What do you think?
Rate this book
Genius 101
Genius 101 makes for a great read on a centuries-old scientific puzzle - as well as a lively text on the wellsprings and manifestations of genius."
Teresa M. Amabile, PhD
The Edsel Bryant Ford Professor of Business Administration
Harvard Business School
[A] clear and engaging summary of this mysterious and utterly important phenomenon written by arguably the world's expert on the topic. Nearly 30 years of Simonton's fascination and focused intellect on the topic of exemplary genius come together in this brief, accessible and insightful volume. If only all introductory courses were this much fun!
--Gregory J. Feist, PhD
San Jose State University
The latest, and possibly most comprehensive, entry into this genre [on the study of genius] is Dean Keith Simonton's new book Genius 101... Simonton, a psychology professor at the University of California, Davis, is one of the world's leading authorities on the intellectually eminent..."
--Time Magazine, February 13, 2009 Genius 101 is an extremely readable and entertaining book: I read it in one sitting....Each chapter is informative, well organized, provocative, and entertaining. This book presents the best short introduction to genius to be found."
--Robert Sternberg
PsycCritiques
Are geniuses born or made?
How do psychologists measure "genius"?
Is it "genius," or is it "madness"?
Genius," contrary to common belief, is not strictly a matter of intelligence. Intellect, personality, creativity, even serendipity play a significant role in molding a genius. So, what does it mean to be a genius?
Genius 101 examines the many definitions of "genius," and the multiple domains in which it appears, including art, science, music, business, literature, and the media. Dr. Simonton introduces the study of genius theory and the research supporting it, using non-scientific, accessible language-fit for a non-genius.
The Psych 101 Series
Short, reader-friendly introductions to cutting-edge topics in psychology. With key concepts, controversial topics, and fascinating accounts of up-to-the-minute research, The Psych 101 Series is a valuable resource for all students of psychology and anyone interested in the field.
Teresa M. Amabile, PhD
The Edsel Bryant Ford Professor of Business Administration
Harvard Business School
[A] clear and engaging summary of this mysterious and utterly important phenomenon written by arguably the world's expert on the topic. Nearly 30 years of Simonton's fascination and focused intellect on the topic of exemplary genius come together in this brief, accessible and insightful volume. If only all introductory courses were this much fun!
--Gregory J. Feist, PhD
San Jose State University
The latest, and possibly most comprehensive, entry into this genre [on the study of genius] is Dean Keith Simonton's new book Genius 101... Simonton, a psychology professor at the University of California, Davis, is one of the world's leading authorities on the intellectually eminent..."
--Time Magazine, February 13, 2009 Genius 101 is an extremely readable and entertaining book: I read it in one sitting....Each chapter is informative, well organized, provocative, and entertaining. This book presents the best short introduction to genius to be found."
--Robert Sternberg
PsycCritiques
Are geniuses born or made?
How do psychologists measure "genius"?
Is it "genius," or is it "madness"?
Genius," contrary to common belief, is not strictly a matter of intelligence. Intellect, personality, creativity, even serendipity play a significant role in molding a genius. So, what does it mean to be a genius?
Genius 101 examines the many definitions of "genius," and the multiple domains in which it appears, including art, science, music, business, literature, and the media. Dr. Simonton introduces the study of genius theory and the research supporting it, using non-scientific, accessible language-fit for a non-genius.
The Psych 101 Series
Short, reader-friendly introductions to cutting-edge topics in psychology. With key concepts, controversial topics, and fascinating accounts of up-to-the-minute research, The Psych 101 Series is a valuable resource for all students of psychology and anyone interested in the field.
- GenresPsychology
242 pages, Paperback
First published June 3, 1999
About the author
Dean Keith Simonton
23 books45 followersRenowned for his groundbreaking contributions to the study of genius, Dean Keith Simonton has provided his expertise to over 400 publications on the topic, including a dozen books entitled Genius, Creativity, and Leadership; Scientific Genius; Greatness; Genius and Creativity; Origins of Genius; Great Psychologists and Their Times; Creativity in Science; and Genius 101.
The recipient of several awards, Simonton’s work has been recognized by the William James Book Award, the Sir Francis Galton Award for Outstanding Contributions to the Study of Creativity, the Rudolf Arnheim Award for Outstanding Achievement in Psychology and the Arts, the Theoretical Innovation Prize in Personality and Social Psychology, the George A. Miller Outstanding Article Award, the E. Paul Torrance Award from the National Association for Gifted Children, and the Robert S. Daniel Award for Four-Year College/University Teaching.
A fellow of several professional organizations—including the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Psychological Society, and nine divisions of the American Psychological Association (APA)—Simonton has served as president of the International Association of Empirical Aesthetics and the Society for the Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity and the Arts (APA, Division 10). Currently, he is the president-elect of the Society for General Psychology (APA, Division 1) and a distinguished professor of psychology at the University of California. Dean Simonton obtained his Ph.D. from Harvard University in 1975.
The recipient of several awards, Simonton’s work has been recognized by the William James Book Award, the Sir Francis Galton Award for Outstanding Contributions to the Study of Creativity, the Rudolf Arnheim Award for Outstanding Achievement in Psychology and the Arts, the Theoretical Innovation Prize in Personality and Social Psychology, the George A. Miller Outstanding Article Award, the E. Paul Torrance Award from the National Association for Gifted Children, and the Robert S. Daniel Award for Four-Year College/University Teaching.
A fellow of several professional organizations—including the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Psychological Society, and nine divisions of the American Psychological Association (APA)—Simonton has served as president of the International Association of Empirical Aesthetics and the Society for the Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity and the Arts (APA, Division 10). Currently, he is the president-elect of the Society for General Psychology (APA, Division 1) and a distinguished professor of psychology at the University of California. Dean Simonton obtained his Ph.D. from Harvard University in 1975.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews
April 22, 2020
2,5 stars
Biases: blank slate tendencies towards IQ and gender, politically openly progressive to a fault, mentioning studies but then ignoring them, overly holistic in his view on psychology and uses anecdotes to "prove" points, subjectively chooses what evidence to conclude is correct even though he does actually introduce most stellar evidence on each area.
Pro:
It's an okay intro to the topic of geniuses as it's short, easy to read, and has a lot of good historimetric examples making sure it never grows dull. Historimetrics is a glorious field that is endlessly fascinating. Here researchers get to estimate IQ and OCEAN personality based on texts and biographies. Unfortunately he never explains how they calculate this stuff or decide on who gets to be called a genius. It just seems like mainly subjective picks based on fame and creativity in a field. Then there is the Cox genius IQ list and the high IQ kids, termites. This part is super interesting as that's something we can measure consistently over time.
This book is also an okay mini-intro to Francis Galton. It's hard to describe him as even human at this point. He is a step above and even above most geniuses. It's nice that the writer is a big fan of Galton as I admire him too and really do need to read up on him.
Con:
He never actually defined genius as he tries to do that throughout the book. But the definition he mainly seems to fall back on is that a genius needs to be famous and have created something new and long-lasting. And the writer gives this definition in very loose terms. So geniuses include painters, politicians and musicians, at least the classical ones. Which means that at the end of the book it's hard to say what a genius is and why artists don't just get their own category. Why are Einstein and Galton compared to Beethoven and Picasso?
He pulls a lot of punches. Race and gender studies are mentioned and explained but then he retracts his statements on these 2 topics. Same with "IQ falling with age" and many other claims. He mentions clear evidence for something and then just goes "but that's not politically progressive so let's just ignore these facts". And on the other hand, he seems to support holistic views on geniuses that are not grounded in much of anything scientific besides IQ. All his claims about creativity and mental illness are just not supported by any clear study in the book. It's more of a discussion starter book than a good academic book with clear logical discussions. He does seem to be well-read but that doesn't matter at all if you are very biased and can't think critically about things. Still, it's not a terrible book. It's just not fulfilling. The progressive bias takes hold of the material and controls any argument in the book, making this a very one-sided point of view. That's fine for many novice readers who are completely new to the topic but critical readers will cringe at many parts of the book as we know what evidence lies behind it all. And why some statements are just not good academic statements.
Conclusion:
If you don't know much about the topic or need a fast primer this is fine. The fact that it's short makes the bias acceptable. The last 10 pages are unbearable ignorant but then the book is over. It won't really inform you of any great science on the area as the author holds back and refuses to tackle any controversial issue. But on the other hand it's interesting to dive into weird logical arguments used to prove some vague theory. The IQ studies are some of the only science-focused claims in the book, but it's basically worth it just for that alone. Geniuses are very much interesting and as this book is very short and engaging it makes for a decent intro to the topic. But it's largely unfulfilling for people seeking good evidence or studies.
Page by page:
The book starts out by pointing out that various people were geniuses and their countries would be worse off without them having been born. One name mentioned is Lenin. The very guy who set up Gulags and a totalitarian socialist state. I don't know if he is a genius but the world would be endlessly better without him in my mind and I don't quite understand how anyone could argue otherwise. My family moved away from USSR as soon as it was allowed. But on the other hand it's useful that the writer's political bias is revealed right away as it prepares me for more biased arguments.
Page 15. A Chinese eunuch invented paper in 105 C.E.
Page 25. Trump is said to be a prime example of an intelligent leader in a 2002 poll study.
Page 42. He says that you need an IQ of 120 to complete a bachelor's and an IQ of 130 to complete a master's.
This is incorrect for my country, Denmark. Here it's way lower and 33% of the population are getting a master's degree. Soft social science master's degrees in my country are not hard at all and everyone has one - including me. But he does state that physics degrees require high IQ which is correct for any country. If his arguments were more clear he would be more concrete about what degree requires what kind of IQ. Though obviously, at Harvard, the average IQ is very high in any department.
Page 53. Leadership performance and IQ correlation is r = 0.25
Page 118. Because this book is so holistic and doesn't use any clear definitions many arguments are just very weak. He says that geniuses have a higher rate of mental illnesses. He also says it may be somewhat related to them being geniuses. This is a very weak argument. Geniuses are loosely defined by being people who are famous in their field. So if someone has a quirk or illness that makes him more noticeable it may make him more famous than someone with the same skills but without that interesting trait. So crazier people may just be more noteworthy and be more likely to get onto his genius lists even though actual geniuses are maybe even less crazy than the overall population. He even explains this in another part of the book. Moderate people are not much talked about and moderate leaders don't really get into his "genius" category. Furthermore, as artists feature in his genius lists it makes the overall group of genius have a much higher rate of mental illness. Again something he mentions but he still never clearly explains that artists may not be geniuses at all or that they may be another category of people. Artists are also uniquely known based on their image so could one imagine that many of the best artists ever are overlooked and not seen as geniuses because they were sane and boring all their life?
Page 175. Now we are truly jumping fully into pseudoscience territory. The author strongly implies that age is not a factor in declining intellectual output. Of course he uses old artists anecdotes to make his case. Surely if an old man can still paint it must mean that old people are as intelligent as young people, right? Yet again the evidence he has disproves his claim without him stating it outright and instead dismissing it. Einstein's output declining with age was an illustration of lowering of IQ with age. So he even has an anecdote to illustrate this well-known effect. He is hiding this evidence from us. According to the writer age discrimination is a terrible thing so we must... what? I agree that age discrimination is terrible, but for me deceiving readers is a horrible thing and I think that he would, after a few days discussion, agree to that too. Unfortunately there is no fixing this stuff in the book now. I don't think any psychologist would claim that IQ doesn't fall with age. But it seems like at least one is willing to mislead readers about this fact. As geniuses are never clearly defined he, of course, can use or not use IQ as he wishes to prove his claims. But as IQ is the only valid factor he talks about it makes him look very silly when he dismisses it.
Page 188. He says that Larry Summers said something factually wrong about genders while running Harvard and that it's good that he was fired and replaced by a woman. While his opinion is what it is on the firing his academic point of view is just factually wrong on this issue and that cannot be forgiven at all in such a book. This claim for sure cannot be in any academic book. He then gives evidence showing that Summers was right by talking about gender and IQ and childrearing, but then backtracks yet again and claims that this evidence is not conclusive in showing us anything about his list of geniuses. The very same list he created out of thin air by using weak estimates. How does he even pick and choose what to believe in here?
Page 195. He says races are most likely unrelated to the number of geniuses found in any group and that we just don't know enough about races to conclude much of anything. Then he mentions Holocaust and how Galton was racist to point out that we shouldn't really look too closely at this evidence. For me these personal opinions can easily ruin a good book. But him ignoring inborn race IQ differences is practically scientific malpractice. I'm not sure why he, based on very flimsy evidence, concludes that artists are geniuses on the level with scientists but then ignores clear evidence when it goes against his biases. He seems overly defensive when any of his political opinions are under attack. But since he did at least mention the evidence I'm giving him a few points for that. There are 3 ways for academics to avoid speaking about controversial evidence:
Say that the evidence is unclear.
Say that the evidence is bad science.
Or just not saying anything.
And not saying anything at all is surely not the worst one. Neither is misleading people by saying that the evidence is unclear. Lying would be worse than anything else. But deceiving is still just being a terrible academic who should get fired. Well, you judge it. It's dishonest and stupid, but there is still the rest of the book left too and much of it is good. So how the hell do I judge this book fairly? I guess my review text does that for me.
Biases: blank slate tendencies towards IQ and gender, politically openly progressive to a fault, mentioning studies but then ignoring them, overly holistic in his view on psychology and uses anecdotes to "prove" points, subjectively chooses what evidence to conclude is correct even though he does actually introduce most stellar evidence on each area.
Pro:
It's an okay intro to the topic of geniuses as it's short, easy to read, and has a lot of good historimetric examples making sure it never grows dull. Historimetrics is a glorious field that is endlessly fascinating. Here researchers get to estimate IQ and OCEAN personality based on texts and biographies. Unfortunately he never explains how they calculate this stuff or decide on who gets to be called a genius. It just seems like mainly subjective picks based on fame and creativity in a field. Then there is the Cox genius IQ list and the high IQ kids, termites. This part is super interesting as that's something we can measure consistently over time.
This book is also an okay mini-intro to Francis Galton. It's hard to describe him as even human at this point. He is a step above and even above most geniuses. It's nice that the writer is a big fan of Galton as I admire him too and really do need to read up on him.
Con:
He never actually defined genius as he tries to do that throughout the book. But the definition he mainly seems to fall back on is that a genius needs to be famous and have created something new and long-lasting. And the writer gives this definition in very loose terms. So geniuses include painters, politicians and musicians, at least the classical ones. Which means that at the end of the book it's hard to say what a genius is and why artists don't just get their own category. Why are Einstein and Galton compared to Beethoven and Picasso?
He pulls a lot of punches. Race and gender studies are mentioned and explained but then he retracts his statements on these 2 topics. Same with "IQ falling with age" and many other claims. He mentions clear evidence for something and then just goes "but that's not politically progressive so let's just ignore these facts". And on the other hand, he seems to support holistic views on geniuses that are not grounded in much of anything scientific besides IQ. All his claims about creativity and mental illness are just not supported by any clear study in the book. It's more of a discussion starter book than a good academic book with clear logical discussions. He does seem to be well-read but that doesn't matter at all if you are very biased and can't think critically about things. Still, it's not a terrible book. It's just not fulfilling. The progressive bias takes hold of the material and controls any argument in the book, making this a very one-sided point of view. That's fine for many novice readers who are completely new to the topic but critical readers will cringe at many parts of the book as we know what evidence lies behind it all. And why some statements are just not good academic statements.
Conclusion:
If you don't know much about the topic or need a fast primer this is fine. The fact that it's short makes the bias acceptable. The last 10 pages are unbearable ignorant but then the book is over. It won't really inform you of any great science on the area as the author holds back and refuses to tackle any controversial issue. But on the other hand it's interesting to dive into weird logical arguments used to prove some vague theory. The IQ studies are some of the only science-focused claims in the book, but it's basically worth it just for that alone. Geniuses are very much interesting and as this book is very short and engaging it makes for a decent intro to the topic. But it's largely unfulfilling for people seeking good evidence or studies.
Page by page:
The book starts out by pointing out that various people were geniuses and their countries would be worse off without them having been born. One name mentioned is Lenin. The very guy who set up Gulags and a totalitarian socialist state. I don't know if he is a genius but the world would be endlessly better without him in my mind and I don't quite understand how anyone could argue otherwise. My family moved away from USSR as soon as it was allowed. But on the other hand it's useful that the writer's political bias is revealed right away as it prepares me for more biased arguments.
Page 15. A Chinese eunuch invented paper in 105 C.E.
Page 25. Trump is said to be a prime example of an intelligent leader in a 2002 poll study.
Page 42. He says that you need an IQ of 120 to complete a bachelor's and an IQ of 130 to complete a master's.
This is incorrect for my country, Denmark. Here it's way lower and 33% of the population are getting a master's degree. Soft social science master's degrees in my country are not hard at all and everyone has one - including me. But he does state that physics degrees require high IQ which is correct for any country. If his arguments were more clear he would be more concrete about what degree requires what kind of IQ. Though obviously, at Harvard, the average IQ is very high in any department.
Page 53. Leadership performance and IQ correlation is r = 0.25
Page 118. Because this book is so holistic and doesn't use any clear definitions many arguments are just very weak. He says that geniuses have a higher rate of mental illnesses. He also says it may be somewhat related to them being geniuses. This is a very weak argument. Geniuses are loosely defined by being people who are famous in their field. So if someone has a quirk or illness that makes him more noticeable it may make him more famous than someone with the same skills but without that interesting trait. So crazier people may just be more noteworthy and be more likely to get onto his genius lists even though actual geniuses are maybe even less crazy than the overall population. He even explains this in another part of the book. Moderate people are not much talked about and moderate leaders don't really get into his "genius" category. Furthermore, as artists feature in his genius lists it makes the overall group of genius have a much higher rate of mental illness. Again something he mentions but he still never clearly explains that artists may not be geniuses at all or that they may be another category of people. Artists are also uniquely known based on their image so could one imagine that many of the best artists ever are overlooked and not seen as geniuses because they were sane and boring all their life?
Page 175. Now we are truly jumping fully into pseudoscience territory. The author strongly implies that age is not a factor in declining intellectual output. Of course he uses old artists anecdotes to make his case. Surely if an old man can still paint it must mean that old people are as intelligent as young people, right? Yet again the evidence he has disproves his claim without him stating it outright and instead dismissing it. Einstein's output declining with age was an illustration of lowering of IQ with age. So he even has an anecdote to illustrate this well-known effect. He is hiding this evidence from us. According to the writer age discrimination is a terrible thing so we must... what? I agree that age discrimination is terrible, but for me deceiving readers is a horrible thing and I think that he would, after a few days discussion, agree to that too. Unfortunately there is no fixing this stuff in the book now. I don't think any psychologist would claim that IQ doesn't fall with age. But it seems like at least one is willing to mislead readers about this fact. As geniuses are never clearly defined he, of course, can use or not use IQ as he wishes to prove his claims. But as IQ is the only valid factor he talks about it makes him look very silly when he dismisses it.
Page 188. He says that Larry Summers said something factually wrong about genders while running Harvard and that it's good that he was fired and replaced by a woman. While his opinion is what it is on the firing his academic point of view is just factually wrong on this issue and that cannot be forgiven at all in such a book. This claim for sure cannot be in any academic book. He then gives evidence showing that Summers was right by talking about gender and IQ and childrearing, but then backtracks yet again and claims that this evidence is not conclusive in showing us anything about his list of geniuses. The very same list he created out of thin air by using weak estimates. How does he even pick and choose what to believe in here?
Page 195. He says races are most likely unrelated to the number of geniuses found in any group and that we just don't know enough about races to conclude much of anything. Then he mentions Holocaust and how Galton was racist to point out that we shouldn't really look too closely at this evidence. For me these personal opinions can easily ruin a good book. But him ignoring inborn race IQ differences is practically scientific malpractice. I'm not sure why he, based on very flimsy evidence, concludes that artists are geniuses on the level with scientists but then ignores clear evidence when it goes against his biases. He seems overly defensive when any of his political opinions are under attack. But since he did at least mention the evidence I'm giving him a few points for that. There are 3 ways for academics to avoid speaking about controversial evidence:
Say that the evidence is unclear.
Say that the evidence is bad science.
Or just not saying anything.
And not saying anything at all is surely not the worst one. Neither is misleading people by saying that the evidence is unclear. Lying would be worse than anything else. But deceiving is still just being a terrible academic who should get fired. Well, you judge it. It's dishonest and stupid, but there is still the rest of the book left too and much of it is good. So how the hell do I judge this book fairly? I guess my review text does that for me.
February 22, 2013
This book made an already interesting topic all the more interesting and required no field specific knowledge to understand. It is written in a highly engaging voice, a rare treat among university texts, and was well organized into an intuitive structure. The one thing I wish was better justified was some of the discussion of statistical measures, coming from a math and statistics background, but I guess that is something I'll have to go into the source material to find.
March 31, 2019
A brilliantly written book written with wit and scholarship. Although Dean does not shy from adding nuance to the positions wherever required, he still manages to not make the discussion dry. Of course he is biased towards his own positions like the validity of BVSR model of creativity, still he does a good job of highlighting all the major controversies in Genius research including perennial questions like whether genius is born or made; what is the relationship between genius and madness and how do you claim/ ascertain someone to be a genius? He does provide some good and satisfactory answers and those are all grounded in empirical data and research.
Overall, good coverage of materiel from a 101 series perspective - something just right enough to make you curious about the subject and pique your interest; at least it has made me interested in his other books that I look forward to read (and review) soon.
Overall, good coverage of materiel from a 101 series perspective - something just right enough to make you curious about the subject and pique your interest; at least it has made me interested in his other books that I look forward to read (and review) soon.
June 23, 2010
I always give 5 stars to any book that changes my perspective or that helps me flesh out a concept I was struggling to refine in my head. This book did a bit of both.
The concept of intelligence, or who is or is not a genius sits as a common topic of discussion within both academic and non-academic circles. However Dr. Simonton challenges the analytical-heavy viewpoint of genius shared between the groups. Simonton argues that emphasis on the analytical and fact-accumulation (particularly in our educational institutions) breeds a myopic view of what intelligence is, and does a disservice to other forms of genius such as the practical genius, or the creative genius.
Who then is a genius? What makes a genius? Can we predict genius? Does a high IQ denote genius? How do we promote genius? These are the types of questions addressed, with a central theme that genius is many things, and can be applied to many areas.
In Conclision:
Genius is more than science, math, and knowing lots of facts. It's artistry, discipline, insight, it's effort beyond the ordinary, it's the Nobel prize winner, it's the champion bodybuilder, and it's the humanitarian that builds schools in third world countries. In my opinion, though I think Dr. Simonton would agree, being "smart" will only take you so far, genius requires passion.
The concept of intelligence, or who is or is not a genius sits as a common topic of discussion within both academic and non-academic circles. However Dr. Simonton challenges the analytical-heavy viewpoint of genius shared between the groups. Simonton argues that emphasis on the analytical and fact-accumulation (particularly in our educational institutions) breeds a myopic view of what intelligence is, and does a disservice to other forms of genius such as the practical genius, or the creative genius.
Who then is a genius? What makes a genius? Can we predict genius? Does a high IQ denote genius? How do we promote genius? These are the types of questions addressed, with a central theme that genius is many things, and can be applied to many areas.
In Conclision:
Genius is more than science, math, and knowing lots of facts. It's artistry, discipline, insight, it's effort beyond the ordinary, it's the Nobel prize winner, it's the champion bodybuilder, and it's the humanitarian that builds schools in third world countries. In my opinion, though I think Dr. Simonton would agree, being "smart" will only take you so far, genius requires passion.
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews