My friend Lawrence Rifkin published a nice piece in the Huffington Post the other day “Was Darwin Really A Genius.” I read the piece with great interest, as Darwin in one of my intellectual heroes, and I love to read anything about him. As I said before, I was intellectually asleep before I really encountered Darwin, and there is no way to have a comprehensive view of human life without understanding the concept of evolution. Here is Larry’s conclusion:
Darwin possessed no single talent of creative genius that cannot be found commonly in others. Therefore many people could compete with Darwin on specific, isolated abilities. But the collection of his talents and character put together in one individual is extraordinary – the combined sum of all that made Darwin Darwin. That, along with the level of his accomplishments, qualifies him as an exceptional genius, on par with geniuses with off-the-charts specific talents. And if you, very intelligent reader, were on the Beagle, I do not believe you would have achieved Darwin’s level of ideas and evidence. For these reasons, I would argue that Charles Darwin was a rare genius.
I think this is about right. Of course there has been a lot written about the idea of genius lately. Some say that geniuses are made not born, and that devoting enough time to a pursuit from a young age essentially defines what we call genius. Others argue that genius is more nature than nurture, mostly a case of inborn ability. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle. What we call genius is a combination of native talent, the right environment, the drive to succeed, and more. So if you or had hit golf balls or played piano or studied from the age of two, we would be better golfers, pianists, or physicists. But we probably wouldn’t be Tiger woods, Mozart, or Newton because we don’t possess their natural athletic or musical or mathematical abilities. So geniuses are those with the natural talent and who had the right environment, disposition, etc.