Talent is like the marksman who hits the target others cannot reach; genius is like the marksman who hits a target others cannot even see. Thus Arthur Schopenhauer defined the concept of genius – as a gift displayed by semi-mystic beings whose innate qualities sets them apart from other mortals. Mozart, Einstein, Newton, George Best: all were blessed by their genes and achieved a greatness that the rest of us cannot hope to possess.
And that would seem to be that. Writer David Shenk, a contributor to the New Yorker and other US publications, begs to differ, however. Every human has the potential to be an Einstein, claims this affable 43-year-old in his latest book The Genius in All of Us (Icon). There is nothing that special about being exceptionally gifted. It is a comforting assertion. But is it justified?
You claim that everything that we have been told about genetics, talent and intelligence is wrong. Why?
My interest was sparked when I stumbled into a body of research called expertise studies. Anders Ericsson [of Florida State University] and other psychologists have examined what processes make certain people so good at some activities. They are trying to determine the ingredients of greatness, in other words.
For example, they looked at how [professional] violists practise. To the untrained eye and ear, it seems obvious: they all do a great deal of practising – hours, hours and hours. But if you look very carefully at those who end up being the best, you discover – by doing intensive tracking of them – that they do practise more, and better, than those in the class below them.
That is a theme that extends to all achievements. There is a quantitative and qualitative difference in the practice undertaken by the super-greats – say in basketball – and the mere greats. They work hard at being great. It isn't bestowed at birth.
Most people look at child geniuses like Mozart and conclude that his gifts had to be the result of fortuitous genes. Presumably you disagree?
Every piece of evidence we have about how genes work, how brains work, where musicality actually comes from, are consistent with the idea that there is nothing that mysterious about Mozart. I am not trying to diminish his achievements, of course. But the more you look at his life, or the life of any other genius, you realise that this was a process. He reacted to an environment that was almost uniquely perfect for moulding him into a child star.
The myth of Mozart's innate talent persists because people conflate different things in his life. We know he was interested in composing early on and we know he was a prodigy as a performer. The untrained mind reacts by concluding he was born that way. And that kind of reaction has been going for a century. Every time we are confronted with prodigious talent, we say it must be genes because we cannot think of any other explanation. In fact, in the case of Mozart, it is clear his upbringing was also remarkable in terms of stimulating his abilities.
The trouble is that this problem is getting worse. The more we read about new genes being discovered for human conditions, the more our belief in genetic determinism gets stronger. Yet the vast majority of geneticists would not want that to happen.
You say Mozart's greatness was not innate but due to his drive. He practised at playing and composing better than anyone else. But who is to say that drive was not inherited? The source of his greatness would still lie in genes in that case.
I think there are genes that influence drive. But I do not think that it is a completely innate characteristic. It becomes part of our personality and psychology and all of that is developed. Resilience and motivation can appear at different stages in people's lives and often appear in response to adversity, although I accept it will be more difficult for some people to develop intense drive than others. But, fundamentally, it is a developed trait.
Do you think genetics research is going to provide us with more data that suggests that genius is acquired rather than inherited?
Modern studies are only just beginning to unravel issues about gene expression and epigenetics, the study of how the environment modifies the ways genes are expressed. Genes are constantly activated and deactivated by environmental stimuli: nutrition, hormones, nerve impulses and other genes. There is no golden genetic windfall bestowed at birth, but constant interaction between the outside world and our DNA.
In other words, your genes do not place a limit on your potential in any way?
Yes. That is right. Our genes influence our lives, but equally our lives influence our genes. And I think that that has important implications. Certainly, in the US, we tend to quietly give in to the suspicion that some people are not as capable of being educated as others.
The thing is that if we decide that we need to do a lot more to exploit human talent, then we will all benefit. These things take resources, of course. But the overall message is clear. Our problem is not that we possess inadequate genetic assets but that we are suffering from an inability, so far, to tap into what we already have.
Few of us know our true limits and the vast majority of us have not even come close to tapping what scientists call our "unactualised potential".