Food for Thought

After hours of research, days of discussion, interviews of few and surveys of many, our attempts at discovering the exact definition and cause of "genius" have been almost futile. There are no two sources that will give the same definition of genius, and in talking to several experts in the field of psychology, nobody could come to a consensus on what made a genius a genius.

The crux of the debate centered around the infamous nature versus nurture argument. Some people argue that it has to be nature that makes a genius, because if it were nurture then everyone would have the inherent capacity to be a genius, and this is not believed to be true. No matter how much a child's talent in an area, whether it be math, science, language, music, art, athletics, or even interpersonal skills is fostered, if there is no capacity there for genius, then there is not going to be a genius. In an example given by Dr. Marshall Duke of the Emory University Psychology Department, a coach can talk to his soccer team, and tell them exactly what they need to do to get the ball in the goal, and win the game. Of all the members of the team, there may be one child who is able to understand, internalize, and execute the directions of the coach perfectly, and after the first explanation, while the other members of the team require repeated explanations and still may not understand. This child is the athletic genius. The other children heard the same directions, and were given the same nurturing, but one child had the natural capacity to understand.

By the same token, nature cannot be the sole cause of genius either. If this were the case, then every child born with the capacity to be a genius would in fact become a genius. Also, if it were simply a case of genetics, then it would be impossible to explain the geniuses born of normal parents. Also, considering that genius would have to be a recessive gene, the frequency of geniuses born to two "carriers" of the gene would be approximately 25%, and in order for genius to be born at all, both of the parents would have to be carriers. This, however is not the case, and there is usually only one genius in a family containing a genius at all. Dr. Duke made an excellent point about this as well. Dr. Duke brought up the point that Sigmund Freud was one of seven children, Freud the first born. When his parents realized that there was something special in this child, their first born, they began to foster it. In the house they lived in, there were two bedroom designated for the children, one for Sigmund Freud, and one for the other six children. Further, he was given an opportunity at schooling that the other six children were not. There is nothing to say that his six siblings were not geniuses or that they did not have the capacity to become geniuses, but there were not given the nurturing necessary to become geniuses.

So it seems that the talent of many geniuses is lost in the mix due to a lack of nurture, whatever the reason may be. There are some parent of children with the capacity to become geniuses who recognize the talent, but are afraid to seem less intelligent than their children. There are some parents who simply do not recognize their child's talent. It seems that until there is a definitive definition of what a genius is, it is going to be difficult to come to a concrete conclusion about where it comes from, and even then, since the attribute is more of a concept than a trait, is is ever going to be possible to come to a definitive definition?

Conclusion by Arielle Olicker