Science Friday - What The Label Of ‘Genius’ Tells Us About Our Society

Episode Date: September 15, 2025

What makes someone a genius? Are they the smartest, most creative, most innovative people? Those with the highest IQ? Who we consider a genius may actually tell us much more about what we value as a society than any objective measure of brilliance. A compelling or quirky life story often shapes who is elevated to genius status.Host Ira Flatow unpacks the complicated and coveted title of genius with Helen Lewis, author of The Genius Myth: A Curious History of A Dangerous Idea.Read an excerpt of The Genius Myth: A Curious History of A Dangerous Idea. Guest: Helen Lewis is a staff writer at The Atlantic, based in London, who writes about politics and culture.Transcripts for each episode are available within 1-3 days at sciencefriday.com. Subscribe to this podcast. Plus, to stay updated on all things science, sign up for Science Friday's newsletters.

Hi, this is Ira Flato, and you're listening to Science Friday. Today on this show, how to define genius. People will say to me, but, you know, some people are just smarter than other people. That's what geniuses are. And actually, that's really not how we award the label. What makes someone a genius? Are they the smartest, most creative, most innovative people? How about those with the highest IQ?

Well, my next guest argues that who we consider a genius, genius tells us much more about what we value as a society than any objective measure of brilliance. And without a compelling or quirky life story, you're unlikely to be elevated to the level of genius. Joining me now to explore the complicated and coveted status of genius is my guest, Helen Lewis, staff writer at the Atlantic, author of the book The Genius Myth, a curious history of a dangerous idea. Welcome to Science Friday. Thank you very much for having me. You're welcome.

Now, anybody who starts a book with a curious history of a dangerous idea, I got to ask, what do you mean, a dangerous idea? Well, I think it's something that people get wrong, don't they? I mean, I've been having lots of conversations around this book where people will say to me, but, you know, some people are just smarter than other people. That's what geniuses are. And actually, that's really not how we award the label. It usually goes to somebody who encapsulates some quality that we like, or we find that their life story is a kind of parables. So someone like Stephen Hawking would be a good example. You know, there are lots of physicists of his generation with equivalent achievements.

But he's the one who became a kind of pop culture celebrity. He's the one who got to be in The Simpsons because people found his personal story so inspiring. So he had ALS, a progressive form of muscular dystrophy and ended up in a wheelchair. And people found that idea that somebody's brain was still active, even as their body was failing them, just quite profoundly moving. And so he became this different kind of figure with him. in science than, as I say, any other, you know, Roger Penrose or anybody else of the same generation whose work on paper was just as good. Or Elon Musk as you start your book with.

Yeah, I felt I had to start with Elon Musk because everybody was having this big argument about him at the time. And actually, I think what happened to him at Doge, the Department for Government Efficiency, really, it kind of shows what the argument that I was trying to make in the book, which is that there was a feeling among people who were very smart at coding and engineering that every problem was a coding problem, as if, you know, you just throw more computing power at a problem and that solves it. And actually, I mean, you know, you all know this as well as me,

I'm sure political problems are often very naughty simply because they involve people. And so I think Elon Musk went into Doge thinking, here's me and my crack team of smart 21-year-olds, and we're going to look at the code base of the US government, clean it up, and then that will improve things. And look, what has happened? He's got nowhere near the $2 trillion of stuff. savings that he promised. And actually, most of the people involved in that, including him,

have come out of it feeling quite bruised and kind of with a sense of why didn't this work. And to me, that's the absolute paradigm of you throw a load of quote-unquote geniuses at a problem and guess what the problem is a bit more difficult than perhaps the people involved realise it because they value one type of intelligence and one type of genius. Yeah, so they are really good at very narrow things, but the social consequences or social graces might be lacking. Right. And politics is the out of making people do what you want or convincing them that ideas that you have were things that they always believe themselves anyway. It's fundamentally about people skills. Have we lost the idea then of a political genius, someone who is so smart,

changed the paradigm and everybody's excited about that person? Well, there are different, you know, types of genius. I think politics is a place where you can make a version of what we would have once called kind of great man theory, that there are certain individuals who really do change the course of history. But science, I think, is very different to that. So one of the things I found during my research, which was most mind-blowing, is this 1922 paper called Our Inventions Inevitable. And it goes through, it's not quite a famous paper, goes through all of the things that got invented basically around the same time. And thinkers like Stephen Johnson and Malcolm Gladwell, I kind of think I'm slightly obsessed with this paper, because it overturns everything you think

about how scientific discoveries happen, it suggests instead that they're kind of, when the preconditions of them have been met, somebody will get there, you know? Three people discovered nitrogen in the air in the same year. You know, that was just kind of ready to happen, essentially. Right. The ideas happen. I'm thinking of Isaac Newton and calculus. He wasn't the only one. Oh, I mean, I love Isaac Newton because he's such a fantastic historical figure. But yeah, got free leaders. Talk about genius, you know. And hailed as a genius. And what's really interesting about him is, well, two things I think are fascinated from a story. One is that, obviously, the discovery of gravity, incredible breakthrough in science, brilliant. But that

wasn't what he spent most of his life doing. He spent most of his life obsessed with alchemy, trying to turn base metals into gold. And with biblical chronology, i.e. working at exactly when events in the Bible could have happened historically. So he spent a lot of time down kind of dead ends. And then the other thing is, as you mentioned, one of the things he's most famous for now is the simultaneous discovery of calculus and spending many, many years trying to destroy his rival's reputation and make sure that he got the credit for it. And you do find that story in a lot of self-proclaimed geniuses, right, that they want it, they go after it. They're not very willing to share the limelight. Boy, is that true? I mean, as a science journalist, I could name a

couple of names there, but... Well, I would love it if he did, but I think it's really fascinating. You know, I talked to Walter Isaacson a while ago, and his book career is fascinating to me, because obviously he's written biographies of Da Vinci, of Einstein, and Steve Jobs, Lately, and Elon Musk. He also wrote a book about Jennifer Doudner of gene editing of CRISPR. And that is, which has potential to be an incredibly transformative technology. But she does not have that same aura. You know, she has not been so enthusiastically playing the role of the kind of great sage delivering a new kind of era for humankind.

And I think that's very notable. Yeah. And that brings up a topic about women. science. And I think you might consider her to be a genius type for coming up with her work, but you don't historically hear the quote label of genius given to many women over the centuries, right? I think it's very notable. I think there's obviously particularly historically, there are social factors. One of the things that really stood out to me in my research was that there was a brilliant female physicist of the late 19th century and early 20th century called

Hertha Ayrton. And she did great work in arc lights and lots of other. stuff that was very innovative at the time. She won the Hughes Medal from the Royal Society, but she couldn't join the Royal Society. They only admitted women in the 1940s. Madam Curie couldn't get into. Right. She only got her professorship after she essentially inherited it from Pierre, her late husband. You know, that's somebody who won two Nobel Prizes in different disciplines, like one of the greatest scientists of the 20th century. One of the things I wanted to talk about is the role of collaboration. And, you know, I think we often downplay the roles of those those societies and of universities. But scientists themselves through history have been really well

aware of what it means to be, you know, at the edge, you need to know what everybody else is doing at the edge of the field. You need to know where the kind of interesting work is being done. And so excluding women, black Americans, wherever they are locked out to them, working class people, and Jewish people locked out of the Ivy League in the beginning of the 20th century, you know, there have been large swathes of Americans who have not been able to access the resources that they needed to fully develop their talents. Why do you think the idea of male genius is so persistent? I mean, women have been excluded from science, you know, for so many centuries. Why even now? I mean, I think it was always framed as the fact that women weren't as brilliant or their brains

weren't up to it. And I think it was the other way around, actually, right? It was a fear of competition. It was a fear that they could compete. And you see that, you know, there was lots of discussion at the end of the 19th century about the fact that women shouldn't be admitted to universities because they didn't really have the brains for it. Now we have the opposite problem, right? That actually lots of courses are dominated at undergraduate and even taught graduate level by women. So that clearly wasn't a problem. And there's another thing to which I think hero worship really comes into it. When you're talking about people being held as geniuses, you're kind of really talking often about hero worship. And we know, for example, that women are quite happy to read books by both

genders. Men are quite reluctant to read books written by women. And I think there's something slightly emasculating for some men, they feel that, you know, being kind of adoring a woman would somehow be kind of humbling to them. After the break, how Albert Einstein became synonymous with the word genius. He turned into a kind of public intellectual and celebrity, and he was obviously comfortable with that role. Don't go away. So speaking of hero worship, let's talk about Albert Einstein for a moment, because he is

the iconic genius. his wild hair that's like become the symbol of somebody who's a genius. What was it about him and the age he lived him that made him so so much that icon of geniusness? I mean, I would start by saying that I think people often, when they think about the book, assume that it's a kind of brutal debunking of me taking a lot of great men down at the knees. And that's not true at all. I'm trying to make the picture more complicated and broader. And Einstein is a good example of this, right?

because he is undoubtedly one of the greatest scientists ever, you know, just came up with incredible breakthroughs, right? He just fundamentally changed physics. But there's lots of interesting things about him. He wasn't a particularly incredible student at university. Part of the legend is that he was working in a patent office when he made his breakthroughs because he couldn't get an academic job. But the other thing is that he turned into a kind of public intellectual and celebrity, and he was obviously comfortable with that role. You know, he, speculated about the existence of God. You know, he took a stance on nuclear weapons. Obviously, as a refugee from Europe to America, as a Jewish refugee, he had a very strong opinions on the

politics of the Second World War. You know, all of those things meant that he was essentially a sage. By the time that he died, you know, he was a celebrity, and he was the one that people had on t-shirts and they would make pilgrimages to see him. He was no longer at the forefront of where the edge of physics research was. He was a kind of elder statesman of the entire field and it's a slightly different role. Yeah, so this was about his persona besides his achievements then. But also something about you, you mentioned that, you know,

the kind of the wild hair and the famous picture with his tongue stuck out. Central casting at Hollywood. Well, but where does that idea come from, right? Because that's not an idea that people had in the 1600s of what it meant to be a genius. But the idea of that kind of childlike wonder of the genius is really an idea that kind of fully blossoms

in the 18th century with Jean-Genjoules. Rousseau, you know, the idea that actually what's most pure in children is nature and we corrupt it by schooling them, you know, drilling them in times tables and whatever else it might be. And since then there's been a really high premium on that kind of, the idea of the genius is the free spirit that comes along in a couple of different ways. One of which I have a very conflicted relationship, which was the idea of the heretic. You know, there are so many stories about the one person in science standing up to the kind of the establishment that doesn't get it. So Ignace Semmelweis and the germ theory of disease or Galileo and the heliocentric universe.

And those stories are often a little bit more complicated. And then you have stories like someone like Freeman Dyson, undoubtedly a very brilliant mind, but by the end of his life a climate change denier. And he wrote an essay called The Scientist as Rebel and I think got sucked into this idea that if everyone was telling him it was wrong, then wasn't that more proof that actually he was a He was a free thinker and it was right. And that, unfortunately, you can draw a direct line from that, I think, to that kind of heterodox podcast sphere, where anything that the establishment says,

by definition, is probably flawed and faulty. And the most fringe ideas are therefore the most interesting and shouldn't we look into them? This is Science Friday from WNIC Studios. Let's talk a bit about, I remember when I grew up, that's how old I am, when people used to talk about the role of IQ all the time. Very important.

You have to measure his or her IQ. You're right that members of high IQ societies are not typically the most successful people in society. Why is that? Well, I've got bad news for you if you were enjoying a brief respite from the IQ discourse, because it's really come roaring back. I mean, to go back to Elon Musk, you know, one of many people in Silicon Valley who are really obsessed with IQ. You know, the people in the early 20th century were interested in it, you know, because they feel there are certain kinds of superior people. maybe even superior races. So I think IQ discourse is coming back. But yes, one of the things I found most joyful, I'm a political journalist by background. So I spent a lot of time covering fringe

political parties, which schism with delightful frequency, right, because the stakes are quite low. No one's actually ever going to be in power over everything. So all they have really, their principles. And there's something similar that happens in the ultra high IQ society. So the one people might have heard of is Mensa. And that takes the top one to two percent of the population, but there are ones that are way, way, way beyond that. And they do become, I don't say like Boldman fighting over a comb, but they become kind of incredibly smart people fighting over the minutes of a meeting. You know, it's just their propensity for people to have these dramatic fallings out. And also, again, to huge arguments about who's the smartest

person is even within this coach who are very smart people. You know, people who really value their smartness often are very attached to it. Yeah. Should we retire the word genius, you think, altogether? I don't think we ever will. So I think my campaign against it that wouldn't make any difference even if I had it. I think we do want a word for something that is kind of extraordinary and for somebody that we maybe even admire or maybe just we don't feel as kind of entirely human, right? We almost don't know how they did it. Yeah. How do we celebrate them? People who have done truly incredible and society positive things. I think it's a harder question than that,

which is how do we celebrate teams? I think we have a model for celebrating individual scientists, right? Notoriously, the no bells in the sciences can go to a maximum of three people. And there's a lot of quite low-level disgruntlement with that. Because, you know, inevitably it means that some people glom on to a discovery like William Shockley with the transistor, which I write about in the book, or sometimes you get a situation in which it's fairly arbitrary who gets their name on the plaque and who doesn't. I mean, I was just thinking about how much, I don't know if you liked it, but I really like the film Oppenheimer. Yes. Yes, I did. Very rare example of that film is not, Oppenheim didn't make those breakthroughs himself, right? His genius, if you want to call it that, was to bring together Enrico Fermi or Richard Feynman, these big egos, these awkward personalities,

and put them together in a desert and get them to do their best work as a team. And that we just very rarely talk about that or have a way to celebrate that. We were talking about Elon Musk, And I think as a society, we're much more likely now to hold people accountable for bad behavior, even if we review and view them as geniuses. And people seem generally delighted to see Elon Musk make a fool of himself on the national stage. And then his genius card gets revoked, even briefly.

Is this the genius myth fading or changing? Or how do you look at that? Well, I was trying to work out, and I never quite worked out the perfect way to say it. but the idea that calling someone a genius is often a way of having an argument that a society wants to have. You're right that his genius car has been revoked, which is sort of weird when you think about it, right?

There's nothing about what he's done with the federal government that makes the achievements of Tesla or SpaceX or the boring company anything different from what they were before. I think people on the left think that it sort of retrospectively debunks him and everything else he's done.

And I don't feel like that. I feel like he has made some really interesting significant contributions to American scientific life. But I think his problem was, it was grandiosity. He kind of came in like he was a sort of stunt motorcyclist going like, hey, stand back, losers, and watch this, I'm going to be amazing. And then if that person then falls into a lake of custard, that is inevitably quite funny. And so I think his own arrogance brought that down on him, really.

You see this often, though, in people who've won Nobel Prizes and are labeled as geniuses, suddenly they think they're a genius in a field that they have, they know nothing about. Yeah, and they get treated like that. It happened to Thomas Edison, who had, you know, who was sort of treated as a kind of sage in his later life when his kind of creative juice slightly run out. And I think people get turned into a kind of 360 degree wise man, and it usually is a man. Why would somebody who is a brilliant chemist necessarily have incredibly good views on politics, right?

Any more than a politician would be able to make a person. breakthrough in organic chemistry. Thank you for taking time to be with us today. Oh, well, thank you for talking to me. I always love, the history of science is always such a pleasure to talk about because it's filled with so many big characters who you necessarily, not necessarily want to spend much time within real life are fun to spend time with on the page. I second that. Helen Lewis, staff writer at the Atlantic, an author of the book, The Genius Myth, a curious history of a dangerous idea. We didn't have time to get in all of the fascinating stories of genius in the book. So if you want to read it,

more about Thomas Edison's story, go to ScienceFriday.com slash genius myth. Hey, thanks for listening. This episode was produced by, so shot a buck's bound. See you next time. I'm Ira Flato.