Children Above 180 IQ Stanford-Binet: Origin and Development. Leta Stetter Hollingworth

adapted only or primarily to certain kinds of intellectual performance. In other words, the genius is thought to lack general ability. A recent statement by Carrel (2) seems to express in part at least this theory:

      There is also a class of men who, although disharmonious as the criminal and the insane, are indispensable to modern society. They are the men of genius. They are characterized by a monstrous growth of some of their psychological activities. A great artist, a great scientist, a great philosopher, is rarely a great man. He is generally a man of common type, with one side over-developed.

      As a combination of traits. Galton (6) thought of genius as that which qualifies a person for eminence, and he believed that achieved eminence must be founded on a combination of no less than three essentials. He wrote:

      By natural ability I mean those qualities of intellect and disposition which urge and qualify a man to perform acts that lead to reputation. I do not mean capacity without zeal, nor zeal without capacity, nor even a combination of both of them, without an adequate power of doing a great deal of very laborious work. But I mean a nature which, when left to itself, will, urged by an inherent stimulus, climb the path that leads to eminence, and has strength to reach the summit … one which, if hindered or thwarted, will fret and strive until the hindrance is overcome, and it is again free to follow its labour-loving instinct. It is almost a contradiction in terms to doubt that such men will generally become eminent.

      Again, Galton says:

      We have seen that a union of three separate qualities—intellect, zeal, and power of work—are necessary to raise men from the ranks.

      Lehman (9) has recently expressed this same idea, as a result of a statistical study of the most productive years of intellectual workers:

      Indeed, it is doubtful that genius is solely the fruit of any single trait. It is the belief of the writer that the fruits of genius are, on the contrary, a function of numerous integers, including both the personal traits of the individual worker, environmental conditions that are not too hostile, and the fortunate combination of both personal traits and external conditions.

      As quantitative. Galton (6) was the first to place the study of genius on the basis of quantitative statement, so that comparisons might be made and vertifications be effected. Galton formulated the theory that genius (great natural ability) is nothing more nor less than a very extreme degree in the distribution of a combination of traits—"intellect, zeal, and power of working"—which is shared by all in various "grades" or degrees. Reasoning thus, Galton applied for the first time in human thought the mathematical concepts of probablity to the definition of genius.

      Quetelet (13), drawing objects from congeries of known composition, had elaborated the form which the probabilities take of drawing a given combination. This form, with the law of deviation from the average governing it, is now, of course, a commonplace in psychological laboratories, so that it is hard to realize that when Galton made the mental leap from this curve to the abilities of men, no one had ever thought of human minds as "fitting" the curve drawn by Quetelet. Such a "fit" had already been thought of in connection with measurements of physique, and had been demonstrated for measurements of the shrimp (16) and for physical traits of persons. But that "natural ability" should be susceptible to the probability curve and "the curious theoretical law of deviation from an average" as length is among shrimps, or as circumference of the chest is among Scottish soldiers (as shown by Quetelet), was not conceived. With the modern methods of mental measurement it is easy enough to perceive the truth of this. But Galton was working in the dark, entirely without instruments of precision; and his table of frequency "for the classification of men according to their natural gifts" must be regarded as one of the most prescient statements in the history of social science.

      Working with the tables devised by Quetelet, Galton proposed the tabular "classification of men according to their natural gifts" shown [below].

      CLASSIFICATION OF MEN ACCORDING TO THEIR NATURAL GIFTS

      GRADES OF NATURAL NUMBERS OF MEN COMPRISED IN THE SEVERAL GRADES OF NATURAL ABILITY, WHETHER IN RESPECT ABILITY, SEPARATED TO THEIR GENERAL POWERS OR TO SPECIAL APTITUDES BY EQUAL INTERVALS

      Below Above Proportionate; In Each Million In Total Male Population of the United Kingdom, Say Average Average viz., One in of the Same Age 15 Millions, of the Undermentioned Ages 20–30 30–40 40–50 50–60 60–70 70–80 a A 4 256,791 651,000 495,000 391,000 268,000 171,000 77,000 b B 6 161,279 409,000 312,000 246,000 168,000 107,000 48,000 c C 16 63,563 161,000 123,000 97,000 66,000 42,000 19,000 d D 64 15,696 39,800 30,300 23,900 16,400 10,400 4,700 e E 413 2,423 6,100 4,700 3,700 2,520 1,600 729 f F 4,300 233 590 450 355 243 155 70 g G 79,000 14 35 27 21 15 9 4 x

      All grades All grades below g above G 1,000,000 1 3 2 2 2 0 0

      Interpreting this theoretical tabulation, Galton (6) wrote:

      It will be seen that more than half of each million is contained in the two mediocre classes a and A; the four mediocre classes a, b, A, B, contain more than four fifths, and the six mediocre classes more than nineteen twentieths of the entire population. Thus, the rarity of commanding ability and the vast abundance of mediocrity is no accident, but follows of necessity from the very nature of these things.

      On decscending the scale, we find by the time we have reached f that we are already among the idiots and imbeciles. We have seen that there are 400 idiots and imbeciles to any million of persons living in this country; but that 30 per cent of their number appear to be light cases, to whom the name of idiot is inappropriate. There will remain 280 true idiots and imbeciles to every million of our population. This ratio coincides very closely with the requirements of class f. No doubt a certain proportion of them are idiots owing to some fortuitous cause … but the proportion of accidental idiots cannot be very large.

      Hence we arrive at the undeniable but unexpected conclusion that eminently gifted men are raised as much above mediocrity as idiots are depressed below it; a fact that is calculated to enlarge considerably our ideas of the enormous difference of intellectual gifts between man and man.

      MISCELLANEOUS OBSERVATIONS TENDING TO DEFINE CHARACTERISTICS OF GENIUS

      In addition to the formulation of the rather definite concepts of genius which have been discussed, there are to be found in the literature of this topic a large number of general observations ascribing certain characteristics to persons of genius. There are also many remarks as to the conditions of living, of education, of genetics, and so forth, which are alleged to foster or to hinder the development of genius. Many of these observations and remarks emanate from others than professed psychologists, some of the most interesting coming from litterateurs and philosophers.

      One of the most penetrating discussions of genius by a litterateur is that of Shaw (15) in his Preface to Saint Joan. Shaw regards Saint Joan as a young genius, and in introducing his readers to this point of view he says:

      Let us be clear about the meaning of the terms. A genius is a person who, seeing farther and probing deeper than other people, has a different set of ethical values from theirs, and has energy enough to give effect to this extra vision and its valuations in whatever manner best suits his or her specific talents.

      Here is brought out the tendency to heterodoxy which characterizes genius and is the source of much of its difficulty. Shaw dwells upon these difficulties in saying:

      But it is not so easy for mental giants who neither hate nor intend to injure their fellows to realize that nevertheless their fellows hate mental giants and would like to destroy them, not only enviously because the juxtaposition of a superior wounds their vanity, but quite honestly because it frightens them. Fear will drive men to any extreme; and the fear inspired by a superior being is a mystery which cannot be reasoned away. Being immeasurable it is unbearable when there is no presumption or guarantee of its benevolence and moral responsibility; in other words, when it has official status.

      This is the same trend of thought which Mill (11) follows in his Essay on Liberty,