Genius is Not Innate

An Extract from my book, The Artist's State of Mind: A Guide to Accessing the Flow State Through mastery of Your Chosen Craft

The Article below is an extract from my book, The Artist’s State of Mind, available on Amazon and in all good bookstores.

“Our infirmities help us unexpectedly.”

―William James

“It’s not that I’m so smart; it is just that I stay with problems longer.”

―Albert Einstein

In life, most of us feel as if we are part of a world in which there is a sort of hierarchy of intelligence with the average person being well below that of the geniuses who have invented our machinery and computers, who’ve made the greatest discoveries, and who’ve created the most beautiful (or maybe only popular) art works. We are led to believe that those geniuses have been endowed with genetic qualities that have granted them some sort of innate brain function that processes and computes at a level beyond what a normal mind is capable of. But did they pull off those achievements due to an innate mental processing ability similar to that of a computer, or do we need to fine-tune our definition of what genius is? 

Renowned psychologist Anders Ericsson has spent his career studying high-performance athletes, prodigies, and high achievers in many fields and came to the conclusion that among those people who had practiced enough and have reached a certain level of skill in their chosen field, there was no evidence that any genetically-determined abilities played a role in deciding who would become the best. “Once you get to the top,” he wrote, “it isn’t natural talent that makes the difference, at least not “talent” in the way it is usually understood as an innate ability to excel at a particular activity.”[i]

Ericsson is not alone in his claim that innate talent is a sham. For example, the Hungarian psychologist László Polgár had studied the progression of hundreds of people who were considered to be geniuses in their fields and concluded that with the right nurture almost anyone of normal intelligence could be trained to reach genius level in a chosen field.[ii] In the late 1960’s, he and his wife Klara set out to prove this by raising their three daughters to become chess prodigies. 

At the time, many chess fanatics believed a woman could never excel at chess. This made the experiment all the more impactive when all three of the girls did in fact go on to have enormous success in chess. At fifteen, their first daughter became the highest ranked female chess player in the world, and she then went on to become the first woman to be awarded with grandmaster status via the same path as males take. Their second daughter was given one of the highest single-tournament ratings ever for either a male or a female chess player. The occasion is known amongst chess players as “The Sack of Rome” and is still talked about in the chess world today — more than two decades later. 

If this wasn’t enough to prove the parents’ point, the success of the Polgár’s third daughter, Judit, surely would. Judit was awarded with grandmaster status at just fifteen years and five months, making her at the time, the youngest person, male or female, to ever be awarded as grandmaster.[iii] She was then the highest ranked female chess player in the world for the next twenty-five years before deciding to retire from chess. There was a time when she was ranked number eight in the world among all chess players, male or female. In 2005, she was the first and only woman in history to compete in the overall World Chess Championships. And so, the Polgárs had shown, with very strong evidence, that mastery is more a result of effective nurture than of supernormal nature. The legacy of the Polgárs is further supported by scientific studies that show adult chess players have no better visuospatial abilities than normal non-chess playing adults, neither do they have higher IQ’s than other adults with similar levels of education.[iv][v]

Another legend that comes up in relation to super-normal intelligence is Savant Syndrome. We’ve all heard stories of people with savant-like abilities: a person who has memorized the entire phone book, someone who can perform incredible math calculations as quickly as a computer, a musical prodigy, and so on. But what is often missing from these stories of seemingly superhuman skill is that behind the skill lies many hours of intensely focused practice coupled with an uncommon obsession with a very narrow interest that most people would never be willing to give much time to. Researchers, Francesca Happé and Pedro Vital, have studied autistic children who develop savant-like abilities and compared them with autistic children who do not develop such abilities. They have concluded that the abilities of autistic savants arise as the result of a combination of their attention to detail and their exclusive focus on the particular ‘special interest’ that possesses them. Or in other words: they’ve worked for their talents just like everyone else.[vi]

Now that this notion of innate genius has been loosened up, let’s tackle the big guns — Albert Einstein. Einstein’s achievements are so incredible that his name has pretty much become a simile for the word “genius” itself. It’s not surprising that he is seen to have had a sort of alien-like level of intelligence considering that he did discover a whole new area of physics that pretty much completely changed our view of the universe. But even Einstein himself said,“I have no special talent; I am only passionately curious.'' So, if the man himself seemed to reject the idea of a human being having some sort of brain function that a normal human isn’t capable of, there’s our first clue in this puzzle. 

Rather than viewing genius as an innate computational ability, it may be more accurate to say that genius is more of an action that has been accomplished as the result of a very passionate character meeting with the right community and situational forces. When a curious, determined and anti-authoritarian character meets with a rare opportunity, sometimes, after many years of work, that can lead to a breakthrough in science or art and that breakthrough itself, I believe, is what we could define as “genius”. Not everybody has it. But it is a very particular thing. Not simply some generic superior brain-processing power.

Biographers have noted that Einstein was raised in an unusual family, and his mother reported that he would ignore social life while sitting alone for days on end, immersed in the search for a solution and not giving up until he had found it.[vii] From age ten, Einstein began receiving tutoring from a local medical student who introduced him to a series of books by Aaron Bernstein called People’s Books on Natural Science. Right from the first volume, Bernstein dealt with the speed of light. The famous thought experiment regarding a bullet shooting through the window of a moving train, that had influenced Einstein’s work, was included in these books and Einstein later reported that he had devoured Bernstein’s books with “breathless attention.” Einstein later stated that Bernstein’s book had exerted great influence on his whole development. 

Einstein’s marks at school in Aarau, showed that he had performed poorly not just in French but also in chemistry. His father said, “With Albert I got used to finding mediocre grades along with very good ones.”[viii] Later, at the Zurich Polytechnic, as strange as it sounds, Einstein scored only 4 out of 6 in most of his math courses including those in geometry, which had been an intense interest of his. Einstein later reported having been ignorant of the subtler part of mathematics and surprisingly he was actually reliant on help from a math professor when he was later forming his geometric theory of gravity. What may also surprise, is that Einstein’s friend and mathematician, Marcel Grossman, helped him with the math he needed to turn his special theory of relativity into a general theory.[ix]

After graduating from university, Einstein took on a particularly rare opportunity that would blend well with his interest in the nature of light and time. He was employed as an assistant patent clerk in a role that involved analyzing patents for time-keeping devices. This gave the young legend the opportunity to think about the nature of time almost constantly, and he spent much of the day pondering the nature of time and of light with an intense curiosity that it is easy to assume very few human beings would ever have had. His array of interests in light, time and physics went together perfectly well and at age twenty-six — after ten years of racking his brain on questions that perhaps very few human beings before him had ever pondered — Einstein had his first major breakthrough. 

An intriguing question is: How many people in history had the combination of opportunities, situational forces, and character traits that led to Einstein’s breakthrough? Okay, an obvious objection to this attempt to debunk innate genius is to say that it is the curious character itself that is the genius, rather than a mysterious brain-processing power. That, I have no objection to. Most importantly, I want to point out that genius is not to do with rare genetics or processing power, but, rather, it fits the fine-tuned definition above: when a curious, determined and anti-authoritarian character meets with a rare opportunity leading to a breakthrough innovation.

Another historical figure who is often used as an example of innate genius is the famous composer, Mozart. What is not so often mentioned though, is that Mozart’s father was widely regarded as the best music teacher in all of Europe. It is quite likely that he benefited greatly from posting Mozart as a child prodigy as that would be beneficial to his own teaching business. If Mozart were not the greatest musician in Europe, then how could his father possibly maintain a reputation as the greatest teacher? Also of relevance is that although Mozart began composing at a very young age, he did not begin composing works of world-class expertise until later on when his skill had had time to develop. 

What about Leonardo da Vinci then? Da Vinci is often talked about as being the most widely talented genius of all time, but he cops a lot of criticism too. When worshipped by his fans, Da Vinci is often credited as being an inventor, a painter, an engineer and so on. But critics are quick to mention that some of his inventions actually never would have worked. To bring it down to earth some more, it is worth pointing out that in modern times, a person is not thought to be an inventor until they have gone through the expensive process of securing a patent, while in contrast, Da Vinci merely had to sketch out his ideas and that automatically counted as inventing. 

A further criticism of Da Vinci is that he had laborers working on his paintings with him. This is very common amongst famous artists. Andy Warhol, for example, didn’t make all of his artworks himself. It is reasonable to assume that many so-called “ordinary” people would be capable of producing an impressive body of work if they had such a community supporting them. In Da Vinci’s case, the enthusiasts respond by saying, “Da Vinci not only conceived of the images but he also had a touch that was a thousand times better than that of the laborers.” The renowned neuroscientist, V.S. Ramachandran, plays with this by showing his students 3 sketches of a horse; one by a seven-year-old autistic girl named Nadia, who can’t converse with people and struggles with ordinary daily tasks; a second by Leonardo da Vinci; and a third by a normal eight-year-old. He shows his students these 3 sketches without telling them who they were drawn by and surprisingly, more people prefer Nadia’s beautifully drawn horse over Da Vinci’s. (as a side note: ironically, when Nadia reached adolescence she matured and gained higher abilities, effectively becoming less autistic. She also lost her ability to draw. Ramachandran suggests that this may be evidence that formal education can stifle some creative abilities. This is also perhaps evidence that a human being has a limited amount of processing power, and that excelling in one area may mean stifling in another.)[x]

Rock music has a very powerful influence over our culture and hence rock stars are often posted as super-human geniuses also. It is often the musicians of the late 1900’s and particularly of the ‘60’s and ‘70’s that get most of the applaud. Some say, nobody has created such a revolutionary sound as the early pioneers of rock music did. The story is commonly told as if they simply plucked their fresh sounds out of thin air. But this is a misperception that arises from various factors. Firstly, we don’t hear much of the music that the ‘60’s rock musicians were influenced by because there was a rapid increase in recording and broadcasting technologies happening around that time as well as the introduction of television into homes. Because the recordings of the ‘50’s were lower in quality, we don’t often hear that music these days and therefore, many people think that the music of the ‘60’s was just created out of nowhere. 

Secondly, there were a lot of technological advancements that enabled instruments to be played in innovative ways. For example, the invention of guitar distortion and modulating effects for guitars changed music in the ‘60’s. Jimi Hendrix is often credited for being the first to use certain tones but this could be attributed to the fact that he had a friendship with Roger Mayer, an electronic engineer who invented for Hendrix use, the Axis fuzz unit, the Octavia Octave Doubler and a vibrato unit called the UniVibe. Yes, Hendrix was an astonishingly skilled and tasteful guitarist too, but this was not necessarily an innate processing ability. After all, he had spent about a decade touring as a roadie with the greatest blues guitarists of that era and learnt directly from them. 

The third factor involved with the exaggeration of genius in regard to the explosion in music innovation in the ‘60’s is that, due to various factors outside of the music industry, western culture was rapidly changing. Increasing globalization has led more and more to a loosening of social rules as people travel and become influenced by other cultures. So, by the late 60’s, people no longer had to wear a suit on stage and be polite in their manner nor in their compositions or in their use of tones. Basically, music got ruder.

The Beatles made a large body of work and a fraction of it was outstanding. However, there are various unique opportunities to take into account that would negate the need to attribute innate genius to their success. I’m not saying the music itself wasn’t genius. Nor am I suggesting that any random person could have produced it. But that genius quality of the music is not necessarily the result of an innate computing ability possessed by the individuals’ brains. It can easily be explained as being the result of the emergent qualities of a specialized and focused community (the band etc.) in combination with passionate characters and the right situational forces. 

The Beatles had gone to a high school that specialized in poetry. This gave them a head start in the lyric writing department. That was one factor that put them in a small league of their own to begin with. Another important factor to consider is that, back in those days, most people had relatively little access to music by comparison to what we have now. These days you could live almost anywhere in the industrialized world and still be able to access any music via the internet. But in the ‘60’s when the Beatles were developing their skills as musicians many people around the world had fairly limited access to music. The Beatles first album was pretty unspectacular and not particularly innovative. In fact, it was recorded while John Lennon had a cold that affected his singing voice in a noticeable way. When this recording was well-received despite the unusual vocal tone created by John Lennon’s sore throat, the Beatles realized something strange about recorded music: When people become familiar with something unusual, they begin to like it. This realization played a part in the band’s approach to creativity from that time onward.

Once the Beatles had their initial success, many opportunities opened up that made it easier for them to access a wide range of music to be influenced by. For example, the Beatles once hired the virtuoso guitarist, John Fahey, and sat on the floor in front of him for days on end asking him to play parts of his music over and over again while they learnt how to imitate the techniques that Fahey had developed. 

The Beatles also had the opportunity to travel in a time when traveling was not nearly as affordable for the average person as it is today. This led to them being influenced by Indian music and various other styles from around the world. Opportunities lead to more opportunities and it is not necessary to attribute a work of genius to innate ability. To do so would only insult the creator as it discredits their many years of diligent work. A work of genius is the result of an enormous amount of work, sometimes in combination with rare opportunities and, importantly also, a well-suited and passionate character and community.

It may seem a little over-confident to think I have completely debunked the possibility of innate supernormal brain function just with the reasoning above, but as mentioned earlier, there have been a number of esteemed psychologists who have studied high performers and have also come to the conclusion that genius is not innate. My goal is simply to loosen the grip that the notion of supernormal intelligence has on us. The belief in supernormal intelligence, I believe, leads to gullibility and a submissive way of life. If you have been feeling as if you are a part of some worldwide intellectual hierarchy, then why not open your mind to the possibility that with effective practice and education, you may have the potential to master the field you’re interested in. To get to a world class level may be out of reach due to the necessity of having suitable opportunities, but as far as an individual’s daily enjoyment goes, a world-class level of mastery or success isn’t necessary. And that’s what this book is about: Developing mastery, for the sake of enjoying daily life. 

So, we have a lot of evidence to debunk the myth that “genius” arises from some sort of innate processing power. Some readers may still be thinking, “But all the people who’ve achieved deep mastery at their craft have possessed a very strong self-discipline that I don’t have.” Well, it is quite possible that having a drive for integrity or self-discipline may be genetic. This has not been proven nor disproven. But if you are deciding straight-up that you don’t have that sort of drive, then you may be jumping the gun on this one. Many people are disciplined in one area and sloppy in other areas. Many world-class musicians, for example, had given up on various instruments before finding their preferred instrument and with it finding a source of unrealized energy and a respect for integrity. If you have not been deeply struck by anything yet then that doesn't mean that you never will. My favorite motto of all time is: “Don’t weigh your abilities by the success you’ve already had in life.”

If the masters had weighed their potential too early in life, they would never have been confident enough to pursue their dreams of mastery, and never would have developed the mastery they now wield. This is true for every person who has ever mastered anything. 

For some people, the passion comes when they are in their youth; for others, it comes much later. It has been well and truly proven that the brain can develop right through into old age. You are never too old to begin on the way to mastery.

This Article is an extract from my book, The Artist’s State of Mind, available on Amazon and in all good bookstores.

References:

[i]Reprinted from Peak: Secrets from the New Science of Expertise (2016) by K. Anders Ericsson and Robert Pool, Bodley Head

[ii]Judit Polgar, Biography (Accessed 2017) by Judit Polgar, www.juditpolgar.com/

[iii]Linnet Myers, Trained to Be a Genius, Girl, 16, Wallops Champ Spassky for $110,000 (Chicago Tribune, Februrary 18, 1993)http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1993-02-18/news/9303181339_1_judit-polgar-boris-spassky-world-chess-champion, accessed June 15, 2017)

[iv]Andrew J. Waters, Fernand Gobet, and Gerv Layden, Visuospatial Abilities in Chess Players (British Journal of Psychology 93, 2002): 557-565

[v]Roland H. Grabner, Aljoscha C. Neubauer, and Elbeth Stern, Superior Performance and Neural Efficiency: The Impact of Intelligence and Expertise (Brain Research Bulletin 69, 2006): 422-439

[vi]Francesca Happe, and Pedro Vital, What Aspects of Autism Predispose to Talent? (Philosophical Transaction of The Royal Society B 364, no. 1522, 2009): 1369-1375 

[vii]Walter Isaacson, Einstein: His Life and Universe (London: Simon and Schuster, 2007) 

[viii]Walter Isaacson, Einstein: His Life and Universe (London: Simon and Schuster, 2007) 

[ix]Walter Isaacson, Einstein: His Life and Universe (London: Simon and Schuster, 2007)

[x]V.S. Ramachandran, The Tell-Tale Brain: Unlocking the Mystery of Human Nature (London: Windmill Books, 2011)