Genius

GENIUS, the highest degree of talent, manifesting in maximum creative productivity having exceptional historical significance for social life. G. can manifest in the most diverse areas of human creativity—in science, art, technology, politics. G. differs from talent, mainly, in the degree and character of creativity: geniuses are the 'initiators' of a new historical epoch in their field. Attempts to reduce the psychological formula of G. to one specific function and identify it with excessive development of attention (James), cognitive activity (Schopenhauer), memory, will, etc., have no scientific basis, just as the opposite attempt—to consider all psychological functions of a genius person as specific—also has no scientific basis. G., like talent in general, is hardly general and comprehensive; it is often, to a greater or lesser extent, a one-sided excessive development of creative activity in some area. The unique structure of the personality of a genius person, the striking power and tension of creativity, far exceeding normal—all this for a long time made people look at G. as a mysterious, mystical phenomenon of spiritual nature. The association of G. with mental illness, going back to Aristotle and brought forward by Dilthey, Schopenhauer, Lombroso, and many others, initially served as the starting point for attempts at a natural-scientific understanding of G. Genius came to be viewed as a deviation from the normal type of personality and creativity. However, the identification of G. with illness and degeneration, reducing G. to a 'form of epilepsy' (Lombroso) or to an 'epileptoid variant of degeneration' (Nordau) has no scientific justification. Apparently, genius is an evolving, progressive variation of the human type (Morelli). It is connected with disease by deviation from the normal type, but this is a plus deviation, i.e., deviation in another direction, of a different kind than degeneration. From a scientific point of view, G. should be considered as an extreme variant of the human type, with the number of genius people being entirely subject to the laws of variation of this type. From this point of view, deviation exceeding 4 times the standard, i.e., the standard deviation (4σ)_g is a sign of G., just as, on the other hand, it is a sign of the pathology of the individual. However, the laws and character of this deviation cannot yet be considered as established with any accuracy. The question of the hereditary basis of G. also cannot yet be considered as finally clarified. In any case, what is known about the mechanism of heredity in general and about the genealogy of geniuses allows with the greatest probability to assume that the hereditary formula of G. is extremely complex and reduces to a complex of a huge number of simple hereditary properties or genes. Genius apparently does not represent a closed genetic whole and is not inherited entirely. The hereditary transmission of individual properties '13 does not necessarily entail the inheritance of the way they are combined. Therefore, the possibility of repetition in offspring of the same or similar complex combination of properties that underlies the personality of this or that genius person is very unlikely. Therefore, in particular, those talents that apparently are based on relatively simple complexes of elementary properties (for example, musical) are inherited more often than those more complex in their psychological composition (for example, the talent of a poet). Favorable economic and social conditions can contribute to the best use of innate aptitudes. If heredity creates the possibility of G., then only the social environment realizes this possibility and creates a genius. Every great discovery, invention, or any other manifestation of genius creativity is prepared by the entire preceding course of development, is determined by the cultural level of the era, its needs and requirements. 'Talents exist everywhere and always, where and when social conditions favorable to their development exist. This means that every talent that has manifested in reality, i.e., every talent that has become a social force, is the fruit of social relations' (Vel'tov). The historical determinacy of great discoveries and in general of all creative activity of genius people is manifested in one more remarkable fact—namely, in the simultaneity of many scientific discoveries. Mentre compiled a table containing up to 50 examples of simultaneous scientific discoveries and inventions (e.g., analytical geometry—Descartes, Fermat; calculus of infinitesimals—Newton, Leibniz; non-Euclidean geometry—Lobachevsky, Gauss, Riemann, etc.).—G. thus represents a whole complex of problems—biological, psychological, and social, still far from being solved by science with DUE COMPLETENESS AND CLARITY. D. Vygotsky. Genius and pathology. The closeness of these two phenomena to each other is determined by the fact that both represent deviations from the norm. From a biological point of view, the distinction made between positive and negative deviations, as containing an element of evaluation, cannot but be conditional. In any case, the vast patographic material collected up to the present time allows one to consider it completely certain that 1) the percentage of mental illnesses among outstanding people is higher than among the general population, and 2) a significant number (at least half) of so-called genius personalities must be classified as undoubtedly and clearly expressed psychopaths. Especially common among them are the phenomena of 'constitutional nervousness,' a circumstance that made Aschaffenburg express the thought that nervousness and G. represent two different forms of the same psychopathic predisposition. Indirect confirmation of the above is also sought in those, as yet scarce, data which anatomy of the brain has on this question. Thus, Jakob, assuming that the presence of phenomena of asymmetry in the relief of the surface of the cerebral hemispheres can be interpreted as a degenerative sign, at the same time points out that such findings, while often associated with a richer than usual development of secondary and tertiary convolutions, in a significant number of cases apparently also express a higher differentiation of the cerebral cortex. It should generally be borne in mind that modern theories about the biological foundations of G. are still highly hypothetical. V. Lange-Eichbaum, starting from Reibmayr's hypothesis, according to which the biological basis of G. lies in the admixture of foreign blood to an already existing but not externally manifested potential seed of high talent, suggests that the heterogeneity of seeds determines the presence of antagonistic tendencies (Keim-feindschaft) in the fertilized egg and thus creates a source of constant endogenous irritations that have a fermentative effect on the growth and structure of nerve cells, at the same time stimulating and increasing their activity and tendency to pathological reactions. The disharmonious biological basis of the genius personality often also psychologically serves as a source of mental conflicts, requiring for their resolution maximum tension; the latter, by awakening previously dormant potential possibilities, thereby gives the genius material and energy for his creative activity. In some cases, similar roles can also be played by mental illnesses, the onset of which is often accompanied by a striking richness of unusual and extremely vivid experiences. Jaspers, for example, asserts that in some great poets and artists schizophrenia was the condition for the significance of their creativity: analyzing the works of Hölderlin and Van Gogh, he comes to the conclusion that the onset of psychosis in both is marked by a change in style, giving the works created during this period a stamp of particular depth and originality. Apparently, Jaspers' thought is correct not only with respect to schizophrenia: there are a number of observations showing that both manic phases of circular psychosis and changes in consciousness accompanying epileptic equivalents, and even the initial period of progressive paralysis, sometimes create conditions for a short but brilliant flourishing of creativity. The close connection existing between manifestations of G. and pathology, and the circumstance that a genius never has offspring equal to him in creative power (and often turns out to be biologically sterile altogether), leads Lange, in contrast to Morelli's view, to the conclusion that the genius personality usually represents a bionegative phenomenon—not the dawn of a new day, but the evening sun, not the harbinger of a new breed of people, but rather a person, in a short period of time, convulsively spending the energy accumulated over a series of generations. The contradictory nature of various solutions to the problem of G. is connected with the fact that it has two sides—biological and sociological, of which the latter is determining. The most important object of this problem is the genius creation. In the creation of the latter, not only the individual-creator participates, but also his environment (the era).

Meanwhile, the biologist is interested in only one of these factors, namely, the creative personality. It is quite understandable that its biological value does not always correspond to the historical significance of the work accomplished. In addition, one must not forget that individual psychopathic characteristics are inherent in almost every person and, as a rule, they are expressed the more strongly the brighter the personality of their bearer.