Sudden Genius?
The Gradual Path to Creative Breakthroughs
By Andrew Robinson
Oxford Univ.
371 pp. $34.95
What do Leonardo da Vinci, Mozart, Darwin, Einstein and Virginia Woolf have in common? They're said to be geniuses, supremely talented people who managed to achieve breakthroughs that other hard-working smart folks only dream about. Where do such breakthroughs, and the people capable of making them, come from? If we understood the essential ingredients of genius, would we be able to create conditions conducive to its cultivation? Andrew Robinson sets out to explore whether the idea of genius can be clearly articulated, or whether we are just left with the notion that "we know it when we see it." He explores as case studies the lives and works of 10 extraordinary people: Christopher Wren, Jean-Francois Champollion, Marie Curie, Henri Cartier-Bresson and Satyajit Ray, in addition to those mentioned above.
Robinson begins by examining previous attempts to identify the "ingredients of creativity" and finds most of them wanting. He is intrigued by the combination of focus and blindness that characterizes idiot savants, for example, but he drops the subject almost entirely after a review of some high-profile cases. Happily, he doesn't trust IQ tests to predict genius, nor does he buy the claim that there is any real correlation between mental illness and great creativity. He winds up with the rather banal conclusion that "unlike talent . . . genius is the result of a unique configuration of parental genes and personal circumstances."
At the center of Sudden Genius? are chapters devoted to 10 breakthroughs in the arts and sciences. One can appreciate the author's range of subjects, from Wren's work on St. Paul's Cathedral to Champollion's decoding of the Rosetta Stone to Ray's innovative work in film. But Robinson's discussion of the actual breakthroughs themselves is often pedestrian. We learn little about what has remained so exciting about these famous achievements, nor why he chose these particular exemplars. His use of the secondary literature is haphazard, which is perhaps to be forgiven in light of the variety of work considered. But the author's passion for these achievements is not always evident, and so the chapters have a tepid feel that undercuts the notion that these are supreme monuments to creativity. Robinson seems downright hostile to Virginia Woolf's work, and I couldn't help thinking he would have preferred to write about science fiction author Arthur C. Clarke, whom Robinson knew and whose name comes up at various points in the book.
After the case studies, Robinson turns back to the search for patterns, and once again what he offers is pretty thin gruel. He is rightly skeptical of generalizations about the hardships or the loving care that the exceptional individuals received: "it is truer to say there was a tension or conflict between deprivation and support for each . . . which seems to have proved creative for their work." Sure, but much the same could be said for many groups of 10 people working on almost anything at all. Do geniuses often rebel against their schooling? Of course, they do, and that's why we call their accomplishments "breakthroughs." After all, the people who have captured Robinson's interest produced work that undermined existing ways of doing things. High schools and universities teach the conventional, and geniuses, as Robinson has defined the term, must break with conventions. To paraphrase philosopher Richard Rorty and the poet Coleridge, geniuses create the taste by which they will be judged, and that often means destroying the old standards of evaluation.
Sudden Genius? emphasizes that the major breakthroughs in the arts and sciences look sudden only in retrospect. In fact, years of preparation seem to have been required to nourish the soil out of which the "eureka moment" emerged. As Pasteur said in regard to observation, "chance favors only the prepared mind." Robinson agrees with the several psychologists who have noted that at least 10 years of work in the field seem necessary before grand breakthroughs occur. He also makes the important point that although these heroes of art and science knew their stuff, none of them became overspecialized. In other words, they had cultural breadth, which to varying degrees helped them avoid the trap of mere expertise. The best ideas, he notes, come from versatility as well as focus. That's a central conviction for those of us working for broadly based liberal learning, and it is more important than ever to remember it as we defend this form of education from those who champion professional specialization and focus.
At the close of the book, Robinson opines that "talent appears to be on the increase, genius on the decrease." I have no idea how one might evaluate such a claim, but it does sound like the kind of thing people usually say after spending time with the conventional classics. Unlike Sudden Genius?, the figures discussed in the book refused to settle for the conventional, and that's one of the key reasons we continue to ponder their achievements today.
Cross-posted from Washingtonpost.com
To me Monet was a genius, because he could see...
IQ is inherited!!! I don't care how much nurturing you give a kid with and IQ of 85.. it will never become a mathematics major at MIT.
Conversely, a kid who never went to school and was brought up on the streets who has an IQ of 175 could, with one year of schooling be ready for MIT.
A kid that does well on what may have been a MIT produced IQ test being ready for schooling at MIT.
Each mind processes the information supplied to it, by application of the data it already possesses. Since both constitute variables. It follows that the result of such manipulation will itself be a variable. Consequently, an almost infinite number of conclusions will be forthcoming from a host of individuals. Some of those revelations are likely to be of particular merit. When fed back into that same system, these would tend to improve the quality of subsequent deliberations.
“genius is the result of a unique configuration of parental genes and personal circumstances."
Genius is the result of a random coming together of data, dexterity, determination, and if you will, destiny.
Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_the_SubGenius
More Coffee...
R/ PRONESE
Sometimes we are lucky and catch them while they are alive :-)
I do know, that most of my best students were those whose both parents were musical, so, I believe that a lot of talent is hereditary
I said as much in my quip several years ago, that "bread is prosaic, but toast is fascinating".
Talent comes from the practice of the tried and true. From perfecting that which has gone before.
The Eureka moment comes from thinking outside the box. It can't be learned or manufactured. It can only be nurtured.
Instead of nurturing artists or even supporting craftsmen, we are focused on producing as many workmen as possible. Because they are the cheapest, fastest and easiest to supply under our current education model.
None of the current reforms will produce the artists/geniuses in math, science, technology or engineering that current critics are screaming for. They will only produce more workermen in masse.
well thats the complex answer ...... the simple answer is 100% of the brain functioning in global EEG coherence and synchronicity
william james suggested that we're only using 5-10% of potential
DR john hagelin speaks of only 5% of the brain being ordinaryly used by most peopel and claims that with Transcendental meditation(TM) the full brain " total brain" begins to function
studies by fred Travis { 32 channel EEG ] comparing brain scans of Olympic gold medalists and very top level CEOs with brain scans of TM meditators show the same high level of global EEG coherence and adepts in TM Siddhi program have EEG coherence etc not measured before in anyone
i am not able to do this very important research and new paradigm about consciousness creativity and the brain much justice
president of Wesleyian needs to speak with DR John Hagelin
in 1972 at UWO the TM students international meditation society club had put up a huge banner " psychophysiology of enlightenment " DR Keith Wallace uses the expression since 1970 " neurophysiology of enlightenment "
We all use all of our brains. It's HOW you use it that separates a genius from an assembly line worker.
It takes a keen mind to ask the right "Different" question. Thus leading to a new line of logic and the possibility of a better more insightful answer.