The Nature of Genius and its Relationship to Unity

[Of the successful.] Their success lay in their parallelism to the course of thought, which found in them an unobstructed channel; and the wonders of which they were the visible conductors seemed to the eye their deed. Did the wires generate the galvanism? It is even true that there was less in them on which they could reflect, than in another; as the virtue of a pipe is to be smooth and hollow. That which externally seemed will and immovableness was willingness and self-annihilation. Could Shakespeare give a theory of Shakespeare? Could ever a man of prodigious mathematical genius convey to others any insight into his methods? If he could communicate that secret, it would instantly lose its exaggerated value, blending with the daylight and the vital energy the power to stand and to go.
Emerson: “Spiritual Laws”

The reference here is to genius and the uniqueness of genius. The question is…what is genius? I tend to believe that genius has to do with the ability of a person to unity in things before others perceive that unity. That is, the genius sees how things can go together before others see how the same things go together. And, the genius is able to capture that unity and explain it to others so that the others can see and appreciate the unity.

Human beings are problem solvers, that is what separates them so distinctly from other species. To be a good problem solver one must be able to make relatively adequate predictions about what might happen if one acts or does something in a certain way. By relatively adequate is meant that an individual has some kind of a model (which could be a story or narrative, a rule of thumb, a proverb, a schema or whatever) that has a sufficient degree of consistency (it does not contradict itself) and it predicts at least as well as any other model related to the outcome. Since problem solvers only have incomplete information their models only are capable of producing probabilistic predictions…a range of possible outcomes from a given action.

In order to be able to predict in an adequate way, the model an individual uses must bear some relationship to the underlying structure of reality so that the predictions are helpful. A model that does not predict well is not very useful in predicting possible outcomes! Thus, the more the model constructed by an individual conforms to how creation really works, the more adequate the model. The models that are best show the greatest unity with how things work. This is a logical result because one has to reason that the more closely the abstract model captures the workings of the world the better its predictions will be.

Of course, if our models are only derived from incomplete information they can be improved or supplemented as new information is forthcoming. But, it is crucial for an individual to intuit from a given base of information the model that he/she creates. And, it is this intuition that is so crucial in discovery. It is a unique characteristic of a human being to see what looks like an unconnected collection of data and make some sense out of the collection, determining some order to what looks like unrelated pieces of information. This intuition allows someone to see unity where others see chaos!

It is this ability to see unity where others see chaos that can be called genius. The genius that is usually recognized and honored is that which deals with important questions that have been very, very difficult to answer. That is, the unity that relates to these very important questions is very, very difficult to discern. The genius is the one that is able to discover the unity in the situation and is able to construct a model that is capable of providing relatively adequate predictions.

The genius sees something that others don’t see. It is that possibility that separates the genius from the others.

The question this raises concerns whether or not there is a continuum related to different degrees of genius. Often we think of the idea of genius as being unique. That is, you either are a genius or you are not. I like to think that there is a continuous spectrum of genius and this spectrum generally defined according to the difficulty of the problem that is solved. At the one end of the spectrum are the very, very difficult problems that need to be solved and these problems require much effort, much time, and large amounts of intuition; at the other end are problems that can be easily resolved in a relatively short period of time by relatively ordinary means. The basic idea here relates to the ability to discern the unity within the situation resulting from a particular question. The person that possesses more genius is the one who can see the unity in situations that are extremely complex whereas the one with lesser genius is one that can only see unity in simple situations.

Considering the designation of genius as a continuous definition in this way helps us to understand, I believe, the current question about where are all the geniuses today. Where have all the geniuses gone? It seems to me that there are almost a constant stream of discoveries these days, and in many, many different fields of study. Yet, there does not seem to be a truly “incredible” discovery that stands out beyond all the other discoveries that have been reported. Hence, the concern over the disappearance of genius.

Maybe the times have changed. Whereas in the past we had fewer people working in all of these areas and, hence, we had fewer discovers and these discoveries seemed to be discrete jumps in knowledge. Maybe today, discoveries tend to be more incremental and more continuous because more are studying in an area and the environment surrounding discovery has changed.

One study I am familiar with examines the time it takes for a second invention in a field to come to market that is similar to the initial marketing of a ground breaking innovation in a specific industry. In the 1880s the time between these two events was approximately 35 years. In the 1990s this time lag was close to three years. By 2010 it is expected to be around one and one-half and two years. Obviously, many people are working in the same fields and with very similar ideas.

Another definition of genius relates specifically to the question of time. I have heard a genius defined as one who makes a discovery 10 years before anyone else is able to come up with the discovery. Using this definition and putting in within the context of the previous paragraph one can define the current time period one in which the genius only makes the discovery a couple of years before others. Same difference…in that the discoveries appear to be more incremental now and not discrete in nature.

Let’s go back to the question about whether or not the times have changed. Can environment and education change the incidence of genius? By environment I mean the attitudes that exist within a society and its culture toward being open to the possibility that all models are fallible and that people should be questioning and testing existing models to find other models that are relatively more adequate. By education I mean that individuals are being trained to treat all models as fallible and to develop skills pertaining to the questioning and testing of existing models. If environment and education can change create a society in which more and more talented people question and test models, there will be more of a continuum of discovery rather than just random periodic occurrences of major advances to thinking.

The last three sentences of the passage presented above indicates that Emerson does not believe that genius is transferable. Yet, in those statements he states the empirical condition that would support the hypothesis that genius is transferable. “If he (the genius) could communicate that secret, it would instantly lose its exaggerated value…” That is, if the genius could teach his/her ability then discoveries would appear to be incremental rather than discrete. Q. E. D. !