Great Geniuses of Science Took Many Risks, Study Suggests
The next great scientific breakthrough will probably be made by an introverted, confident individual who rarely attends church and is a frequently criticized workaholic, a psychologist predicts.
Those characteristics typify some of the world’s most brilliant minds, from Isaac Newton and Charles Darwin to Albert Einstein, said Dean Keith Simonton, a psychology professor at UC Davis.
Simonton analyzed the lives of more than 2,000 scientists, focusing on common traits in intelligence, education, family background, personality and productivity.
“Perhaps the most important quality shared by the greatest scientists is the willingness to produce a tremendous amount of work--often on seemingly trivial or useless projects--without fear of failure,” said Simonton, who explains his theory in a book, Scientific Genius: A Psychology of Science.
Not So Cautious
The greatest misconception about renowned scientists is that they are cautious, methodical individuals showered with success and acclaim.
In fact, Simonton said, “science’s greatest figures have been prolific risk-takers, pursuing ideas that appear illogical or counter to prevailing thought.”
“By taking directions shunned by the mainstream and publishing in abundance, the scientists increase their odds of making discoveries.
“At the same time, they increase the likelihood of failure and, indeed, history’s greatest scientists knew a great many failures.”
Einstein published nearly 250 papers during his life, but a significant number of them were ignored or even proven wrong, Simonton said. And Newton devoted much of his career to the futile study of alchemy.
“It’s very hard to find a great scientist who did not provoke a tremendous amount of criticism,” Simonton said.
Simonton also found most great scientists were introverts.
“Their parents often were intellectuals themselves and could afford to expose them to a wide range of experiences and ideas,” he said.
Most scientists’ families did not subscribe to a religion, but if they did, it was to a “less dogmatic” one, Simonton said.
Role of Intelligence
Simonton defined genius as “having an extraordinary impact on the course of history or civilization” and said intelligence played a part only to a point.
“High scores on IQ tests do not correlate highly with success in life,” he said.
“A certain amount of intelligence is required to master the concepts of technical fields such as physics. Most evidence suggests that, depending on the field, an IQ of 120, 130 or 140 (in the sciences) is adequate. A Ph.D. has an average IQ of 130, while the average IQ is 140 for a Ph.D. in physics.”
As a point of reference, he said, the average college graduate scores 100 on the intelligence test.
Imprecise Measure
“The IQ test measures your ability to master lots of information, and you need minimal levels of that in your field, but it does not measure what you can do with that ability,” Simonton said. “The test cannot predict whether you will be a genius in life, just whether you are in the running.”
Beyond possessing a minimal level of intelligence, he said, “it’s important only that a scientist’s intelligence enable him or her to make rich associations of ideas.” He hopes his theory will make people aware there are no shortcuts to success. “Reluctance to work and take risks will prevent many scientists who have potential, but are not willing to stick their necks out, from reaching greatness.”
