Editing Greatness (section)

== Genetic approaches ==

Early scientific research on greatness had a strong genetic emphasis and focused on intelligence as the driving force behind the concept.

=== ''Hereditary Genius'' – Galton (1869) ===

The earliest such research, ''[[Hereditary Genius]]'', by [[Francis Galton]] (1869), argued that people vary hugely in "natural ability" which is  allegedly inherited biologically.  Those at the very top end of the range, i.e., geniuses, become according to Galton the "eminent"<ref>
[https://books.google.com/books?id=6l8ZAAAAYAAJ ''Hereditary Genius: An Inquiry Into Its Laws and Consequences''] by Francis Galton, 1870
</ref> 
achievers of their generation. To prove this thesis Galton collected data showing that genius clusters in what he termed "Notable Family Lines", such as those of [[Bernoulli family|Bernoulli]], [[Cassini (disambiguation)|Cassini]], [[Charles Darwin|Darwin]], [[Herschel (disambiguation)|Herschel]], and [[Jussieu (disambiguation)|Jussieu]] in science, or [[Bach]] in music.<ref>Simonton, D.K. 1994.  ''Greatness: Who Makes History and Why''.  New York: The Guilford Press, p10-11</ref>

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.<ref>Simonton, 1994, p11-13</ref>

=== ''Early Mental Traits of 300 Geniuses'' – Cox (1926) ===

[[Catharine Cox]]'s book on ''The Early Mental Traits of Three Hundred Geniuses'' (1926), was similar to Galton's in its orientation.  Using the method that her mentor, Stanford Psychology Professor [[Lewis Terman]], had developed for differentiating children in terms of intelligence, Cox coded records of childhood and adolescent achievements of 301 historic eminent leaders and creators to estimate what their [[IQ]]s would have been on the basis of intellectual level of such achievements relative to the age at which they were accomplished.  For example, [[John Stuart Mill]] reportedly studied Greek at 3, read Plato at 7, and learned calculus at 11.  As such, what he was doing at 5, the average person couldn't do until 9 years, 6 months of age, giving Mill an estimated IQ of 190.<ref>Simonton, 1994, p225</ref>

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]], [[Giovanni Pierluigi da Palestrina|Palestrina]], or [[Philip Sheridan]].<ref>Simonton, 1994, p225-6</ref>

The work of both Cox and Galton has been criticized for failing to take sufficient account of the role of nurture, or more specifically [[Socioeconomic status | socio-economic]] and educational advantage, in the achievements of these historical greats.<ref>Simonton, 1994, p14-16, 227-8</ref>