Toward a Behavioral Definition of Genius ROBERT S. ALBERT Pitzer College 1 The idols imposed by words on the understanding are of two kinds. They are either names of things which do not exist (for as there are things left unnamed through lack of observa- tion, so likewise are there names which result from fantastic suppositions and to which nothing in reality corresponds), or they are names of things which exist, but yet confused and ill-defined, and hastily and irregularly derived from realities. Francis Bacon, Novum Organum, 1939 This article discusses some of the troublesome places the creative person within an implicit my- issues involved in the concept of genius. An opera- thology, attributing his creative (inspired) mo- tional definition of genius is proposed; some of the ments to the intervention or the guidance of gods. implications for research on high achievement are Viewed this way, the major source of an individual's presented; and supporting evidence is offered to creative behavior lies less within him and more out- indicate that it is possible to operationalize such side him in the realm of the supernatural or pre- an apparently global concept if one restricts its ternatural. use to the behavioral, rather than to the sometimes The second early Western view ascribes mad- superficially dramatic, components of high achieve- ness to extraordinary creativity, which resembles ment. Because genius is typified by behavior that what we now speak of as severe psychopathology.2 is exceptional, often unpredictable, and influential For Aristotle "there is no great genius without to many, it is not surprising to find genius a topic madness." Coupled with "madness" was "posses- of concern for many eminent psychologists and sion," for example, Plato's view of poetic inspira- social philosophers, for example, Freud, Gallon, tion as a madness "taking hold of a delicate and William James, Kretschmer, and Terman (Annin, virgin soul, and there inspiring frenzy, awakens Boring, & Watson, 1968). lyrical and all other numbers." In both of these For the most part, Western views of extraordi- accounts, we see a relationship presumed among nary creative behavior have been variations of two human creation, personal or poetic madness, and early Greek views of genius (Klineberg, 1931; demonic inspiration or possession. This view is Nahm, 1957) in which genius was equated with not limited to the early Greeks; Dryden's seven- demigods, with madness, or with both. As an act teenth-century axiom has come down to us as a of demigods, genius came from inspiration; the basic belief of many: "great wits are sure to mad- source of this inspiration was the gods and to be inspired was to personify a mystical power. Socra- tes described this power as a "daemon," heard it 1 The author wishes to thank Pitzer College for its con- tinued support of this project. Parts of this paper have "murmuring in his ears like the sound of the flute been presented at Tavistock Institute, London, May 1970. in the ears of the mystic." Centuries later, Goethe Requests for reprints should be sent to Robert S. Albert, expressed much the same point when he spoke of Pitzer College, Member of the Claremont Colleges, De- partment of Psychology, Claremont, California 91711. poets as "plain children of God" and stated that 2 This led a few of Freud's contemporaries to attack his poems "made me, not I them." At other points the early psychoanalytic positions if not always for the in Western history, the Greek daemon has been best of reasons or with a light touch: spoken of as "divine spark," "divine fire." In the Nerve doctors who ruin genius for us by calling it patho- logical should have their skulls bashed in by the genius' late Renaissance, Michelangelo was called "divino," collected work. One should grind one's heel into the and it is not uncommon for artists of all types and faces of all rationalistic helpers of "normal humanity" from all eras to be described as "divine" in many who give reassurance to people unable to appreciate works of wit and fantasy [Karl Kraus, quoted in Janik & circles. Such a view of creativeness as inspiration Toulmin, 1972, p. 77]. 140 • FEBRUARY 1975 • AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGIST ness near allied, and thin partitions do their bounds ily was a genetic pool of talents that its progeny divide." To the extent that one subscribes to such inherit, in different degrees, depending primarily on views, there are several serious implications. Ex- their biological distance from the center of the traordinary creative behavior is severely removed pool. For Freud, the family is a psychological from scientific exploration as well as from the ca- reality in which conflicting, motivating processes pacities of most persons; it is not under the con- are instigated and defensive patterns are shaped trol of "sane" or purposeful men. and interlocked. Out of the interrelationships be- Through the centuries, genius has been modeled tween inherited talents and conflicts incited and after everything from demigods, heroes, prophets, shaped by the family, a person's capacity for crea- martyrs, social activists, and supermen—"capable tive behavior emerges. Just as important, by view- of re-creating the human cosmos, or part of it, in ing both development and capacity as matters of a way that was significant and not comparable degree, Galton and Freud made a monumental to any previous recreation [Eissler, 1963, p. break from earlier views of genius that ascribed to 13S3],"3—to the more mundane models such as each person distinct states of inspiration, of pos- children with very high IQ scores or persons with session, of enthrallment, or of complete lack of some inordinate "luck." Encompassing such a genius. variety of specimens over so long a history, the idea Needless to say, how one defines genius is critical of genius is basically an intriguing idea with a sad to how one will study it. It is the basic step. and overgenerous past. Most of the work on ge- Gallon's very effort to operationalize genius was nius, or exceptional creative behavior, has been a itself extraordinary. Prior definitions had been confusion of two classes of variables: factors of remarkably varied, unanchored to observables, and motivation (the "why" questions) and statements almost always post hoc. Despite years of study, of consequences (the "effects" questions). The there had been a paucity of efforts toward agree- common behavioral denominators to this confusion ment on what, why, or who genius was. Gallon's have been rarity and social, as well as intellectual, definition was and remains one of the few detailed consequences that are far out of proportion to, and ones. It rests on five interlocking propositions: of greater unpredictability than, most human en- that a measure of an individual's genius can be deavors. Because of such characteristics, theories derived from his degree of eminence; that on this of genius, like theories of history, have been used rests a man's reputation; that this reputation, al- frequently as a means of selective bidding for a though based on contemporary critical opinion, is particular model of human nature (cf. Plumb, long term in character; that critical opinion is 1969)." Seen from these vantage points, creative focused on a real, extensively acknowledged achive- people are heroic, mysterious, and inexplicable. But ment; and that such achievement is the product of they are also not the stuff of science or, often, of natural abilities that are made up of a blend of this world. intellect and disposition (or what is now termed intelligence and personality). The following ex- cerpt from Galton makes this clear: Galton and Freud The study of eminence and creative behavior 3 Interestingly, much of the writing on geniuses, while needed the work of both Galton and Freud to get not well defined, is very helpful in contributing to the de- past many of the earlier, prohibitive attitudes and velopment of psychohistory. * A good example of this sort of thing is the following presumptions that bound thinking about creative statement by a leading late-seventeenth-century writer, behavior in such motley bundles of whole cloth. Fontenell: Galton and Freud shared much of the nineteenth There is a certain quality of mind or genius which you century's interest in biological and developmental meet with nowhere but in Europe, or at any rate not far from it. It may be that it cannot, from its very nature, processes; they agreed, in more than principle that expand at once over an expanded area, and that some genius and creative behavior are primarily biologi- degree of fate compells it to keep within a more or less cal phenomena. Out of this shared perspective restricted sphere. Be that as it may, let us make the most of it while it is ours. The great thing is, it is not emerges what has become a contemporary focus on confined to matters of science and amid philosophical genius and creative behavior—emphasis on an in- speculation; it embraces art and taste and beauty, in which spheres I doubt if there is any race in the world dividual's family as biological inheritance and as to equal us [quoted in Hazard, 1953, pp. 439-440, italics social-psychological influence. For Galton, the fam- added]." AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGIST • FEBRUARY 1975 • 141 Let it be clearly borne in mind, what I mean by reputa- for success in their several professions. The world . tion and ability. By reputation, I mean the opinion of [clearly a rather competitive one filled with candidates and contemporaries, revised by posterity . the favourable re- jbdges] almost unconsciously, allots marks to men. It sult of a critical analysis of each man's character, by many gives them for originality of conception, for enterprise, for biographers.