Editor's Blog
Einstein’s ability to chase a light beam in “thought experiments” led to the equations of General Relativity. Mozart composed entire operas and symphonies in his head, creating all the parts for all the instruments. He was able to imagine the sounds in his head for masterpieces such as Die Zauberflöte (The Magic Flute) – without hitting a single key or playing a single note.
How do we explain exceptional scientists and artists like Einstein and Mozart? Where does such genius come from? What conditions or personality traits seem to produce exceptionally creative people? Is the association between genius and madness really just a myth?
Perhaps not entirely. New research suggests that a genetic mutation linked to psychosis and schizophrenia influences creativity.
Szabolcs Kéri, a researcher at Semmelweis University in Budapest, Hungary, examined a gene involved in brain development called neuregulin 1, that previous studies have linked to a slightly increased risk of schizophrenia. A single DNA letter mutation that affects how much of the neuregulin 1 protein is made in the brain has been linked to psychosis, poor memory and sensitivity to criticism.
According to New Scientist, this finding could help to explain why mutations that increase a person’s risk of developing mental illnesses such as schizophrenia and bipolar syndrome have been preserved — even preferred — during human evolution.
The research also supports psychologist Hans Jürgen Eysenck’s conception of genius, and helps explain why geniuses like Einstein and Mozart are so exceptional – they may have a rare combination of intelligence and “psychoticism,” states in which individuals exhibit some of the qualities commonly found among psychotics.
Intelligence –- often in the form of a high IQ of 150 or above –- is clearly a personality trait of geniuses. Eysenck’s concept of genius blends intelligence with just the right amount of psychoticism. The genius is able “to take frequent excursions from conventional ways of thinking about things, but not so much as to devolve into insanity,” explains computer scientist and neuroengineer Bruce Katz of Drexel University.
This also fits the observations of Szabolcs Kéri: “My clinical experience is that high-IQ people with psychosis have more intellectual capacity to deal with psychotic experiences. It’s not enough to experience those feelings, you have to communicate them."
Eysenck’s concept of genius blends intelligence with just the right amount of psychoticism.
Jeremy Hall, the geneticist at the University of Edinburgh in the UK who uncovered the link between the neuregulin 1 mutation and psychosis, agrees that the neuregulin 1 gene’s effects are also probably influenced by cognitive factors such as intelligence.
Albert Einstein’s brain has often been a subject of much research and speculation, and it was removed within seven hours of his death. Purported irregularities in his brain tissue have been used to support various ideas about the correlation between neuroanatomy and mathematical intelligence.
For example, some studies suggest that the regions involved in speech and language are smaller, while the regions involved with numerical and spatial processing are larger for the mathematically gifted. Other studies have suggested an increased number of glial cells. More recent studies indicate that increased glia/neuron ratio in cortical areas of Einstein’s brain is a sign of an autism disorder rather than the evidence that more glial cells make a genius.
Einstein’s brain, and its link to creative genius, remain a mystery. Pure speculation: could Einstein’s creativity possibly be associated with the neuregulin 1 gene?
Around July of 1791, when Mozart’s work on The Magic Flute was virtually complete and rehearsals had already begun, Mozart received a visit from a tall, grave-looking stranger dressed completely in gray. The stranger presented an anonymous letter commissioning Mozart to compose a Requiem as quickly as possible at whatever price the composer wished to name.
This ghostly figure is identified with Antonio Salieri in the film Amedeus (although more recent evidence suggests that it wasn’t actually Salieri who commissioned the Requiem). In the movie we meet Salieri in an insane asylum –- apparently driven mad by Mozart’s genius. Although anecdotal, It may be telling that, in real life, Salieri referred to Mozart as bezumets (a madman).
Are psychosis and creativity the same thing? While the neuregulin 1 gene suggests an association between psychosis and creativity, Jeremy Hall remains skeptical, "There’s always been this slightly romantic idea that madness and genius are the flipside to the same coin. How much is that true? Madness is often madness and doesn’t have as much genetic association with intelligence."
6 Comments
poor example, einstein was a plagarist
These guys always use Einstein as their example and that is why they never really understand anything. Einstein was a fraud and a plagiarist. Einstein wasn’t really very bright at all much less comparable with someone like Mozart. Stealing somebody’s technical paper and putting your name on it doesn’t take a lot of brains.
yes, I believe this theory has some validity until something better comes along, strictly because I have the exceptionally high I.Q., and have this uncanny ability to see abstract concepts that most people will never grasp, such as mathematical equations I don’t even have to work on paper, and spatial orientation tasks I easily do when flying aircraft under IFR conditions in solid IMC, without really having to spend a lot of time cross checking all of the navigational data, only some of it.
so yes, this is probably valid. those of us so gifted are sometimes looked at as ‘borderline’ nut cases, when in fact, we’re much more than that, and in my own case, have been able to adapt it and control it to chameleon myself into ‘regular joe’ mode and not throw a flag, but when I need the extra skill sets and intellect, I easily switch gears and use them without breaking a sweat.
which leads to this: perhaps we can genetically engineer more people into a league of genius realm I.Q.’s that are not limited so much and able to work on complex problems that we need to solve to survive as a species. I think Einstein would agree that we need more people who are able to see what others cannot, due to limited, blinder ridden, intellects.
I have already heard about his plagiarism, though I didnt really consider this as serious information. But it may be true. Do you have any reliable source that Einstein was plagiator?
http://www.nytimes.com/1997/11/18/science/findings-back-einstein-in-a-plagiarism-dispute.html?pagewanted=1
einstein wasn’t a plagarist. people like to get their panties in a bunch.
As some of Einstein’s “discoveries” are “inspired” by French mathematician Poincaré (and Lorentz, Hilbert…), several books were published on this subject in French:
• Jean-Paul Auffray, Einstein et Poincaré sur les traces de la relativité, Pommier, 1999
• Jean Hladik, Comment le jeune et ambitieux Einstein s’est approprié la relativité restreinte de Poincaré, Ellipses, 2004
• Jules Leveugle, La Relativité, Poincaré et Einstein, Planck, Hilbert. Histoire véridique de la théorie de la relativité, L’Harmattan, 2004 and “Poincaré et la relativité”, in Le Jaune et la Rouge [review of Ecole polytechnique's alumni], April 1994
• Jean-Paul Auffray, Comment je suis devenu Einstein. La véritable histoire de E = mc2, Carnot, 2005
and in English:
• Edmund Whittaker, A History of the Theories of Æther and Electricity, Thomas Nelson, 1962 and 1961, (see chapter 2; “The Relativity Theory of Poincaré and Lorentz”)
• Christopher Jon Bjerknes, Albert Einstein : The Incorrigible Plagiarist, XTX Inc., DownersGorve, Illinois, E.-U., 2002
• Friedwardt Winterberg, « On “Belated Decision in the Hilbert-Einstein Priority Dispute”, published by L. Corry, J. Renn, and J. Stachel », in Zeitschrift für Naturforschung, Vol. 59a, 715-719 (2004).
It’s impossible to free Einstein from charges of plagiarism. There is hard evidence that he was perfectly aware of Poincare’s (and Lorentz) discoveries before publishing anything on the subject of special relativity. His work simply doesn’t add anything new to Poincare and Lorentz (or Hilbert for general relativity).