Genius is Environmental
On the other side of the argument, those who claim genius is environmental (‘nature vs. nurture’) don’t necessarily rule out the possibility genes play a significant factor in intellectual development. Dean Keith Simonton favors such argument, pointing out that, “The picture looks pretty bleak for the doctrine that genius is born and not made. A large number of environmental factors seem to nurture the cognitive and dispositional attributes required for Darwinian creativity”[1]. Creativity carries a rather paradigmatic tone as it is basically the work of a genius that will change the world so to speak. Unlike Plomin, Simonton focuses heavily on the psychological aspect of how environment affects the child’s creativity; an environment normally fostering and encouraging intellectual growth, such as having a diverse library, spending time at museums and exhibits. Simonton also looks at cases where gifted geniuses are affected directly by the death of parent or other traumatic event as well as the education they received.
Much of what he says as affecting genius is plausible. However, he does not fully endorse the claim that genius is strictly environmental since, “a person fails to inherit certain traits crucial to creative behavior, it is most improbable that even the most advantageous environment will succeed in making up the difference”[2]. To this point it seems intelligence is even more a mystery than suspect. If genius is genetic (the ‘nature’ aspect), it takes environment (the ‘nurture’ side) to hone one’s craft. Had Mozart not of been encouraged or pushed to learn music his mediocrity would be more apparent. However, Simonton goes a step further by saying that traits within a gene are what would normally constitute the building blocks in cultivating genius. Though this is the argument that resonates throughout a book of about two-hundred and fifty pages, Simonton surprisingly focuses a large portion of his work Origins of Genius on topics such as cognition, late-bloomers, and whether genius is similar to madness. It’s not till the fourth chapter that the origins of genius is discussed.
Time magazine however makes the point that, “Simonton’s middle-of-the-road stance sets him apart from more ideological proponents like Galton as well as revisionists who argue that dedication and practice, as opposed to raw intelligence, are the most crucial determinants of success”[3] By now, it seems, there is a clear distinction that nothing can be purely genetic or environmental. Simonton’s claim genetics and environment work proportionately is strikingly—paradigmatic. But really? The argument that offspring take on after their parents only proves the obvious—the chemical makeup and coding of the genes which allows development to be flexible is passed on, it is nurtured, it is given tasks, it performs those tasks and every succeeding task after that offers new practice up until it has reached its full capacity.
[1] Simonton, Dean K.
[2] Ibid. pg.
[3] Cloud, John. "Is Genius Born or Can it Be Learned?" Time: Science & Space 13 February. 2009. Online.
Much of what he says as affecting genius is plausible. However, he does not fully endorse the claim that genius is strictly environmental since, “a person fails to inherit certain traits crucial to creative behavior, it is most improbable that even the most advantageous environment will succeed in making up the difference”[2]. To this point it seems intelligence is even more a mystery than suspect. If genius is genetic (the ‘nature’ aspect), it takes environment (the ‘nurture’ side) to hone one’s craft. Had Mozart not of been encouraged or pushed to learn music his mediocrity would be more apparent. However, Simonton goes a step further by saying that traits within a gene are what would normally constitute the building blocks in cultivating genius. Though this is the argument that resonates throughout a book of about two-hundred and fifty pages, Simonton surprisingly focuses a large portion of his work Origins of Genius on topics such as cognition, late-bloomers, and whether genius is similar to madness. It’s not till the fourth chapter that the origins of genius is discussed.
Time magazine however makes the point that, “Simonton’s middle-of-the-road stance sets him apart from more ideological proponents like Galton as well as revisionists who argue that dedication and practice, as opposed to raw intelligence, are the most crucial determinants of success”[3] By now, it seems, there is a clear distinction that nothing can be purely genetic or environmental. Simonton’s claim genetics and environment work proportionately is strikingly—paradigmatic. But really? The argument that offspring take on after their parents only proves the obvious—the chemical makeup and coding of the genes which allows development to be flexible is passed on, it is nurtured, it is given tasks, it performs those tasks and every succeeding task after that offers new practice up until it has reached its full capacity.
[1] Simonton, Dean K.
[2] Ibid. pg.
[3] Cloud, John. "Is Genius Born or Can it Be Learned?" Time: Science & Space 13 February. 2009. Online.