Inspiration or perspiration?
The Cambridge dictionary defines ‘genius’ as “a very great and rare natural ability or skill”.
I’m not one to question the authority of such a reputable publication. But a growing body of research suggests that, far from being innate, genius is something one can learn, primarily through sheer hard work and determination.
Of course, a strong correlation exists between IQ and achievement. Nevertheless, research suggests that the proportion of people with IQs in the top 1% of the population that actually achieve greatness in any given field is surprisingly low.
A study of adult graduates from New York City’s Hunter College elementary school – which only admits people with IQs above 130 (ruling out almost 99% of the population) – backs this up.
Although the graduates were successful in their lives, Rena Subotnik, a research psychologist at the American Psychologist Association, noted that “there were no superstars, no Pulitzer Prize or MacArthur Award winners, and only one or two familiar names”.
And if you look at supposedly natural-born geniuses throughout the ages, how many of them excelled at their particular area without dedicating their lives to it?
Did Einstein spend all night in the pub, arise bleary-eyed at 12:00pm the following afternoon, and then put in a lackadaisical three-hour session on the quantam theory of atomic transition probabilities?
When Vincent Van Gogh was invited to Alton Towers on a Saturday – if you’ll forgive the anachronism – he had to say: “sorry lads, as much as I’d love to ride on the Oblivion, if I don’t get Sunflowers finished soon I swear I’ll go mad” – which of course he did.
Bach would have left many more unfinished symphonies if he had spent his weekends chasing women instead of perfecting the Buxtehudian model of improvisatory preludes.
There are exceptions of course. George Best spent a lot of time and money on all booze, cars and women (“and squandered the rest,” he later admitted) but was still be a footballing genius on the pitch.
Paul McGrath was one of the best defenders of his generation, even though he, too, was an alcoholic. He also got special dispensation not to train from Graham Taylor, his manager at Aston Villa, because of his ‘dodgy’ knees. So the ‘practice makes perfect’ model falls down on two counts.
Supportive and stimulating environment
A study in 2000 suggested that practice is pivotal, however. The research, carried out by Nobel Prize winner Eric Kandel at Columbia University in New York, showed that focused study and practice increases the number and strength of nerve connections associated with a particular memory or skill. Some people will be genetically more capable of mastering a skill quicker than others, but it would seem that it is achievable for a far greater swathe of people than is popularly believed.
So what are the ramifications of this for education? There has been a tendency to stream classes and expect stellar achievement only from the very top stratum of children.
Yet Einstein’s teacher forecast that he would never amount to anything. And the physicist Stephen Hawking was only an average student until his mid 20s, when he started working obsessively.
What the research has shown is that most children, when given a supportive and stimulating environment, can become high achievers. Those acclaimed as geniuses invariably come from backgrounds where learning is considered to have an intrinsic value.
Intriguingly, studies have also shown that exceptional achievers tended to have one-to-one tuition from an inspirational mentor at a crucial point in their development. University of Chicago psychologist Benjamin Bloom observed in a 1985 study: “We were looking for exceptional kids; what we found were exceptional conditions.”
Nothing is preordained
Obviously the government cannot afford to pay for a mentor for every child in the country, but the teacher-pupil ratio is crucial.
It doesn't matter how many resources you put into education, it will not have the desired effect unless there are plenty of high-quality teachers. And this isn’t just a matter of getting people who know a subject; they should be inspirational. I can remember very well how a good teacher made a subject come alive, while a bad one made you blag your way through a lesson – without actually learning anything.
Nothing is preordained when it comes to children. An eight-year old who outshines his peers in maths and science is not destined to win the Nobel Peace Prize for breaking new ground in physics. The best sportsman at 10 is not destined to play Premiership football or be the next Tiger Woods. The most articulate, devious child at 12 is not necessarily going to be the next Prime Minister.
The gifts of exceptional children can peter out to mediocrity by their adult years. Without the proper environment and guidance bad habits can become entrenched and talents rusty.
The notion that the exceptional will always transcend the limitations imposed on them is quixotic. Conversely, it isn’t naïve to believe that children of apparently average ability can scale great heights with the right guidance, a passion for their field, and a lot of hard work.
When Thomas Edison said inspiration was “99% perspiration” he was not being modest. And how could anyone doubt a genius anyway?
Reading about this research has, in some sense, made the world a slightly less magical place. Jimi Hendrix has been knocked off his pedestal. But then again, genius is within our grasp – and that’s quite exciting…
