Product Code Database
Greatness is a concept of a state of exceptional superiority affecting a person or in a particular place or area. Greatness can also be attributed to individuals who possess a natural ability to be better than all others. An example of an expression of the concept in a qualified sense would be "Hector is the definition of greatness" or "Napoleon 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 world view 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 idiosyncratic.
Historically, in Europe, rulers were sometimes given the attribute "the Great", as in Alexander the Great, Frederick the Great, Alfred 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 Charlemagne. 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.Albert, R.S. (ed) 1983. Genius and Eminence: The Social Psychology of Creativity and Exceptional Achievement. New York: Pergamon Press Historically the major intellectual battles over this topic have focused around the questions of nature versus nurture or person versus context.Simonton, D.K. 2009. Genius 101. New York: Springer, e.g. Chs 4 & 6 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.Eysenck, H. 1995. Genius: The Natural History of Creativity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press vs Dorris. B. 2009. The Arrival of The Fittest: How The Great Become Great. (Lulu Url in Note 38 below)) by Julius Schnorr von Karolsfeld, 1860]]
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.Simonton, 1994, p11-13
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.Simonton, 1994, p225-6
The work of both Cox and Galton has been criticized for failing to take sufficient account of the role of nurture, or more specifically socio-economic and educational advantage, in the achievements of these historical greats.Simonton, 1994, p14-16, 227-8
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).Simonton, 1994, pp. 376-77
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.Simonton, 1994, p. 376 These fluctuations in the appearance of genius were much too rapid to be explained by the simple mechanism of genetic inheritance along family lines.Simonton, 1994, p. 376. In Simonton's words, "the traits available in a population gene pool cannot fluctuate wildly in any short period..." If genius were simply due to "inherited ability", it would "be spread (much) more evenly from generation to generation".
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".Simonton, 1994, pp, 376-78
Recent research is consistent with these explanations;Simonton, 1994, pp. 378-–82; Martindale, C. 1990. The Clockwork Muse: The Predictability of Artistic Change. New York: Basic Books, pp. 69, 70, 73 but many aspects of the developmental process from birth to the attainment of greatness remain unaccounted for by Kroeber's anthropological approach.Eysenck, 1995, op cit, re central role of personality as trait; Dorris, 2009, op cit, re interactivity of genetics with interpersonal and socio-cultural factors over course of development
Zuckerman reported her results around two main topics: How the Prize is Awarded, and Career Development of the Scientific Elite. Her findings on the first topic are briefly overviewed in the Wikipedia article regarding the Nobel Prize
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."Zuckerman, H. 1977. Scientific Elite: Nobel Laureates in the United States. New York: The Free Press. pp. 61, 248
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.Zuckerman, 1977, pp. 63–89, 144–52
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, 1977, pp. 122–30
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".Zuckerman, 1977, p. 250
They report many findings relevant to the "talent development process", including:
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."Eysenck, 1995, p. 8
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, 1995, pp. 279–80, ch 7
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 endeavour – 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."Eysenck, 1995, pp. 8–9
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, 2009, op cit, pp. 7, 10–12, 49
Dorris argues that those who attain 'greatness' are credited with solving a key generational problem in a field and/or society (e.g., Albert Einstein resolving the conflict between Isaac Newton and James Clerk 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, 2009, pp. 83–84; Online Case Studies at: http://homepage.eircom.net/~wdorris/greatnesscasestudies.html
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, 2009, op cit, pp. 10–12, 24–25, 86–88
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.Dorris, 2009, pp. 24–25, 86–88
Two of these matching processes are covered extensively in the existing research literature: continuous matching and cumulative matching.Dorris, 2009, pp. 26–29, 31–36; Bloom, 1985, op cit; Zuckerman, 1977, op cit
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, 2009, op cit, pp. 36–45, 138–44
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 RMS Titanic ticket.Dorris, 2009, pp. 49–67, 163–66
Dorris documents his theoretical arguments with extensive case studies of a wide range of individuals, including Albert Einstein, Elvis, Monet, Mozart, da Vinci, Abraham Lincoln, Watson and Francis Crick, basketball great Bill Russell, Louis Armstrong, Bill Gates, Alfred Hitchcock, Woody Guthrie, and Marilyn Monroe.Dorris, 2009; Online Case Studies at: http://homepage.eircom.net/~wdorris/greatnesscasestudies.html
|
|
