Talent is not Genius. Here’s why.
tl;dr Genius = Vision + Talent + Drive
Following on from my previous article about genius vs talent (which you can read here), I had another conversation with my work colleague. We discussed my article, and then also expanded on the theory behind defining genius.
If you didn’t read my other article, it discusses this quote by Arthur Schopenhauer’s:
“Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see.”
I discussed changing the quote by just one word to the following:
“Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius sees a target no one else can see.”
I also talked about how a team of talented people can elevate a genius’ vision to ensure success for a company.
Extending on these thoughts, the conversation with my colleague was around how this is only part of the story, and that the definition of a genius has been watered down over the past 50 years to define anyone that shows extraordinary talent in an area. If we want to redefine genius, then perhaps we need to look at the following formula when we think about what makes a TRUE genius, which will then greatly reduce the usage of the word, in turn bringing back the prestige of being called a genius. The formula goes as follows:
Genius = Vision + Talent + Drive
As you can see, my other article discussed the first two parts, however, I am now expanding on this to include one other incredibly important element.
Let’s break down each part of the equation:
Vision
This is the obvious piece. We know that the ability to think on a different plane to the rest of us is a key component in being called a genius, and the person is rightfully called a Visionary in having this ability. Unfortunately, many people stop here and say that someone who has a ‘vision’ is thus a genius. However, if you only have a vision, but neither of the other elements, then the vision will never be realised. This person should definitely be called a Visionary for what they are able to see, however, they shouldn’t be considered a genius. This is the reason that the other parts of the equation are required.
Expanding on the idea of being a visionary is the idea that they must have a vision of something that contributes positively to society. Where I’m going with this is that if the vision is for something that is destructive to society, then do they still deserve the title of “genius”? In these cases, often the term “evil genius” gets used, which makes sense. But does it take away from the prestige of being called a genius by adding this term? Should we perhaps find another word for these people who tick off the three elements of genius but their vision is something negative or destructive?
Talent
This piece is also obvious, but not necessarily in the way you think. Another traditional way to define ‘genius’ is by looking at people that have a great talent for anything (sport, art, science, etc) which is at a level above almost all other people. That is easy to see, easy to define, and thus so many people (especially sportspeople) are called geniuses.
Yes, a genius needs to have a great talent to be able to achieve their vision, but I believe there’s more to it than that. A true genius also needs the talent to know what they don’t know and to find the right people with the right talents to complement their own skills.
Drive
Call it tenacity. Call it will. Call it single-mindedness. Call it determination. There are many names for this crucial element, but they are all talking about the same thing. And it’s the piece that you can’t easily see until the process concludes and the product is out in the world.
Let’s say someone has an amazing, world-changing idea. They are highly talented and could build the solution. However, they are also lazy and decide that it’s just too hard to bring it to life so they don’t bother doing anything about their idea. Are they still a genius for simply HAVING an idea? I would argue no. After all, what have they actually achieved over and above the average person? A true genius must have the drive to push their ideas forward and out into the world, hence why this part of the equation is so important, and yet is often forgotten.
When it comes to defining a genius, in the purest of terms, I believe you need to have all three components of the equation equally. No one element is more important than the other two. They are all required in the make-up of a genius, however, it is often the ‘drive’ that is overlooked, most likely because it’s the least visible trait to see and ‘measure’.
Everyone has heard of Albert Einstein, and no doubt we all agree he is a genius (even by my formulaic approach). However, who has heard of Sir Arthur Eddington? Eddington was an English astronomer, physicist, and mathematician who managed to PROVE Einstein’s theory of relativity. In fact, there are a number of articles on the internet about how he was the ‘secret genius’ behind Einstein due to his ability to prove the theory. However, this is where I believe the term has been incorrectly used. Applying the equation above, Eddington indeed was highly talented, and he also had the drive to see through his work to completion. What is missing, though, is that he didn’t have the vision to create the theory, merely the talent to prove it. Or in Schopenhauer’s words: “He could hit a target no one else could hit”. This is but one subtle example where we could dramatically trim the use of the word “genius” to describe people.
Have a think about some of the people you have heard being hailed as a genius, and run them through the above equation. Are they still a “genius”, do they have the potential to become a genius, or should they be called something else?
