The Romanticized Element of "Genius" in Scientific Discoveries

A highly contended topic on the nature of scientific discoveries is their ability to appear seemingly out of thin air. These theories seem to come as a burst of inspiration attainable by only the most brilliant of minds. However, a great discovery is not created in a vacuum and relies largely on both its acceptance within the scientific community and the dedication and training of the scientist themselves. Both elements are wholly driven not by inspiration, but by a dedication to learning that manifests itself through high levels of training and education. There is a great societal tendency to romanticize the element of “genius” present in each discovery. This glorified image of the scientist as a hyperintelligent being is perpetuated by media portrayal of scientific discoveries happening as stand-alone events, no matter how much support or collaboration was present leading up to the finding. For example, Thomas Edison is often viewed as the sole mind responsible for the invention of the lightbulb, but in reality he had a team of inventors working with him and built on the knowledge of many previous discoveries. Leadership researchers have a theory for the tendency to over-attribute successes and shortcomings to the leader, called the romance of leadership. The romance of leadership implies that society is inclined to attribute to leaders the credit for thrilling victories or the blame for agonizing defeats, even if they don’t deserve it. However, discoveries are neither made in a vacuum nor by unattainably brilliant minds. Genius is not perfectly self-contained, as there are strategies and mindsets that can create the combination of discipline and intellectual curiosity commonly referred to as “genius”.

A spectacular scientific theory is thought of as such for two main reasons. An eventual broad acceptance of the discovery throughout the scientific community, and the change or explanation of a pre-existing state of thought. Therefore, theories rely not only upon the scientist, but also upon the adoption of their argument within the wider community, as “a single person may put forward claims, and argue for them, but the transformation of claims into knowledge is done by communities”. Consequently, the reasoning of an individual scientist and the reasoning of the scientific community are the largest inputs towards a major discovery, with the unifying characteristic being that neither simply discover or accept this reasoning out of inspiration, but through practice, preparation and training. The public adoption of a theory can be quite slow, as evidenced by the severe backlash towards Darwin’s original thesis in the years following its release. It takes time to work though and reason with new theories, as the community must learn the appropriate way to think about the problems that have been laid out. The case of Darwin was no exception and is an excellent example of how through generations of being taught how to think about the theory of natural selection, science has come to not only widely accept it, but become “more Darwinian than Darwin” by not only assimilating to the theory, but also being trained to think like Darwin about a wide variety of situations.

How then do education and training create the ability to reason for both the community and individual? One explanation is that through practice, repetition, and deliberate work, one can increase their skill level exponentially in any chosen field, with science being no exception. This training can be both self-imposed, as in the example André-Marie Ampère, a French physicist and mathematician who was one of the founders of the science of classical electromagnetism, which he referred to as "electrodynamics". Ampere’s parents believed that young boys should avoid formal schooling and pursue instead an "education direct from nature”. They actualized this ideal by allowing Ampere to educate himself within the walls of his well-stocked library, where he spent several hours every day dedicating himself to the pursuit of science. On the opposite end of the spectrum are scientists such as Richard Feynman, an American theoretical physicist known for his work in the integral formulation of quantum mechanics and the theory of quantum electrodynamics, who spent almost a decade obtaining schooling from MIT and Princeton. Even though these two scientists developed their base of reasoning in a widely different setting, the common element of dedication and passion for their field led them to develop an unparalleled creativity of thought and reasoning ability, as evidenced by their respective scientific contributions. This path to success through passion and perseverance is a well-documented argument, as psychologists for decades have been diving into the question of what sets successful people apart.

According to Angela Duckworth, winner of the Macarthur “genius” grant, grit is an often-ignored psychological trait that can help explain why some individuals succeed when others with equal or greater ability do not. She defines grit as "not just resilience in the face of failure, but also having deep commitments that you remain loyal to over many years" and argues that it can be a better predictor of long-term success than cognitive ability. In fact, many scientists have argued that talent or “genius” have little correlation at all to accomplishments, with Darwin’s own autobiography corroborating this view. “For I have always maintained that, excepting fools, men did not differ much in intellect, only in zeal and hard work; and I still think this is an eminently important difference”. Here Darwin touches on and emphasizes the main point that training and practice take precedence over an innate measure of talent.

Thomas Edison famously declared genius to be “one percent inspiration and ninety-percent perspiration”. And this remains true: inspiration is not a viable reason for the emergence of great theories. No matter the level of intelligence and inspiration, true success requires intense dedication to reasoning and diligent training, both for the scientist as well as the public that must accept the theory.