In The Genius Famine, they write that a genius would not be high in neuroticism. I would argue that especially in the arts, dozens of examples exist of highly neurotic geniuses. Maybe I am misunderstanding what they mean with neuroticism, though I certainly see van Gogh, Beethoven, Tasso, Schopenhauer, in part also Kierkegaard and Nietzsche as rather neurotic. Weininger even shot himself, Nietzsche was extremely depressed and unmotivated around 1881/1882 (as shown by his letters and personal notes.)
Dutton also claimed (not in this book) that the British were the greatest nation, with the most geniuses. While the British are or were a great nation, no doubt, Germans are leading when it comes to (for lack of a better term) “high calibre geniuses.” I remember reading a blog post titled: German dominance at the very highest levels of accomplishment.
I rather side with Schopenhauer’s view regarding genius, who, too, writes that men of genius are highly irritable, prone to suffer from their surroundings much quicker and more intensely.
Beethoven certainly was highly irritable. van Gogh clashed with Gauguin. Hölderin was mentally ill, living in a tower the last half of his life. Robert Walser, too, is an interesting case who spent the last twenty-seven years of his life in a sanatorium.
While it seems to make sense that someone who is under-motivated would not necessarily want to produce works of genius, what anxiety, depression or self-esteemt does have to do with it is not quite clear. Nietzsche and Spengler, for example, were suicidal and depressed, both thinking that they wasted ten or more years; Nietzsche was not even sure that what he wrote was worthy. Certainly, Kierkegaard knew he was brilliant, just as Schopenhauer was; and yet, they, too, suffered from depressive states. (Kierkegaard even prayed he may die, he suffered from taedium vitae.)
That more intelligent offspring would be taller and have more symmetrical faces does certainly not apply to genius; Schopenhauer even writes that they are of short stature. Beauty, as I wrote earlier is not health, and if facial attractiveness is an indicator of genius, Hollywood et al. would be full of them. Which it isn’t.
In fact, Kant, Pascal, Kierkegaard were hunchbacks; Lichtenberg, too, but apparently after an accident he suffered during his childhood (?).
All in all, this seems to be too subjective a subject, and psychology is the softest of all sciences anyway. The sample size is to small for any meaningful conclusion on what personality type geniuses (on average) appear to have. Just as with people of IQs above 145, given how rare they are (and geniuses are even rarer.)
The following claim is nonsense of the highest order:
Another example is that girls who have grown up in sexually-unstable situations seem to adopt a short-termist sexual strategy, having children with a variety of men who are chosen for their dominance (hence probably good genes) rather than their ability to remain committed to a relationship and provide resources over the long term. In slang terms, girls from unstable homes may exhibit a preference for ‘cads’ rather than ‘Dads’.
Obvious nonsense. Today’s huge number of single mothers is only made possible by tax payer money – most of which gets paid by men. Many of them childless, I suppose. If a woman had been left behind with a toddler, this was a death sentence, of course. Such men are vermin, not of “good genes” at all. It is preposterous to claim that dominance—whatever that even means—has anything to do with good genes …
According to the authors, genius is very important. Do geniuses have bad genes? What kind of character and temperament did the parents of geniuses have? All this talk about “good genes” sounds highly subjective. Certainly, most geniuses did have at least one parent with high intelligence or talent in some area. Is Dutton’s and Charlton’s claim that those who procreate have what they call good genes? What, then, is dysgenics? Further, if geniuses seldom marry and have offspring, does this mean that:
I. geniuses were born, so they have parents and those parents—because of having had children—did have “good genes”; II. geniuses themselves usually are anti-social, not interested in marriage nor “attractive” enough for it, therefore they carry “bad genes”; III. yet, geniuses are very important! Despite their bad genes …
Whatever.
I would rather make the claim that there is no selection of any kind, except if a few high IQ eugenicists like Galton are allowed to implement eugenics. Galton, too, died without children.
The criteria for why women “fall in love with someone”—to use this ridiculous phrase—are foggy at best, if not downright disgusting. Schopenhauer’s Metaphysics of Sexual Love is still one of the best essays written on this very topic.
Most of it was written by Dutton, I guess. Since Charlton is a Christian, it would not make much sense to think that he takes the musings of a depressed theologian—Darwin—at face value. What they call “sexual selection” does not exist, obviously. There is no DNA scanner on the retina of women – or men, for that matter.
There is not much in term of selection, it does not exist and never did. Regarding the quote above, this is nonsense right there. Why would dominance have anything to do with what they term “good genes”? My father passed on his hunchback: how is that for “good genes”? Idiots.
Not to speak of mental illness. Which will usually only be discovered after being acquainted with someone for somewhat longer. This, however, is not always the case: think of so-called one night stands and the numerous children born out-of-wedlock, many of which are not the result of what nowadays is called a long-term relationship. That my father also had a hot temper—inherited from his father, just like his awful hunched back—revealed itself only later, after I had been born.
Imbeciles.
Another quote which basically says it all:
Modern society is, of course, run by Head Girls, of both sexes (plus a smattering of charming or charismatic psychopaths), hence there is no assigned place for the creative genius.
Yes, so there is at best negative selection going on today. Especially if one also takes into account that people with very high IQs—three standard deviations above the mean—are usually occupying the lower rungs of society, cf. Nils M. Holm’s writings on this matter.
Darwin, evolution, sexual selection is idiotic nonsense. Even more so given that hardly is there anything more irrational than copulation: as if people suddenly become cold, hard rationalists in terms of—to use another term that makes me want to throw up—mate selection.
Laughable! Most people don’t spend their money and resources wisely, why would this be any different in other matters. Especially those so irrational and based on lust, driven less by our brains than our glands.
Our hearts are evil from youth onward. Read the Bible and shut up. Case closed.
Don Colacho said it best:
Why deceive ourselves? Science has not answered a single important question.
In the modern world the number of theories is increasing that are not worth the trouble to refute except with a shrug of the shoulders.
The curve of man’s knowledge of himself ascends until the 17th century, declines gradually afterwards, in this century it finally plummets.
By believing that the wax figures fabricated by psychology are alive, man has been gradually losing his knowledge of man.