From: Iain Strachan (iain.strachan.asa@ntlworld.com)
Date: Sat Aug 23 2003 - 07:31:06 EDT
> ---- On Thu, 21 Aug 2003, Iain Strachan
> (iain.strachan.asa@ntlworld.com) wrote:
> > But then there is the downside to genius. Geniuses are freaks
> of nature;
>
>
> While there is a correlation between genius and certain
> personality characteristics, geniuses are by no means all
> "freaks of nature." Many (if not most) go on to lead
> extroidanary lives. For more detail, see:
>
> H. J. Eysenck's "Genius : The Natural History of Creativity"
>
> Lubinski, D., Webb, R. M., Morelock, M. J., & Benbow, C. P.
> (2001). Top 1 in 10,000: A 10-year follow-up of the profoundly
> gifted. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 718-729
>
When I said "freaks of nature" perhaps this was an unfortunate term. What I
meant to say was that they were people who are "outliers" in the
distribution. Since evolution requires that favourable traits be inherited
and spread throughout the population, it would appear that the genius
characteristic does not influence the process of evolution in that way, as
we are not all geniuses.
>
>
> > It seems to me that maybe most
> > humans are capable of the most tremendous feats of creativity
> and processing
> > in their brains, but that this ability is firmly suppressed in
> most of us,
> > who remain "sane". The ability to do phenomenal things is
> often associated
> > with instability, and leads to problems.
>
> While the human brain is a phenominally complex and intricate
> organ and carries out a tremendous about activity, your view
> that most human are capable of tremendous feats is not really
> true, or true if qualified by the fact that these "feats" are
> heavily moderated by one's innate cognitive ability. For good
> overviews on impact of cognitive ability on life outcomes, I
> suggest:
>
I think you missed my word "maybe". I didn't assert that all humans were
capable of such feats; I was merely hypothesising that this might be the
case. In support of this idea I cited the case of the autistic twins that
were capable of "seeing" a pattern of 111 matches dropped on a table
instantly, and also the case of a man with a degenerative brain disorder who
started producing extremely detailed and beautiful paintings, where no such
ability had been demonstrated before he became ill. (Detailed artistic and
mathematical ability is a common, trait among autistics - though not all
exhibit this feature). I think that given this evidence, it's not
unreasonable to at least _hypothesise_ that the "genius" ability is at any
rate more common than might be expected, except that in most of us it's very
well repressed - and perhaps with good reason. The control mechanism would
appear to give us better stability.
>
> > So how is it that the brain is massively over-specified for
> what it is
> > normally called upon to do? Is there an evolutionary
> explanation for this?
> > Genius, of itself, would appear to confer disadvantage to the
> individual,
> > leading to instability, and frequently suicide (for example
> the comedian
> > Tony Hancock).
>
> Genius is most certainly NOT a disadvantage. While other factors
> can lead to instability in this population, having abnormally
> high cognitive ability (there is more to genius that just a
> "high IQ", but it is a minimum threshold), in and of itself, is
> an great advantage, especially in the technological society we
> now live.
It depends on what you mean by "advantage" and "disadvantage". Sure, being
smart may get you a good job, make you rich and content and so forth. But
from an evolutionary perspective, "advantage" means you are more likely to
produce offspring. But if the tendency to genius leads to instability, then
this will inhibit your ability to have children, for instance if you are
depressive. It's not difficult to think of people regarded as "geniuses"
who committed suicide, e.g.
The comedian Tony Hancock. Widely regarded as a comic genius, he had low
self-esteem and could not appreciate his own greatness.
The poets Sylvia Plath and John Berryman (Berryman was one of the greatest
Shakespeare scholars of his time, and won a Purlitzer Prize for his poems
"77 Dream Songs").
Marilyn Monroe (had, according to one test a higher IQ than Einstein).
The composer Tchaikovsky.
The mathematician Alan Turing. Also the mathematician G.H. Hardy attempted
suicide late in life.
The physicist Boltzmann.
I've also referred to depression, evidenced by the composer Elgar - people
would write to him and tell him how much his music had "uplifted them", and
he noted in a letter "I wish it would uplift me".
The composer Shostakovich also suffered from bouts of depression and was
suicidal in 1960, shortly after being forced against his better judgement to
join the Communist Party. Being a genius, or an intellectual in the Soviet
Union CERTAINLY wasn't an advantage. Stalin hated intellectuals.
I also read somewhere that the physicist Chandrasekar, at the end of an
extraordinarily distinguished life with multiple achievements in various
disciplines, commented that he took no pleasure or satisfaction in any of
his discoveries; that the universe and life were pointless (or something
like that). If this is so (I don't have the reference) then it doesn't
appear that his great intelligence gave him much personal benefit.
>
> It appears the combination of factors that are required to
> "produce a genius" are highly heritable, which is unsurprising
> because many/most major psychological characteristics have a
> high heritability (assuming a population that is normally
> distributed). I see this as having a Divine imprint on it, but
> others disagree.
>
Yes, but you have to ask the question_what_ is it that is being inherited.
Is it a particular remarkable wiring up of the brain, or is it an imbalance
in a control system that would otherwise supress these abilities? (c.f. the
brain disorder causing a previously hidden artistic ability to emerge. I
find it hard to believe that the dying off of brain cells caused the other
ones to wire themselves up in a way that the man could suddenly paint).
Iain
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Aug 23 2003 - 07:33:35 EDT