Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Marcus Seldon's avatar

This is a fascinating theory, and I think you may be onto something here. I, too, have wondered about why there are fewer geniuses now than in the past. There are a few other potential contributing factors to this that I didn’t see mentioned:

(1) The rise of “publish or perish”. The aristocratic geniuses of the past could work at a leisurely pace and focus only on their most important ideas. Today, most intellectuals are academics or journalists, and both professions require increasing quantities of work from practitioners to maintain employment. This means most intellectuals are forced to spend more time on less important ideas that can be developed over the course of weeks or months rather than years.

(2) Geniuses are out there, but their contributions aren’t as obvious because of specialization. The intellectual world has expanded dramatically. There’s more specialized information than ever. As such, the contributions of geniuses will not be as obvious to the general public, or even intellectuals in their own field who work in different subfields. This applies even to the arts, where (I am told) to appreciate many modern art movements you need to be well educated in an array of specific artists and traditions.

(3) Geniuses are out there, but increased intellectual competition makes each individual less influential. There are so many more intellectuals today than even 200 years ago, and the competition is fierce. Take philosophy. The greats of the past engaged with only a relatively small number of thinkers, most of whom were dead. So a small handful of individuals had all the low hanging intellectual fruit to themselves. A philosopher today must compete with dozens or hundreds of thinkers, all of whom are hunting for objections to her work and/or rushing ahead to beat her to some of that low hanging fruit. Perhaps there are hundreds of hidden great philosophers today who, if there was far less intellectual competition, would eventually pick all the low hanging fruit themselves and therefore be more obviously great.

(I haven’t read the comments on the first post so apologies if these have already been addressed there)

Expand full comment
Scott Alexander's avatar

If you're willing to accept "parent did a little tutoring" as an explanation for some of the figures I named (eg Newton), I think that makes your theory much weaker than I had originally thought. In particular, it suggests that a big fraction of the kids being homeschooled by their parents should count as aristocratically tutored - and that's millions of people! I think that makes a lot of the rest of your post - about how this is almost unattainable today, about how it's impossible without unacceptable social inequality - fall flat. If ordinary homeschooling by parents counts, your headline result should be "home school your kids"!

(also, a lot of kids who aren't home schooled get some tutoring by their parents on the side, so I think tens of millions of children probably qualify as "at least as home schooled as Darwin or Dickens")

Likewise, if you're going to count Oxbridge as tutoring, your conclusion shouldn't be "too bad there's no aristocratic tutoring anymore," it should be "Go to Oxbridge, the one place still capable of producing geniuses!" And then you should compare Oxbridge to some equally selective institution like the Ivies to see if this really has an effect.

Although you never said the decline in genius was due entirely to tutoring, you implied it was a pretty strong factor. I think if eg 75% of past geniuses weren't aristocratically tutored, then the decline of aristocratic tutoring can only account for at most 25% of the decline in geniuses, which was not the impression I got from your post. Adding in the existence of current aristocratically tutored people, like home schoolers and Oxbridgeans, and adjusting for the percent of geniuses that they are, would lower these numbers further.

Expand full comment
69 more comments...

No posts