Shorts - Genius Is As Common As Dirt
I am working on a series of briefer writings to be posted while I research and put together a few larger pieces. I am calling these “shorts” as they are certainly dwarfed by the length of my other writings. However, the thoughts are not meant to be miniscule – only a bit more self-contained. I like to think of the ideas here as building blocks to be used for things that are more monumental.
A recent thought has radically altered my worldview: it is the idea that humans are truly equal – at least more equal than people commonly believe – and that genius and the ability to achieve is a very common trait.
The notion “equality for all” can come across as incredibly trite if not contrived. Equality and equity have been words overly prostituted of late, and I would even argue misused. Equality is usually equated with having innate and inalienable rights, those rights are what often come to mind with the statement “all men are created equal” that declared the birth of this country. But inalienable rights are not the focus of this piece – they are not even something I am certain of, it seems to me most rights are merely privileges, but that is a discussion for another time.
The manner of equality I am interested in is an innate equal potential for high levels of human achievement. John Taylor Gatto, after teaching in some of the most prestigious and downtrodden public schools in NYC for 30 years, and winning city and state teacher of the year awards numerous times, remarked that human genius was as common as dirt. He believed that most, if not all of the students he taught, whether from the projects in Harlem or the elite townhouses of the Upper West Side had profound latent ability that just needed to be tapped correctly in order for it to be shown.
Gatto isn’t the only one to remark on this sentiment, indeed, once one begins to look out for it, it crops up in numerous and surprising places. Adam Smith, the father of capitalism, remarks at the very beginning of Wealth of Nations:
“The difference of natural talents in different men, is, in reality, much less than we are aware of; and the very different genius which appears to distinguish men of different professions, when grown up to maturity, is not upon many occasions so much the cause, as the effect of the division of labour. The difference between the most dissimilar characters, between a philosopher and a common street porter, for example, seems to arise not so much from nature, as from habit, custom, and education.”
Even Thomas Hobbes, an ardent monarchist, noted in the Leviathan:
"Nature hath made men so equall, in the faculties of body, and mind; as that… the difference between man, and man, is not so considerable, as that one man can thereupon claim to himselfe any benefit, to which another may not pretend, as well as he… and as to the faculties of the mind, I find yet a greater equality amongst men, than that of strength”
He also further makes the humorous and telling observation:
“such is the nature of men, that howsoever they may acknowledge many others to be more witty, or more eloquent, or more learned; Yet they will hardly believe there be many so wise as themselves: For they see their own wit at hand, and other mens at a distance. But this proveth rather that men are in that point equall, than unequall. For there is not ordinarily a greater signe of the equall distribution of any thing, than that every man is contented with his share.”
For evidence of the commonality of genius, I would point to an observation I have made elsewhere that many of the acts of genius and achievement we see today appear at random and have little to do with formal schooling and training.
It is my belief that the vast majority of people in our society subscribe to the idea of equal rights, but very few to the notion that there is innately a high level of ability – indeed genius – in each of us. I certainly didn’t – in fact I wrote an entire piece in defense of elitism which rested on the premise that elites were more able and thus should bear more responsibility (though I later walked back aspects of that argument).
For evidence of our predisposition against common genius I would point to the public’s willing deference to expert opinion and renunciation of the individual volition of the “common man” (I have written elsewhere about the replacement of self-guidance with systems and institutions that has pervaded our society). What undergirds this movement is a general sentiment that individual non-expert people are too idiotic to self-regulate. What better evidence is there of a lack of faith in innate human genius and ability than the disbelief that each of us are equipped to manage the affairs of our own lives?
I am not remarking that “the downtrodden” deserve a pedestal to achieve equity, or that those with more should be cut down – proclaiming equality and then attempting to obtain it through top-down approaches seems hypocritical – if it were true then it wouldn’t be necessary. My stance is that we all, or nearly all of us have an innate ability to flourish and this should be embraced rather than encroached upon. This is a very different stance from lifting some up and pushing others down so that all are at the same height.
What would a world of un-encroached flourishing look like? How would we achieve it? It should be noted that in ancient Athens all public duties no matter how big or how small were done by individuals chosen from the citizenry at random. From police work and sewage management to financial matters and foreign relations “the whole administration of the state was in the hands of men appointed by lot.” The idea itself was that if you were a citizen you were trusted to be competent enough to take on anything required of you that society needed, no matter how high or how low – if you weren’t able to provide that then you may as well have been a slave. The structure of society was as much about equal responsibility as it was a ground for equal flourishing. It should be noted that Athens was also a pure democracy where every citizen also had an equal vote in determining how the polis was to be run.
This is what Gatto refers to as the congregational principal, where, in order to get the maximum amount of people to reach their full potential you vest every single person with an identity and voice at the table. Each individual is to have a sense of ownership, stewardship, and skin in the game not just in the ends but also in the means of an organization. That is how the Knights of the Roundtable worked, that’s how the Constitutional Convention worked, and it is how the Council on Foreign Relations works today. There is a direct line through history of this approach.
After going to public school through eighth grade, I was through some peculiar circumstances afforded to attend Episcopal Academy, which, founded in 1785, is one of the oldest and most prestigious schools in the nation. It was there that I first witnessed the Harkness method, where instead of having a teacher pontificate at the head of a class, children and teacher sit around an oval table and discuss in common. I later learned that this method was the default teaching manner across prestigious private high schools and colleges across the country.
In certain elite circles a flat organization with equal individual input along with the implicit notion of equality of ability is the fundamental manner of organizing. How present is this approach in the hierarchal institutions accessible to the public today? The question realistically is how could these small enclaves not organize in this way? What a spectacular waste it is to not engage in the common genius of all! Just think of how much more enriched our lives would be if we allowed all of us to access this great untapped resource.