Issue 8, January 2011
The Truth about Genius
by John "JAM" Arthur Miller
We all know people born with genius levels of IQ. Some achieve great levels of success. Others fall short of the expectations placed upon them.
Why?
While genius levels of IQ are decided by Nature and birth, there are performance levels of genius resulting from hard work and social development. Geniuses don't change the world without strong social networking like Einstein used. Geniuses who change the world must interact with other gifted members within their chosen field. Although Einstein complained of being a "lone traveler," the facts indicate that Einstein became immersed in a vast network of expert correspondents in the field of physics (Schweber 267).
Genius performance simply cannot take place without development and training (Ericsson et al. 390). Ericsson and colleagues emphasize in their research paper that master chess players do not learn and practice in isolation like mad scientists. On the contrary, master chess players spend an average of four hours-per-day studying published chess games of master-level players and interacting with others. The development of each master chess player is based on the skill already acquired by other master-level players. This is the exacting method of scientific research.
Physicist and contemporary of Einstein, J. Robert Oppenheimer, argued that Einstein's work was not remote in isolation but based on the ideas and thoughts of the brilliant minds that had come before him. He goes on to say that Einstein's academic achievements would not have been possible except "in a world that encourages scientific work, and treasures the knowledge and power which are its fruits." (Schweber 269). So while Nature is wonderful, Nurture unleashes genius.
Contrary to general belief, genius levels of IQ are not indicative of how much success one will achieve in life. Take Chris Langan for example. The man has an IQ of 195 while Einstein's IQ was 150 (Gladwell 70). Gladwell emphasizes, "It is not the brightest who succeed. If it were, Chris Langan would be up there with Einstein" (Gladwell 267). Unfortunately, Langan's sophisticated ideas concerning physics and philosophy are not being published anytime soon because he refuses to seek publication. He lives on a horse farm, taking care of animals and working in isolation. The expectations placed upon Langan based on his genius will never change the world because Langan refuses to work with others. Langan has no social network of peers, colleagues and mentors, thus his genius is non-existent.
One reason for this is because of Langan's childhood of absolute poverty and abuse (Gladwell 91-96). This caused him to become rebellious and, to a degree, antisocial. Social aptitude is a necessary ingredient for success in any field. A study of third-graders by sociologist Annette Lareau pointed out a huge difference of "expectation" between lower class and middle class families. This "expectation" was perpetrated by the children's parents. Poor parents tend to be intimidated by authority, and when meeting with school officials they become subdued and compliant. Middle-class parents, on the other hand, tend to expect more and translate their children's misbehavior into cute or valuable skills (Gladwell 103-104). There is a huge difference between a person growing up in Langan's situation and someone from a middle-class family. There is a mentality of "expectation" with an undercurrent of insistence which pushes middle-class students to get more out of social interaction with schools and authorities. This expectant mentality is more crucial than genius or IQ.
Someone growing up in Langan's situation typically has a parent who is not heavily involved in the child's life, a parent that isn't driving the student to sporting events or getting involved in school. Middle-class families tend to discuss things with their children as well, giving them opportunities to voice their opinions. Lower income families tend to tune their children out and do not allow them to express themselves regarding their education or lives. The difference becomes clear as the children grow. Middle-class children are trained to be more vocal and they interact socially with authority figures, and they do this with an expectation of receiving what they desire (Gladwell 103-104). This expectation in social interaction—a viable skill that could have helped the smartest man in the world, Langan—goes further than academic scores. And Langan isn't our only example of gifted students.
The life work of Lewis Terman, a professor of psychology at Stanford University, studied gifted children. The children were nicknamed "termites." Terman was quoted as saying, "There is nothing about an individual as important as his IQ, except possibly his morals" (Gladwell 75). Terman found that some of the gifted students he was tracking succeeded while some didn't. Surprising Terman was the fact that the only difference between success and abject failure for these gifted students was family background (Gladwell 111). The most successful students came from middle-and-upper-class families. As many as a third of the "gifted students" dropped out of college.
Chris Langan, the smartest man in the world, dropped out of college after a year and a half (Gladwell 95).
There is another factor governing success beyond social interaction, and that is social networking for opportunity—something middle- and upper-class families are able to give their children. And, unfortunately, something lower-income families don't seem as easily to impart to their children. However, in the absence of expectation and social networking, there is a program helping lower-income families, giving them the same opportunities as middle and upper-class: affirmative action.
The University of Michigan law school uses affirmative action for entry level students coming from disadvantaged backgrounds. They let underprivileged students with lower undergraduate grades and standardized test scores into their prestigious law school. This angers critics who complain that such a prestigious school should not let in students less qualified to pass the normal requirements. These are critics who place all value on academic performance and IQ.
The University of Michigan investigated this matter. Richard Lempert, one of the authors of the Michigan study, found absolutely no discrepancy between the middle- to upper-class students and the lower-income students who graduated (Gladwell 85-86). Graduates from both sides of the spectrum made the same amount of money, had the same level of success and made the same impact on society. This happened after graduation despite IQs and academic performance.
This information is unsettling to those who believe, like Terman once did, that IQ is all that is required for performance. While academic performance is a boost, there is something that happens when opportunity presents itself. Children from middle-class backgrounds have much more opportunity than lower-class students. But when affirmative action opens up opportunity to students who regularly test lower than middle-class students, the end results are professional careers in which there is no distinct difference from one economic class to another.
So how important is IQ, anyway? According to Einstein:
Most teachers waste their time by asking questions intended to discover what a pupil does not know, whereas the true art of questioning is to discover what the pupil does know or is capable of knowing. (Calaprice 65)This would seem to indicate that Einstein would select entry systems for universities based on possible academic futures instead of academic past performance (former grades). Einstein himself was kept out of Federal Polytechnic School in Zurich, Switzerland based on what he did not know (Kruszelnicki).
There is another factor to take into account regarding accomplishment, and that is the old adage that Practice makes perfect. Einstein said, "I had a furious impulse to understand, to be informed" (Michelmore 26). In numerous books Einstein stated that he was consumed by physics and mathematics, even lost in them. This leads one to consider that, in Einstein's all-consuming study, he must have devoted a great deal of time toward his interests.
The book "The Role of Deliberate Practice in the Acquisition of Expert Performance" originates the claim that ten-thousand hours of practice allows your brain mastery over a given subject (Ericsson et al. 393-395). This claim is more forcefully made by Daniel J. Levitin in "This Is Your Brain on Music" (Levitin 193). Levitin shows that musicians who have practiced three hours per day, twenty hours per week for ten years (or ten-thousand hours) achieve the mastery needed to perform classical music before audiences (Levitin 193). Those music students who practice less tend to teach high school band.
See the difference?
Malcome Gladwell takes all this information and tidies it up in "Outliers," showing that ten-thousand hours of practice are needed to excel in any area of life, not just music. Gladwell examines Bill Gates and other celebrities such as the Beetles, proving they reached their "ten-thousand hour" mark before they made it big (Gladwell 47-50, 50-55). Whether we're talking about geniuses or entrepreneurs, musicians or teachers, practice does more than make perfect—it brings about expert performance that is regarded as genius.
The ten-thousand hours of practice comes into practice regarding writing, too. Ray Bradbury said, "I know you've heard it a thousand times before. But it's true - hard work pays off. If you want to be good, you have to practice, practice, practice. If you don't love something, then don't do it." (Beley P. 284). Do you think one of the greatest science fiction writers of all time hit the ten-thousand mark? Did Einstein or Dali hit the ten-thousand hour mark, or any intellectual or creative genius whose works are known the world over? There's good evidence that any famous intellectual or creative "genius" has hit ten-thousand hours of practice (Gladwell 50-55).
There are other forms of genius other than mere IQ, reasons Harvard Professor Howard Gardner's book "Multiple Intelligences." There are creative geniuses who might have problems with pre-algebraic equations, but they are geniuses none-the-less. Gardner specifies multiple intelligences—eight in all—through which an individual might possibly reach the pinnacle of genius. These are spatial (artists, architects), linguistic, logical-mathematic, kinesthetic (muscle memory for dancers or anyone using their bodies to get a "feel" for timing such as gardeners), musical, intrapersonal (salespeople), interpersonal (introspective and self-knowledge), and naturalistic (farmers, naturalists, foresters) (Gardner 3-24).
Moving beyond the battle of creative geniuses vs. IQ geniuses, Wired on ipad published controversial new information claiming two types of creative geniuses. This information, detailed in a report by David Galenson, Senior Economics Major at Harvard, shows that creative geniuses either do their best work early on or late in life. There is no middle-ground for the creative virtuoso (Pink).
It seems that there are two traits regarding genius. One is the IQ capacity of genius that people are born with which—one might say—happens by chance exactly like birth defects. The second is expert performance that tends to bring with it the label of genius. Solitary work only brings isolation and failure. No matter how much "genius" a person is born with, that individual needs a social network of likeminded individuals to hone that genius on, like honing a blade on a whetstone. In the end, success has less to do with academic performance and IQ, and more to do with seizing opportunities and hitting the ten-thousand hour mark of training. While middle- and upper-class families have more opportunities, and while their children have a greater expectancy which lends itself to advancing them in social situations, lower-income families achieve just as much success when given the same opportunities.
In the end, we're all able to meet the requirements for expert performance. But only if we're willing to pay the price: three-hours per day, twenty hours per week for ten years: ten-thousand hours of practice.
I had a furious impulse to understand, to be informed.
Thank you, Mr. Einstein.
Works Cited
- Beley, Gene. Ray Bradbury: The Uncensored Biography. Lincoln: Iuniverse, 2006. Print.
- Calaprice, Alice. The new Quotable Einstein. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton UP, 2005. Print.
- Gardner, Howard. Multiple Intelligences: New Horizons. N.p.: Basic Books, 2008. Print.
- Gladwell, Malcolm. Outliers: The Story of Success. New York: Little, Brown and Company, 2008. Print.
- K. Anders Ericsson, Ralph Th. Krampe, and Clemons Tesch-Romer. "The Role of Deliberate Practice in the Acquisition of Expert Performance." Vingus / Psychological Review. Psychological Review, 1993, Vol. 100, No 3, 363-406, 1993. Web. 19 July 2010.
- Kruszelnicki, Karl S. "Einstein Failed School." ABC Science. ABC, 23 June 2004. Web. 19 July 2010. http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2004/06/23/1115185.htm .
- Levitin, Daniel J. This Is Your Brain on Music. N.p.: Penguin Group, (USA), August 2006. Print.
- Michelmore, Peter. Einstein, Profile of the Man. N.p.: Dodd, Mead & Cmpany, New York, 1962. Print.
- Pink, Daniel H. "What Kind of Genius Are You?" Wired.com © 2010 Condé Nast Digital, July 2006. Web. 19 July 2010. http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.07/genius.html
- Schweber, Silvan S. Einstein & Oppenheimer. Cambridge, Massachusetts, London England: Harvard UP, 2008. Print.