Krönung des Tugendhelden (c. 1612–1614) by Peter Paul Rubens
Monument of Peter the Great in Saint Petersburg
Greatness is a concept of a state of superiority affecting a person or object
in a particular place or area. Greatness can also be attributed to
individuals who possess a natural ability to be better than all others.
The concept carries the implication that the particular person or
object, when compared to others of a similar type, has clear advantage
over others. As a descriptive term it is most often applied to a person
or their work, and may be qualified or unqualified. An example of an
expression of the concept in a qualified sense would be "Abraham Lincoln is the definition of greatness" or "Franklin D. Roosevelt was one of the greatest wartime leaders". In the unqualified sense it might be stated "George Washington
achieved greatness within his own lifetime", thus implying that
"greatness" is a definite and identifiable quality. Application of the
terms "great" and "greatness" is dependent on the perspective and subjective judgements of those who apply them.
Whereas in some cases the perceived greatness of a person, place or
object might be agreed upon by many, this is not necessarily the case,
and the perception of greatness may be both fiercely contested and
highly individual.
Historically, in Europe, rulers were sometimes given the attribute "the Great", as in Alexander the Great, Frederick the Great, and Catherine the Great. Starting with the Roman consul and general Pompey, the Latin equivalent Magnus was also used, as in Pompeius Magnus, Albertus Magnus, and Carolus Magnus. The English language uses the Latin term magnum opus, (literally "great work") to describe certain works of art and literature.
Since the publication of Francis Galton's Hereditary Genius in 1869, and especially with the accelerated development of intelligence tests
in the early 1900s, there has been a vast amount of social scientific
research published relative to the question of greatness. Much of this
research does not actually use the term great in describing itself, preferring terms such as eminence, genius, exceptional achievement, etc. Historically the major intellectual battles over this topic have focused around the questions of nature versus nurture or person versus context.
Today the importance of both dimensions is accepted by all, but
disagreements over the relative importance of each are still reflected
in variations in research emphases.
"Jesus teaches about greatness" (Matthew 18) by Julius Schnorr von Karolsfeld, 1860
Genetic approaches
The early research had a strong genetic emphasis and focused on intelligence as the driving force behind greatness.
Hereditary Genius – Galton (1869)
The earliest such research, Hereditary Genius by Francis Galton
(1869), argued that people vary hugely in “natural ability” which is
inherited biologically. Those at the very top end of the range, i.e.,
geniuses, become the leaders and great achievers of their generation. To
prove this thesis Galton collected data showing that genius clusters in
what he termed “Notable Family Lines”, such as those of Bernoulli, Cassini, Darwin, Herschel, and Jussieu in science, or Bach in music.
Galton then calculated the odds of eminent people having eminent
relations, taking into account the closeness of the biological
connection (e.g., son vs grandson), and the magnitude of achievement of
the eminent parent. His findings were as anticipated: the more famous
the parent (i.e., the greater level of presumed “natural ability”), the
greater likelihood there would be illustrious relatives; and the closer
the blood tie, the greater those odds.
Early Mental Traits of 300 Geniuses – Cox (1926)
Catharine Cox’s book on The Early Mental Traits of Three Hundred Geniuses (1926), was similar to Galton’s in its orientation. Using the method that her mentor, Stanford Psychology Professor Lewis Terman,
had developed for differentiating children in terms of intelligence,
Cox coded records of childhood and adolescent achievements of 301
historic eminent leaders and creators to estimate what their IQs
would have been on the basis of intellectual level of such achievements
relative to the age at which they were accomplished. For example, John Stuart Mill
reportedly studied Greek at 3, read Plato at 7, and learned calculus at
11. As such, what he was doing at 5, the average person couldn’t do
until 9 years, 6 months of age, giving Mill an estimated IQ of 190.
Cox found that the perceived eminence of those with the highest
IQs was higher than that of those attaining lower IQ estimates, and that
those with higher IQs also exhibited more versatility in their
achievements. For example, da Vinci, Michelangelo, Descartes, Benjamin Franklin, Goethe, and others with IQs in the mid 160s or above were superior in their versatility to those attaining lower scores, such as George Washington, Palestrina, or Philip Sheridan.
Both Cox and Galton have been criticized for failing to take
account of the role of nurture, or more specifically socio-economic and
educational advantage, in the achievements of these historical greats.
Cultural approach
There
was one major anthropological study of genius, and it was triggered
specifically by the author’s contentions with Galton’s work.
Configurations of Cultural Growth – Kroeber (1944)
Alfred Kroeber’s Configurations of Cultural Growth
(1944) looked at many of the same historic greats as did Galton and
Cox, but from a completely different orientation. As a cultural
anthropologist, Kroeber maintained that, in Simonton's words, “culture
takes primacy over the individual in any account of human (behavior),
and that historic geniuses are no exception…”
To prove his thesis, Kroeber collected “long lists of notable
figures from several nationalities and historic eras”, and then grouped
them within a field and a shared cultural context, e.g., “Configuration
for American Literature”. Then within these groupings he listed his
notables in “strict chronological order”, identifying the most eminent
figures by using capital letters for their surnames (e.g. EMERSON,
LONGFELLOW, POE, WHITMAN, etc. in above configuration).
Kroeber found that genius never appeared in isolation, but
rather, in Simonton's words, that “one genius cluster(ed) with others of
greater and lesser fame in adjacent generations”. He also found that
there were historical “crests” and “troughs” in every field.
These fluctuations in the appearance of genius were much too rapid to
be explained by the simple mechanism of genetic inheritance along family
lines.
Kroeber argued, in Simonton's words, that his “configurations”
were due to “emulations”: “Geniuses cluster in history because the key
figures of one generation emulate those in the immediately preceding
generations… (until) it attains a high point of perfection that stymies
further growth”. At this point the “tradition degenerates into empty
imitation, as most creative minds move on to greener pastures”.
Recent research is consistent with these explanations;
but many aspects of the developmental process from birth to the
attainment of greatness remain unaccounted for by Kroeber’s
anthropological approach.
Developmental approaches
Retrospective
studies, involving extensive interviews with individuals who have
attained eminence, or at least exceptional levels of achievement, have
added much to our understanding of the developmental process. Two
studies in particular stand out.
Scientific Elite – Zuckerman (1977)
Harriet Zuckerman’s Scientific Elite: Nobel Laureates in the United States,
is based on many sources of research evidence, including a series of
forty-one extended interviews with American winners of the Nobel Prize for science.
Zuckerman reported her results around two main topics: How the
Prize is Awarded, and Career Development of the Scientific Elite.
In relation to the question of the career development of the
scientific elite
Zuckerman uses the phrase "accumulation of advantage" to describe her
findings. In her words: “Scientists who show promise early in their
careers (are) given greater opportunities in the way of research
training and facilities. To the extent that these scientists are as
competent as the rest or more so, they ultimately will do far better in
terms of both role performance and reward… rewards (which) can be
transformed into resources for further work.. (and hence over time)
scientists who are initially advantaged gain even greater opportunities
for further achievement and rewards.”
To see if ‘accumulation of advantage’ was operating in the career
development of the scientific elite, Zuckerman compared the careers of
future laureates with those of “members of the United States National Academy of Sciences
and the scientific rank and file” along a number of dimensions
including socioeconomic origins, status of undergraduate and graduate
education, the process of moving into the scientific elite, and first
jobs and professorships.
She also interviewed forty-one Nobel laureates extensively about
their "apprenticeships" to "master" scientists while they were doing
their doctoral research, and other aspects of their career development
related to the above topics.
Zuckerman concluded that evidence of "accumulative of advantage"
was clearly present over the course of development, with result that her
research “… cast(s) considerable doubt on the conclusion that marked
differences in performance between the ultra-elite and other scientists
reflect equally marked differences in their initial capacities to do
scientific work”.
Developing Talent in Young People – Bloom et al (1985)
Benjamin Bloom
and five colleagues conducted extensive interviews with 120 “young men
and women (as well as their parents and influential teachers)… who had
reached the highest levels of accomplishment” in six fields – Olympic
sprint swimmers, Top 10 rated professional tennis players, concert
pianists, accomplished sculptors, exceptional mathematicians, and
outstanding research neurologists.
They report many findings relevant to the “talent development process", including:
- Development was tied throughout to the values, interests, resources, and personal investments of the family of origin. In most families “introduction to the field and initial… skill development occurred” because the “(p)arents (or other family members), in pursuing their own interests, created situations that intrigued, interested, or involved the child… The child’s interest was rewarded or encouraged…” and the parents then provided other ways to extend this interest.
- The “work ethic” is central to talent development. It is developed by “the home environment” and “…directly related to learning and participation in the chosen talent field”.
- “Each group of parents strongly encouraged their children’s development in a particularly highly approved talent field (related to the parents’ own “special interests”) and gave much less support to other possible talent fields and activities.”
- “Families and teachers were crucial at every point along the way to excellence… what families and teachers do at different times and how they do it clearly sets the stage for exceptional learning in each talent field”.
- “Few… (of the) individuals (included in this study) were regarded as child prodigies”; and, as a result, this research “raises (serious) questions about earlier views of special gifts and innate abilities as necessary prerequisites of talent development”.
Recent approaches
A 1995 book by Hans Eysenck argues that a “personality trait” called Psychoticism
is central to becoming a creative genius; and a more recent book by
Bill Dorris (2009) looks at the influence of “everything from genetics
to cultural crises”, including chance, over the course of development of
those who attain greatness.
Hans Eysenck's book, Genius: The Natural History of Creativity
(1995), "construct(s)... a model of genius and creativity" whose
"novelty lies in (its) attempt to make personality differences central
to the argument".
In particular Eysenck is interested in a personality trait called
“psychoticism … chief among (whose) cognitive features is a tendency to
over-inclusiveness, i.e., an inclination not to limit one's associations to relevant ideas, memories, images, etc."
He considers a massive range of experimental psychological
research in order to establish the underlying genetic, neuro-chemical
mechanisms which may be operating to influence levels of creativity
associated with fluctuations in “the tendency towards over-inclusiveness
indicative of psychoticism..."
Eysenck's assessment of his overall argument is as follows:
"There is no hint that the theory is more than a suggestion of how many
disparate facts and hypotheses can be pulled together into a causal
chain, explaining… the apogee of human endeavor - genius. If the
theory has one point in its favour it is that every step can be tested
experimentally, and that many steps have already received positive
support from such testing."
The Arrival of The Fittest - Dorris (2009)
Bill Dorris's book, The Arrival of The Fittest: How The Great Become Great
(2009), attempts to address a number of issues which remain unanswered
on the subject. These include the role of chance over the course of
development, the importance of the development of unique personal
characteristics to achieving greatness, and the influence of changes in
the wider worlds surrounding the person - from interpersonal to societal
- on the course of an individual's development.
Dorris argues that those who attain ‘greatness’ are credited with
solving a key generational problem in a field and/or society (e.g., Einstein resolving the conflict between Newton and Maxwell in physics at the outset of the 20th century; or Woody Guthrie providing a voice for the outcasts of the Great Depression of the 1930s).
Dorris’s core argument is that those who become ‘great’ start out
with sufficient genetic potential and then are able, over two or more
decades, to obtain matches/fits with “the right kind of problems” to
extend the development of these genetic biases into what Dorris terms,
“key characteristics”. These are the intellectual, personality, and self
characteristics which eventually turn out to be required to solve a key
generational problem in their field and/or society.
Dorris argues that there are four types of matching processes
which occur over the course of such development. These refer to matches
between the developmental needs of the person and the opportunities and
resources essential to engaging in problem solving activities that
stimulate further development of those aspects of intelligence,
personality, and self which eventually become key characteristics.
Two of these matching processes are covered extensively in the
existing research literature: continuous matching and cumulative
matching.
The other two of the matching processes described by Dorris are
completely new to this book: catalytic matching and chaotic matching.
Dorris’s argument in relation to catalytic matching is that
anyone who eventually becomes a ‘great’ will have experienced one or
more sustained periods of exceptionally accelerated development of their
key characteristics, accelerations which serve massively to
differentiate them from their former peers in terms of both development
and visibility within the field.
This acceleration occurs because the person becomes the focal
point (star) of a self-reinforcing system of expertise and resources
(catalytic system) which thrives off this person’s accelerated
development and visibility.
Dorris's argument in relation to chaotic matching is that access
to the resources and learning opportunities essential to the development
of key characteristics of an eventual ‘great’ often occurs not due to
the efforts/planning of the individual, but simply due to chance events
in the interpersonal, institutional or societal worlds around the
person, who (unlike perhaps millions of equally capable peers) becomes
the beneficiary of these chance events – events which Dorris argues can
change a person’s entire future in much the same way as a lottery
jackpot or a Titanic ticket.
Dorris documents his theoretical arguments with extensive case studies of a wide range of individuals, including Einstein, Elvis, Monet, Mozart, da Vinci, Abraham Lincoln, Watson and Crick, basketball great Bill Russell, Louis Armstrong, Bill Gates, Alfred Hitchcock, Woody Guthrie, and Norma Jeane/Marilyn Monroe.
