Dispositionism means that each individual exhibits a range of behaviours that are selectively reinforced and thence evolve into habitual responses and patterns of thought. Those initial behaviours are "determined" by elements of social conditioning, genetic factors and an element of chance. Some individuals with little talent are able to overcome this difficiency by a combination of great external stimulation and perhaps an amount of luck. Equally, those with great genetic potential, and outstanding environmental influences may fall down through chance occurrences.

Let us examine some examples. John Stuart Mill is best known as the one who brought Utilitarianism into everyday usage. Many who have learnt of Mill’s theories and ideas have overlooked his extraordinary upbringing. Quite simply, Mill received one of the most intensive and extensive educational and mental development programs that has ever been known.

John Stuart Mill thus provides an example of how powerful external stimulii may be in the development of a great mind. Would Mill have been successful in his path had his father not taken such an interest in his education? Nobody can really say with any degree of certainty. However, we can be sure that the foundation of intellectual development that placed Mill 25 years ahead of his contemporaries positioned him uniquely, and ensured that he would at the least be an outstandingly average individual.

In all we can see a variety of factors contribute to the development of a genius. It is difficult to say that this is really the way human beings operate in an experimental sense due to the difficulties in eliminating chance. However, this certainly provides a model for interpreting and understanding the development of great minds – and the failure to do so. While we can not predict with absolute certainty do to the intrinsic random nature of the chance variable, we can certainly improve the odds of nurturing great minds.

Daniel Smith

Even allowing that only 50% of the genes passed on were from a genius, the Repository did not produce geniuses at any kind of documented rate.  It did produce people who felt a void from never knowing their father, as David Plotz found in his 2005 book, The Genius Factory: The Curious History of the Nobel Prize Sperm Bank .

Claretta Yvonne Dupree 2007. The Genius Factory: The Curious History of the Nobel Prize Sperm Bank. Review of The Genius Factory: The Curious History of the Nobel Prize Sperm Bank by David Plotz. New York: Random House, 2005. ISBN 1-4000-6124-5; 262 PAGES, HARDCOVER, $24.95 (USA), $34.95 (CANADA). Ethics & Medicine 23, no. 1 (April 1): 63-64.  Available from Proquest.com .

Of course, there were a number of structural problems with the operation of the sperm bank (self-selected donors, the donors of dubious giftedness…), but as other research has correlated, the fundamental problem was that genius is not something that happens to infants at the moment of conception.  Genius – particularly in any societally meaningful way – is largely something that happens far further in the future than that… and continuously along the genius’ life.  This will be a focus for a number of my upcoming posts on this blog.

If this is the case – and research suggests that it is – then the influence of parents on their children cannot be understated, and what the parents consistantly convey to their children can make all the difference…

Andrew Smith.