Title: Children Above 180 IQ Stanford-Binet: Origin and Development
Author: Leta S. Hollingworth
Original publisher: World Book Company
Copyright 1942.
About the online edition.
Italic text is represented as _italics_. Underlined text is
represented as __underline__. Subscripts are represented as
#subscripts#. Footnotes are collected at the end of each chapter.
Transcriber's notes and translations, in letters, have been added
and collected at the end of the chapter, after the footnotes.
[Single-brackets] in the original text have been changed to
[[double-brackets]] to distinguish from edits within this version
of the text. #Single pound signs# in the original text have been
changed to ##double pound signs##, to distinguish from #subscript
text#.
CHILDREN ABOVE 180 IQ STANFORD-BINET: ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT
FOREWORD
Shortly after the year 1924 Leta S. Hollingworth prepared a
manuscript on "Children above 180 IQ (Stanford-Binet)" in which
she surveyed the material on the topic available up to that date
and added accounts of five cases which she had studied individually.
[1] As the years went by she held back the manuscript from
publication and one by one she found seven more cases to be
included in her list. At the time of her death in 1939 she had
begun to revise this manuscript, bringing the survey up to date
and adding the new cases. The present book gives as much of this
revision from her own hand as is available. The Preface and
Chapters 1, 2, and 3 are as she wrote them. The accounts of the
first five cases are given just as she originally wrote them
up, but to them "editorial supplements" have been added in which
an endeavor has been made to present for each case such data as
have been found in her files, with little in the way of discussion
or interpretation.
The seven new cases which the original author had intended to
include in the manuscript she had not yet written up. For these,
therefore, it has been necessary to study the data she had
accumulated for each child, to secure additional data when and
where possible, and to present such an account of each as she
might herself have written, patterned after her reports of the
earlier cases.
Much is lost that would have been contributed had the author lived
to complete her project. She knew these cases intimately and at
first hand. Some of them she had followed for as long as twenty
years, taking a personal interest in the individual children and
their problems, advising them, assisting them, continuously
observing them, and frequently testing and measuring them.
Particularly inadequate must be the accounts of the later
development of the individuals herein described, for many of the
details well known to the author she not committed to paper, since
she fully expected to complete the manuscript herself. It is to be
regretted that a follow-up study of these recent developments
could not have been undertaken, and a hope is expressed that this
may yet be done.
The chapters summarizing the group of twelve new cases are wholly
without Leta S. Hollingworth's touch. It seemed desirable, however,
to give such a summary as could be made under the circumstances.
Had the original author been able to complete her book, we know
that penetrating light would have been thrown on many of the more
personal difficulties of these children of rare intelligence. This
experience and insight can no longer be recovered. It must suffice
to put on record chiefly the factual data now available, leaving
it for future workers to follow up, if it should seem desirable,
the subsequent career and destiny of the individuals whose early
development and background are herein reported. Identification of
these children is not made in this book, but the necessary facts
for this purpose are on file and identification can be made at any
time in the interests of educational research.
The third section of this book as originally outlined by Leta S.
Hollingworth was to have dealt with general principles and with
the social and educational implications of the study of children
of very high intelligence. Up to the time of her death nothing
of this character had been written by her explicitly, but throughout
the years in which her projected book was developing she wrote a
number of papers and reports bearing on the subject, and these
were published from time to time in technical journals. It is well
known that the content of these papers was dictated by her study of
such cases as are herein reported, by her familiarity with the
reports of other students in this field, and by her own very
concrete and long experience in the organization and conduct
of two experimental projects in the schools of New York City.
It is, in fact, likely that the final chapters she had in mind
for this book would have been a reorganization of the conclusions
set forth in these articles.
Consequently, the last five chapters of this book, instead of being
an attempt to guess at what the author might have said in them, are
all from her own hand. They are either selections from or complete
reproductions of papers she had published on what she considered
to be the implications of her observations of children of rare
intelligence.
The publication of this book has been made possible by funds
granted by the Carnegie Corporation of New York. That Corporation
is not, however, the author, owner, publisher, or proprietor of
this publication, and it is not to be understood as approving by
virtue of its grants any of the statements or views expressed
herein.
Harry L. Hollingworth
Barnard College
Columbia University, New York
[1] Chapter 9 of _Gifted Children_, published in 1926, bears the
title "Children Who Test above 180 IQ (Stanford-Binet)." Some of
the cases described more fully in the monograph manuscript are
also sketched in that chapter.
CONTENTS
PREFACE
PART I: ORIENTATION
1. THE CONCEPT OF INTELLECTUAL GENIUS
Concepts of the Ancients, Dictionary Definitions, Concepts of
Genius, Miscellaneous Observations Tending to Define Characteristics
of Genius, Speculation and Comment Concerning Genius
2. EARLY SCIENTIFIC STUDY OF EMINENT ADULTS
Origin of Eminent Adults, Yoder's Study, Terman's Inferences
from Biography
3. PUBLISHED REPORTS ON TESTED CHILDREN
Modern Approach to the Study of Ability, Binet's Method, The Range
of Intellect above 180 IQ, Children Observed before the Era of
Binet, Children Who Test above 180 IQ by Binet-Simon Tests, Children
Who Test above 180 IQ by Stanford-Binet Tests, Generalizations
PART II: TWELVE CASES NEW TO LITERATURE CONCERNING TESTED CHILDREN
4. CHILD A
Family Background, Preschool History, School History, Judgments
of Teachers, Mental Measurements, Traits of Character, Physical
Measurements and Health, Miscellaneous Characteristics
5. CHILD B
Family Background, Preschool History, School History, Traits of
Character, Judgments of Teachers, Mental Measurements, Physical
Measurements, Miscellaneous Characteristics
6. CHILD C
Family Background, Preschool History, School History, Traits of
Character, Mental Measurements, Physical Measurements, Later
School History
7. CHILD D
Family Background, Preschool History, Traits of Character, Mental
Measurements, Physical Measurements and Health, Miscellaneous
Characteristics, School History
8. CHILD E
Family Background, Early History, School Achievement, Mental
Measurements, Social Habits, Tastes, etc., Later Mental Measurements,
Later Physical Measurements, Later Scholastic Records, Extracurricular
Activities, Teachers' Comments, Summary up to 1921, Eventual
Scholastic Records, Researches of E, Summary of Development
9. CHILD F
Family Background, Preschool History, Early School History, Early
Test Scores, Home Rating, Miscellaneous Characteristics, Later
Educational Career
10. CHILD G
Family Background, Educational History, Early Mental Tests,
Later Test Records, Traits of Character, Physical Measurements,
High School Record, G's Brother's Record
11. CHILD H
Family Background, Preschool History, Mental Measurements, Physical
Measurements, Intellectual Ability
12. CHILD I
Family Background, Preschool History, Early Educational History,
Mental Measurements, Physical Measurements and Health, Miscellaneous
Characteristics
13. CHILD J
Family Background, Childhood Characteristics, Later Mental Tests
14. CHILD K
Family Background, Early Development, Mental Measurements, Physical
Measurements, Later Educational Progress
15. CHILD L
Family Background, Early History, Achievement at Speyer School,
High School Record to Date of Writing, Later Tests and Inventories
16. SUMMARIES OF HEREDITIES AND EARLY BEHAVIOR
Family History and Background, Physical and Behavioral Development
17. SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVEMENT AND CREATIVE ACTIVITY
Scholastic Achievement and Educational Adjustment, Creative Work,
General Statement
PART III: GENERAL PRINCIPLES AND IMPLICATIONS.
18. ADULT STATUS AND PERSONALITY RATINGS.
Adult Status of Highly Intelligent Children, Critique of the
Concept of "Genius" as Applied in Terms of IQ, Application of
Bernreuter Inventory of Personality to Highly Intelligent Adolescents
19. THE DEVELOPMENT OF PERSONALITY IN HIGHLY INTELLIGENT CHILDREN
General Considerations, The Part Played by Physique, Problem
of Leadership, Problems of Adjustment to Occupation, Learning
to "Suffer Fools Gladly", The Tendency to Become Isolated, The
Concept of "Optimum Intelligence", Conclusion
20. THE CHILD OF VERY SUPERIOR INTELLIGENCE AS A SPECIAL PROBLEM
IN SOCIAL ADJUSTMENT
The Quality of Gifted Children, The Problem of Work, The Problem
of Adjustment to Classmates, The Problem of Play, Special Problems
of the Gifted Girl, Problems of Conformity, The Problems of Origin
and of Destiny, General Considerations
21. THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOLING OF VERY BRIGHT CHILDREN
Considerations in Planning the Curriculum, Enrichment Units at
Speyer School, Special Work, Emotional Education, Matters of
General Policy
22. PROBLEMS OF RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY
SCHOOLS IN THE CASE OF HIGHLY INTELLIGENT PUPILS
The Elementary School, Transition from Elementary to Secondary
School, Consideration of the Questions Arising, What about Genius?
PREFACE
This study is founded upon the work of Francis Galton, on the one
hand, and of Albert Binet, on the other. It goes back to Galton's
_Hereditary Genius_, read as a prescribed reference in the courses
of Professor Edward L. Thorndike, in 1912; and to the publication
in 1916 of Professor Lewis M. Terman's _Stanford Revision of the
Binet-Simon Scale for Measuring Intelligence_. It comprises
observations, measurements, and conversations covering a period of
twenty-three years, during which acquaintanceships and friendships,
every one of them delightful, have been formed and maintained
with the twelve individuals who form the basis of the study.
It was in November, 1916, shortly after taking appointment as
instructor in educational psychology at Teachers College, Columbia
University, that I saw for the first time a child testing above
180 IQ (S-B). I was teaching a course in the psychology of mentally
deficient children, and it seemed to me that my class should if
possible observe under test conditions one bright child for the
sake of contrast. Accordingly, I asked whether any teacher present
could nominate a very intelligent pupil for demonstration.
Miss Charlotte G. Garrison and Miss Agnes Burke, teachers in the
Horace Mann School, Teachers College, New York City, thereupon
nominated the child who is called E in this monograph. E was
presented at the next meeting of the class. It required two
full classroom periods to test this child to the limits of the
Stanford-Binet Scale, which had just then been published. E
exhausted the scale without being fully measured by it, achieving
an IQ of _at least_ 187. He was on that date 8 years 4 months old.
This IQ of at least 187 placed E in Galton's Class X of able
persons; i.e., more than six "grades" removed from mediocrity.
Taking 1 PE#dis# as one "grade," it placed him _at least_ plus 11
PE from the norm; for 1 PE (Probable Error) equals 8 IQ, according
to Terman's original distribution of 905 school children. [1]
This appeared as sufficiently striking to warrant permanent
recording, since it would rate E as one in a million for statistical
frequency, assuming "zeal and power of working" to be also
abundantly present.
I did not at that time have any expert knowledge of highly
intelligent children. I had been working for some years in the
hospitals of New York City with persons presented for commitment
to reformatories, prisons, and institutions for mental defectives.
I had tested thousands of incompetent persons, a majority of them
children, with Goddard's Revision of the Binet-Simon Scale,
scarcely ever finding anyone with an IQ rating as high as 100. This
thoroughgoing experience of the negative aspects of intelligence
rendered the performance of E even more impressive to me than it
would otherwise have been. I perceived the clear and flawless
working of his mind against a contrasting background of thousands
of dull and foolish minds. It was an unforgettable observation.
I then began to look for children like E, to observe them with
reference to the principles of education. This search has been
conducted in a desultory manner, in "odd" moments, ever since 1916.
At times, as in 1922-1923 and in 1935-1936, when pupils were being
sought for special classes at Public School 165, Manhattan, or at
Public School 500, Manhattan, the search has been systematic.
Usually, however, the quest has been quite otherwise, for in the
course of long searching I have learned that it is nearly useless
to _look_ for these children, because so few of them exist. In
twenty-three years' seeking in New York City and the local
metropolitan area, the densest center of population in this country
and at the same time a great intellectual center attracting able
persons, I have found only twelve children who test at or above
180 IQ (S-B). This number represents the winnowing from thousands
of children tested, hundreds of them brought for the testing
because of their mental gifts. Of course there were and are
others who have not been found, since [this] search has never
been exhaustive.
The most interesting part of this research is yet to come, in the
form of a record of the mature performances of these gifted persons
observed in childhood. However, I propose to make a report now of
origin and development; to be followed, if I live so long, by
further reports of adult status. Such researches require more than
the life span of one investigator, since time is of the essence
of the task. Universities should make provision for institutional
prosecution of these long-time studies as distinguished from
individual prosecution. In any case, I shall try to leave the
records to some younger student who will comprehend them, and
who will amplify them if I prove unable to do so myself.
Galton, in his efforts to understand ability, was limited to
the study of the eminent adult, dead and gone. The only test
he could use was that of reputation, for at the time he was at
work on the problem, mental measurement had not yet been developed
as a technique. He wished for a more valid method of gauging
ability, and he fully realized that it would be of greater
advantage to study "the living individual." "Is reputation a fair
test of natural ability?" he asked. "It is the only one I can
employ . . . am I justified in using it? How much of a man's
success is due to his opportunities, and how much to his natural
power of intellect?"
Galton's work was finished before Binet's studies made it possible
to measure natural ability apart from reputation; and what is most
essential of all, to measure _natural ability in childhood_. It
was Binet's great and original service that he rendered it possible
to determine accurately the permanent intellectual caliber of an
undeveloped human being. It has always been possible to appraise
the ability of people forty or fifty years old, after they have
met "the tests of life," but for the pursuit of education and
social science it is not very practically useful to know what a
person is like only at the end of his life. It is essential,
rather, to know with a high degree of precision and certainty the
mental endowment of persons at the beginning of their lives if
anything is to be done in the matter of special training for
special children.
The facts derived from the study of the twelve exceptional persons
herein described, and from the study of others like them, and
the principles deduced from these facts, are of that order of
importance for social science which Galton ascribed to them.
Nevertheless, to hear of the tremendous differences between the
dullest and the most intelligent individual, between the average
man and the person who falls more than +10 PE away from him in
mental ability, is extremely tedious to the typical American
listener. This is only too well known to one who has long tried
to interest foundations and moneyed persons in the education of
gifted children. There is an apparent preference among donors for
studying the needs and supporting the welfare of the weak, the
vicious, and the incompetent, and a negative disregard of the
highly intelligent, leaving them to "shift for themselves."
Perhaps a wider dissemination of facts such as have been adduced
in the studies of Professor Lewis M. Terman and other educators,
and in this study, may eventually bring about a more constructive
point of view, one more conducive to a recognition of national
welfare involved in educational plans for the unusual student.
It is desirable in this introduction to make known some of the
etiquette and ethics involved in the scientific study of very
gifted children. This is a new area in the field of human
relationships and the investigator who works within it comes
rather frequently upon certain questions of good manners which
do not arise in any other field of psychological research.
For instance, persons who test above 180 IQ (S-B) are almost sure
to read and recognize in books and articles whatever has been
written about them, no matter how anonymously they may have been
described. This is true of them even as children. When the book
_Gifted Children_ was published, in 1926, Child A, who is described
therein as well as in these pages, was thirteen years old. He read
the book within two weeks of publication; for, as he said in
mentioning the matter to the author, "I go every week to the
Public Library and look first at the shelf of new books." The
problem always in the foreground is how to present the whole
truth about such matters as family history, social-economic
status, and character, without invading the privacy of those
described and without identifying them to the general public
or to curious persons.
Those who test above 180 IQ (S-B) are characterized by a strong
desire for personal privacy. They seldom volunteer information
about themselves. They do not like to have attention called to
their families and homes. They are reluctant to impart information
concerning their plans, hopes, convictions, and so forth. The
question arises, then, how to avoid presumption; for it is by no
means easy for a young person politely to evade an older person
who can lay claim to having known one "all one's life."
Thus, in this study, in order to preserve the privacy of those
concerned, some items have been omitted from the histories which
would have been of interest to students of child psychology.
Let it be understood at once, however, that the omissions include
nothing discreditable to any of the twelve individuals studied;
rather, many of these items are highly creditable. There have been
acts of moral courage, acts of skill, and acts of self-sustaining
heterodoxy that if told at all should be told only by those who
performed the actions. Perhaps autobiographies may some day be
written by these persons, telling whatever they may wish to tell.
In the matter of the attitude of people in general toward gifted
children, there are, of course, a majority who are kindly and
understanding and helpful, but it is a melancholy fact that there
are also malicious and jealous people who are likely to persecute
those who are formally identified as being unusual. It may prove
a handicap rather than a help to a gifted youngster to have been
identified in book or article or school as extraordinary. Some of
the children herein described have suffered considerably from the
malice of ill-mannered persons, even their instructors, who have
felt the impulse to "take them down a peg." Specific instances of
such persecution can be cited from public prints, and reference
will be made to them in the course of this monograph.
It would be of interest to present a photograph of each child
herein observed, to show how in personal appearance they are
diametrically opposite to the popular stereotype of the highly
intelligent child; but photographs would tend to identification.
These questions of what is right and what is wrong, what is
permissible and what is forbidden, in reporting the origin
and development of the gifted cannot be fully determined here.
The policies pursued in this study have been discussed from time
to time with gifted children and their parents, and I have been
guided by their advice. Everything has been presented that is
consistent both with scientific interest and with the preservation
of personal privacy. The work as it stands has taken hundreds
of hours of the time of these children and of their parents
and teachers, over a period of twenty years. They are all very
busy people, yet they have given time and energy for tests,
measurements, and interviews as requested. It is obvious that
without this coöperation no study could have been made.
Leta S. Hollingworth
Teachers College
Columbia University
New York City
[1] EDITORIAL NOTE. The larger and better sampling of subjects
tested for the 1937 Stanford Revision showed a wider variability
than the 1916 group and indicates that the true PE of the IQ
distribution of unselected children is in the neighborhood
of 11 IQ points, according to Terman.
[2] All such records have been deposited in the psychological
laboratory of Barnard College, Columbia University.
PART I
ORIENTATION
CHAPTER ONE
THE CONCEPT OF INTELLECTUAL GENIUS
It would be an ambitious project to find and discuss all the
definitions of genius that have ever been offered in writing.
To do this is beyond our present purpose, which is, rather, to
illustrate the various concepts that have been formulated and to
take guidance from them in the consideration of children of great
ability. It will perhaps be many years before it will be apparent
whether the children studied herein are geniuses or not. Perhaps
this can never be determined, as the word "genius" may eventually
be found to have no meaning that can be agreed upon. All we know
about the status of the subjects of the present study is that
they test above 180 IQ (S-B) and are thus more than +10 PE removed
from mediocrity in general intelligence. [1] It may be possible
to arrive at some comparison between their characteristics and
performances on the one hand, and the concepts of genius that have
been offered on the other.
CONCEPTS OF THE ANCIENTS
The concept of the genius is very ancient. Ovid (12), [2] referring
to Caesar and his preparations to complete the conquest of the
world, notes the manner in which a genius acts in advance of his
years:
Though he himself is but a boy, he wages a war unsuited
to his boyish years. Oh, ye of little faith, vex not your souls
about the age of the gods! Genius divine outpaces time, and
brooks not the tedium of tardy growth. Hercules was still
no more than a child when he crushed the serpent in his baby
hands. Even in the cradle, he proved himself a worthy son
of Jove.
The Greeks called that person's "daemon" which directed and
inspired his creative work. Dictionaries refer to the Roman
concept of genius as "a spirit presiding over the destiny of a
person or a place; a familiar spirit or a tutelary." The genie
was one of the powerful nature demons of Arabian and Mohammedan
lore, believed to interfere in human affairs and to be sometimes
subject to magic control.
Thinkers in any and every field, no matter how remote from that of
psychology, have confidently discussed the nature of genius.
Philosophers, poets, litterateurs, physicians, physiologists,
psychiatrists, anthropometrists, lexicographars, encyclopedists--
all have offered definitions, each according to his light. It has
been deemed a subject on which anyone might legitimately express
an opinion. The result is, as might be expected, an interesting
miscellany of contradictions.
DICTIONARY DEFINITIONS
By derivation the word "genius" means to beget or to bring forth,
coming from _genere_, _gignere_. Samuel Johnson's Dictionary--from
which Galton took his point of departure in choosing the word
"genius" for the title of his work on ability--defines a genius as
"A man endowed with superior faculties."
Funk and Wagnall's Dictionary offers the following definition:
"Very extraordinary gifts or native powers, especially as displayed
in original creation, discovery, expression, or achievement."
Webster's New International Dictionary defines "genius" as
"Extraordinary mental superiority; esp. unusual power of invention
or origination of any kind; as, a man of _genius_."
The Dictionary of Psychology defines "genius" in part in terms of
IQ, but at the same time denies the word any special meaning as
a recognized scientific term: "Genius--a very superior mental
ability, especially a superior power of invention or origination
of any kind, or of execution of some special form, such as music,
painting, or mathematics. . . . It has no special technical
meaning, but has occasionally been defined as equivalent to an
intelligence quotient (IQ) of 140 or above."
Generally speaking, then, dictionaries define genius as a superior
or superlative degree of intellectual capacity, and avoid claiming
it for any concept of an added, different, or abnormal element in
human faculty.
CONCEPTS OF GENIUS
_As a manifestation of abnormal psychology_. A number of thinkers
in fields allied to psychology have laid emphasis upon a supposed
connection between genius and nervous instability or insanity.
This idea is embodied in the statement by Pascal: "L'extrême
esprit est voisin de l'extrême folie." Lamartine refers to "la
maladie mentale qu'on appelle génie." Lombroso (10) is perhaps
the most widely quoted among those who have held or who hold
this point of view.
_As constituting a different species_. The idea has been expressed
by thinkers other than professed psychologists--and at times
by psychologists themselves--that men of genius are a separate
species, partaking of qualities not shared in any degree by
persons at large. This concept is at one with that which would
regard the idiot and the imbecile as distinct in kind, not in
degree only, from the mass of mankind. Genius would thus be not
merely more of the same but a different sort altogether. Thus
Hirsch (7) specifically declares:
The genius differs in _kind_ from the species, man. Genius
can be defined only in terms of its own unique mental and
temperamental processes, traits, qualities, and products. Genius
is another psychobiological species, differing as much from man,
in his mental and temperamental processes, as man differs from
the ape.
_As a hypertrophied and highly specialized aptitude for specific
performance_. The thought has been advanced that intellectual
genius is a matter of specialization; that the mind of a genius
will not, typically, work on all data with superior results,
but that it is adapted only or primarily to certain kinds of
intellectual performance. In other words, the genius is thought
to lack general ability. A recent statement by Carrel (2) seems
to express in part at least this theory:
There is also a class of men who, although disharmonious
as the criminal and the insane, are indispensable to modern
society. They are the men of genius. They are characterized
by a monstrous growth of some of their psychological
activities. A great artist, a great scientist, a great
philosopher, is rarely a great man. He is generally a man of
common type, with one side over-developed.
_As a combination of traits_. Galton (6) thought of genius as that
which qualifies a person for eminence, and he believed that
achieved eminence must be founded on a combination of no less than
three essentials. He wrote:
By natural ability I mean those qualities of intellect and
disposition which urge and qualify a man to perform acts that
lead to reputation. I do not mean capacity without zeal, nor
zeal without capacity, nor even a combination of both of them,
without an adequate power of doing a great deal of very
laborious work. But I mean a nature which, when left to
itself, will, urged by an inherent stimulus, climb the path that
leads to eminence, and has strength to reach the summit . . .
one which, if hindered or thwarted, will fret and strive until
the hindrance is overcome, and it is again free to follow its
labour-loving instinct. It is almost a contradiction in terms
to doubt that such men will generally become eminent.
Again, Galton says:
We have seen that a union of three separate qualities--intellect,
zeal, and power of work--are necessary to raise men from
the ranks.
Lehman (9) has recently expressed this same idea, as a result of a
statistical study of the most productive years of intellectual
workers:
Indeed, it is doubtful that genius is solely the fruit of any
single trait. It is the belief of the writer that the fruits of
genius are, on the contrary, a function of numerous integers,
including both the personal traits of the individual worker,
environmental conditions that are not too hostile, and the
fortunate combination of both personal traits and external
conditions.
_As quantitative_. Galton (6) was the first to place the study of
genius on the basis of quantitative statement, so that comparisons
might be made and vertifications be effected. Galton formulated
the theory that genius (great natural ability) is nothing more
nor less than a very extreme degree in the distribution of a
combination of traits--"intellect, zeal, and power of working"--
which is shared by all in various "grades" or degrees. Reasoning
thus, Galton applied for the first time in human thought the
mathematical concepts of probablity to the definition of genius.
Quetelet (13), drawing objects from congeries of known composition,
had elaborated the form which the probabilities take of drawing
a given combination. This form, with the law of deviation from
the average governing it, is now, of course, a commonplace in
psychological laboratories, so that it is hard to realize that
when Galton made the mental leap from this curve to the abilities
of men, no one had ever thought of human minds as "fitting" the
curve drawn by Quetelet. Such a "fit" had already been thought
of in connection with measurements of physique, and had been
demonstrated for measurements of the shrimp (16) and for physical
traits of persons. But that "natural ability" should be susceptible
to the probability curve and "the curious theoretical law of
deviation from an average" as length is among shrimps, or as
circumference of the chest is among Scottish soldiers (as shown
by Quetelet), was not conceived. With the modern methods of mental
measurement it is easy enough to perceive the truth of this. But
Galton was working in the dark, entirely without instruments
of precision; and his table of frequency "for the classification
of men according to their natural gifts" must be regarded as one
of the most prescient statements in the history of social science.
Working with the tables devised by Quetelet, Galton proposed the
tabular "classification of men according to their natural gifts"
shown [below].
CLASSIFICATION OF MEN ACCORDING TO THEIR NATURAL GIFTS
GRADES OF NATURAL NUMBERS OF MEN COMPRISED IN THE SEVERAL GRADES OF NATURAL ABILITY, WHETHER IN RESPECT
ABILITY, SEPARATED TO THEIR GENERAL POWERS OR TO SPECIAL APTITUDES
BY EQUAL INTERVALS
Below Above Proportionate; In Each Million In Total Male Population of the United Kingdom, Say
Average Average viz., One in of the Same Age 15 Millions, of the Undermentioned Ages
20-30 30-40 40-50 50-60 60-70 70-80
_a_ A 4 256,791 651,000 495,000 391,000 268,000 171,000 77,000
_b_ B 6 161,279 409,000 312,000 246,000 168,000 107,000 48,000
_c_ C 16 63,563 161,000 123,000 97,000 66,000 42,000 19,000
_d_ D 64 15,696 39,800 30,300 23,900 16,400 10,400 4,700
_e_ E 413 2,423 6,100 4,700 3,700 2,520 1,600 729
_f_ F 4,300 233 590 450 355 243 155 70
_g_ G 79,000 14 35 27 21 15 9 4
_x_
All grades All grades
below _g_ above G 1,000,000 1 3 2 2 2 0 0
Interpreting this theoretical tabulation, Galton (6) wrote:
It will be seen that more than half of each million is contained
in the two mediocre classes _a_ and A; the four mediocre
classes _a_, _b_, A, B, contain more than four fifths, and the six
mediocre classes more than nineteen twentieths of the entire
population. Thus, the rarity of commanding ability and the
vast abundance of mediocrity is no accident, but follows of
necessity from the very nature of these things.
On decscending the scale, we find by the time we have
reached _f_ that we are already among the idiots and imbeciles.
We have seen that there are 400 idiots and imbeciles to any
million of persons living in this country; but that 30 per cent
of their number appear to be light cases, to whom the name of
idiot is inappropriate. There will remain 280 true idiots and
imbeciles to every million of our population. This ratio coincides
very closely with the requirements of class _f_. No doubt
a certain proportion of them are idiots owing to some fortuitous
cause . . . but the proportion of accidental idiots cannot
be very large.
Hence we arrive at the undeniable but unexpected conclusion
that eminently gifted men are raised as much above
mediocrity as idiots are depressed below it; a fact that is calculated
to enlarge considerably our ideas of the enormous difference
of intellectual gifts between man and man.
MISCELLANEOUS OBSERVATIONS TENDING TO
DEFINE CHARACTERISTICS OF GENIUS
In addition to the formulation of the rather definite concepts
of genius which have been discussed, there are to be
found in the literature of this topic a large number of general
observations ascribing certain characteristics to persons of
genius. There are also many remarks as to the conditions
of living, of education, of genetics, and so forth, which are
alleged to foster or to hinder the development of genius.
Many of these observations and remarks emanate from others
than professed psychologists, some of the most interesting
coming from litterateurs and philosophers.
One of the most penetrating discussions of genius by a litterateur
is that of Shaw (15) in his Preface to _Saint Joan_. Shaw regards
Saint Joan as a young genius, and in introducing his readers
to this point of view he says:
Let us be clear about the meaning of the terms. A genius
is a person who, seeing farther and probing deeper than other
people, has a different set of ethical values from theirs, and has
energy enough to give effect to this extra vision and its valuations
in whatever manner best suits his or her specific talents.
Here is brought out the tendency to heterodoxy which
characterizes genius and is the source of much of its difficulty.
Shaw dwells upon these difficulties in saying:
But it is not so easy for mental giants who neither hate nor
intend to injure their fellows to realize that nevertheless their
fellows hate mental giants and would like to destroy them, not
only enviously because the juxtaposition of a superior wounds
their vanity, but quite honestly because it frightens them. Fear
will drive men to any extreme; and the fear inspired by a
superior being is a mystery which cannot be reasoned away.
Being immeasurable it is unbearable when there is no presumption
or guarantee of its benevolence and moral responsibility;
in other words, when it has official status.
This is the same trend of thought which Mill (11) follows in his
_Essay on Liberty_, noting the originality that characterizes
genius and the troubles that result from it, and insisting upon
freedom for genius in the interests of the general welfare.
It would not be denied by anybody that originality is a
valuable element in human affairs. There is always need of
persons not only to discover new truths, and point out when
what were once truths are true no longer, but also to commence
new practices, and set the example of more enlightened
conduct, and better taste and sense in human life. . . . It is
true that this benefit is not capable of being rendered by
everybody alike; there are but few persons in comparison with
the whole of mankind, whose experiments, if adopted by others,
would be likely to be any improvement on established practice.
But these few are the salt of the earth; without them, human
life would become a stagnant pool. . . . Persons of genius,
it is true, are and are always likely to be, a small minority;
but in order to have them, it is necessary to preserve the
soil in which they grow. Genius can only breathe freely in an
atmosphere of freedom. Persons of genius are, _ex vi termini_,
more individual than any other people . . . less capable,
consequently, of fitting themselves, without hurtful
compression, into any of the small number of moulds which
society provides in order to save its members the trouble of
forming their own character. If from timidity they consent to
be forced into one of these moulds, and to let that part of
themselves which cannot expand under the pressure remain
unexpanded, society will be little better for their genius. If
they are of strong character, and break their fetters, they
become a mark for the society which has not succeeded in
reducing them to common-place, to point with solemn warning as
"wild," "erratic," and the like; much as if one should complain
of the Niagara River for not flowing smoothly between its
banks like a Dutch canal.
Mill says further:
I insist thus emphatically on the importance of genius, and
the necessity of allowing it to unfold itself freely both in
thought and in practice, being well aware that no one will deny
the position in theory, but knowing also that almost everyone,
in reality, is totally indifferent to it.
Mill, indeed, had much to say about the conditions under which
the exceptional individual contributes to social change and
progress, which bears immediately upon the education of highly
exceptional children.
Bearing further upon the persecution to which genius is
often subject as a penalty for nonconformity, Havelock Ellis
(5) after studying a large number of British men of genius
says:
It is practically impossible to estimate the amount of
persecution to which this group of preëminent persons has been
subjected, for it has shown itself in innumerable forms, and
varies between a mere passive refusal to have anything to do
with them or their work and the active infliction of physical
torture and death. There is, however, at least one form of
persecution, very definite in character, which it is easy to
estimate, since the national biographers have probably in few
cases passed over it. I refer to imprisonment. I find that at
least 160, or over 16 per cent, of our 975 eminent men were
imprisoned, once or oftener, for periods of varying length,
while many others only escaped imprisonment by voluntary exile.
This is a conclusion reached by one investigating the condition
of genius among what are probably the most liberal
people in the world--the British, a nation of protestants.
Another condition of genius frequently alleged is that of
personal isolation. Shaw makes Saint Joan say, "I was always
alone." Schopenhauer (14) says: "It is often the case
that a great mind prefers soliloquy to the dialogue he may
have in the world." Hirsch (7) dwells at some length upon
isolation:
The genius is constantly forced to solitude, for he early
learns from experience that his kind can expect no reciprocation
of their generous feelings. . . . Solitude can best be
defined as the state in which friends are lacking or absent,
rather than as the opposite of sociability. . . . Solitude is
but a refuge of genius, not its goal. Time after time one
detects, from the lives or writings of genius, that solitude is
not its destiny but only a retreat; not the normal fruition of
its being, but an empty harbor sheltering it from the tortures,
griefs, and calumnies of the world. . . . It is a grievous error
to credit the genius with an innate inclination to shun men. But
in his youth he learns by experience that solitude is preferable
to suffocation, stupefaction, or surrender.
Alger (1) sees isolation as a necessary corollary of the
insistence upon perfection and accuracy which characterizes
genius:
A passion for perfection will make its subject solitary as
nothing else can. At every step he leaves a group behind.
And when, at last, he reaches the goal, alas, where are his
early comrades?
These references to the _early_ experience of the genius in
meeting the uncordial response of the world as constituted,
with its resultant tendency to isolation, connect themselves
with an account found in the Apocryphal New Testament, in
a portion called the Hebrew Gospels.
And Joseph, seeing that the child was vigorous in mind and
body, again resolved that he should not remain ignorant of the
letters, and took him away, and handed him over to another
teacher. And the teacher said to Joseph: I shall teach him the
Greek letters, and then Hebrew. He wrote out the alphabet
and began to teaching him in an imperious tone, saying: Say
Alpha. And he gave him his attention for a long time and
he made no answer, but was silent. And he said to him: If
thou art really a teacher, tell me the power of the Alpha and I
will tell thee the power of the Beta. And the teacher was
enraged at this, and struck him.
SPECULATION AND COMMENT CONCERNING GENIUS
The _ecology of genius_ has evoked speculation and comment.
Thus Churchill (3) says:
Mountain regions discourage the budding of genius because
they are areas of isolation, confinement, remote from the great
currents of men and ieas that move along river valleys. They
are regions of much labor and little leisure, of poverty today
and anxiety for the morrow, of toil-cramped hands and
toil-dulled brains. In the fertile alluvial plains are wealth,
leisure, contact with many minds, large urban centers where
commodities and ideas are exchanged.
The _origins of genius_ have also engaged the attention of
speculative thinkers. For instance, Dixon (4) and also
Hirsch (7) offer the hypothesis that racial mixture is an
antecedent of genius. Kretschmer (8) would by inference
subscribe to this theory, since he holds that genetically genius
results from the union of unlike elements, to which he refers
as "bastardization":
The investigation of the family history of highly talented
individuals demonstrates very clearly the effect of biological
"bastardization," and shows why it may lead to the production
of genius. . . . It results in a complicated psychological
structure, in which the components of two strongly opposing
germs remain in polar tension throughout life. . . . This
polar tension acts as an effective and dynamic factor and
produces in the genius the labile equlibrium, the effective
super-pressure, that continuous, restless impulsiveness, which
carries him far beyond placid, traditional practice and the
simple satisfaction of life. On the other hand, in regard to his
intellectual abilities, the polar tension creates in the genius
his wide mental horizon, the diverse and complicated wealth of
his talent, the all-embracing personality.
Kretschmer also allies himself with those who hold the
concept of genius as closely related to insanity, quoting
selected cases in proof:
"Bastardization" produces internal contrasts and conflicts,
affects tensions, highly strung and uncompensated passions,
and a spiritual lability. It consequently creates a
predisposition to genius . . . but also [[points]] to
psycho-pathological complications. Thus the research on
"bastardization" becomes closely interwoven with the old,
familiar questions, leading us back to the problem: "Genius
and Insanity."
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. ALGER, WILLIAM. _The Genius of Solitude_, page 144.
2. CARREL, ALEXIS. _Man the Unknown_. See pages 140-141. Harper
& Brothers, New York; 1935.
3. CHURCHILL, ELLEN SEMPLE. _The Influence of Geographic Environment
on the Basis of Ratzel's System of Anthropogeography_. Houghton
Mifflin Company, Boston; 1909.
4. DIXON, ROLAND B. _The Racial History of Man_. Charles Scribner's
Sons, New York; 1923.
5. ELLIS, HAVELOCK. _A Study of British Genius_. Constable, London;
1927.
6. GALTON, FRANCIS. _Hereditary Genius_. The Macmillan Company,
London; 1914.
7. HIRSCH, N. D. M. _Genius and Creative Intelligence_. Sci-Art
Publisher, Cambridge, Massachusetts; 1931.
8. KRETSCHMER, E. _The Psychology of Men of Genius_. Translated
by R. B. Cattell. Harcourt, Brace & Co., Inc., New York; 1931.
9. LEHMAN, HARVEY C. "The Creative Years in Science and Literature."
_Scientific Monthly_ (August, 1936).
10. LOMBROSO, C. _The Man of Genius_. Scott, London; 1891.
11. MILL, JOHN STUART. _Essay on Liberty_. See page 76 ff. The
Macmillan Company, New York; 1926 Ed.
12. OVIDIUS NASO, PUBLIUS. _Ars Amatoria_ (_The Love Books of
Ovid_). Translated by J. Lewis May. Privately printed for the
Rarity Press, New York; 1930.
13. QUETELET, M. _Letters on Probability_. Translated by Downes.
Layton & Co., London; 1849.
14. SCHOPENHAUER, ARTHUR. "Essay on Genius," in _The Art of
Literature_, Essays of Arthur Schopenhauer. Willey Book Company,
New York.
15. SHAW, GEORGE BERNARD. _Saint Joan_. Dodd, Mead, & Co., Inc.,
New York; 1924, 1936.
16. WELDON, W. F. R. "Certain Correlated Variations in Crangdon
Vulgaris," _Proceedings_ of The Royal Society, Vol. 51, page 2
(1892).
[1] See endnote [1] in Preface.
[2] Numbers in parentheses refer to correspondingly numbered
references in the Bibliography at the end of each chapter.
CHAPTER TWO
EARLY SCIENTIFIC STUDY OF EMINENT ADULTS [1]
Because, strictly speaking, the present study is limited in its
interest and data to childhood, no attempt will be made to review
in detail the somewhat numerous studies of exceptional adults.
ORIGIN OF EMINENT ADULTS
Such studies as those undertaken by Galton (11, 12), De Candolle (9),
Ellis (10), Odin (17), and Cattell (4, 5) show that those who, as
adults, become eminent in intellectual work, are in disproportionately
great numbers the children of the "upper" (nobler or professional)
classes; and that they are usually born either in cities or
on large country estates (in France, in the chateaux). Very few
eminent adults have originated in the families of laborers, and
relatively few have been born in agricultural districts, in countries
long settled. Beyond these facts of origin, the investigators
of eminence in adults have not given much information about their
subjects of inquiry in respect to childhood.
YODER'S STUDY
We shall begin our detailed reference to previous observations
with Yoder's study, published in 1898. Yoder (25) made a systematic
attempt to gather data about the boyhood of very eminent men.
He thus tracked down certain facts about fifty great persons
concerning whom he could find data bearing on their childhood.
From these he was able to make the following generalizations:
1. The child who will become a great man may be born at any time,
over a very wide range of the productive period in the lives of
parents. The mothers of the fifty great persons studied ranged
in age from 18 to 44 years, when the great man was born, with
a median of 29.8 years. The fathers ranged in age from 23 to
60 years, with a median of 37.7 years.
2. The average number of siblings of these persons was 5+, not
including half brothers and sisters.
3. In families of more than one child, there was found to be a
strong tendency (chances of nearly 2 to 1) for the great man
to be in the elder half of the siblings.
4. Of those listed, 17 were only sons, either by order of birth
or by death of other sons born. (This is not to say that they
were only children.)
5. There was found no evidence that the great were sickly or
physically weak in childhood, to a more marked extent than average.
6. There appeared a tendency to great height among them than among
persons in general, "though the tendency is not very marked."
7. Play interests were keen among these children, though the play
was often of an unusual kind. "Solitary play" is repeatedly
described. Of Emerson, his biographer says: "I don't think he ever
engaged in boys' plays, not because of any physical disability,
but simply because from earliest years he dwelt in a higher
sphere." Others are said to have been "disinclined to general
intercourse." Instead of joining in the usual childish games,
Newton preferred to play with his machines, Darwin with his
collections, Shelley to read, Stevenson to make clay engines,
and Edison to mix his chemicals. Of Byron it was written: "The
love of solitude and of meditation is already traceable in the
child. He loves to wander at night among the dark and solitary
cloisters of the abbey." To quote Yoder: "Solitude seems to have
played a rather striking role in the lives of these great men.
Either by nature or by opportunity, they have stayed a great
deal alone."
Nevertheless, many of the fifty persons studied by Yoder enjoyed
physical activity. Washington loved outdoor sports, Schiller was
a leader in athletics, Byron was an enthusiastic swimmer and rider,
and Lincoln was the champion wrestler and woodcutter of his
neighborhood.
8. The popular idea that great men owe their success to their
mothers' influence upon their education does not receive verification
from a study of these cases. The mother's place seems very often
to have been filled by some other person, frequently an aunt,
either because the mother had died, or because there were many
other children to care for. "The role of the aunt stands out
prominently."
9. These great persons were, in the decided majority of cases,
derived from well-to-do families. Most of them were privately
educated, by tutors or in private schools. Very few were "self
made."
TERMAN'S INFERENCES FROM BIOGRAPHY
Terman (20) has effected an interesting advance over Yoder's
method, in the interpretation of evidence from the biography of
adults. [2] By analyzing data in the biography of Francis Galton,
and by relating these data to modern knowledge of mental tests,
Terman derives that the IQ of Francis Galton in childhood must
have been not far from 200.
As Terman has elsewhere pointed out, these attempts to study genius
in childhood by inference from the biography of adults are very
unsatisfactory. In the first place, only those whose potentialities
have been realized are included in such study. Since factors other
than innate intellectual power act also as determinants of
eminence, we cannot be sure whether equal capacity for selective
thinking may have existed in persons who died before the age of
achievement, who were younger sons, who were girls, or who were the
children of the poor. Moreover, such evidence as can be gleaned
concerning those who have achieved eminence is comparatively
unsystematic and unreliable as regards childhood.
Most clearly related to our present study are the previously
reported observations of children made directly, during childhood,
by trained investigators. The modern development of mental tests
has now enabled psychologists to identify young children who
deviate from average in the direction of superiority as regards
selective thinking, and to follow their development for some
years. Eventually, therefore, it will be known how to recognize
those children who can become "great," and whether extreme
deviation in mental tests is a basis of prophecy.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. BINET, A. _Psychologie des grandes calculateurs et joieurs
d'échecs. Hachette, Paris; 1894.
2. BRIMHALL, D. "Family Resemblances among American Men of
Science," _American Naturalist_, Vol. 56 (1922) and Vol. 57 (1923).
3. CASTLE, C. S. "Statistical Study of Eminent Women." _Archives
of Psychology_, Vol. IV, No. 27 (1913).
4. CATTELL, J. McK. "A Statistical Study of Eminent Men." _Popular
Science Monthly_ (1903).
5. ------ "Families of American Men of Science." _Popular Science
Monthly_, Vol. 86, pages 504-515 (1915).
6. CLARK, E. L. _American Men of Letters: Their Nature and
Nurture_. Columbia University Press, New York; 1916.
7. COX, C. M. _The Early Mental Traits of Three Hundred Geniuses_.
Genetic Studies of Genius: Vol. 2. Stanford University Press,
Stanford University, California; 1926.
8. DAVIES, G. R. "A Statistical Study of the Influence of the
Environment." _Quarterly Journal of the University of North
Dakota_ (1914).
9. DE CANDOLLE, A. _Histoire des Sciences et des Savants depuis
Deux Siècles_. Geneva, Switzerland; 1873.
10. ELLIS, HAVELOCK. _A Study of British Genius_. Hirst and
Blackett, London; 1904.
11. GALTON, FRANCIS. _English Men of Science_. The Macmillan
Company, London; 1874.
12. ------ _Hereditary Genius_. The Macmillan Company, New York,
1914. (Original edition, London; 1869.)
13. LEHMAN, HARVEY C. "The Creative Years in Science and Literature."
_Scientific Monthly_, Vol. XLIII, pages 151-162 (1936).
14. LOMBROSO, C. _The Man of Genius_. Scott, London; 1895.
15. MIDDLETON, W. C. "The Propensity of Genius to Solitude."
_Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology_, Vol. 30, pages
325-332 (1935).
16. MITCHELL, F. D. "Mathematical Prodigies." _American Journal of
Psychology_, Vol. 18, pages 61-143 (1907).
17. ODIN, A. _Genèse des Grands Hommes des Lettres Français
Modernes_. Paris et Lausanne; 1895.
18. RASKIN, E. "Comparison of Scientific and Literary Ability:
A Biographical Study of Eminent Scientists and Men of Letters
of the Nineteenth Century." _Journal of Abnormal and Social
Psychology_, Vol. 31, pages 20-35 (1935).
19. SCHUSTER, E. "The Promise of Youth and the Performance of
Manhood." _Eugenics Laboratory Memoirs_, Vol. 3, pages 16 ff.
London; 1907.
20. TERMAN, LEWIS M. "The IQ of Francis Galton in Childhood."
_American Journal of Psychology_, Vol. 28, pages 209-215 (1917).
21. VISHER, S. S. "A Study of the Type of Place of Birth and
of the Occupation of Father of Subjects of Sketches in _Who's Who
in America_." _American Journal of Sociology_, 1925.
22. ------ "The Comparative Rank of the American States." _American
Journal of Sociology_, Vol. 36, pages 735-757 (March, 1931).
23. WHITE, R. K. "Note on the Psycho-pathology of Genius." _Journal
of Social Psychology_, Vol. 1, pages 311-315 (1930).
24. ------ "The Versatility of Genius." _Journal of Social
Psychology_, Vol. 2, pages 460-489 (1931).
25. YODER, G. E. "A Study of the Boyhood of Great Men." _Pedagogical
Seminary_, Vol. 3, pages 134-156 (1894).
[1] EDITORIAL NOTE. No revision of this chapter has been found
among the author's papers. In the earlier manuscript reporting
but five cases, there was a brief section entitled "Inferences
from the Study of Adults," and in the incompletely revised
manuscript a list of references is given for this chapter which
had not yet been written. The earlier sections and the revised
bibliography are, therefore, all that is available for this
chapter. The bibliography will be sufficient to guide any reader
who may be further interested in the details of the scientific
study of adults.
[2] EDITORIAL NOTE. Had these pages been written at a later date,
or revised by the author, of course the more recent work of C. M.
Cox (7), inspired by Terman, would have been considered.
CHAPTER THREE
PUBLISHED REPORTS ON TESTED CHILDREN
Galton and those who built directly upon his pioneer thought about
ability were limited to the study of those who had passed the tests
of life itself, the study of the old and the dead, upon whom
developing theories and processes of education have no bearing.
Today one of the principal reasons for obtaining knowledge
concerning able persons is that they and others like them may be
properly educated for the social functions which they alone can
perform. Inferences from study of eminent adults are, therefore, of
negligible importance compared to the identification and education
of today's gifted children.
MODERN APPROACH TO THE STUDY OF ABILITY
In 1905 Binet and Simon (3), announcing their scale for the
measurement of intelligence in children, rendered it possible
to know at the beginning of a human being's existence where--within
narrow limits of error--he or she, in comparison with all others,
grades in caliber of general intelligence. This work, relating
itself to work done also by others--notably Spearman (21) and
Thorndike (28, 30)--created a new epoch in the study of ability
and inaugurated the so-called modern, or present-day, approach
to the subject.
BINET'S METHOD
No extended discussion of what "general intelligence" is will be
undertaken in these pages, as it would not be germane to the
purposes of this monograph. It will be sufficient to refer to the
concept which Binet had in mind in standardizing his scale (4): "It
seems to us that there is a fundamental faculty, the alteration or
the lack of which is of the utmost importance for practical life."
It is this "fundamental faculty" which Binet named "judgment" that
is the variable upon which rests the extreme position of the
children who are to be studied herein.
The quantitative methods which make possible the study of the
status of these children when they have reached adulthood are those
developed in recent years by Thorndike (30) and his students. As
the children identified years ago by Binet's method grew to
adulthood, there were developed in the various laboratories of
Columbia University methods of measuring the intelligence of
superior adults, based on the fundamental principles which are the
same for mental measurement at all periods of development. Methods
have thus been made available for making quantitative statements
of the status of these individuals both during development and
at maturity.
THE RANGE OF INTELLECT ABOVE 180 IQ
It is pertinent to inquire what are the limits of variation
in terms of standard use in respect to human intelligence. How
far superior to the average person are the most highly intelligent
individuals currently produced? Galton's (9) X grade of man was
defined in terms of incidence as "one in a million." But this X
man was not a product of one variable. Galton's X man resulted from
an intellect _in combination_ with "zeal and power of working." The
incidence of this _combination_ of traits would probably be less
than the incidence of intellect alone in degree sufficient for X.
Our purpose in this chapter will be to consider investigations,
made by direct methods, of the origin and development of children
of a type extremely rare in occurrence, incidence being based on
one variable only; i.e., intelligence measured in terms of IQ
(S-B). For this purpose the line might be drawn at any point
farther than +7 PE or +8 PE from the mean. A choice of 180 IQ
(S-B) as a minimum insures a degree of plus deviation very rarely
found even in
metropolitan cities and their suburbs, as is clear from the
reports of mental surveys conducted during the present century.
The choice of 180 IQ (S-B), instead of 179 or 181 or some other
amount of IQ in the extreme upper range, is obviously arbitrary
and is adopted merely for the purpose of defining a point at and
above which there are very few children who score.
_Frequency of occurrence_. Just how often does a child testing
above 180 IQ (S-B) appear in the juvenile population of the United
States? We cannot tell exactly until we know more about the spread
of the distribution of IQ (S-B). In terms of PE (1 PE = ±8 IQ),
according to Terman's original findings (24) we should come upon
a deviate of +10 PE only once in more than a million times,
provided the distribution of IQ corresponds exactly or even
rather closely to Quetelet's (17) curve of probability as respects
spread; for on this curve cases above or below ±5 PE approach
zero in frequency.
It is certain, however, even from existing data, that the
distribution of IQ extends for at least ±10 PE (even assuming that
wider data will define 1 PE as ±10 instead of ±8 as found by
Terman. It is probable that children who test above 180 IQ are
actually present in our juvenile population in greater frequency
than at the rate of one in a million. This does not mean that
intellect when finally measured _in true units_ may not conform
in variability to the mathematics of chance; it means only _in
terms of IQ_ (in terms of ratio and not of absolute units) the
conformity is probably not exact, as respects the law of deviation.
There may be one, or two, or three, or more children among every
million born in the United States under present conditions who
test at or above 180 IQ (S-B). In any case, however, they are
extremely rare, and the study of their origin and development is
of correspondingly great interest. In the course of discovering
about 1000 children testing at or above 140 IQ (S-B) in the state
of California, Terman (26) found 15 who tested at or above 180
IQ (S-B). Children who test at and above 140 IQ (S-B) are as 1 in
250 of children in large California cities and environs. Thus 140
IQ (S-B) defines a frequency of about 4 in 1000 of urban juvenile
population in California. About 1.5 per cent, therefore, of those
children who are as 4 in 1000 reach the status of which we are
here treating; i.e., 180 IQ (S-B). [1] Nor can we take the children
of California urban districts as a true sample of the population
of the United States at large, since there is reason to believe
that among urban children there is an uncommon proportion of
intelligent individuals (8). Also it should be conceded that
California has a total population that is above the average of
the United States in general as regards mental ability (37). In
any case, it may be guessed with some degree of approximation
to fact how very few there are among American children who test
at or above 180 IQ (S-B).
CHILDREN OBSERVED BEFORE THE ERA OF BINET
Scattered observations of children estimated by more or less
competent persons as very unusual are to be found dating from
quite early years. In this period the literature of child psychology
was still in the state of narrative. The earliest of these
narrations bears the date of 1726 (1) and concerns the child
Heineken.
_Christian Heinrich Heineken_. Born February 6, 1721, the "Little
Heineken," of Lübeck, was the son of an artist. When the child was
10 months old, his elders first noticed that he was looking with
sustained attention at the figures wrought in gold on a grotesque
that decorated the walls of his room and that were also on a white
stove that stood therein.
Den 3 Dezember 1721 bemerkte man zuerst, dass das kind diese
Figuren hin und her, eine Zeitlang ohne Unterlass ansah und seine
Äugelchen auf eine derselben gleichsam anklebte. Man sagte ihm
daher die Namen dieser Figuren, das sei eine Katze, das ein
Turm, ein Schäfchen, ein Berg. Den andern Tag, den 4 Dezember,
fragte man es wieder, wo die Katze, der Berg, das Schäfchen wäre
und siehe da, das Kind deutete mit seinen kleinen Fingerchen
hin und traf immer das rechte Bild, das man ihm genannt hatte.
Noch mehr, nun gab es sich Mühe, die ihm vorgesagten Wörter:
Katze, Berg, Turm selbst nachzusprechen: es sah daher mit
unverwandten Blicken dem Redendend nach dem Munde, gab auf
die Bewegung der Lippen und der Zunge desselben beständig acht,
lallte das Wort nach und wiederholte dies so oft, bis es
endlich eine Silbe nach der andern herauspresste. [a]
By the time this child was 14 months old he had learned all the
stories in the New Testament. At this age he was still not weaned
from the breast of his nurse, and had an antipathy to other foods.
In order to get him accustomed to other forms of food, the family
took him to sit with them at meals, but instead of eating "he did
nothing but learn." When he saw the various appurtenances he asked
persistently how the dishes were named, where they came from, what
else could be made from the things, and did not rest until he
had discussed every piece of information.
In this mode of life the child remained always happy and in good
humor. He was lovable. Only when at times he was refused answers
to his questions, because it was feared that he might be injured
by too many remembrances, the child was "sorely grieved." The
extent of his learning in the fourth year of life was as follows:
Es konnte gedruckte und geschriebene Sachen lateinisch und
deutsch lesen.
Schreiben konnte es noch nicht, seine Fingerchen waren zu
schwach dazu.
Das Einmaleins konnte es in und ausser der Ordnung hersagen.
Auch numerieren, subtrahieren, addieren und multiplizieren
vermochte es.
In Französischen kam es soweit, dass es ganze Historien in
dieser Sprache erzählen konnte.
In Latein lernte es über 1500 gute Sprüche aus lateinischen
Autoren.
Plattdeutsch hatte das Kind von seiner Amme, von der es nicht
lassen wollte, gelernt.
In der Geographie fuhr es fort, das Merkwürdigste eines jeden
auf der Landkarte steheneden Ortes zu fassen. [b]
On a journey across the sea to Copenhagen, undertaken for the boy's
health, a storm arose and the passengers were badly frightened,
all but the child, who said, smiling "Qui nescit orare, discate
navigare." When subsequently the ship came safely to anchor, he
remarked, "Anchora navis sistitur; deserit ille suos nunquam, qui
cuncta gubernat."
When the boy was brought before the Danish king, he said of the
diamond order that the king gave him to hold, "C'est l'Ordre
d'Elephant, garni de diamant." And gazing at the diamonds, he
added, "Les bijoux sont precieux, mais la vie du Roi est plus
precieuse."
The "little Heineken" died at the age of 4 years 4 months, in
accordance with the popular superstition that early death awaits
the highly intelligent child, "a wonder for all time."
_Karl Witte_. The father of Karl Witte (35) has furnished a
somewhat elaborate account of his son's development, from which
we learn that the young Karl could read fluently before his fourth
birthday. He learned to write soon thereafter. At the age of
7 years 10 months a public demonstration of his ability to read
was given, covering Italian, French, Greek, and Latin. He passed
tests of preparedness to matriculate at the University of Leipsic
[Leipzig] when he was 9 years old. In the field of mathematics
he pursued analytical geometry at 11 and calculus at 12 years
of age. At 14 he achieved the degree of Doctor of Philosophy,
and was awarded the degree of Doctor of Laws at 16. At 23 he
became full professor of jurisprudence at the University of
Breslau. He was then called to Halle, and continued there for
the remainder of his life, teaching and writing. At the age of 83,
still vigorously engaged in mental tasks, he died, thus outliving
the melancholy promise of early death which had often been
prophesied to his father.
Pastor Witte, who directed his son's education, did not claim for
him extraordinary intelligence. "Any man normally well endowed
can become a great man if properly educated," he wrote (35). His
special method of educating the boy seems to have been simply to
afford him companionship. He describes the child as strong,
healthy, and playful, without vanity or conceit. From the total
record one must conclude that Karl Witte's intelligence quotient
in childhood was in excess of 180, comparing his history with
those studied in this monograph. His performances in childhood
compare favorably with those of the children we have known with
IQ (S-B) in the range above 185.
_Otto Pöhler_. IN 1910 Berkhan (2) recorded the performance of Otto
Pöhler, "the early reading child of Braunschweig," the son of a
master butcher (erstes und einziges Kind der Sclachtermeisters),
born August 20, 1892. This child learned to walk and talk and his
teeth erupted "at the right time." At the age of 1 year 3 months,
when his grandmother led him forth on short neighborhood walks,
she would read to him from signs on the streets. And at this
period she wrote for him his name, "Otto." Soon he could recognize
the word "Otto," when he saw it in the newspaper. Then the
grandmother explained to him the alphabet, and read him single
words. When Otto was taken to Dr. Berkhan, he was 1 year 9 months
old, and he could read incidental matter, such as "April 27,"
written in Latin across the calendar in Dr. Berkhan's office.
Otto Pöhler, geborn den 20 August 1892 zu Braunschweig,
erstes und einziges Kind des Schlachtermeisters, bekam zu
rechter zeit Zähne und lernte zu rechter Zeit laufen und
sprechen. Als er 5/4 Jahre alt war, führte ihn die Grossmutter
vor die Tür und in die nächsten Strassen und nannte ihm dabei
die Namen, welche auf den Haus- und Strassenschildern standen,
auch hatten ihm Angehörigen mehrfach seinen Vornamen Otto
aufgeschrieben. Als das Kind nun eine Zeitung in die Hände
bekam, zeigte es den mehrfach in derselben gedruckten Namen
Otto. Von da ab erklärte ihm die Grossmutter die Buchstaben
und las ihm einzelne Worte vor; dabei ergab sich, dass das
Kind ein ungeheures Gedächtnis für Buchstaben, Worte, und
Zahlen hatte.
Als mir der kleine Otto zugeführt wurde, war er wie ich
vorhin anführte 1 3/4 Jahre alt. Er tat sehr vertraut, kletterte
sofort mehrfach auf meine Kniee, zeigte sich überhaupt sehr
beweglich und unruhig. Als er einen neben dem Schreibtisch
hängenden Wandkalender erblickte, las er unaufgefordert laut
die auf demselben lateinisch gross gedruckte Anzeige: April 27
= "April zwei sieben. . . ."
Im Oktober, 1894, stellte ich den jungen Otto im Alter von
2 Jahren und 2 Monaten dem ärztlichen Landesverein vor. Als
derselbe nach Beendigung meines über ihn gehaltenen Vortrags
in den Sitzungssaal geführt wurde, zog einer der Ärzte den
Börnerschen Medizinal-Kalender hervor mit der Aufforderung,
die lateinische Aufschrift zu lesen. Er las fliessend: "Re--ichs
Medizinal-Kalender. Begründet von Dĕr Pa--ul Börnēr. Eins acht
neun vier." [c]
When Otto was 4 years old, Stumpf reported concerning him in the
_Vossiche Zeitung_, of January 10, 1897, describing him as "not
strongly yet not poorly developed, physically." The back of the
skull was said to be conspicuous; the face, delicate; and the eyes,
"wise and alive, taking on a remarkably concentrated expression
in thinking." The general impression was that made by a merry,
unspoiled youngster, seeing the world. His great passion was still
for reading, and the most important things in the world to him were
history, biography, and geography.
Er ist körperlich nicht stark, aber auch nicht schlecht
entwickelt. Auf den ersten Blick fällt der lange Schädel und der
starke Hinterkopf auf. In dem zierlichen Gesicht fesseln kluge,
lebhafte Augen, die beim Nachsinnen einen merkwürdig ernsten
konzentrierten Ausdruck annehmen. . . . Im ganzen macht er
keineswegs den Eindruck eines ungesunden, abgematteten, sondern
eines noch ganz frisch und lustig in die Welt schauenden
Jungen. . . .
Seine grösste Leidenschaft ist noch immer das Lesen, und
das Wichtigste in der Welt sind ihm historische, biographische
und geographische Daten. Er kennt die Geburts- und Todesjahre
vieler deutscher Kaiser, auch vieler Feldherren, Dichter,
Philosophen, zumeist sogar auch Geburtstag und Geburtsort;
ferner die Hauptstädte der meisten Staaten, die Flüsse, an
denen sie liegen u. dergl. Er weiss Bescheid vom Anfang und
Ende des dreissigjährigen und des siebenjährigen Krieges, von
den Hauptschlachten dieser und anderer Kriege. Das alles hat
er sich nach Aussage der Mutter ohne fremdes Zutun durch das
emsige Studium eines "patriotischen Kalenders" und ähnlicher im
Hause vorfindlicher Literatur, auch durch Entzifferung von
Denkmalsinschriften in den Städten (wofür er besondere
Leidenschaft hat) angeeignet. Als ihm auf zwei verschiedenen
Blättern nacheinander 2 zwölfstellige Zahlen gezeigt wurden,
die sich nur durch eine der mittleren Ziffern unterschieden,
las er sie sogleich als Milliarden und konnte dann, ohne die
Blätter wieder anzusehen, mit Sicherheit angeben, worin der
Unterschied lag. [d]
Stumpf further said:
. . . Dr. Placzek u.a. die den Knaben früher beobachteten,
den bestimmten Eindruck gewannen eines besonders geweckten,
rasch und scharf denkenden und zugleich eines gutartigen,
durchaus liebenswürdigen Kindes. An den Eltern und zumal
an der Mutter hängt er mit der grössten Zärtlichkeit. [e]
When Berkhan saw Pöhler in July, 1907, the boy was an _Obersekundaner_
in a gymnasium [f]. In April, 1909, aged 16 years 8 months, he
appeared as an intelligent, wonderfully retentive, cultured young
man, who oriented himself easily and who, although favored over
and above his contemporaries, had kept a modest and lovable nature.
Jetzt, fast 17 Jahre alt, ist er ein intelligenter, mit einem
bewunderungswerten Gedächtnis ausgestatteter, kenntnisreicher,
sich auffallend leicht orientierender junger Mann, der, obgleich
in seiner Weise vor der Mitwelt bevorzugt, sich ein bescheidenes,
liebenswürdiges Wesen bewahrt hat. [g]
Pöhler's plan, when seen on this final occasion, April, 1909,
was to go at Easter, 1910, to the university, to become a student
of German history.
_Other cases_. General discussions of mental gifts in children
which bear interestingly upon the subject here under discussion
but fail to present any specific instances of individuals who
exemplify extreme status, are those by Dolbear (7) and by Hartlaub
(12), and the lectures given in 1930 before the Hungarian Society
for Child Research and Practical Psychology (31). Among the cases
cited by Waddle (33) there are none that belong to our study. In
the research of Cox (6), the following eminent persons were rated
as having been in childhood at or above 180 IQ (S-B): John Stuart
Mill, Johann Wolfgang Goethe, Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, Blaise
Pascal, Thomas Babington Macauly, and Hugo de Groot (Grotius). We
would, however, venture to guess, from what we have observed over
a long period of the work of persons who in childhood tested from
135 to 200 IQ (S-B), that a large number of the persons included
in Cox's study would have tested in childhood at or above 180 IQ
(S-B); and that the reasons why they failed of such rating as
studied by Cox were two: (1) the data of childhood requisite for
the valid rating were lacking; (2) the raters were not sufficiently
familiar with what is required in terms of IQ to make possible the
evaluation of those studies, because only a few children testing
so high could have been seen by any rater, and nothing was as yet
known of the performance of tested children at any stage of maturity.
Many of the persons studied by the methods of Cox were rated at
140, 150, 155 IQ (S-B), whose performances in early maturity were
far in excess of what can be expected of persons who represent
nothing better than what the upper quarter of American college
students can do (6). It is only when children test at least as
high as 170 IQ (S-B) that they render performance in early maturity
that suggests anything like the achievements of the persons studied
by Cox.
CHILDREN WHO TEST ABOVE 180 IQ BY BINET-SIMON TESTS
After the publication of the Binet-Simon tests (3), a few cases
of children testing very high by means of them were reported
in the literature which resulted from the tests before they
were revised by Terman (24). At that time, which was previous
to the appearance of the Stanford-Binet tests, the IQ was not used
in expressing mental status, but we are able to calculate what
this was from the data of Mental Age. These early cases, definitely
measured, are as follows:
_Bush's daughter, B_. In 1914 Bush (5) reported upon the mental
examination of his daughter, B, who at the age of 3 years 6 months
tested at 6 years by the Binet tests of 1911. Her IQ would thus
be proved at about 185, calculated from her father's detailed
record of responses. This report was rendered primarily to show
that the Binet tests were too easy, as no child could possibly
be really so advanced mentally as was B. "B's state is in no wise
extra-normal, or beyond what it should be. She represents the norm."
Additional data concerning B are that she "is of a happy disposition
. . . strong and well of body," and that her parents are both
teachers. This record clearly reveals a child of surpassing
intelligence, contrary to the father's belief that "she represents
the norm."
_Elizabeth, recorded by Langenbeck_. In 1915 Langenbeck (15)
contributed observations of a 5-year-old girl, Elizabeth, who
tested at a mental level of about 11 years by the Binet-Simon
tests of 1911, administered in the Psychological Laboratory at
John Hopkins University. This would yield an IQ of about 220
(assuming the tests of 1911 to be approximately comparable with
Stanford-Binet in power to distribute intellect).
Elizabeth is described as an only child. At 16 months she had a
speaking vocabulary of 229 words, some English and some German,
as she had a German nurse. At 5 years of age she had a speaking
vocabulary of 6837 words, which are inscribed in the record. The
observer writes of her as follows:
Her quickness of thought and readiness with an instant and
convincing answer were typified one dusty, blustering day
when we were out walking. A cloud of dust enveloped us, to
her great indignation, and being a very vehement character she
exclaimed, "I should like to kill the dust!" In answer to
my reproof, "Do not be so foolish. How can anyone kill the
dust?" she replied, "Very easily--pour a little water on it."
This was at the age of 4 years. . . . She is highly imaginative,
and lives largely in a dream world of her own creation.
Her games are nearly all pretense that she is someone else,
and that she is surrounded by companions, sometimes purely
fictitious, though often characters out of books that have been
read to her. . . . When being read to, she asks the meaning
of every unfamiliar word, and rarely forgets it, using it
thereafter in its proper place. . . . Many of her forebears
have been distinguished men and women, and on both sides her
family have been people of more than average capacity and
cultivation. . . . From an early age she has shown unusual
muscular coördination, using her fingers daintily and with
precision. From her eighth month she used a paper and pencil,
drawing recognizable figures. At 4 years she could illustrate
a little story composed by herself. . . . The source of much
of her knowledge is a mystery to her parents, and can only be
explained by her keen observation and retentive memory, as
well as by a power of comprehension much beyond her years.
However absorbed she may appear to be in her play, talking
vigorously to herself and to imaginary companions all the time,
she nevertheless hears everything that is said in her presence,
though months will often pass before she alludes to it. . . .
She taught herself her letters from street signs and books,
and could print them all before she was three, and during
the next few months would write letters of several pages,
of her own composition, having the words, of course, spelled for
her. . . . She has an accurate ear and could sing a tune
correctly before her second birthday, and dances in excellent
time. . . . Every new thought or impression is at once associated
with some previous idea. Hence, doubtless, her marvelous memory.
For example, in a country walk she noticed a typical Virginia
snake fence, having never seen one before. After a single
moment's hesitation she said, "You see that M or W fence?" . . .
At the age of five years she had coined twenty-three words--
e.g., _laten_, to make late; _neaten_, to make neat; _plak_,
to pretend; _up-jar_, pitcher.
_Rusk's case, from Scotland_. In 1917 Rusk (19) published an
account of a Scottish boy whose IQ, calculated from Rusk's detailed
record, was 166 on first test and about 200 on second test given
two and a half years later, the Binet-Simon tests of 1911 being
used. This child was the son of a widow in Dundee, who lived and
supported her two sons by letting rooms to lodgers. The young
brother of this boy was not judged to be remarkably intelligent,
but no test was given to substantiate this impression. Details
of family history are not recorded.