Genius is Genetic
The idea that genius was purely genetic gradually lost popularity with the advent of DNA and the Human Genome Project in the 1980's. The general consensus though loosely held the belief that genius was still somewhat genetic carrying a sort of mystical aspect to the debate. Many in the field of biology, psychology, and genetics argued that genius could not really be measured. It wasn't until the 90's and early 2000's that serious discussion of genetic genius took place. Richard Plomin, who had once sided with the debate in favor of environmentalism, was one of those who changed his view that intelligence was still possibly directly correlated with genetics. Sharon Bagley of Newsweek Magazine echos his concerns though appears somewhat skeptical whether intelligence, strictly genius, was entirely genetic. She makes the argument in the beginning of her article A Gene for Genius, “one little fact gets overlooked: no one has identified any genes that affect intelligence”[1] as if opening the question whether genetics is indeed really responsible for the birth of geniuses. In general, it would seem that Mozart, Da Vinci, and Einstein inherited a gene that gave them incredible abilities. This argument goes all wrong at the start. If the gene for genius is possible then can’t anyone be a genius? Can genes be manipulated so that future generations can become geniuses? Much of the argument for heritability of genius treads a rather thin line.
For the most part, the general consensus back in the day held that if you weren't made a genius you were obviously born one. With the advent of the Human Genome Project, countless scientists have been mining the genetic data for possible clues of gifted intelligence. Much of these studies have been performed on a variety of fraternal and non-fraternal twins. The reason being due to their high instance of intellectual dimorphism. In 1998, a study was made that discovered genetic intelligence can be found in chromosome 6 of the human genome project. Scientifically, the argument couldn't be sounder enough except, sifting through the various amounts of opinions and scholarly articles, there are barely a few who are willing to stand up and claim genius is entirely inherent. The only one that comes close to formulating an opinion is Robert Plomin of the London institute of psychiatry.
Rhetorically speaking, IQ is very narrowly defined by either Bagley or Plomin. Bagley points out what Plomin considers that in order to “find a ‘smart gene’ you should look in smart kids”[2]. The argument almost begs the question in a sense because a counter argument can be made that the gene can be found in kids who do not appear smart, hence the term savant. Simplistically, savants generally “seem to betoken the existence of other special-purpose modules that are capable of efficient functioning even in the presence of a low IQ”[3]. A child who flunks all his or her classes may have one category they may excel in. Was Mozart one of these singly-gifted savants? Are savants just one category of genius? Most importantly, the term genius itself is neither defined by either Bagley or Plomin.
One conflicting argument of pure genetic intelligence seems to come from the correlation between high intelligence and other known mental disorders such as myopia and infantile autism. According to Jeffrey Sofaer, “the biochemical basis for some of the disorders is known, and such confirmation could help provide situations in which specific biochemical differences are known to be associated with measurable degrees of enhancement of intellectual ability”[4] In other words, genius is perhaps found in those whose phenotype may be underdeveloped; the only organ fully functional is the brain, while physical deformities prevents them from having a fully normal lifestyle, as well lifespan. That would obviously make a genius easier to spot. But it also doesn't explain why many geniuses like Einstein lived well into their 80’s. Further adding insult to injury the idea geniuses are socially awkward carries very little hard probable evidence.
Yet overall, it’s not what Bagley and Plomin say as it is what they don’t say in the context of their defense of hereditary genius. They offer nothing that is particularly groundbreaking—only suggestive. Bagley spends time justifying Plomin’s research, pointing out, “If you look for 37 genes on a chromosome, as the researchers did, and find that one is more common in smarter kids, that might reflect pure chance rather than a causal link between the gene and intelligence”[5]. Bagley seems unwilling to admit that pure hereditary genius isn’t possible. Instead, she makes the excuse that looking for intelligence is ‘fiendishly complicated’ and further points out that, “It is unlikely that any intelligence genes will turn out to be strictly deterministic the way genes for eye color are”[6]. Plomin would otherwise believe that if genetics doesn’t play a role in genius; “if genetic differences account for half of the variance, this means that genetic differences do not account for the other half”[7]. Though backed in a corner, Plomin is willing to accept the argument that intelligence is affected by both the genetic development of the brain as well as environmental stimuli.
For the most part, the general consensus back in the day held that if you weren't made a genius you were obviously born one. With the advent of the Human Genome Project, countless scientists have been mining the genetic data for possible clues of gifted intelligence. Much of these studies have been performed on a variety of fraternal and non-fraternal twins. The reason being due to their high instance of intellectual dimorphism. In 1998, a study was made that discovered genetic intelligence can be found in chromosome 6 of the human genome project. Scientifically, the argument couldn't be sounder enough except, sifting through the various amounts of opinions and scholarly articles, there are barely a few who are willing to stand up and claim genius is entirely inherent. The only one that comes close to formulating an opinion is Robert Plomin of the London institute of psychiatry.
Rhetorically speaking, IQ is very narrowly defined by either Bagley or Plomin. Bagley points out what Plomin considers that in order to “find a ‘smart gene’ you should look in smart kids”[2]. The argument almost begs the question in a sense because a counter argument can be made that the gene can be found in kids who do not appear smart, hence the term savant. Simplistically, savants generally “seem to betoken the existence of other special-purpose modules that are capable of efficient functioning even in the presence of a low IQ”[3]. A child who flunks all his or her classes may have one category they may excel in. Was Mozart one of these singly-gifted savants? Are savants just one category of genius? Most importantly, the term genius itself is neither defined by either Bagley or Plomin.
One conflicting argument of pure genetic intelligence seems to come from the correlation between high intelligence and other known mental disorders such as myopia and infantile autism. According to Jeffrey Sofaer, “the biochemical basis for some of the disorders is known, and such confirmation could help provide situations in which specific biochemical differences are known to be associated with measurable degrees of enhancement of intellectual ability”[4] In other words, genius is perhaps found in those whose phenotype may be underdeveloped; the only organ fully functional is the brain, while physical deformities prevents them from having a fully normal lifestyle, as well lifespan. That would obviously make a genius easier to spot. But it also doesn't explain why many geniuses like Einstein lived well into their 80’s. Further adding insult to injury the idea geniuses are socially awkward carries very little hard probable evidence.
Yet overall, it’s not what Bagley and Plomin say as it is what they don’t say in the context of their defense of hereditary genius. They offer nothing that is particularly groundbreaking—only suggestive. Bagley spends time justifying Plomin’s research, pointing out, “If you look for 37 genes on a chromosome, as the researchers did, and find that one is more common in smarter kids, that might reflect pure chance rather than a causal link between the gene and intelligence”[5]. Bagley seems unwilling to admit that pure hereditary genius isn’t possible. Instead, she makes the excuse that looking for intelligence is ‘fiendishly complicated’ and further points out that, “It is unlikely that any intelligence genes will turn out to be strictly deterministic the way genes for eye color are”[6]. Plomin would otherwise believe that if genetics doesn’t play a role in genius; “if genetic differences account for half of the variance, this means that genetic differences do not account for the other half”[7]. Though backed in a corner, Plomin is willing to accept the argument that intelligence is affected by both the genetic development of the brain as well as environmental stimuli.
[1] Bagely, Sharon. “A Gene for Genius?” Newsweek 25 May. 1998. 72.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Lykken, David. The Genetics of Genius. Genius and the Mind: Studies of Creativity and Temperament in the Historical Record. (1998)
[4] Sofaer, Jefrey A & Emery, Alan E.H. “Genes for Super-Intelligence” Journal of Medical Genetics 18 (1981): 410-413.
[5] Bagley, Sharon.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Plomin, Robert & Spinath, Frank M. “Intelligence: Genetics, Genes, and Genomics.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 86.1 (2004): 112-129. Online.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Lykken, David. The Genetics of Genius. Genius and the Mind: Studies of Creativity and Temperament in the Historical Record. (1998)
[4] Sofaer, Jefrey A & Emery, Alan E.H. “Genes for Super-Intelligence” Journal of Medical Genetics 18 (1981): 410-413.
[5] Bagley, Sharon.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Plomin, Robert & Spinath, Frank M. “Intelligence: Genetics, Genes, and Genomics.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 86.1 (2004): 112-129. Online.