Geniuses Are Born, Not Made? Debate Between Dr. Scott Barry Kaufman, Dr. Zach Hambrick

Do genes make the genius? Or is it really true that practice is what puts people in Carnegie Hall?

Some argue that the the seeds of genius are planted before birth—child prodigies like Mozart, Leonardo da Vinci and Tiger Woods come to mind. Others say 'genius' is just another word for minds that have been honed by untold hours of practice—Paul Cezanne, Robert Frost and even Charles Darwin were well-known 'late-bloomers.' Of course, many argue that brilliance and virtuosity represent the combined effects of learned and innate characteristics.

Wolfgang Mozart, Marie Curie, Steve Jobs, Tiger Woods, Jane Austen, Isaac Newton.

Who has genius right? We invited a pair of noted experts in the field to square off on this proposition: geniuses are born, not made. On one side is Dr. Scott Barry Kaufman, a professor of psychology at New York University in New York City. On the other is Dr. Zach Hambrick, a professor of psychology at Michigan State University in East Lansing.

Who wins the debate? That's up to you and other HuffPost Science readers, all of whom are invited to read the arguments side by side and then cast a vote. Whoever changes more minds is the winner.

Step
1

Pre-debate poll:

Tell us your opinion before the debate starts to set the starting line

Geniuses are born, not made.

• Agree
• Disagree
• I'm on the Fence

Agree - Thanks for voting! Please proceed to read the debate below

Please vote to proceed to the debate

Step
2

Who makes the better argument?

David Z. Hambrick Associate Professor in the Department of Psychology, Michigan State University

Why do some people learn complex skills with apparent ease, and ultimately reach expert levels of performance, while others struggle to move beyond a novice level? What distinguishes novices from experts in music, science, sports, and professions? Over a century ago, Sir Francis Galton, the founder of the scientific study of individual differences in psychological traits, argued that "genius" is hereditary -- that greatness is born, and that a person's environment has little to do with success in life. Galton was wrong. To a very large degree, expert-level performance reflects knowledge and skills that can only be acquired through experience. The Florida State University psychologist K. Anders Ericsson and his colleagues asked violinists at an elite music academy in Germany to estimate the amount of time they had devoted to deliberate practice for each year since they started playing violin. By the age of 20, the best players had accumulated an average of over 10,000 hours -- thousands of hours more than less accomplished groups.

Summarizing Ericsson's research in his bestseller Outliers, Malcolm Gladwell described 10,000 hours as the "magic number" of expertise. But recent research shows that some people require much more deliberate practice than others to become experts. The best evidence for this comes from a study of chess players by the cognitive psychologists Fernand Gobet and Guillermo Campitelli. Gobet and Campitelli found that some chess players needed literally thousands of hours more deliberate practice than others to reach "master" status, a very high level of expertise. It took one player just 3,000 hours, but another over 20,000 hours. There is no magic number of expertise.

This and similar evidence for wide ranges of deliberate practice among experts suggests that factors other than deliberate practice are critical for becoming an expert. But what are these other factors? Part of the answer is general intelligence -- the psychological trait that a person's IQ score reflects. Elizabeth Meinz and I had pianists perform a "sight-reading" task in which they played pieces of music with no preparation. We also had the pianists estimate how much deliberate practice they had accumulated, and perform tests of working memory capacity. Working memory capacity is the ability to hold in mind information over a short period of time that many cognitive psychologists think of as a core component of general intelligence. We found that deliberate practice accounted for nearly half of the performance differences across the pianists in the sight-reading task -- a massive contribution by statistical standards. But working memory capacity predicted performance differences, as well. Regardless of amount of deliberate practice, the pianists with a high level of working memory capacity tended to perform better than others on the sight-reading task.

Further evidence for the importance of general intelligence comes from a study by Vanderbilt University researchers David Lubinski and Camilla Benbow. They found that individual differences in general intelligence in childhood predicted individual differences in scientific achievement in adulthood. For example, compared to people who "only" scored in the 99.1 percentile, those who scored in the 99.9 percentile -- the profoundly gifted -- were about three times more likely to earn a Ph.D. in a science, math, or engineering field. Does this necessarily mean that it is impossible for a person with an average, or even below average, IQ to earn a Ph.D. in one of these fields? It does not. Does it mean that it is unlikely, relative to a person with a high IQ? It does. This is bad news if you buy into the egalitarian view that most anyone can achieve most anything with enough hard work -- especially since individual differences in IQ are not only influenced by genetic factors, but are also highly stable across the lifespan. But there's a silver lining: If you have an accurate idea of your abilities (or "talents"), and of the likelihood of achieving one goal vs. some other goal given these abilities -- say earning a Ph.D. in electrical engineering vs. becoming a master electrician -- you can make an informed decision about which goal you want to devote your time, money, and energy to pursuing.

What does all of this say about whether experts are born are made? The answer is "both." Experts are born because people come into the world differing in ways that turn out to matter for real-world achievement. But experts are made because there is no getting around the necessity of a long period of practice and training for reaching a high level of performance. This is my take. Take it for what it's worth.

David Z. Hambrick Agrees

Scott Barry Kaufman, Ph.D. Author of Ungifted: Intelligence Redefined; Co-founder, The Creativity Post

In a 2011 academic album, Professor Gaga made the bold empirical claim that we are just Born This Way. This set off intense debates among academic psychologists about the role of nature and nurture in determining genius. Was Gaga right?

In one sense, Gaga was on the right track. If there's anything we've learned from over 25 years of twin and adoption studies -- conducted on over 800,000 pairs of twins and more than 50 different samples -- virtually every single psychological trait -- from IQ to persistence to artistic ability to schizophrenia to autism to marital status to television viewing -- is heritable. The heritability of human characteristics is so robust that Eric Turkheimer named it the First Law of Behavioral Genetics.

These findings vindicate Gaga -- they counter the belief that we are born into this world as blank slates, completely at the mercy of the external environment. There's such a thing as individuality, at least partly rooted in our biology. But much to the dismay of many scientists, Gaga left out some important technical caveats. She didn't mention the fact that heritability has very little to do with the potential for change. At the now infamous "On the Veracity of Gaga's Empirical Claims" Conference held in Venice Italy, one insightful young scholar raised the point: What if you're born with some tendencies you don't want to be born with? Are you just stuck that way?

This caused a flurry of discussions, and it was generally agreed upon that just because a trait is heritable (and virtually all of our psychology traits are heritable), doesn't mean that the trait is fixed or can't be developed. After all, the tendency to watch reality television is probably heritable, but parents can exert enormous control by banning their children from watching Snooki destroy her life.

Psychologists also realized that the actual heritability estimate isn't all that informative either. Eric Turkheimer came along and showed everyone that the heritability of IQ is quite high in enriched environments, but extremely low in poorer households. This showed environment matters and that you can't take the heritability estimate of a trait at face value. What's more, you can't make inferences about an individual based on heritability calculations -- which are based on large populations of people at a particular point in time.

Researchers eventually agreed that it was time to take the major insights they gleaned from decades of twin and adoption twins and move on. Next stop: the search for tiny molecules. Unfortunately, things turned out to be trickier than anticipated. No single gene could be found to explain more than a fraction of the variation in any trait. Even when potential genes were found, they rarely replicated. Twin studies showed that the genes were there somewhere, but modern genomics research suggested that it would be no simple matter figuring out how a very large number of interacting genes (which are always interacting with the environment) influence the development of complex psychological traits.

What has become evident is that none of our traits come prepackaged at birth. Baby M.J. didn't pop out doing a windmill dunk. All traits are developed -- no exceptions. This does not mean, however, that people don't differ in the rate at which certain abilities are developed. The precocious feats of prodigies and prodigious savants show loud and clear what one can achieve when you have what Martha J. Morelock refers to as a "rage to learn". Prodigies appear to be the ones pushing their parents; not the other way around.

But while getting a perfect score on the SAT at age 12 is impressive, precocity is no guarantee of later success. Likewise, a lack of early precocity is no guarantee of failure. We must stop referring to the precocious as "geniuses" and see their feats for what they are: early signs that the child may be ready to start the long, arduous path to acquire the expertise required to learn, or even change, existing paradigms.

One thing is for sure: there's far more possibility we could be getting out of all children than we are even close to realizing. So many children are tuned out, because we aren't appreciating the path they want. Instead, we give everyone the same preset path to follow and expect them to be naturally motivated to deliberately practice down that path. This goes against everything we currently know about what it takes to succeed.

Genius involves figuring out who you are, and owning yourself. It's about amplifying your best traits and compensating for the rest. Geniuses grab life by the horns, and persevere amidst setbacks. They take control of their lives, instead of waiting for others to open up doors. In this very important sense, greatness is completely, utterly, made.

That's what Lady Gaga realized -- and you can, too.

Scott Barry Kaufman, Ph.D. Disagrees

Step
3

POST DEBATE POLL

Did one of the arguments change your mind?

Geniuses are born, not made.

• Agree
• Disagree
• I don't know, I guess I really have commitment issues

VIEW DEBATE ROUND 1 RESULTS

Agree - Thanks for voting again! Here are the results:

Before

Agree Disagree Undecided

After

Agree Disagree Undecided

moreless AgreeDisagreeUndecided

David Z. HambrickScott Barry Kaufman, Ph.D.Neither argumenthas changed the most minds

Invite your friends to the debate!

• Tweet
• Share

Correction: A previous version of this article stated that Michigan State University was in Ann Arbor. In fact, it is in East Lansing.

Comments

[Susan Shaffer]

08:45 PM on 09/13/2012

I finished a masters degree. I have recently helped someone who dropped out of school after 9th grade. I can remember that in high school I still found it challenging to do the work. Now as I help this person the work seems so easy. I struggle to understand why she doesn't understand. At the same time I also remember myself struggling with some maths equations. I don't think my iq has gone up. I think that while some MIT see the answer quicker which would be the genetic component, you still can accomplish a very high standard just by keeping on keeping on.

[ASJ MSU]

02:11 AM on 05/04/2012

While it may be considered sitting on the fence, I think it is necessary in this argument to say neither the “born” nor “made” factors are the sole influence in creating genius or success in a person. While there may exist naturally born “geniuses”, it takes work or deliberate practice for that natural genius to truly develop into a successful form. True genius is not just a high IQ score, but rather a genius must be able to articulate and make change with their intelligence. The ability to articulate and share ideas comes from nurturance and environmental resources like parental concerted cultivation.

I would argue, however, that the born part of this argument does play a rather significant role. Although it is not the story we want to hear, we are born into certain bodies and minds with the ability or inability to develop certain skills that could make us successful. Not matter how much work goes into practice or study, there are some things we will never be able to achieve expert or genius status at.

[SAEffner]

12:42 AM on 05/02/2012

In this debate I agree more with Dr. Hambrick in that experts are both born and made. Throughout discussing their views and research, both professors talk about how even though it is not exactly known how much heritability influences whether or not someone becomes successful, it does have an effect. This effect could be small, but it is still there. I think our genes lay the foundation for what we can achieve. Both professors then explain that experience and practice is important for expertise. No one can become great at something unless they work hard to accomplish their goal. However, the part in the debate where Dr. Kaufman loses my vote is when he drops the heritability evidence of becoming successful and begins by saying that basically anyone can become a genius at something if they try hard enough. I do not think that everyone has the capacity to become a genius. Therefore, I think that experts have to be born with certain qualities and then they have to have another set of qualities to practice and become successful.

[BridgetP2]

06:37 PM on 04/30/2012

When thinking about what attributes to high levels of success I think both authors make very good points. However, I happen to agree more with Dr. Hambrick and the idea that success is a bit of both. You can’t ignore the role of basic abilities in the acquisition of certain skills. High levels of skill are such a complex domain and no one variable can explain it all nor can it account for all the variation between individuals. By looking instead at multiple variables we can begin to understand success and the factors that attribute to success. I agree and don’t deny that practice is important to harnessing a talent but there is variation in types of talent and extent of talent. All of which can’t be explained simply by looking at practice. Other factors such as persistence, hard work, IQ and basic abilities are also very important. One variable answers have proven to be almost always incorrect in the field of psychology. Generally, there is a continuum of explanations and individuals fall somewhere in the middle.

[Susan Shaffer]

08:49 PM on 09/13/2012

Except that some kids might never be exposed to those arenas where they might excell. Tiger woods started playing golf at age 2. My kids are aged 6 and 7 and starting golf now. Their coach said he didn't start until age 15 and he is playing in the Asian titles. He said when he started it was not considered that you would start before that age. Tiger woods changed people's ideas about this sport.

[Savannahj]

12:07 PM on 04/25/2012

How a person becomes a “master” of a skill or talent is a complex issue, simply because there are a great many factors that contribute to that person’s success. Despite the facts on both sides (a genius is born or made), perhaps the biggest error in this debate would be to say that a genius becomes so because of one single variable. Hambrick argues that there are multiple qualities that formulate a truly successful individual, and I would have to agree that intelligence, deliberate practice, and other key features (working memory capacity for example) all play into a person’s success. Another factor I would have liked to see in the debate is that of luck. I definitely think luck is a huge part of how a person becomes a master of their trade, including being at the right place at the right time and having opportunities made available that might not have under different circumstances.

[Karli Nave]

02:01 AM on 04/16/2012

While I agree more with Dr. Hambrick, I don't think it is a clear-cut argument. Both professors make very good arguments, and they bring up some extremely interesting points. Overall, I think heredity and practice are both important players in the game of life. You can't be successful without both. Hereditary traits are the reason that people have even an average IQ. But with even an average IQ, one cannot just ease their way into success. Success takes work, and work takes practice. Even the smartest man alive has to practice. Chris Langan, even though he dropped out of high school, still spent most of his time teaching himself everything from physics to calculus to Latin. Therefore, I believe that success is a combination of both hereditary traits and deliberate practice.

However, I do think that it is important to note that Dr. Kaufman

[Jessica Marie Pasko]

12:12 AM on 04/04/2012

I would have to say that it’s both to a certain extent. Both professors make some very valid arguments, but I believe that it comes down to both hereditary traits and deliberate practice. I don’t believe that only one or the other is enough for 99% of the population to achieve genius, expert, or master status. You simply can’t deny that certain traits are hereditary—it’s been proven and even just looking around at parents and children that you know can confirm these things. For example, bipolar disorder runs straight down my family line, but so does musical ability. My father is an excellent pianist. I am simply an “okay” pianist, probably because of the fact that I stopped taking piano lessons when I was 12. My teacher always told me that I was a natural sight-reader and could be a very accomplished pianist. But, being a child and wanting to play with my friends overtook my want to play piano. If I had stuck with piano and gotten in my required hours of deliberate practice (which Dr. Hambrick cites from Malcolm Gladwell’s book), I may have been an expert with the piano. So, to conclude, I agree with Dr. Hambrick in that geniuses are not simply born, nor simply made, but both.

[ams12345]

09:57 AM on 03/28/2012

Highly intelligent people process information differently- a lot more of it and lot faster. That is the difference. The higher the intelligence, the more a person "gets" from any given moment. So- the innate ability plus the quality of what happens in the moment. The richer the environment- the richer the moments- the more the gifted person gets out of it. So BOTH nurture and nature.

[mkaz3]

08:39 PM on 03/26/2012

After reading what both professionals had to say I have to agree with Hambrick and say that genius is both born and made. There is no doubt that some people are born smarter than others, but just because they are innately smarter does not mean they are going to have more success. Being born smart in my opinion is only a head-start, if one does not have the right environmental factors to capitalize on their innate abilities success can be very far away. Chris Langan is the perfect example, he is said to have an IQ >200 which by definition would label him a genius. Chris Langan grew up in a poor family with an abusive father figure. Because of Chris' upbringing he was never able to live out his glory and now works as a bouncer in a bar. The problem I have with Dr. Kaufman is he is living in a fairy-tale world, his example of Lady Gaga is poor. She didn't one day decide to become a musician, she was reading and writing music by age 4 she was born with an innate understanding for music which led to a promising career.

[Jayme Danzig]

01:11 PM on 03/22/2012

When it comes to geniuses being born or made, I would have to agree with Dr. Hambrick and say that both are valid. I believe that heritable traits can be passed down from one generation to another, giving some individuals a "head start" or innate qualities such as persistence and dedication in becoming what we consider genius. I also believe that deliberate practice, general intelligence, hidden advantages and working memory capacity all play a huge role in becoming an expert. It is no doubt that people were born with certain talents, but those that are not are fully capable of obtaining these talents in a variable amount of deliberate practice; some people may require minimal amounts of deliberate practice due to innate abilities, but some others may require countless hours of deliberate practice, and be just as good/talented as the other. Once again, I would agree that a genius or expert can be both born and created.

[weberla4]

07:58 PM on 03/21/2012

When it comes to weather a genius is born or made, I would have to agree with Dr.Hambrick and say both as well. Just because you are not born with a certain talent, does not mean that through practice you can’t become good at it. There are many things that shape what is behind a genius. It may be hidden advantages, such as the environment they grew up in or enough resources. It also be may the drive that was instilled in them since birth, or having a supportive family to help them reach their goals. There is no doubt that geniuses are born, and yes geniuses are made as well. Practice can very well lead someone to being a master at a certain talent, but there are some cases in which a person does not have to practice, the talent just comes to them naturally. I do believe that for a person to reach master level, an individual most possess an inborn sense of perseverance and want to succeed. It may be genes, it may be culture it could be many things. As we know single variable conclusions are hardly ever correct. So to say that geniuses are only born or are only made may not be 100% true.

[ventim23]

06:37 PM on 03/21/2012

Like both authors of this article have stated, both practice/environment and genetics influence the success of an individual. I believe it depends on the person. To some people, certain abilities come easy and without struggle. To others, motivation and many hours of practice are the keys to their success stories. I believe that in the individuals that these abilities come easily to, must have some sort of passion for it for them to become successful. Without that little bit of passion or drive, they will not use their innate talents to advance and in the end become a success story. On the other hand, I also believe that those without innate abilities can be success stories too. I believe that if a person works hard enough and wants something bad enough, they can succeed. With the right type of motivation, working hard at something for countless hours will lead you to certain opportunities, which will in turn lead to success. However, I voted to agree with Dr. Hambrick because I believe some sort of drive or persistence has to be inborn in order for someone to pursue something in which they struggle at.

[Ramey Soukup]

02:12 PM on 03/21/2012

“But recent research shows that some people require much more deliberate practice than others to become experts… It took one player just 3,000 hours, but another over 20,000 hours.” - Hambrick

So these people that need more practice may have been born with less opportunities and advantages, including innate ability. Those born with innate abilities, such as “geniuses” in their respective field, are more likely to succeed when looking at talent alone. It can also be argued that being born a genius and needing only 3,000 hours of practice is far more satisfying than achieving Gladwell’s 10,000 hours. Many people may abandon the effort if it doesn’t come as quickly as they would like. But for the geniuses that are born with talent, the 10,000 (and sometimes less) of deliberate practice may not be nearly as challenging and thus increasing the likelihood of seeing the decreed 10k through to the end (if that many hours is needed at all). Perhaps the 3,000-hour-ers are geniuses in their own right – born with the innate ability to achieve master status far more quickly and with perceived less effort than a determined 20,000-hour-er.

I will tend to say geniuses are most definitely born – what matters is whether or not they choose to act on their innate ability through opportunities and with skill-honing practice.

[AshMSU]

07:51 PM on 03/20/2012

I think it would have to be a combination of born and made. I can see where people may think they are made and I can see where people may think they are born.
However, when I apply these separate factors to other people who someone would consider successful, I'm not so sure which leads to greater triumph.
Most people would say Bill Gates is successful. He taught himself programming in the time he had in high school and college. He lived close to a university, which for the era had access to programming most schools around the country did not have yet. I would say Bill Gates' genius status was mostly made through self-instruction and interest, and not born. Yet, he was still born in Washington close to the university, which could be a benefit of birth, not creation.
However, when you look at hockey players and the trend that a large majority of the top players were born in the first few months of the year, this is somewhat of an incidence of birth and not created talent. Although it may be attributed to the January 1st cut-off date for hockey teams in North America, it's their birth is what has essentially granted them their expert status.
In both these examples, it can be argued that either birth or creation is a part of the stories of success; nevertheless, I think in each it is clear that one or the other significantly shines over the second.

[Dakotadude]

05:23 AM on 03/20/2012

I am beginning to hate all the ads. Every video has one. A 10sec clip has a 30 sec add. I get better view/add time on free TV>