tests in the first half of the 20th century. The term 'genius' was originally coined by psychologist Lewis Terman, the formulator of one of the original intelligence tests, to denote an individual who scored in the top 1 percent on a standard IQ test, typically achieving a score above 140. These two definitions bear little resemblance to each other. It is evident that a considerable number of individuals with exceptionally high IQs do not consistently demonstrate original and exemplary accomplishments. For instance, Marilyn vos Savant has been documented as having the highest recorded IQ of any living person, a fact that was recognised by the Guinness Book of World Records. Marilyn's regular "Ask Marilyn" column, which appeared on a Sunday newspaper supplement, did not contribute to the development of a new genre in science, art or journalism. Furthermore, it is notable that many individuals who demonstrate exceptional abilities do not exhibit genius-level IQs. For instance, William Shockley, who received a Nobel Prize in Physics for his contribution to the invention of the transistor, had an IQ score well below 140. Consequently, exceptional achievement can be regarded as the more useful measure.
In popular discourse, genius is often conceptualised as a discrete category, with the understanding that an individual may be a genius in some domains yet not in others. As with intelligence quotient, however, there is considerable variation in the extent of creative achievement. Some individuals produce a single significant work, whereas others produce a lifetime's work of considerable merit. An exemplar of this phenomenon is Gregor Mendel, who achieved lasting fame for a solitary paper that reported his seminal experiments in genetics. Had Mendel not dedicated himself to the study of plant breeding, his name would be unknown today. In contrast, Charles Darwin's renown is largely attributable to his seminal work, On the Origin of Species, and the broader scope of his scientific contributions. Nobel laureate Max Born once remarked that Einstein "would be considered one of the most eminent theoretical physicists in history even if he had not contributed any writings on the subject of relativity." Consequently, Darwin and Einstein were regarded as exhibiting greater genius than Mendel. Consequently, a significant proportion of research is dedicated to the assessment of relative degrees of genius, most often measured by creative productivity.
The following essay will explore the origins of genius.
The identification of the sources of consummate creativity has been a matter of interest for philosophers and scientists for centuries. In 1693, the English poet John Dryden asserted that genius is an innate quality that cannot be acquired through instruction. Two and a half centuries later, the French author Simone de Beauvoir countered this with the assertion that genius is not an innate quality, but rather a developed trait. The inaugural scientific inquiry dedicated exclusively to the phenomenon of genius addressed precisely this issue. In 1869, Francis Galton published Hereditary Genius, in which he advanced the argument that genius is an innate trait. This assertion was based on his observations that individuals considered to be geniuses tended to emerge from lineages that included other individuals of similar intellectual aptitude. In response to the aforementioned criticisms, Galton subsequently introduced the well-known nature-nurture issue. A survey was conducted on renowned English scientists with the objective of identifying the environmental variables that contribute to the cultivation of intellectual excellence. The study encompassed a range of factors, including birth order and educational attainment.
By the mid-20th century, psychologists had adopted an extreme nurture position, according to which creative genius was considered to depend exclusively on the acquisition of domain expertise. This notion was frequently articulated as the "10-year rule." It was widely accepted that achieving a high level of creativity required the mastery of the relevant knowledge and skills. This was due to the prevailing belief that only experts were capable of creating. Indeed, it is evident that Einstein accumulated a substantial foundation of knowledge in physics prior to embarking on his creative endeavours.
Nevertheless, this explanation is unable to account for all the details. Firstly, it is evident that individuals with high intelligence often invest less time in acquiring domain expertise than their less intellectually gifted colleagues. A plethora of studies have established a correlation between accelerated acquisition and long, prolific, and high-impact careers. The 10-year rule is an average, with significant variation around the mean. Furthermore, significant advancements frequently emerge in domains where the genius is compelled to establish the requisite expertise from the ground up. The concept of telescopic astronomy did not exist prior to Galileo's observation of the night sky using his newly developed instrument, which revealed celestial phenomena that were previously unobserved and unanticipated. It has been observed that the moon is characterised by the presence of mountains, while Jupiter is distinguished by the presence of moons, and the sun exhibits spots.
Secondly, individuals identified as geniuses are more likely to demonstrate a broad range of interests and hobbies, often displaying exceptional versatility that extends across multiple domains of expertise. This tendency was not exclusive to the Renaissance period; it is also evident in the contemporary era. A 2008 study revealed that Nobel laureates in science exhibit a greater level of engagement with the arts when compared to scientists of a lower rank. It is reasonable to hypothesise that individuals considered to be geniuses do not sleep any less than the general population; therefore, it can be posited that these extraneous activities may serve to distract from a dogged focus on a narrow field of interest. Einstein's sleep duration exceeded the typical range, yet he allocated time for musical pursuits, engaging in violin performances that featured the compositions of Bach, Mozart and Schubert. Occasionally, these activities pursued for personal enjoyment can yield significant insights. It is hypothesised that Galileo's proficiency in visual arts, particularly the utilisation of chiaroscuro in the depiction of light and shadow, contributed to his ability to discern lunar mountains.
The expertise acquisition theory is also said to undervalue the genetic components that underlie a large number of cognitive abilities and personality traits that correlate with genius. A recent meta-analysis revealed that a minimum of 20 percent of the variance in creativity could be ascribed to natural environments. For instance, creative accomplishment has been demonstrated to be intimately linked with the personality trait of openness to experience, a characteristic that is known to be highly heritable. The broad interests in art and music exhibited by many geniuses are clear manifestations of this trait. It is notable that a considerable number of additional predictors of achievement also exhibit high heritabilities, including cognitive and behavioural flexibility, in addition to tolerance of ambiguity and change.
It is possible that nurture may still account for the majority of genius, and mastery of a domain remains central. Concurrently, genetics exerts a substantial influence on the rate at which individuals acquire the requisite skills and knowledge. Those who possess a higher degree of innate talent are able to improve more rapidly, launch their careers at an earlier stage and achieve greater productivity. Furthermore, genetics may offer a potential explanation for the divergent outcomes observed among individuals who have undergone equivalent training regimens. While Einstein's knowledge of physics may not have been as extensive as that of his contemporaries, his insights were nonetheless significant. He could honestly assert that imagination is more important than knowledge.
These factors represent a small sample of the influences that shape the potential for genius. It should be noted that the impact of genes on genius may have been understated.
Madness and Magnificence
The question of whether the biological endowment of genius is accompanied by significant setbacks has long been a source of fascination for researchers. The eminent Greek philosopher Aristotle is reputed to have made the following observation: "Those who have become eminent in philosophy, politics, poetry and the arts have all had tendencies toward melancholia." This concept gained significant traction during the 19th and 20th centuries, primarily among psychiatrists and psychoanalysts. It is a well-documented fact that a number of eminent writers, including Virginia Woolf, Anne Sexton and Sylvia Plath, have taken their own lives. Van Gogh also exhibited similar tendencies, having previously amputated a portion of his ear and intended to present it to a prostitute. Newton was known to experience periods of extreme paranoia, while Galileo, who may have been suffering from alcoholism, was frequently bedridden and grappling with depression. Nevertheless, a considerable number of psychologists have advanced the argument that such cases represent exceptions to the rule rather than the norm. In contemporary positive psychology, creative genius is regarded as a human strength or virtue.
The present study is an update of the author's 2005 review of the literature on the subject, which summarised studies employing a variety of methodologies. The new review finds that the association between genius and mental illness has considerable strength. It has been demonstrated that individuals who are considered to be highly creative tend to achieve higher scores on the psychopathology-related sections of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory, a personality assessment instrument that has gained widespread acceptance. A study that utilised an alternative instrument, the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire, discovered that individuals in the top creative echelons, along with high-impact psychologists, exhibited elevated scores on the test's psychoticism scale. This finding suggests that these individuals may possess egocentric, cold, impulsive, aggressive and tough-minded tendencies, among other characteristics. Finally, highly eminent scientists demonstrate higher scores on sections of the Cattell 16 Personality Factor Questionnaire that are indicative of withdrawn, solemn, internally preoccupied, precise and critical tendencies. It is evident that those who demonstrate high levels of performance are not a typical demographic.
The results of the present study are corroborated by the findings of psychiatric studies. The rate and intensity of certain psychopathic symptoms, such as depression and alcoholism, are noticeably higher in very creative individuals than in the general population. Research also suggests that these divergent thinkers are more likely to come from family lines at higher risk for psychopathology. It is important to note that while an extraordinary innovator may be considered "normal", this does not necessarily imply that their family members share the same perspective.
In accordance with these findings, in 2009, Szabolcs Kéri, a psychiatrist at Semmelweis University in Hungary, identified a genetic basis for both creativity and psychosis in a variant of the Neuregulin 1 gene. In this study, Kéri recruited a group of highly creative individuals and found that the participants who had this specific gene variant, which is linked with an increased risk of developing a mental disorder, also scored higher on measures of creativity.
However, it is important to note that in cases of out-and-out psychosis, there is a possibility of a shutdown of creative genius. This tragic reality was dramatically illustrated in the 2001 film A Beautiful Mind, the biopic about Nobel laureate John Forbes Nash and his struggles with schizophrenia. The financial and emotional costs of psychological dysfunction are also immediately apparent in the art of the mentally ill, as evidenced by the works preserved in the Prinzhorn Collection in Heidelberg, which were created by psychiatric patients in the early 20th century. It is rare to encounter works of art that exhibit the hallmarks of genius. As Dryden himself once observed, "Wits are sure to madness near allied, and thin partitions do their bounds divide."
Recent research conducted by Shelley Carson, a psychologist at Harvard University, and her colleagues has sought to identify these thin partitions. The present study hypothesises that creative achievement is positively associated with both cognitive disinhibition, defined as openness to extraneous ideas, images or stimuli, and higher intelligence and greater working memory. These mental capacities have the potential to mitigate the adverse effects of disinhibition and redirect them towards more beneficial outcomes. This synergy may constitute the cognitive basis for serendipity. It is evident that not all individuals possess the capacity to discern the profound implications of such mundane occurrences as water overflowing from a bathtub or an apple falling from a tree. However, it is evident that Archimedes and Newton did indeed make significant contributions to the field. For further insight into the relationship between creativity and eccentricity, readers are directed to consult Shelley Carson's "The Unleashed Mind" (Scientific American Mind, May/June 2011).
The following essay will explore the notion of thinking outside the box.
It is noteworthy that both Archimedes and Newton were engaged in scientific pursuits, which suggests the potential for a parallel between their respective modes of creativity. A more illuminating question might be to investigate how their route to original thought compares with that of a superlative writer or musician. The cognitive processes of a physicist bear little resemblance to those of a painter. To illustrate this point, it is pertinent to consider the utility of learning to solve a differential equation for a painter, which is comparable to the utility of learning linear perspective for a physicist. In both cases, the utility is negligible. However, the themes uniting these geniuses, as discussed earlier, suggest the existence of a common creative principle. Domain expertise, such as the knowledge of advanced problem-solving strategies, supports thinking that is routine, even algorithmic. It does not inherently lead to the generation of novel, useful and surprising ideas. It is imperative to consider the factors that enable an individual to transcend conventional boundaries and training, thereby attaining the pinnacle of genius.
According to a theory proposed in 1960 by the psychologist Donald Campbell, creative thought emerges through a process or procedure he termed blind variation and selective retention (BVSR). In summary, it can be posited that creators must experiment with ideas that may not be successful before achieving a breakthrough. Campbell did not provide a precise definition of what constitutes a blind variation, nor did he delve deeply into the psychological underpinnings of this process. Consequently, his ideas were subject to critical scrutiny.
The development of BVSR as a comprehensive theory of creative genius in all domains has been the focus of my research over the past 25 years. This endeavour has involved a multifaceted approach, encompassing historical analyses, laboratory experiments, computer simulations, mathematical models and case studies. The blindness of BVSR can be defined as the process of generating ideas without considering their eventual utility. The creator must engage in a process of trial and error or generation and testing in order to determine the worth of an idea. Two common phenomena that characterise BVSR thinking are superfluity and backtracking. The concept of superfluity pertains to the generation of a multitude of ideas by the creator, where one or more of these ideas ultimately prove to be futile. The concept of backtracking in software development signifies the necessity for creators to return to previous approaches after proceeding erroneously in a divergent direction. The phenomena of superfluity and backtracking have frequently been observed to occur in conjunction within the same creative episode. Exploration of an erroneous path necessitates a re-evaluation of previously discarded options.
The reflections of Hermann von Helmholtz, a prolific physicist with numerous creative breakthroughs to his name, capture this process of discovery:
In order to provide a relevant example, it is necessary to compare the situation to that of an Alpine climber. The climber, not knowing the way, ascends slowly and with great effort, and is often compelled to retrace his steps because his progress is stopped; sometimes by reasoning, and sometimes by accident, he hits upon traces of a fresh path, which again leads him a little further; and finally, when he has reached the goal, he finds to his annoyance a royal road on which he might have ridden up if he had been clever enough to find the right starting point at the outset.
This account of venturing blindly into uncharted territory and retracing steps resonates with evidence from other eminent creators. As Einstein once remarked, "If we knew what we were doing, we wouldn't call it research."
In order to observe the concepts of superfluity and backtracking in practice, one need only consider the sketches that Pablo Picasso produced in preparation for his 1937 Guernica painting. It is evident that certain sketches, such as those numbered 19 and 22 on the opposite page, depict a human head superimposed on a bull's body, and thus can be considered "superfluous". However, Picasso soon discovered that this was a dead end and retraced his steps to an earlier bull's head drawing (15), before continuing to the final two sketches (26 and 27). It is evident that the artist initially proceeded in a certain direction with the previous sketch, subsequently deviating from this course. Of particular interest is the fact that, following the completion of the final sketch, Picasso made significant changes to his earlier formulations (11), with the result that the final version shares the most unique features with the earlier version. These include the widely separated eyes, the thin-lipped open mouth with tongue, the menacing rather than inert visage and the Cubist rather than neoclassic style. These sketches are representative of blind variations, a phenomenon that has been observed in both the arts and the sciences.
It is only through the execution of further research that the theory can be expanded into a comprehensive, predictive model whose claims can be thoroughly tested. Nevertheless, BVSR can facilitate comprehension of specific idiosyncrasies associated with the creative genius, encompassing their personality traits and developmental experiences. Despite devoting a substantial amount of time to attaining expertise in this domain, individuals also engage in other recreational activities. Their openness to new ideas and their breadth of interests infuse them with seemingly irrelevant stimulation that can enrich blind variations.
As the 19th-century German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer observed, "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; genius hits a target no one else can see." It has been demonstrated that individuals who are able to think in an exceptional manner have a tendency to share a number of similarities when embarking upon the process of exploring the unknown.
How to spot a genius
In the contemporary era of artificial intelligence, the human species is becoming increasingly significant.
The term 'genius' is employed in the field of psychology to denote an individual who exhibits remarkable intellectual prowess.
Definitions of genius in terms of intelligence quotient (IQ) are based on research originating in the early 1900s. In 1916, the American psychologist Lewis M. Terman established the intelligence quotient (IQ) for "potential genius" at 140 and above, a level exhibited by approximately one in every 250 people. Leta Hollingworth, a psychologist from the United States, conducted research on the nature and nurture of genius. She proposed an IQ of 180 as the threshold score, theorising that this level is exhibited by only approximately one in every two million people. Her contributions in this domain were published posthumously as Children Above 180 IQ, Stanford-Binet: Origin and Development (1942).
However, psychologists specialising in the study of gifted children have observed that the designation of genius occurs with a frequency that exceeds expectations. This has led to speculation that a "bump" has emerged in the normal curve, indicating that the prevalence of geniuses in the general population may exceed statistical expectations. It is conceivable that conventional intelligence tests may lack the capacity to effectively assess intellectual ability beyond a certain threshold. In any event, the term 'genius', as determined by these tests, simply denotes an elevated degree of intellectual ability and signifies potential rather than actual attainment. In this sense, the term may be used to characterise children who have not yet had an opportunity to gain eminence by achievement. A growing and arguably more pragmatic approach is to categorise children of this nature as "gifted" and to establish a distinction between profoundly gifted children, those occupying the upper 0.1 percent of the general population, and moderately gifted children, those in the upper 10 percent of the population.
The term 'genius' is employed in two closely related yet somewhat divergent senses. In the first sense, as popularised by Terman, it refers to the possession of great intellectual ability as measured by performance on a standardised intelligence test. In the second and more popular sense, as derived from the work of 19th-century English scientist Sir Francis Galton, the term refers to creative ability of an exceptionally high order, as demonstrated by actual achievement. However, it should be noted that this achievement must not be merely of transitory value or the result of an accident of birth.
The distinction between genius and talent is both quantitative and qualitative in nature. Talent is defined as a native aptitude for a specific type of work, suggesting that it is acquired relatively quickly and easily, resulting in the development of a particular skill within a particular domain. Conversely, genius is defined by originality, creativity, and the capacity to conceptualise and operate within domains that have remained unexplored, thereby conferring upon the world a contribution of incalculable value that would otherwise remain unexistent.
A plethora of attempts have been made to explicate the nature and provenance of genius, in addition to innumerable investigations of the relationship between genius and madness. Galton, who is widely regarded as the progenitor of the systematic study of genius, advanced the theory that genius constitutes an extreme degree of three interwoven traits: intellect, zeal, and the capacity for work. These traits, according to Galton, are inherent to all individuals across a spectrum of "grades." In his seminal work Hereditary Genius (1869), he advanced the notion that genius, as gauged by exceptional achievement, exhibits a propensity to be transmitted within familial lines. This viewpoint has proven to be controversial, and since its introduction, the scientific community has been divided in its assessment of the extent to which biological heredity, as distinct from education and opportunity, is responsible for the significant disparities in achievement between individuals.
Furthermore, scholars have critiqued definitions of genius that exclude women, members of minority groups, and individuals lacking access to training and opportunities in the areas of human achievement typically measured, from the ranks of geniuses. This is despite the evident presence of extraordinary intellectual ability within these populations across various eras and cultures. The potential genius of an individual may remain unrecognised or underutilised as a result.
New ways of describing genius almost invariably incorporate the concepts of ability, creativity, mastery of a domain, and other personality traits such as autonomy and capacity for endurance. A seminal contemporary perspective within this field is the theory of multiple intelligences, which was developed by the American psychologist Howard Gardner. Gardner's classification system encompasses a minimum of eight distinct forms of intelligence. As with all human traits, these so-called "multiple intelligences" are thought to be distributed relatively evenly throughout a population. It is hypothesised that the genius is born with extraordinary capacities in at least one of these areas. The eight key intelligences proposed by Gardner can be utilised to demonstrate exceptional aptitude in specific domains. For instance, great writers are said to possess linguistic intelligence; brilliant scientists have been shown to have mathematical-logical intelligence; eminent artists display spatial-visual intelligence; great musicians are said to be born with musical intelligence; accomplished dancers have kinesthetic intelligence; great leaders excel in interpersonal intelligence; successful therapists have intrapersonal intelligence; and well-known explorers have naturalistic intelligence. To these categories, the American psychologist Robert A. Emmons added spiritual intelligence, as observed in prominent religious leaders. Neuropsychologists have sought to identify the physiological basis for these intelligences within the human brain. There has been a concerted effort to develop appropriate methods of assessing each of these capacities.
The Hungarian-born American psychologist Mihalyi Csikszentmihalyi has described the ways in which creativity and mastery of a domain are related to the development of genius. His study of eminent men and women demonstrated that significant creative accomplishment is contingent upon the attainment of mastery in specific skills and the accumulation of knowledge within a particular domain. The attainment of such competencies is contingent upon the provision of superlative training opportunities, complemented by access to distinguished educators and mentors. Concurrently, Csikszentmihalyi demonstrated a correlation between creative genius and "flow," a term denoting a state of mind in which the creative individual experiences a sense of challenge, timelessness, and oneness with the work at hand. Finally, in studying the personalities of prominent individuals, Csikszentmihalyi identified common attributes in their psychological makeup. One such characteristic is autonomy, which is necessary for working independently and for expressing novel or divergent points of view. Another example is endurance, which involves the ability to persist, to complete tasks, and to follow through. This is a characteristic that all true geniuses seem to have.
However, it is important to note that these qualities may also be associated with unique problems. Terman's research indicated that children with high general intelligence, categorised as "gifted" or "potential genius," exhibited superior physical and mental health, along with more effective emotional and social adjustment, in comparison to their peers. However, subsequent studies conducted by Hollingworth and others have revealed that profoundly gifted children may encounter a range of challenges associated with their marked deviation from their age-appropriate peers. Recent observers of the highly gifted have noted a variety of intrapsychic and interpersonal stressors that accompany the "asynchronous" development of geniuses.
This raises the intriguing question of how certain personality traits can promote extraordinary achievement, while simultaneously being associated with mental disorders. A notable example is that of the American mathematician and Nobel Prize winner John F. Nash, who published his seminal work on game theory in 1950 at the age of 22. He was subsequently appointed to a tenured professorship at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) in 1958, but bouts of mental illness compelled him to relinquish his faculty position the following year. Bipolar disorder, the most frequently diagnosed disorder among individuals deemed to be creative geniuses, is typified by extreme fluctuations in mood, from periods of elation to despondency. This condition has been particularly linked to individuals engaged in artistic, literary, musical, and entrepreneurial pursuits. The American psychiatrist Kay Jamison proposed that, despite the fact that the majority of individuals afflicted with this condition tend to be debilitated by it, there exists the possibility that the extreme energy levels and expansiveness characteristic of a moderate manic state may contribute to the extraordinary feats of productivity that are frequently exhibited by many geniuses. It has been demonstrated that even moderate degrees of depression, with its concomitant criticality (i.e. danger or risk), may enhance the capacity of geniuses to impose a rigorous evaluation of their work following a period of creative production. However, it appears that individuals with this disorder have predominantly experienced challenges rather than advantages.
It is a widely held view amongst scholars that genius is the result of a combination of hereditary and environmental factors. The potential for exceptional achievement may be hereditary, but the actualisation of this potential is also contingent, at least in part, on opportunity, training, mastery of a domain, capacity to experience flow, autonomy, endurance, and a combination of hereditary and socially influenced personality traits. For further reading on the subject, see the entry on gifted children and prodigies.
Intelligence quotient (abbreviated as IQ) is a number used to express the relative intelligence of a person. This test is one of a series of intelligence tests.
The original formulation of the intelligence quotient (IQ) involved the calculation of the ratio of mental age to chronological age, with the result multiplied by 100. Consequently, if a 10-year-old child exhibited an IQ score of 12/10 × 100, or 120, on the test, this would be indicative of a mental age equivalent to that of an average 12-year-old. In the event that the 10-year-old's mental age is 8, the child's intelligence quotient (IQ) would be 8/10 x 100, or 80. This calculation indicates that an average score is 100, where the mental age is equivalent to the chronological age. The assessment of mental age through calculation is a practice that is now largely obsolete. For further reading on this topic, see the works of Lewis Terman and Alfred Binet.
Innovation can be defined as the creation of a new way of doing something, whether the enterprise is concrete (e.g. the development of a new product) or abstract (e.g. the development of a new philosophy or theoretical approach to a problem). Innovation plays a pivotal role in the development of sustainable production and living methods. In both cases, it may be necessary to create alternatives to conventional ways of doing things that were developed before environmental consideration was central to most people's decision-making frameworks.
Innovation has been shown to play a pivotal role in both commercial success and scientific advancement, thus prompting substantial research endeavours to ascertain the specific working conditions that are conducive to the generation of valuable innovations. In general, scholars have observed that the optimal model for generating valuable knowledge about the empirical world (i.e., knowledge derived from observation and experimentation rather than theory or belief) is to nurture the efforts of numerous relatively autonomous specialists whose work is evaluated based on its inherent merits rather than on its alignment with pre-existing beliefs or established methodologies. This attitude is widely regarded as a foundational element in the establishment of modern scientific practice, a perspective that can be traced back to the 17th-century European intellectual landscape.
It is evident that a number of attitudes and practices from that period are also applicable to the promotion of contemporary scientific and technical innovation. Scientific or innovative contributions should be evaluated on the basis of objective criteria, such as the accuracy with which the contribution describes the world, and the efficiency with which it supersedes previous methods. The identity of the contributor, including their personal characteristics (such as race, gender, and nationality), should not influence the evaluation process. The dissemination of knowledge is of paramount importance in order to facilitate its application by others, thereby enhancing the collective level of knowledge. Furthermore, it is imperative that scientists act in a disinterested manner, seeking to increase knowledge rather than focusing purely on personal gain. Scientific claims cannot be made on the basis of authority but are open to challenge and should hold up under scrutiny. It is evident that certain principles of the aforementioned regulations have undergone a process of modification in the contemporary era. For instance, individuals do derive financial benefit from their own discoveries, whether in the form of holding patents or in the context of career advancement. However, the fundamental tenets of these regulations remain unaltered.
Scientific innovation
In his seminal work The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962), the American philosopher and historian Thomas Kuhn introduced the concept of normal science and episodes of scientific revolution. He defined normal science as the process of solving puzzles within the paradigms currently established for one's particular science. In the field of astronomy, for instance, the geocentric model prevailed for centuries, positing that the planets orbited around the Earth. This model gave rise to the development of intricate models and calculations aimed at elucidating the observed movements of the planets within this framework. In contrast, scientific revolutions entail the challenging or changing of prevailing paradigms, as evidenced by the work of the Polish astronomer Nicolaus Copernicus, who proposed a heliocentric universe in which the Earth and other planets orbited around the sun. The majority of scientific research undertaken within any given time period is considered to be conventional science, with researchers operating within a established framework that encompasses established methods, assumptions about nature, symbolic generations, and paradigmatic experiments. Even observations that appear to deviate from the prevailing paradigm will be accommodated within it (as planetary motion was for centuries in the geocentric model) or disregarded as anomalies. However, it is important to note that, at some point, the contradictions and anomalies may become too obvious and trigger a scientific revolution. A similar event occurred in Europe during the 16th century (although this was not recognised by a powerful social institution, the Catholic Church, until centuries later).
The majority of scientists and technical employees in the present day can be considered analogous to conventional scientists, whose efforts are directed towards the identification of practical applications or the elucidation of discrete areas of knowledge within a stipulated scientific paradigm. For instance, a significant proportion of scientists in the United States are employed by corporations and government agencies, and as a result, they are expected to operate within established models rather than challenging them. This discord between the scientist's aspiration for autonomy and the organisation's demand for pragmatic outcomes can impede innovation, which may ultimately yield significant advancements. One approach to addressing this issue is to have people specialise in either basic or applied science, with different evaluative criteria for each. Another is to allocate part of an organisation's budget to basic research that may challenge the existing paradigm rather than work within it.
Another conflict for scientists and technical employees, particularly those working in for-profit companies, is the tension between their desire to communicate their discoveries to others and their employers' desire to maintain confidentiality in order to protect their profitability. The underlying objective of patent law is to facilitate the realisation of both these objectives. The primary function of the patent system is to encourage scientific and technological innovation by allocating the exclusive right to profit from a discovery to the patent holder for a designated period. This patent holder may be an individual or an entity, such as a company or academic institution. Concurrently, the patent system ensures that the knowledge derived from these discoveries is disseminated to the broader public, facilitating the dissemination of knowledge and the advancement of science. The patent holder is entitled to sell or license the right for others to use their discoveries, and to collect fees from them.
The facilitation of innovation within organisational frameworks
Changes in organisational structure may not be as ostensibly momentous as scientific discoveries, yet they are nonetheless of equal significance in terms of promoting efficiency and productivity. For instance, an organisation may innovate in its operational processes or service delivery, thereby enhancing efficiency, reducing errors, and accelerating production times. In his seminal work, The Challenge of Innovating in Government (2006), Canadian political scientist Sandford Borins meticulously identifies several hallmark characteristics that typify organisations that have demonstrated remarkable success in the realm of innovation.
It is evident that senior management endorses innovation and provides leadership in this domain.
Individuals who demonstrate a commitment to innovation are often recognised and rewarded.
The organisation allocates resources with a specific focus on innovation, rather than relying on it as a standard practice.
The organisation prides itself on the diversity of its workforce and is receptive to ideas from outside the mainstream.
The organisational structure is characterised by a complex network of bureaucratic layers, facilitating the efficient dissemination and implementation of innovations.
The organisation is willing to experiment with different ways of doing things, with the understanding that not all will be successful.
Borins' observations reveal that certain characteristics exhibited by these entities are antithetical to those commonly observed in government organisations and companies. For instance, in many organisations, individuals who propose or implement innovations may be subjected to sanctions or dismissal, and the organisation may demonstrate a lack of interest in evaluating the practicality and usefulness of different concepts. Some organisations have a superficial commitment to innovation, insofar as they readily adopt whatever solution is currently in vogue. However, they do not demonstrate the requisite commitment to evaluate the usefulness of new ideas or to conduct any kind of measurement to ascertain whether they produce the desired results. It is evident that both of these approaches impede effective innovation (and, by extension, effective scientific progress) due to their foundation on received beliefs and authority, as opposed to empirical observation and testing.
The following examples are provided to illustrate industrial and technological innovation:
The term 'creative destruction' was coined by the Moravian-born American economist and sociologist Joseph Schumpeter to denote the process of economic transformation that occurs as a result of internal forces within the economy. He regarded entrepreneurs as pivotal in driving economic systems to perpetually evolve, as they possess the capacity to conceive novel goods and methods. The introduction of new products or methodologies invariably results in the disruption of existing marketplaces. To illustrate this point, consider the case of Montgomery Ward, a department store which, at one time a major retailer, ceased trading in 2001. This decline can be attributed, in part, to the erosion of its market share to competitors offering lower prices, such as Kmart and Walmart. In a similar manner, the instant-film camera produced by Polaroid enjoyed a period of popularity that extended over several decades. However, the company ceased production of this product when it was superseded by digital cameras. Schumpeter's perspective on the process of creative destruction was optimistic, believing it to be beneficial in the long term as it fosters economic growth and rewards innovation and improvement. Such experiences were informative to businesses, illustrating that individuals and corporations could also suffer when their particular skills or products were no longer demanded by the market.
The cooperation between manufacturers and other institutions, such as universities, has been identified as a key facilitator of innovation. In his work Biotechnology: The term 'university-industrial complex' was coined by the American sociologist Martin Kenney in 1986 to describe the flow of resources among universities (which provide knowledge and skilled labour), multinational corporations (that produce products), and venture capital firms (that provide financing to both research and production) in the biotechnology industry. It was observed that the majority of the research that formed the basis of the biotech industry was provided by scientists employed by universities. Furthermore, it was noted that scientists frequently transition between employment in academia and the corporate sector, and that numerous university graduate programmes have been established or expanded with the specific purpose of training students for the biotech industry. The development of the biotech industry was facilitated in large part by increased federal funding for science, with grants awarded on a competitive basis, rewarding innovation while also facilitating the creation of well-equipped research labs at universities as well as within corporations. It is evident that other scientific disciplines have also adopted the biotechnology model. The establishment of close relationships between academic institutions and corporate entities has become the prevailing norm, with numerous universities now establishing "technology transfer" offices to facilitate this process.
The influence of regional organisational methods on innovation is also a contributing factor. In the early 1990s, American regional planner and political scientist AnnaLee Saxenian conducted a study of the divergent trajectories of two regions formerly distinguished by their high-technology industry. The geographical areas under discussion are Silicon Valley, located in the south of San Francisco, California, and the Route 128 area, situated in the vicinity of Boston, Massachusetts. During the 1970s, both countries were recognised as pivotal hubs of innovation within the electronics industry, a phenomenon that was partly driven by university research and military expenditure. However, both nations experienced a decline in economic growth during the early 1980s. However, Silicon Valley experienced a recovery, largely driven by the emergence of new start-ups, such as Sun Microsystems, and the sustained success of established companies, including Intel and Hewlett-Packard (HP). Concurrently, companies based in Route 128, such as Wang Laboratories and Digital Equipment Corporation, ceased operations, while other regional companies underwent a decline. Entrepreneurial investment in Silicon Valley experienced a surge of $25 billion between 1986 and 1990, while the Route 128 area witnessed a mere $1 billion increase. By 1990, both Texas and southern California had eclipsed Route 128 as preeminent hubs for electronics production.
Saxenian attributes these differences to differing regional industrial organisation. Silicon Valley has been observed to have a network-based industrial system, characterised by dense social networks and open labour markets. This environment has been shown to promote experimentation and collective learning, enabling competitors to draw insights from each other's practices. The boundaries between individual companies and other institutions, such as universities, remained indistinct. In contrast, Route 128 was characterised by a small number of large, hierarchical firms with barriers to information sharing between different firms and between firms and other institutions. In comparison to the Route 128 manufacturers, Silicon Valley's network system demonstrated a superior capacity to adapt to change, as evidenced by its ability to recover from the loss of silicon chip manufacturing to Japan. The Route 128 manufacturers, however, exhibited an inability to respond effectively when the industry transitioned from minicomputers to workstations and personal computers. Saxenian (1994) argued that industrial organisation based on independent firms (the Route 128 model) can flourish when markets are stable and technology changes slowly because they can capitalise on economies of scale. However, in a rapidly changing industry, firms may find themselves saddled with obsolete technology and a workforce with outdated skills and are less able to access external sources of information (ibid.). Conversely, the regional network type of organisation exhibits greater flexibility in its response to change and is more adept at promoting collective technological advancement.
A gifted child is defined as any child who is naturally endowed with a high degree of general mental ability or extraordinary ability in a specific sphere of activity or knowledge. The attribution of the designation 'gifted' is largely a matter of administrative convenience. In the majority of countries worldwide, the predominant definition of intelligence quotient (IQ) is 130 or above. However, there has been an increasing tendency among educational institutions to utilise a multifaceted approach in the identification of gifted individuals, encompassing a broad spectrum of talents encompassing verbal, mathematical, spatial-visual, musical and interpersonal aptitudes.
In countries that have established specific provisions for the education of gifted pupils, the prevailing method of selection is typically through written tests. Although standard intelligence quotient (IQ) tests are the most commonly used means of identifying gifted children, other tests of both intelligence and creativity are also employed. It is acknowledged that tests vary widely in their validity and reliability for different age groups and cultures; therefore, fair identification procedures always take into account a wide variety of behaviours that may be indicative of giftedness.
There is a general consensus that gifted children differ from their peers in ways other than intellectual ability alone. Evidence of this phenomenon was first identified by the American psychologist Lewis M. Terman, who in 1921 initiated a study of more than 1,500 children with IQs above 140. In the course of the study, Terman (1959) observed that, as the participants advanced in age, the gifted group demonstrated a greater drive to achieve, in addition to more effective mental and social adjustment, in comparison with the non-gifted children. In another early 20th-century study, which focused on children with IQs greater than 180, psychologist Leta Hollingworth found that individuals within this group were very sensitive to the ways in which they differed from others and often suffered from problems such as boredom and rejection by their peers (Hollingworth, 1924). Variability of development has been identified as a further characteristic exhibited by gifted children. In the late 20th century, the term asynchrony was employed to describe the developmental characteristics of gifted children. That is to say, their mental, physical, emotional and social abilities may all develop at different rates.
In principle, there are three possible approaches to the education of children who demonstrate superior intellectual and academic aptitude in comparison to their peers. The acceleration of learning material at a more rapid pace, or the promotion of gifted children through grades at a faster rate, is the first of these three approaches. The second approach is enrichment, whereby gifted children work through the usual grades at the usual pace, but with a curriculum supplemented by a variety of cultural activities. The third approach is differentiation, whereby gifted children are accelerated or enriched within the regular classroom.
Special schools or classes have been found to facilitate accelerated progress for gifted children (Smith, 2019). The instructional approach, methodology, and materials can be adapted to suit the needs of each student. The children are motivated to apply themselves to their work and studies by being surrounded by their highly intelligent peers. Notwithstanding the opposition expressed by many educators with regard to the provision of special educational provisions for gifted children, research findings indicate that the grouping of gifted children together is optimal for their development. Furthermore, this practice does not have a detrimental effect on the learning outcomes of average children. In addition, the acceleration of learning in such groups provides greater opportunities for intellectual development than does enrichment alone. For further reading on related topics, please refer to the sections on creativity, genius and prodigy.
Personality is defined as a characteristic way of thinking, feeling, and behaving. Personality is defined as encompassing moods, attitudes, and opinions, and is most clearly expressed in interactions with other people. It encompasses behavioural characteristics, both innate and acquired, that differentiate between individuals and that can be observed in people's interactions with their environment and their social group.
The term 'personality' has been defined in a variety of ways, but as a psychological concept, two main meanings have evolved. The first of these is concerned with the consistent differences that exist between people. In this sense, the study of personality focuses on the classification and explanation of relatively stable human psychological characteristics. The second meaning underscores the traits that render all individuals similar and differentiate the human species from other species; it prompts the personality theorist to identify the regularities across all individuals that define the nature of man, as well as the factors that influence life outcomes. This duality may help explain the two directions that personality studies have taken: on the one hand, the study of ever more specific qualities in people, and, on the other, the search for the organised totality of psychological functions that emphasises the interplay between organic and psychological events within people and those social and biological events that surround them. The dual definition of personality is interwoven in most of the topics discussed below. Nevertheless, it is important to note that no personality definition has achieved universal acceptance within the field.
The study of personality can be traced back to the fundamental idea that individuals are distinguished by their characteristic individual behavioural patterns. These behavioural patterns may manifest in a variety of ways, including the manner in which an individual walks, talks, arranges their living space, or expresses their desires. Whatever the behaviour, personologists—the term used for those who systematically study personality—examine how people differ in the ways they express themselves and attempt to determine the causes of these differences. Whilst other fields of psychology examine many of the same functions and processes, such as attention, thinking, or motivation, the personologist places emphasis on how these different processes fit together and become integrated so as to give each person a distinctive identity, or personality. The systematic psychological study of personality has emerged from a number of different sources, including psychiatric case studies that focused on lives in distress, philosophy, which explores the nature of man, and physiology, anthropology, and social psychology.
The systematic study of personality as a recognizable and separate discipline within psychology may be said to have begun in the 1930s with the publication in the United States of two textbooks, Psychology of Personality (1937) by Ross Stagner and Personality: The seminal work A Psychological Interpretation (1937) by Gordon W. Allport was followed by the seminal work Explorations in Personality (1938) by Henry A. Murray, which contained a set of experimental and clinical studies. The third seminal work was Gardner Murphy's integrative and comprehensive text, Personality: A Biosocial Approach to Origins and Structure (1947). Nevertheless, the field of personology can trace its origins to ancient Greek thought, where the notion of personality was approached through a biochemical theoretical framework.
The following essay will explore the concept of physiological type theories.
The notion that individuals can be classified according to specific personality traits in relation to bodily characteristics has long been a subject of interest for contemporary psychologists and their historical counterparts. The notion that individuals must conform to a rigid personality classification has been widely discredited. Two broad categories of theories are considered here: the humoral and the morphological.
Humoral theories
The oldest personality theory of which there is knowledge is contained in the cosmological writings of the Greek philosopher and physiologist Empedocles and in related speculations of the physician Hippocrates. Empedocles' theory of four elements—air (with its associated qualities, warm and moist), earth (cold and dry), fire (warm and dry), and water (cold and moist)—were related to health and corresponded (in the above order) to Hippocrates' physical humours, which were associated with variations in temperament: blood (sanguine temperament), black bile (melancholic), yellow bile (choleric), and phlegm (phlegmatic). This theory, which posits that body chemistry determines temperament, has survived in some form for more than 2,500 years. According to these early theorists, emotional stability and general health were contingent on an appropriate balance among the four bodily humours; an excess of one may produce a particular bodily illness or an exaggerated personality trait. Consequently, an individual with an excess of blood would be expected to exhibit a sanguine temperament, characterised by optimism, enthusiasm and excitability. It was widely accepted that an excess of black bile (dark blood, perhaps mixed with other secretions) was conducive to the development of a melancholic temperament. An excess of yellow bile, secreted by the liver, has been shown to manifest in anger, irritability, and a "jaundiced" perspective on life. It was hypothesised that an excess of phlegm, secreted in the respiratory passages, could induce a state of stolidity, apathy, and undemonstrative behaviour. As biological science has advanced, these rudimentary concepts concerning body chemistry have been superseded by more sophisticated theories and contemporary research on hormones, neurotransmitters, and substances produced within the central nervous system, including endorphins.
The following theories pertain to the morphology of the body.
The subject of somatotypes, which is related to biochemical theories, is one that has been extensively researched. Indeed, there are a number of studies that distinguish types of personalities on the basis of body shape. This particular morphological theory was developed by the German psychiatrist Ernst Kretschmer. In his seminal 1921 publication Physique and Character, he advanced the hypothesis that among his patient cohort, a distinct clinical presentation characterised by a frail, ashen complexion and muscular physique was frequently observed in patients diagnosed with schizophrenia. Conversely, a short, rotund physique was often observed in patients diagnosed with manic depression. Kretschmer expanded upon these findings, formulating a theory that postulated a correlation between body build and personality. This theory posited that individuals with slim and delicate physiques were introverted, while those with rounded, heavier and shorter bodies were more likely to exhibit cyclothymic tendencies, characterised by moodiness, extroversion and joviality.
Despite the initial optimism that body types might offer a means of classifying personality traits or identifying psychiatric syndromes, the correlations observed by Kretschmer were not found to be robustly supported by empirical studies. In the 1930s, the United States saw the development of a more elaborate system for assigning a three-digit somatotype number to people, with each digit ranging from 1 to 7. This system was pioneered by William H. Sheldon. Each of the three digits is associated with one of Sheldon's three components of body build: the first with the soft, round endomorph; the second with the square, muscular mesomorph; and the third with the linear, fine-boned ectomorph. Consequently, an extreme endomorph would be 711, an extreme ectomorph 117, and an average person 444. Subsequently, Sheldon developed a 20-item list of traits that differentiated three separate categories of behaviours or temperaments. The three-digit temperament scale appeared to be significantly related to the somatotype profile, an association that failed to excite personologists.
Moreover, during the 1930s, personality studies commenced the consideration of the broader social context in which an individual resided. The American anthropologist Margaret Mead conducted a study of the patterns of cooperation and competition in 13 primitive societies, documenting significant variations in these behaviours across different societies. In her seminal 1935 publication, Sex and Temperament in Three Primitive Societies, she demonstrated that the expression of masculinity does not invariably entail aggression, and that femininity need not be characterised by passivity or acquiescence. These demonstrated variations gave rise to questions regarding the relative roles of biology, learning, and cultural pressures in personality characteristics.
