Behind The Genius
The role and the mechanics of association cortices of geniuses. Genius ideas do not come out of nowhere but the accumilation and cultivation of knowledge and skills.
Mütter Museum in the city of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania — USA is where a huge collection of strange but no less interesting specimens in anatomy, pathology and medical equipment and instruments in history is stored and displayed. Besides the bizarre wax statues or human organs soaked in glass jars, one of the most remarkable specimens is probably slices of Albert Einstein’s brain [1] .
After great contributions and achievements; which most notably is the Theory of Relativity with the famous equation E = mc2, the “brain” of the eminent physicist continues to devote himself to science — literally. Before it became the focus of the museum visitors, this was a very valuable specimen used in a series of brain studies to find the differences that make up a genius.
1. Geniuses, who are they?
Basically, a genius is someone who possesses an extraordinary intellectual ability [2] . They are individuals with outstanding intelligence, strong creativity, producing works with great influence or unique in a field [3] .
It is not uncommon for individuals with outstanding achievements and influence in a particular industry or field. But judging from historical length and social breadth, the presence of such individuals is very rare. We have so many composers, painters or scientists; but there are very few Mozart, Leonardo da Vinci or Isaac Newton. Intellectual dominance as well as the characteristic “rarity” is probably the factor that makes geniuses gain social respect, sometimes to the point of worship.
Einstein’s on display brain is not the only case that shows how the majority exalts great minds. After his death, Newton was buried at Westminster Abbey, which is the resting place of the saints and royal members [4] . Without enjoying the “perfection” as Newton, body parts of many outstanding figures in history were deliberately taken away.
Two of Galileo’s fingers were detached when his body was exhumed by admirers of the astronomers who dared to challenge the Catholic Church’s doctrine, and are now on display at the museum named after him in Florence, Italy [5] . Voltaire’s heart and brain were individually embalmed and buried [6] , while the skull of the great German poet Schiller has yet to be found [7] . Or, they are even traded and exchanged as divine and holy relics. The hairs of the French Emperor Napoleon were auctioned for up to 25,000 USD [8] , and the “disappearance” of the body parts of intelligent celebrities — especially the skull, was a common problem in the nineteenth century [9] .
Although the existence of geniuses is a real historical phenomenon, along with the admiration of the masses as well as the research efforts towards it … all we have about “genius” is just a general definition, that genius is closely related to the manifestation of intellectual prowess. In the meantime, it is important that the mechanism behind a genius’ mental strength and hallmarks is still not fully understood.
For example, most often equate genius with intelligence — high IQ in particular. However, many studies have denied this popular view.
As a pioneer in the development and standardization of IQ tests, Stanford University Psychologist Lewis Terman believes that these tests can be useful for intelligence measurements and as tools for early detection of geniuses. In the early 1920s, more than 1,500 school-age children in California with IQ scores above 140 were selected to be the subject of one of the largest longitudinal social studies in history. After more than four decades of monitoring and comparing their progress to other children, the team found that superior intelligence was not a guarantee of significant achievement [10 ].
Some study subjects also encountered difficulties and struggles later in life. They even failed important exams despite having towering IQ scores. Meanwhile, some potential subjects did not pass the initial IQ test; later became famous and successful in their field. The “not smart enough” kids like Luis Alvarez and William Shockley have won the Nobel Prize in Physics — awards that none of Terman’s “chosen one” won. [11]
2. Inside the minds of geniuses.
Arthur Schopenhauer — Germany’s great nineteenth-century philosopher wrote: “Talent hits a target no one else can hit. Genius hits a target no one else can see.” [12]
Leonardo da Vinci proved to be a visionary beyond the time when he sketched the idea of flying machines, which would not come true more than 400 years later. When Darwin announced the Theory of Evolution, both academia and the general public thought his idea was crazy. Great strides often lie outside the confines of contemporary knowledge, and thus have brought the names of geniuses far beyond the century in which they lived. Breakthroughs, or creative ideas of long distance date, seem to be a more accurate and useful definition of genius than the popular but incomplete conception based on intelligence [13] .
At the time of Terman, creativity seemed to be a concept that was difficult to measure accurately and as difficult to describe in form of a precise digit as IQ result. Even with the advances of neuroscience and auxiliary technologies, the intellectual strength of genius remains a mystery. But at least, we can better understand the mechanism of creativity; a core factor leading to breakthrough achievement.
Basically, the brain has many primary cortices, which receive sensory information from eyes, nose, mouth, ears, skin and help control movement of the body. But they are only responsible for performing low-level functions, mainly through the input of raw information from the environment; and would become useless without another part of the brain with higher level of development, or association cortices. They help us to synthesize all the individual pieces of information input from sensory areas [14] . Reading these lines, for example, the primary visual cortex is simply taking on the image of black lines against a white background. In order to truly read, such information must be transferred to the parietial and temporal lobe to continue language processing, for example, linking a word to its meaning, linking words together … to form complete and meaningful sentences.
When brain function magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) is used to track performance of some of the above-mentioned high-level processing tasks (e.g., associating words, pictures, or pattern recognition), neuroscientist Nancy Coover Andreasen has found that on highly creative subjects, their association cortex regions have a stronger activity level than that of the control group. Given that the experimental group — the creative ones, and the control group have similarity in age, education, and average IQ scores [15] .
In another study, Nancy also found that, in the “REST” state, the association cortices were the primary site of activity in the brain at that time. This result suggests that, in the REST state, the brain takes place in the process of “free association”, at the same time automatically reorganizing information and acting as an independent system [16] .
(* REST: random episodic silent thought. In the study, subjects will lie relaxed with their eyes closed, then be asked about a specific event in the past and let their mind think freely about whatever comes to mind. This recollection will require the participation of episodic memory, which stores information associated with individual experiences in the past.)
Combined with Nancy’s observations, later studies have suggested that creative solutions often emerge at the most unexpected moments. For example, when scanning the brains of jazz pianists during improvised play, the internal networks (involved in self-expression) become more active than the outer networks (involved in focusing attention as well as self-censoring). It seems that at that time, the brain turns off its function of self-assessment and self-examination, and lets everything go completely natural [17] .
But creativity or groundbreaking ideas are not simply flashes of light. Nancy’s findings and the above studies have helped to reinforce a view that we have repeatedly presented about the formation and birth process of scientific achievements. They are not “Eureka” moments or when an apple falls on the head; but the accretion of long research and learning.
Like Darwin’s Theory of Evolution, which took him for years to roam many lands, or Leonardo Da Vinci also spent a lifetime working on engineering and painting.
From information and knowledge accumulated and contemplated over time, ideas eventually precipitate and form as the mind wanders through the memory storage and assembles pieces of material together. But remember, to have the necessary materials first.
3. With great talent comes mental illness — Are mental problems the hallmark of genius?
Most of the research subjects that Nancy worked with often have expertise in many fields — or polymaths, and that is also the common point of many geniuses [18] . For example, Da Vinci was not only an inventor ahead of his time, but also an artist, architect and interested in a variety of other fields such as anatomy, astronomy, or botany. Nancy believes that the breadth of knowledge is the foundation for the creative process of geniuses to take place. Basically, she thinks that creativity is finding a connection between what already exists, going from the old things to the new way to solve problems [19] .
Another study has shown that creators are better able to connect seemingly unrelated things than the average person. When performing tasks that require creativity, such as finding novel uses of baseball bats or toothbrushes, researchers found that that there was much more communication going on between the left and the right hemispheres than others [20] . Creativity is finding a connection between what already exists, going from the old things to the new way to solve problems. And this also coincides with what Schopenhauer wrote: “… Genius hits a target no one else can see”.
But this may be what gave birth to a notion as common as “geniuses are smart” — their eccentricities and psychological instability. In her decades of research on outstanding individuals, Nancy also found that creativity often goes along with manifestations of mental disorders or its signs; The most common are schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and depression. General studies also indicate a tendency for eminent minds to accompany psychiatric problems [21] .
Nancy argues that having a way of thinking and ideas that go beyond common cognitive or receptive abilities makes it easy for outstanding individuals to be under pressure from their objections, rejection or petitions of majority. This is also a common story in the academic field, as is the case with Darwin’s Theory of Evolution or Adolf Wegener’s idea of Continent Drifting. Public opinion pressure and the particular solitude of scholarly research can have a huge impact on the psychological health of pioneering individuals.
But the external factor is only part of the reason for this hallmark. Recent research indicates that dopamine D2 receptors in the thalamus of the creative have a decrease in density compared to the average person. This, on the one hand, increases the flow of information through the thalamus, helps creators better process information, but also causes them to experience negative effects in the regulation of the endogenous of dopamine; which is an important human emotional hormone and happiness hormone and is therefore closely linked with the psychotic disorder of the creative [22] .
More importantly, statistics show that these psychiatric disorders often appear along the genealogy within the family of geniuses, and this is also a participatory factor behind the genius phenomenon in terms of genetics.
But wait to be mistaken, when referring to “genetic factors”, does not mean that it is a factor that plays a decisive role, or even needs to consider the level of impact. So far, studies have shown that environmental factors, learning, training and conditions to detect and foster abilities play an equally important role in the formation of genius.
While the formation of genius remains a mysterious, endless void, there may even exist a myriad of uncontrollable randomness, history has told many tragic and extreme stories of genetic identification as a prerequisite. Darwin’s cousin, Francis Galton, one of the pioneers of the study of genius, emphasized the genetic factor behind the good characteristics of an individual, giving birth to eugenics. This is also the theoretical foundation that not long after affecting Hitler and many other countries in the 20th century, involved in a series of human crimes (we have had a preliminary article on the issue at the link [23] ).
In addition, the cult of genius has also led to a series of pseudo-science and anti-scientific trends to exploit ignorance from the public. Physiognomy, phrenology and a host of other fields of study (now forbidden, suppressed or lost) are closely related to the understanding of physical traits related to wisdom, or factor of genius [24] . Or at the present time, its variations are fingerprint biometric, palm reading … which are not supported by scientific bases [25] .
Too little genius, too many stupid. Logically, it is not difficult to understand that so many people are willing to spend large sums of money just to see if they are … geniuses or not. Or if they believe in genetic factors, then a parent spends a lot of money, and is willing to take a series of risks to “fortune tell” for their children, it seems that the results are not unpredictable.
Either way, it is of course their freedom that someone pays money to do whatever they like. But the cult of the superior minds even leads the human race to immoral behavior and reveals one’s own evil.
The will of Einstein, the great genius physicist has created a series of works to help us learn about the universe, was “cremate them, and scatter the ashes secretly in order to discourage idolaters”, or those who deliberately created a cult based on his life. Einstein clearly stated his wish in writing [26] .
But then his brain has been cut into 240 slices, with some of them currently being kept for museum display as mentioned at the beginning of the article, through those claiming “for science”. Brain-based experiments with Einstein, apart from serious ethical violations, did not bring any value when the study sample N = 1.
The foolishness and selfishness of so many people doesn’t even deserve the help of geniuses like Einstein, Newton, Darwin or Galileo, let alone becoming one of them.
— — — — — —
References:
[1] “Albert Einstein’s Brain,” Muttermuseum.org, 2021. http://muttermuseum.org/exhibitions/albert-einsteins-brain/ (accessed Jan. 26, 2021).
[2] “Genius | psychology | Britannica,” Encyclopædia Britannica. 2021, Accessed: Jan. 26, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://www.britannica.com/science/genius-psychology.
[3] Wikipedia Contributors, “Genius,” Wikipedia, Jan. 10, 2021. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genius (accessed Jan. 26, 2021).
[4] PixelToCode pixeltocode.uk, “Sir Isaac Newton,” Westminster Abbey, 2013. https://www.westminster-abbey.org/.../sir-isaac-newton (accessed Jan. 26, 2021).
[5] Guardian staff reporter, “Galileo’s fingers to be displayed in Florence science museum,” the Guardian, Jun. 08, 2010. https://www.theguardian.com/.../galileo-fingers-museum... (accessed Jan. 26, 2021).
[6] N. Buisson, C. Laffont, A. Péquignot, C. Badoual, P. Faulcon, and C. Nich, “New Insights into the heart of Voltaire using a multidisciplinary approach,” International Journal of Conservation Science, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 67–80, 2017, Accessed: Jan. 26, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-02185427/document.
[7] Wikipedia Contributors, “Friedrich Schiller’s skull,” Wikipedia, Nov. 18, 2019. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Schiller%27s_skull (accessed Jan. 26, 2021).
J. Smee, “DNA tests end debate over Schiller skulls: neither is his,” the Guardian, May 05, 2008. https://www.theguardian.com/.../2008/may/05/theatre.germany (accessed Jan. 26, 2021).
[8] K. Bayer, “Lock of Napoleon Bonaparte’s hair sells for $25,000 at Auckland auction,” NZ Herald, Sep. 15, 2020. https://www.nzherald.co.nz/.../M5XZ7YPVXKHD7E43Z63EMWYLN4/ (accessed Jan. 26, 2021).
[9] C. Dickey, “The skull robbers: how celebrity culture lost its head,” the Guardian, Jul. 17, 2015. https://www.theguardian.com/.../skull-robbers-celebrity... (accessed Jan. 26, 2021).
R. Eveleth, “Steal a Skull, Understand a Genius,” Nautilus, 2014. https://nautil.us/blog/steal-a-skull-understand-a-genius (accessed Jan. 26, 2021).
[10] APA Psyc.Net, “The measurement of intelligence: An explanation of and a complete guide for the use of the Stanford revision and extension of the Binet-Simon Intelligence Scale”, Apa.org, 2021. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2003-00185-000 (accessed Jan. 26, 2021).
(https://www.gutenberg.org/files/20662/20662-h/20662-h.htm)
“What Makes a Genius?,” Magazine, Apr. 21, 2017. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/.../genius-genetics.../ (accessed Jan. 26, 2021).
[11] S. magazine, “The Vexing Legacy of Lewis Terman,” Stanfordmag.org, 2021. https://stanfordmag.org/.../the-vexing-legacy-of-lewis... (accessed Jan. 26, 2021).
[12] “A quote by Arthur Schopenhauer,” Goodreads.com, 2021. https://www.goodreads.com/.../8-talent-hits-a-target-no... (accessed Jan. 26, 2021).
[13] Simonton, D. K. (2013). “The Science of Genius”. Scientific American, 23(1s), 20–27. doi:10.1038/scientificamericancreativity1213–20
[14] Wikipedia Contributors, “Primary somatosensory cortex,” Wikipedia, Dec. 26, 2019. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_somatosensory_cortex (accessed Jan. 26, 2021).
Neurosci, “Neuroscientifically Challenged,” Neuroscientifically Challenged, Mar. 11, 2016. https://www.neuroscientificallychallenged.com/.../know.... (accessed Jan. 26, 2021).
N. C. Andreasen, “Secrets of the Creative Brain,” The Atlantic, Jun. 26, 2014. https://www.theatlantic.com/.../secrets-of-the.../372299/ (accessed Jan. 26, 2021).
[15] K. Deamer, “Genius: Can Anybody Be One?,” livescience.com, Jun. 09, 2016. https://www.livescience.com/55028-what-makes-a-genius.html (accessed Jan. 26, 2021).
[16] N. Andreasen, “A journey into chaos: Creativity and the unconsciousFNx08,” Mens Sana Monographs, vol. 9, no. 1, p. 42, 2011, doi: 10.4103/0973–1229.77424.
[17] C. J. Limb and A. R. Braun, “Neural Substrates of Spontaneous Musical Performance: An fMRI Study of Jazz Improvisation,” PLoS ONE, vol. 3, no. 2, p. e1679, Feb. 2008, doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0001679.
“What Makes a Genius?,” Magazine, Apr. 21, 2017. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/.../genius-genetics.../ (accessed Jan. 26, 2021).
[18] “In Defense of Polymaths,” Harvard Business Review, May 18, 2012. https://hbr.org/2012/05/in-defense-of-polymaths (accessed Jan. 26, 2021).
[19] N. C. Andreasen, “Secrets of the Creative Brain,” The Atlantic, Jun. 26, 2014. https://www.theatlantic.com/.../secrets-of-the.../372299/ (accessed Jan. 26, 2021)
[20] “What Makes a Genius?,” Magazine, Apr. 21, 2017. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/.../genius-genetics.../ (accessed Jan. 26, 2021).
“Highly Creative People Have Well-Connected Brain Hemispheres,” Psychology Today, 2017. https://www.psychologytoday.com/.../highly-creative... (accessed Jan. 26, 2021).
[21] N. J. C. Andreasen, “Creativity and Psychosis,” Archives of General Psychiatry, vol. 32, no. 1, p. 70, Jan. 1975, doi: 10.1001/archpsyc.1975.01760190072008.
N. Andreasen, “A journey into chaos: Creativity and the unconsciousFNx08,” Mens Sana Monographs, vol. 9, no. 1, p. 42, 2011, doi: 10.4103/0973–1229.77424.
N. Pediaditakis, “The Association Between Major Mental Disorders and Geniuses,” Psychiatric Times, 2021. https://www.psychiatrictimes.com/.../association-between... (accessed Jan. 26, 2021).
I. Reddy, J. Ukrani, V. Indla, and V. Ukrani, “Creativity and psychopathology: Two sides of the same coin?,” Indian Journal of Psychiatry, vol. 60, no. 2, p. 168, 2018, doi: 10.4103/psychiatry.indianjpsychiatry_129_18.
[22] Ö. de Manzano, S. Cervenka, A. Karabanov, L. Farde, and F. Ullén, “Thinking Outside a Less Intact Box: Thalamic Dopamine D2 Receptor Densities Are Negatively Related to Psychometric Creativity in Healthy Individuals,” PLoS ONE, vol. 5, no. 5, p. e10670, May 2010, doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0010670.
[23]https://www.facebook.com/teammonsterbox/photos/2722037384743677/
N. W. Gillham, “Sir Francis Galton and the Birth of Eugenics,” Annual Review of Genetics, vol. 35, no. 1, pp. 83–101, Dec. 2001, doi: 10.1146/annurev.genet.35.102401.090055.
[24] https://www.facebook.com/teammonsterbox/photos/2793009920979756/
“Why Phrenology Is Now Considered a Pseudoscience,” Verywell Mind, 2021. https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-phrenology-2795251 (accessed Jan. 26, 2021).
[25] https://www.facebook.com/teammonsterbox/photos/2563290390618378
[26] “The Tragic Story of How Einstein’s Brain Was Stolen and Wasn’t Even Special,” Science, Apr. 21, 2014. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/.../the-tragic-story.../ (accessed Jan. 26, 2021).
