G is for Genius
Do you ever get frustrated by seeing how the meaning of a word has been eroded? I suppose the familiar example has to be ‘unique’. Describing something as unique means it is the only one, the sole example in existence; there is nothing like it, no equal. By definition, unique cannot be qualified. However, I constantly read that something is ‘fairly unique’ or ‘very unique’. Phrases like that have emptied the word of its useful meaning; it’s annoying, but there it is.
There is another erosion that takes place through enlarging a class of objects described by a particular word to the point the term becomes worthless. Such is the fate of ‘genius’. A long time ago, the word referred to an exceptional intellect, demonstrated through creative and original work in science, art, music, etc. We would happily, though rarely, identify a person with that sort of ability as a genius. In doing so, we are indicating a person is unlike many others, who may achieve remarkable results through hard work alone; genius is something more.
In the 20th Century Einstein stands out as an obvious example, reconceptualising our framework for understanding the natural world with his general theory of relativity. Other exceptional physicists and cosmologists have made major theoretical contributions since, but his genius was demonstrated by his rethinking what we knew, its implications going beyond what even he could accept! Using Thomas Kuhn’s term, we can say he established a new scientific paradigm.
At the end of the 18th Century Mozart could be an example of a genius, and a couple of decades later, Beethoven, too. It’s not that they were very good, which they were, but that they rethought the structure of musical compositions. Composers were reassured the rules could be set aside. A symphony did not have to comprise three movements, the middle at a slower pace, and the whole to take less (preferably much less) than thirty minutes. But when it comes to music, I am always hesitant; at the very least, they were exceptional. OK, on second thoughts, forget those two.
In philosophy, I feel there are stronger grounds to use the word. Certainly, I would argue we can claim Plato, Aristotle, probably Confucius, and possibly a few others as geniuses. Each was able to take logic and rational argument, metaphysics and aesthetics, and other areas of speculative enquiry to another level. Each revealed new ways of thinking about ourselves and about the world around us. Some people get more than a little excited about Plato (with his teacher Socrates) in particular. Alfred North Whitehead wrote, “The safest general characterization of the European philosophical tradition is that it consists of a series of footnotes to Plato.” [i] That goes alongside Socrates’ statement that “the unexamined life is not worth living”, which has to be one of the most widely quoted and referenced statements from a philosopher. [ii]
When it comes to a favourite area of mine, computing, there are many names tossed around, but I would suggest three might be geniuses: Charles Babbage, who saw there was a way to make a mechanical computing ‘engine’, possibly Ada Lovelace, who was able to propose how such a device might be programmed (inspired by Jacquard cards, used to control looms), and Alan Turing, who developed the concept of a universal computing machine, usually called a Universal Turing Machine. Extraordinary people, all three of them, and, yes, I’d call them geniuses.
What is common to all those mentioned is they stepped outside the mainstream of thought at the time and established another path to follow, whether it was to reconsider how we think, or how mathematical tasks could be undertaken by complex machines, or reconceptualising some other area of endeavour. At the same time it would be a mistake to believe they did this through some blinding insight that came out of nowhere. Rather, one case study after another reveals genius emerges at the end of years of hard work, establishing the necessary basis on which an insight could be grafted, and from that an extraordinary innovative leap be made.
At this point, you may be wondering where all this is going. Well, my interest is in parents and children, in nurturing a genius in the family, and in showing how a useful term has been rendered completely meaningless. Perhaps I should start with one famous place where views about children’s abilities were promoted: many Garrison Keillor radio broadcasts began with the immortal words, “Welcome to Lake Wobegon, where all the women are strong, all the men are good-looking, and all the children are above average”. That introduction was a funny, a gentle prod at gender stereotypes and especially at many peoples’ beliefs in their children’s capabilities.
Today, we a long way past slight exaggerations and a little humour. My attention was caught by a recent story that described a “nine year old genius to graduate university”. To be fair to CNN, the word genius was only used in the headline. The story went on to report:
A child prodigy from Belgium is on course to gain a bachelor’s degree at the tender age of 9. Laurent Simons is studying electrical engineering at the Eindhoven University of Technology (TUE) — a tough course even for students of an average graduate age. Described by staff as “simply extraordinary”, Laurent is on course to finish his degree in December. He then plans to embark on a PhD program in electrical engineering while also studying for a medicine degree … The TUE has allowed Laurent to complete his course faster than other students. “That is not unusual,” said Sjoerd Hulshof, education director of the TUE bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, “Special students that have good reasons for doing so can arrange an adjusted schedule. In much the same way we help students who participate in top sport.” Hulshof said Laurent is “simply extraordinary” and praised the youngster. “Laurent is the fastest student we have ever had here. Not only is he hyper intelligent but also a very sympathetic boy.” [iii]
Laurent is lucky. His teachers seem wise and sensible. Perhaps they have dealt with gifted children before. CNN reports his parents are thoughtful as well, “being careful to let him enjoy himself too … “We don’t want him to get too serious. He does whatever he likes,” said [his father] Alexander. “We need to find a balance between being a child and his talents.” Laurent said he enjoys playing with his dog Sammy and playing on his phone, like many young people.”
But this area is a slippery slope. Writers use ‘gifted’, prodigy’ ‘exceptional’ and ‘genius’ as equal alternatives, even in the respected science journal Nature. [iv] All too quickly, I found several articles on genius children. Typical was one in the Readers Digest, which explored how you might be raising a genius. [v] All I can say at this point is sit back, keep calm and read on.
The article opened with the sensible observation that parents want to believe their children are special and unique, and in some senses, I am sure that’s true. But “some children are destined to be the next great thinkers”. To aid the identification of the genius in your household, it outlines a number of signs. In summary, these are among the indications you are hatching a genius:
- First, they master developmental milestones at an earlier age than expected. In particular, language skills may be significantly above age level, and they often develop an extensive vocabulary and speak in complex sentences at an early age.
- Next up, they love to read! I suppose they suffer from the Elephant’s Child’s ’satiable curiosity [vi] [OK, just plain curiosity] to find out in the minutest detail how things work.
- Genius kids notice everything, and are very good at observing and remembering key information.
- Genius children often have in-depth knowledge in one particular topic (the article gives dinosaurs or car engines as examples!). [It could have been Pokémon!]
- Whoa, how about this: Gifted children may find it difficult to relate to their peers who may have different interests and abilities, and can often feel bored in class.
- They will seek out more stimulating conversation with older peers and adults (and because of their maturity and natural organizational abilities many genius kids will become leaders of the industry). [They will, or they may?]
- They typically take charge, find the most effective solution, self-regulating performance, “a desirable trait of leaders regardless of age. They usually can lead their peers, as they have more confidence and experience in taking charge.” [Whoa, CEOs in view!]
- Gifted children persevere. [I didn’t know stubbornness was restricted to smart kids.]
- They not only understand advanced work by others but they are also able to offer their own unique and original thoughts and insight into problems and puzzles.
The article points out being exceptional doesn’t always mean you are exceptional across all subjects or skills. Given this, the Reader’s Digest acknowledges it is important to provide balanced opportunities for a child to learn and develop. Finally, it adds testing is only part of the assessment procedure for understanding if your child may be gifted, but it can be an important marker, especially for school placements.
In summary, this sounds like most children growing up in a household with one or more committed and interested parents. In fact, we know that all children develop at different rates. While it is often a good idea to allow a child with particular skills to move up a year or more, in the ideal world every child would receive an individualised education, learning tailored to their development in each subject of study. We’re not there yet, but it is better than it used to be.
Other articles I found offered a similar perspective. “There is no definite quantifier for being a genius, with the concept being quite subjective. We often see labels such as ‘talented’ and ‘gifted’ being used for children, but how can you make out which child is actually a genius? On a whole, geniuses are people who have the ability to think and learn better and faster than others [!!]. With their brain being much more powerful than the average person, you’ll often be able to spot quirks and eccentricities in such kids, from a young age. More than having a higher IQ (Intelligence Quotient), geniuses have the ability to break new ground, be creative, and use their intelligence in a productive manner, which can often change the world.” [vii]
With more one-child families today, many children are brought up in an adult environment and tend to gain some competencies faster (language, reading, observational skills, willingness to experiment), especially if they aren’t baby-sat by the goggle box. We still don’t know the impact of too much reliance on online learning methodologies, nor too many activities during the day. It’s likely time alone with a book, or playing with toys with another child is as important as all the methods used to accelerate development. Little interaction with peers may lead to problems later. We are social animals, and an impoverished social milieu is unlikely to be helpful.
Then I came to the end of the Readers Digest article. After discussing testing done by schools, it added: “Another test available from ORIG3N, a leader in regenerative medicine technology and consumer genetics assessments, may be able to tell you if your child has exceptional aptitude in a range of subject areas. The BLOOM DNA kit can assess the genes that impact childhood development in the following areas: aptitude for learning new languages, math ability, memory recall, and other cognitive abilities.” [viii] Did I read that correctly? DNA testing will reveal the genes for those skills, or their absence. Right now, that is simply nonsense: recent research on intelligence suggests at least 500 genes are involved, and measuring an individual on all of them does not predict his or her IQ. [ix] The article went from vaguely worrying, convincing parents their child is a likely genius, to reveal the world of genius children is open for exploitation.
Why am I exercised about this? It is not just about the loss of specificity in a word, irritating though that is. Nor is it about selling results from DNA tests that are largely meaningless, except for some well understood genetic disorders. I know genetic testing can be interesting, and as the technology improves, we may be able to identify more genetic markers. My concern is broader than that, as what does concern me are unrealistic assumptions. Receiving DNA test results can lead parents to create a thicket of expectations around a child, from which neither the child nor they can readily escape. Evidence-free predictions can lead to feelings of failure and blame, working like powerful acids to create a downward spiral where the joy of family life is leached away. There’s an easily crossed borderline between bringing up a child to be a happy, healthy, well-educated member of society, to over-investing in creating someone ‘special’. This isn’t just about the parents overdoing setting targets and demanding performance, the province of the Tiger Mother. [x] That’s bad enough. No, this is about creating expectations that are crazily unrealistic, and then committing the family to believe in them. It’s about losing sight of normal childhoods, which I believe are essential for people to learn to live with one another.
While I was writing this essay, I was reading John Sanford’s latest Virgil Flowers novel, Bloody Genius. Another unsettlingly hilarious view of murder, it got me over my grump! It was about a ‘genius’ I could accept, a character with an exceptional and scary ability to create mayhem and chaos. Great fiction, and John Sandford managed to tell the story without resorting to solving the case by DNA analysis; just good old-fashioned detective work to trap a really bad man.
[i] Process and Reality, Free Press, 1979, p. 39
[ii] Quoted in Plato’s Apology, 38a5-6; his account of Socrates trial for impiety and corrupting youth
[iii] https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/14/europe/university-graduate-child-genius-scli-intl/index.html
[iv] How to raise a genius, Tom Clynes, Nature, vol 527, 8 September 2016
[v] https://www.rd.com/advice/parenting/gifted-children-genius/
[vi] Rudyard Kipling, Just So Stories, Macmillan, 1902, page 64
[vii] https://parenting.firstcry.com/articles/15-signs-of-intelligent-baby/
[viii] https://shop.orig3n.com/products/child-development
[ix] An overview is given at https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/primer/traits/intelligence
[x] Any Chua, Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother, Penguin, 2011
