Thursday, 30 May 2019

Biofeedback Monitoring using a Galvanic Skin Response Meter

Over the years, I have written a number of articles on neuroscience and psychology related topics, and I thought it would be useful to have them collated in one place on this blog. The article that follows was originally published in in InfiIQMag (the magazine of the Infinity International Society, now part of the IQ Nexus), Vol. 2, December 2009. This article explores the concept of using a galvanic skin response (GSR) meter as a counselling and study aid.

INTRODUCTION

The GSR meter, or galvanic skin response meter, is a biofeedback monitoring device designed to detect a person's mental state or change of state.

This type of device can be used one to one, with the person so monitored holding one electrode in each hand while the facilitator operates the meter, or solo (as in certain types of self-development counselling), with the person using the meter on himself holding suitably insulated electrodes in one hand.

There are many types of GSR meters on the market today – Ability Meter, Clarity Meter, Psychotechnics GSR Meter, Phoenix Meter and Mindwalker Meter are just a few such models which are available. Computer-based versions, such as the Mark 3.0 and Mark 4.0 Mindwalker meters, have also been developed.

Unlike classical biofeedback where the user is trained to produce a particular desired response, the GSR meter when used as a counselling or study aid is used purely for diagnostic purposes. It assists the facilitator in locating where the area of difficulty is, determining the efficacy of the technique being used or whether a different process or method may be more appropriate in solving the difficulty, and knowing when a desirable outcome has been achieved signalizing a suitable point to end off.

The GSR meter has been widely used for experimental and leading-edge psychotherapy and personal development purposes, although it remains ignored by mainstream therapists.

This paper does not attempt to describe the various practices which use the meter as a diagnostic tool in their various processes and techniques. The focus of this paper instead is to outline the development of the GSR meter, what it measures, and the interpretation of various types of reads and associated phenomena.

This paper was compiled from the content private conversations, emails, online discussions and the author's own personal knowledge, training and experience. Publications have been mentioned where appropriate in the text only for the sake of historical completeness.

BACKGROUND AND HISTORY

Tarchinoff is usually credited with the discovery of the phenomenon of skin resistance in 1888, although the French physician C. S. Fere is also reported to have described a type of GSR meter the same year. Tarchinoff found that when a tiny electric current is passed through the human body via a pair of (usually handheld) electrodes, the amount of electrical resistance of the body varied according to the emotional state of the subject. He developed a primitive GSR meter to research this phenomenon.

In the late 1890s, Wilhelm Wundt used a similar kind of meter in his Leipzig laboratory to measure body electricity. This line of research came to be known as psychophysics.

In 1906 C. G. Jung published an article entitled "Studies in Word Analysis", where he describes using a GSR meter on a subject. Jung read a prepared list of words one by one to the subject while watching for reactions to each word on the meter. Words which the subject found emotionally charged caused a change in body resistance, which showed up as a reaction of the needle on the GSR meter. When a word produced a larger than usual meter response, Jung assumed this to be an indicator of possible areas of mental conflict, which could subsequently be explored in greater depth during the course of therapy. Jung was thus able to adjudicate which areas would be most fruitful for exploration in individual subjects. Jung wrote up his findings on the use of a GSR meter in an article in the Journal of Abnormal Psychology in 1907.

By the 1920s others were conducting follow-up research into the electrical measurement of thought and emotional states. Mary Collins and James Dreaver of the University of Edinburgh published their own findings in a report entitled "Experimental Psychology" in 1926.

The GSR meter remained difficult to use outside the context of the specialist laboratory until advances in valve amplifier technology in the 1930s permitted the development of more sophisticated machines which used amplification, including portable models.

In 1935 Wilhelm Reich at the Psychological Institute, University of Oslo, conducted experiments showing the existence of a bio-electrical charge.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, the principle of the galvanic skin response was also enthusiastically taken up by criminologists, who developed the use of the polygraph. Police forces around the world used the "lie-detector" for many decades. Polygraph lie-detector tests however only register the presence of an emotional reaction, and do not necessarily register a reaction capable of being conclusively interpreted (i.e. proof of guilt at having committed a crime). Furthermore, criminals may not produce any substantial polygraph reactions under questioning, since they often feel no remorse or sense of responsibility for their actions.

In the 1950s Volney Mathison, a chiropractor and electronics expert, developed a type of GSR meter named the electropsychometer, or E-meter. He had been attending a lecture given by L. Ron Hubbard, where Hubbard described a rough specification for an electronic device capable of registering thoughts and emotional charge for use in Dianetic counselling sessions (or auditing as it is called), and set about designing his original prototype, the Mathison Model B. Mathison's early meters were rather complex and subsequent models manufactured for the same purpose by an electronics business run by two brothers in the south of England were of a much simpler design, and thus easier for trainee practitioners to learn to use. The focus became to develop a meter capable of registering emotional and mental responses to specific stimuli, to use for diagnostic purposes, rather than as a lie-detector. Sensitive circuitry was developed to amplify mental reads while damping out, as far as is practicable, pure body electronics. The type of GSR meters used in counselling sessions are much more sensitive to mental phenomena than are the type of galvanometers used in medical fields, which register almost entirely on body reactions.

Parallel to this line of development as a counselling tool, others were working on the use of the GSR meter as a relaxation and meditation tool. Cheap GSR gadgets came into vogue during the 1970s in the wake of the surge in popularity of subjects such as yoga and transcendental meditation. Many of these gadgets however were of little more than curiosity value, and would not have been sensitive or accurate enough to use as a counselling diagnostic monitor, and the subject of biofeedback monitoring became labelled in the minds of the public and media as little more than a passing fad.

Meanwhile, serious work had been done to produce more sophisticated GSR meter models with a greater range of sensitivity and greater ease of use.

GSR METER THEORY, READS AND THEIR INTERPRETATION

The GSR meter is based on the principle of the Wheatstone bridge - a type of ohm meter for measuring changes in electrical resistance.

The nervous system uses electrical impulses which are affected by the person's thoughts, emotions, physical condition etc. The GSR meter passes a tiny electrical carrier wave (approx. 0.5-3.0 volts) through the body, which picks up the fluctuations in resistance caused by the person's overall general mood and emotional reactions to specific stimuli. These changes in resistance are known as the galvanic skin response.

Freud was one of the first to explore the idea that the subconscious holds various repressed negative content, such as irrational fears, motivations, dislikes etc. A person cannot easily move past this subconscious conditioning due to its hidden nature; his thoughts, actions and emotions are coloured by subconscious content impinging upon them. During therapy, this subconscious content can be examined and confronted by the patient, discharging its ability to restrain or affect his behaviour or demeanour. The counsellor or facilitator does not need to waste time hunting at random to get to the root of his client's difficulties, nor does he need to develop superhuman powers of observation to see inside the mind of his client. The GSR meter is capable of assisting him in locating the exact area of emotional charge or difficulty.

The GSR meter is used in conjunction with specific processes with specific desired outcomes. Those specific processes might be a prepared list of questions to locate the main charged areas that needs addressing, or they might be a series of questions run repetitively for the purposes of personal exploration and self-awareness. It is a fruitless exercise hunting around at random for a topic that might be hot, and any such exploration should be done under the guidance of a trained practitioner.

The meter reads on the emotional charge before the client becomes conscious that the question or topic under discussion is so charged. The device has thus been described as a "pre-conscious" meter. Once the client's attention has been directed to the charged area through questioning by the facilitator, the area can be taken up and handled using specific procedures.

Despite the galvanic skin response being a documented phenomenon, there are still those who persist in the belief that the device only registers on sweaty palms caused by anxiety in the subject. Anyone who has witnessed the needle drop several divisions as a reaction to a certain question or item would quickly realise that this reaction would have to signify the production of a great and sudden quantity of sweat! Also, the client's hands wouldn't be able to "unsweat" in order to cause a soaring, rising needle, nor to keep fluctuating in sweatiness sufficiently rapidly to cause other types of meter reactions. It is theoretically possible to use any two points of skin contact using appropriately modified electrodes, but the palms of the hands seem to work best, using cylindrical tin-plated copper electrodes.

Biofeedback research has shown that meditation and relaxation techniques cause a greater degree of resistance, while stress and unpleasant emotions show a lowering of the resistance during such practices. When buried material begins to surface in the mind of the client under therapy, such as that caused by pain or negative emotions, the concomitant tension experienced by the client shows as an increase of skin resistance. Dr. Michael Apter of Bristol University writes about the "Reversal Theory", as he calls this phenomenon, in his book of the same name.

The meter is capable of measuring a far greater span of resistance than is catered for by the needle dial. The GSR meter thus has a control knob which allows the needle to be brought back onto the dial after an increase or decrease of resistance has caused it to hit the pin on the far left or right of the dial respectively. When the needle is at the "Set" marking just to the left of centre of the needle dial, this establishes the client's baseline of skin resistance, which is expressed as a numeric value. The markings surrounding the baseline control on the meter casing are usually numbered 1 to 6 - probably arbitrary values assigned in the early development of the meter. The meter registers a range of just under 480 ohms to approximately 1,000,000 ohms, with a baseline of 2.0 being the resistance of an uninfluenced female body and a baseline of 3.0 being the resistance of an uninfluenced male body.

It is not necessary to know all the technical details of exact ohm values at various baseline positions in order to use the device competently. For the sake of interest, however, they are: 1.0 - 480 ohms, 2.0 - 5,000 ohms, 3.0 - 12,500 ohms, 4.0 - 26,700 ohms, 5.0 - 62,000 ohms, 6.0 - 292,000 ohms and 6.3 - 1,000,000 ohms. It is unusual for the baseline to go to the low and high extremes, with the resistance varying between approximately 5,000 to 15,000 ohms for most people under normal circumstances.

The general level of resistance is a vital indication of a person's general state of case. A person with a lot of mental mass and emotional charge on their case would tend to have a high baseline of resistance. However, it is interesting to note that a person who is so heavily mired in charge to the point of overwhelm tends to have an abnormally low resistance baseline (lower than 2.0). A person in good shape would usually register on average between 2.0 and 3.0.

Environmental factors such as excessively sweaty or very dry hands, uncomfortable temperature extremes, tight clothing, rusty or coated electrodes etc. can cause the phenomenon of "false" baseline values - where the apparent skin resistance is higher or lower than it should be due to physical factors entering in. These would be recognized by an experienced practitioner and handled before session start.

It is possible to adjust the sensitivity setting of the GSR meter so that the swing of the needle is magnified or decreased in order not to have either the needle constantly disappearing off the dial (too much sensitivity) or reads so tiny they are difficult to interpret. The sensitivity is adjusted before each use of the GSR meter, as it varies not only from one person to another, but from time to time.

It must be borne in mind that as the resistance increases, read sizes become proportionally smaller, and increase in size as the resistance comes down. That means that a two inch fall obtained at a baseline level of 2.5 would only appear as a reaction a fraction of an inch in size at a baseline level of 5.0. One particular model of GSR meter has a special circuit to compensate for this phenomenon. One should obviously handle any phenomena causing false baseline values anyway, but when using this particular meter model, a false reading makes the needle far too sensitive to be workable.

Body reactions such as fidgeting, coughing, deep breathing, knocking the cans together, moving the fingers or rubbing the cans on clothing produce needle reactions which a practitioner is trained to recognize. Once the recognition of these have been drilled, and the practitioner has seen for himself the type of reactions produced by purely mental phenomena, he will see that the types of needle movements produced are very distinctly different.

A demonstration that the meter reads on thought and emotion can be carried out by asking the person holding the cans to think of an area of stress in their life. The needle will be seen to fall. Another demonstration is the "pinch test", whereby the person on the cans is asked to recall the moment of the pinch while watching for a fall on the meter. Other reactions can be obtained by thinking of various pleasant and unpleasant experiences and concepts.

Various different meter reads have been identified and described, and anyone becoming expert on the meter and its use would be expected to recognize them and understand what they signify. During a session, the facilitator would not bring the client's attention to the meter or its reads. He would be observing the meter in conjunction with the body language and facial expressions of the client (the "indicators") and using this data to adjudicate what needs to be done next in the session. The client's attention should be focused entirely on the questions and processes, without his attention being unduly drawn to the meter, facilitator or session admin.

A fall in skin resistance during a session signifies an increase in alertness or awareness. This could be a small fall, or it could be a major drop in resistance of several baseline divisions, requiring the practitioner to adjust the baseline position to bring the needle back onto the dial. This phenomenon can be described as a baseline drop, or a blowdown. A blowdown signifies that a very large amount of emotional charge has come off and it is usually accompanied by a realisation or newfound awareness on some area of life.

The size of the read is directly linked not only to how much emotional charge is present in the subject matter at issue but also the degree to which that subject matter is real to the individual. A heavily charged item which has been deeply buried by the individual may not produce a substantial reaction on the meter until other items of which the person is more aware have been addressed and handled. A list of items would thus be prioritised according to the size of the reads. For the purpose of identifying such, a "read" in this context would usually mean the needle had made a motion from left to right of a quarter inch or greater and occurring instantly at the end of the item being spoken.

There are the phenomena of the "tick" (a micro-read of less than about a quarter inch) and the "stop" (where the needle halts moving briefly). These are indicators of subjects which could be charged, and which can be explored via the use of "buttons" (questions designed to find out whether a subject is hot but has been repressed by the client) to see if they develop into a larger read which can be taken up. If they do not, the facilitator should leave the subject matter in question alone as it would not be a profitable area to try and examine at this time.

The GSR meter not only alerts the facilitator to the fact that emotional charge is present, it also lets him know when there is no charge on the subject to take up. Clients get very upset when a facilitator evaluates for them (tells them what to think about themselves), and taking up a null (non-reading) item or question certainly comes under the definition of evaluation. When the needle continues doing whatever it is doing despite questioning by the facilitator, there is no charge on the subject matter that is sufficiently real to the client to address at that point in time. The facilitator should therefore be sure never to attempt to address items which merely show a null needle.

A rising needle means that the person has emotional charge on the area which they are mentally resisting or protesting, and which he does not want to confront. Once this material has been confronted and discharged, the baseline level will come back down. It can also be a sign that something has gone on for too long, and the facilitator would check this possibility with the client and conduct the appropriate handlings, if the needle continued to rise.

There are of course other categories of reads which would be seen while performing specific areas of case address, which are beyond the scope of this paper. There are also other needle actions and general meter behaviour that would tend to be seen on various states of case.

It is worth looking at the client's general needle pattern. If the needle tends to move around smoothly, except for responding to the facilitator's questions and the client's answers, this pattern is described as a clean needle. The needle can be "dirty" (a pattern of jerky, ticking movements) and this can signify various things including the client not feeling present in the session or in good communication with the facilitator, as well as certain case phenomena. Upon seeing a dirty needle the facilitator would ask the client what his attention is on in order to clean the needle and continue with the procedure.

Some people have a very loosely moving needle, whereas others' needle patterns tend to be rather tight and don't move around quite so easily. When a person's attention is fixed on something, this can cause the needle to appear tight. It is notable that as a process progresses, the needle becomes looser until eventually a free or floating needle will be seen. This is a very distinctly recognisable needle action where the needle just idles back and forth without responding to anything the facilitator says. It is usually accompanied by some sort of realisation on the part of the client, who would usually be very happy at this point, as something would have departed or released on his case. These indications are what are known as the end phenomena of a process, and would be the point where the facilitator would end off.

In some instances the needle can float so widely as to be wider than the needle dial, so that the facilitator would have to adjust the baseline control at either end of the needle swing. Such a "floating baseline" signalizes a huge win or realisation. On seeing this meter phenomenon, or a floating needle that just persists and persists, it would be unlikely that any more case material would be available to handle that day. The only thing that can be done under such circumstances is to end off and let the client enjoy his win, and until he feels that he is ready to do more.

Over the course of therapy the client's meter phenomena tend to change. His baseline level, if high or low, would eventually come into range (between 2.0 and 3.0). His needle, if tight or dirty, would tend to loosen and smoothen out. Areas of case address which were repressed and thus difficult to get a read on, would start to show a live and responsive needle under questioning. Even some medical professionals have corroborated the fact that people who have had much of this type of therapy have a rather different EEG pattern to persons who have never undergone such therapy.

I hope you enjoyed this short introduction to the GSR meter.

Best regards.
Gwyneth Wesley Rolph
© 2009

Thursday, 14 June 2018

Don't "be" the change you want to see in the world - create it!

I have never been keen on the advice to "be the change you want to see in the world".

If you want to change only yourself, then it's probably sage advice. If you want to effect a much wider change in the world, because you have identified something about the world and other people with which you are dissatisfied, then others telling you to be that change sounds like a put up and shut up. Why should I be the only one to (for example) make sure I don't drop litter, thereby being the change I want to see, while others can go on chucking rubbish everywhere with impunity?

A more causative course of action would go along the following lines:

(1) Find a way to change it.

If that doesn't create a large enough change, then:

(2) Recruit others who have the resources and influence to change it.

If those with resources and influence fail to bite and don't get with the program, then:

(3) Keep fishing for support through any available communication channels in order to achieve (1) and/or (2).

Option (3) is usually the course of action that gets protested the loudest when the thing one is trying to change is about remediation for the Inappropriately Excluded. One can quickly identify the type of language used to scoff, sneer and dismiss such efforts: "entitled", "bragging", etc. And then the efforts to throw responsibility back onto the individual: "It's what you do with your smarts that counts" (note the use of the word "you" - it's never "us").

Now that recent studies have suggested that human beings might not be getting any smarter and IQs may have even gone into decline, the world needs genuine cognitive talent more than ever. Should we really be told to "be the change we want to see", or should everyone - and that means YOU too, bud - be flowing resources and communication platforms our way so that everyone can benefit from our ideas and problem-solving skills?

Until I see real evidence of change and offers of assistance I will be shouting point (3) from the rooftops.

Monday, 20 February 2017

Overcoming the Too-Small Life

I do not believe that a person should have to adapt to their environment in order to be what psychologists call "well adjusted".  Some of us need a way bigger game than whatever accident of birth or circumstances of others' creation life handed us.  We are not the sort of beings that are capable of fitting into little boxes on someone else's org chart.  The challenge is when one is trying to remedy the situation solo, or where input from others comes mostly from interactions via the Internet, and one is stuck in an ordinary life with (1) no platform and (2) no funding.  The question is, how does one enter a game of a size appropriate to one's cognitive and creative capacity without (1) and (2) above?

Some may find this article a little strongly worded but before I start, may I say I make no apology for not pulling any punches and saying it like it is.  If I strike any raw nerves, particularly among employers: good.  There is too much apathy in this world, with people comfortable with the status quo, and who haven't any sense of responsibility to change anything.

People who read this article will generally fall into three categories:
1.                  Those who think that the status quo is a meritocratic sorter of ability, and that the cream will always rise to the top, it is just a matter of time.  This is the person who hates to have spelled out to them the reasons our society isn't meritocratic, and prefers instead to deal in blame and the fundamental attribution error.
2.                  Those who see that society does not sort justly by ability, but think that the way to deal with it is to go along with it.  More disturbingly, they think that everyone else should also just suck it up.  This attitude displays a lack of responsibility for the state of the society around them, yet they are also the ones that love to lecture the rest of us about how we (i.e. individually) are responsible for our situation in life.
3.                  The ones who actually recognise the scenario I am describing.  It is this last category that is likely to comprise my ideal clients.

Initially, my strategy was to devote myself to my life projects while taking what Barbara Sher calls the "good enough job"[i] for the purpose of economic self-support.  Those "good enough jobs" proved to be a very long way from good enough, for a number of reasons.  Firstly, they ate up an inordinate amount of my productive time while only providing a modicum of financial exchange.  Secondly, there was the lack of any meaningful intellectual stimulation.  Thirdly, there was the fact I had nothing in common with my co-workers or bosses and was simply turning up each day to do a job.  Finally, there was the societal perception angle: people insist on judging individuals by the paid employment they have, rather than accomplishments in the wider world – and meaning that the purposeful projects pursued by the individual are relegated to "hobby" status and not worth the CV paper they are written on.  Obviously, this was unacceptable.

Although I carefully refrained from bragging at work, it did not take Sherlock Holmes to work out that I was active in a lot of other arenas, and reactions to this were mixed.  I can think of two firms that were mildly supportive of my personal development (at least, in the sense that they did not try to obstruct my outside interests) – one small business and one micro business.  Large organisations, on the other hand, were deeply uncomfortable with the idea that I was anything other than just support staff and one in particular stands out for having engaged in a mobbing campaign instead of finding or creating a position for me that could have tapped into my Good Will Hunting-esque abilities.

For instance, colleagues knew that I was a musician and I thought music might have been an innocuous topic of general conversation.  But when it was discovered that I was travelling to Europe with my band to compete in a world-class competition and play certain high profile gigs, while some colleagues were enthusiastic, others were less so.  One of the partners complained to the department head, as if my musicianship were some sort of distraction (because the leave I had booked for a musical event clashed by a day or two with her secretary's leave and she realised she couldn't dump on me in her secretary's absence) and she thought I should be more committed to being chained to a word-processor.

People like her were keen to bandy about words like "initiative", yet when I did things like devising a training plan for the department secretaries to learn to draft legal documents, this was also resented.  (Perhaps one or two people understood it might mean I could carve out a niche in staff training and development and they might actually have to promote me.)  When I made further enquiries, it turns out their concept of "initiative" meant constantly asking for more work, i.e. being palmed off with every gruesome admin task that the department trainee and the work experience student had already turned their noses up at.  Presumably this was a thinly veiled attempt to pull me in to the long hours culture that pervaded the whole firm, and our department in particular.

Some of my interests were just too technical for them, such as neuroscience.  "What did you do at the weekend?"  "I went to a quantitative EEG workshop."  End of conversation.  (I know, I know.  Support staff aren't supposed to have a brain.)

Another thing was my involvement in politics.  I didn't speak about my involvement in political campaigns, nor of my party allegiance, but I did discreetly mention (without namedropping) certain political figures.  Another workplace, and one which purports to encourage introductions to celebrities and opinion leaders, were overtly dismissive of my connections, as if I were exaggerating or even confabulating.  If they had worked as hard as I did at cultivating a mutual professional relationship, I could have gotten them some potentially valuable allies.

I contrast these scenarios to times I have contested seats in local elections.  In particular, I recall the last general election I contested where there was the sitting MP, his main party rival, and other candidates going around all the local hustings.  Even though in our constituency I was highly unlikely to win the seat, I made an interesting, and perhaps rather disturbing observation.  Bear in mind these people fundamentally disagreed with most of what I stood for, particularly the sitting MP.  Yet every single one of them was talking to me as an equal.  Just consider that.  I was getting more respect from my political rivals than I was in the workplace!

As I continued working on my own self-growth and intellectual sophistication, the reason became clearer and clearer.  I wasn't merely under-employed, I was grossly mal-employed. Those jobs were simply not in my league.

Why the mismatch?  Careful data analysis revealed two red herrings:
1.                  A lack of high school qualifications.  I will not dissect the reasons for this here, but it became clear that success in the school system loaded heavily on factors other than g; and
2.                  A CV that only reflected the type of jobs that recruiters were prepared to field me for (based on point 1. above) and gave very little opportunity to showcase my broader portfolio.  This is because recruitment is often a function delegated to minions or outsourced to salespeople whose lack of perception, low confront of life, terror of responsibility, and limited decision-making remit encourages crass bureaucracy.  This makes them difficult gatekeepers to get past when one's education and/or experience has been acquired through unconventional means.  Some may suggest this is even deliberate.

The point is, I have been there, I am still working on obtaining the sort of life I need to support my accomplishments and do my best work in order to contribute something of value to the world.  I understand what the inappropriately excluded experience on a daily basis.  If this story resonates, you are not alone.  Together, we can work at solutions.


Sunday, 15 January 2017

Genius and the Cognitive Revolution

Genius as a concept is notoriously difficult to define, and sometimes it seems that only sex and politics attract more replies whenever the subjects come up for discussion – and usually of an equally confused and/or opinionated nature.

The word itself originates from the pagan belief in a guardian or tutelary spirit said to watch over the individual from birth: their “genius”.  Later, the word started to be used to refer to a “characteristic disposition”.  The definition of the word that referred to a person’s talent or ability appeared around the seventeenth century.  It was not until the invention and widespread use of psychometric testing that the word started being used to refer to a person with a very high IQ[i].  Most dictionaries that carry this definition state 140 as the baseline level for a genius level IQ, but usually omit to say per which test or scale.

Most online discussions I have run across tend to conclude that genius is undefinable, but that “I know it when I see it!”  I hope I am not alone in finding this definition unsatisfactory.

In 1926 Catharine Cox Miles published her seminal work Genetic Studies of Genius: The Early Mental Traits of Three Hundred Geniuses[ii].  While the work was thorough and ground breaking for its time, the difficulty with only including famous geniuses is that it raises questions as to how representative her subjects actually were of geniuses in general.  There is a perception among the public that links genius to fame and fortune and vice versa.  I would argue that it is highly unlikely that even a fraction of the geniuses that have ever lived attained the levels of eminence of the subjects of the Cox study.  The unfortunate corollary to the public perception that genius=eminence is that when such status is not forthcoming, then the hapless individual couldn’t have been all that in the first place, else he must have self-sabotaged by having no social nous.  (I will leave aside for now arguments regarding motivation and finding personal fulfilment in other ways.)

One of the most disheartening articles I ever read on the subject of high intellectual ability was Rena F Subotnik’s paper A Developmental View of Giftedness: From Being to Doing[iii].  While the author makes some good points, I am disheartened at the theme running through the article that while a high IQ is sufficient for the gifted label for a young child, an adolescent or adult is expected to exhibit stellar public achievements in order to warrant the label.  On the other hand, while I am not keen on the way Linda K Silverman presents the argument from a female versus male perspective, her article I’m Not Gifted, I’m Just Busy at least articulates clearly the point that ability is inherent, while fame, recognition and eminence are social constructs[iv].

Let’s examine why eminence is insufficient as a measure of genius.  Does the cream really always rise to the top?  Rather than choose specific individuals’ stories (which usually only invites off-topic nit-picking), I will keep the examples hypothetical.

Imagine, if you will, an individual who has all the ability and drive to potentially equal the success of any of the subjects of the Cox study.  There are no fatal flaws in this person’s character that might otherwise derail success, and we will assume no weaknesses in social interaction that might cause him to be shunned.  (I say “him”, but I wish to make it clear I am not referring to a specific individual, and I need to pick a pronoun to avoid grammatical clumsiness.)  He goes about his day, doing his genius thing and being productive.  The only difference between him right now and anyone on Cox’s list is the fact that they are known about and he is not.  Is he a genius?  Well, you might say, it is surely only a matter of time.  If he is really a genius, there is still time for his work to be discovered and for him to be propelled to fame and fortune.

Now let’s imagine that this individual lived 200 years ago, and his life’s work was discovered locked in the drawer of an antique bureau.  Experts in his field are abuzz with excitement, and are shocked at the fact that his work was never recognised within his lifetime.  Is he still a genius?  Obviously, since it is clearly impossible for someone to “become” a genius after they are dead.  It is just the world took a long time to catch on.

Let’s take the scenario a step further.  Imagine that instead of the old bureau being found and unlocked and the documents falling into appreciative hands, the house clearers take the whole lot to landfill and the person’s work never sees the light of day again.  I remind you that this person has all the same cognitive capacities and personal characteristics of anyone on Cox’s list.  Is he still a genius?

We could roll back the scenario still further.  Imagine instead of our hypothetical individual being productive in a field where it was possible to write up his life’s work with nothing more sophisticated than a pen and paper, the most that he was ever able to produce were theories and proposals.  Much of his desired productive output remained unrealised because it required access to particular resources (such as specialised equipment) that was not made available to him.  Bear in mind that this individual is still every bit as capable of ground-breaking concepts as anyone on the Cox list.  Is he still a genius?

Our hypothetical example could even go beyond mere neglect and the individual’s extraordinary nature could have been actively fought and resisted, right from early childhood.  Jealous family members, jealous teachers and other school staff, opportunities denied and withheld right from the beginning before the person is even old enough to have formulated a self-concept to protect, the outcome is the same, and that is inappropriate exclusion.  I reiterate one more time that he otherwise still possesses all the same cognitive and character traits as anyone on Cox’s list.  Is he still a genius?  I suggest that it would be rather perverse at this stage to argue that he is not.

The point of these examples was, of course, to illustrate how being recognised as a genius involves so many other factors that may be well beyond the individual’s control.  This is why I suggest that we need a definition of genius that only considers traits within the individual, and does not consider extraneous variables such as public opinion, socio-economic status, or the current societal definitions of “success”.

There are always those who make claims along the lines of “genius will always find a way.”  I would simply put the question back to them: where is the proof of that?  The geniuses we know about are simply the ones that became famous.  But fame does not a genius make.  There are always going to be those whose seeming sole ability in life is in self-promotion.  And of course once one has a modicum of financial success in life, one can simply pay a publicist to do it all for them.

To attempt to narrow down where a proposed definition of genius should be looking, let us explore an interesting development in psychology research that came to be known as the Cognitive Revolution.

For most of the early part of the twentieth century, behaviourism dominated research in psychology.  Observing what an animal would do in response to a given stimulus was considered more “scientific” than trying to make inferences about motivation, thought processes, emotions, and so on.  Anything that could not be directly observed was simply filed by the psychologists of the day into a proverbial black box.  Very little was known about brain systems or cognitive processes; hence the “solution” was simply to disregard the internal workings of the mind.

That was all to change during the 1950s and 1960s, when a number of papers and books were published examining the information processing capacities of the mind, for example Miller’s paper on working memory capacity The Magical Number Seven, Plus or Minus Two[v], Chomsky’s criticism of Skinner’s book Verbal Behavior[vi], Neisser’s book Cognitive Psychology[vii], and the attention experiments of Cherry and Broadbent.  The invention of the computer provided a useful analogy: that of a system where information went in, was processed, and came out.  The information processing model provided the foundation for a paradigm shift in psychological research.

So how does all this help us define genius?  I believe that the way genius is commonly perceived is still stuck in its behaviourist era.  Using metrics such as wealth, prizes and accolades won, the amount of words of biographical data written about them, and so on, might be easy to measure but since not everyone starts life with the same availability of resources or social expectations, this method of operationalising genius is particularly prone to leading to both false negatives and false positives.  If one insists on treating life as a behaviourist experiment, paying attention only to behavioural outcomes, then the outcome variable measured (i.e. accomplishment in the Western socio-economic sense) can only be considered valid, reliable, and unbiased if all the other experimental variables are the same. Otherwise, it would be such a poor study design that if it were an actual paper submission, one could expect it to be summarily desk rejected!

But life is not fair or equal or constant, even in the most egalitarian societies, so rather than add to the ages-old argument about who gets access to resources, I propose instead choosing a different metric than material outcomes. What we need instead is a cognitive approach to formulating an operational definition for genius – a metric that focuses on how geniuses perceive the world and how their mental functions operate.

The good news is that we do not need to start with a whole new field, but can rather extend existing ones.  There is a long history of psychometric testing, measuring such cognitive processes as working memory, vocabulary, quantitative reasoning, logical inferences, and so on. Over 100 years of psychometric research and validation has given us reliable and valid measurement tools. With exciting developments in neuroscience and brain imaging, we are now closer than ever towards working out how differences in intelligence, creativity, and specific talents map onto neural functioning.

When we are able to use these tools, and perhaps other techniques that become available in the future, to investigate what underpins ability all the way up and down the possible range of human functioning, then we may begin to see what "genius" is using the relative objectivity of cognitive neuroscience. Once that is achieved, then it is a matter for society's conscience whether it provides geniuses (in the cognitive sense) the necessary social platform etc. to do something world changing with their gifts. But even if it doesn't, and their extraordinary potential, wasted by society, goes with them to the grave, then they will still be a genius, because genius will have had its cognitive revolution.





[ii] Cox, C. M. "Genetic studies of genius: The early mental traits of three hundred geniuses". 2. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
[iii] Subotnik, R. F. (2003). A developmental view of giftedness: From being to doing. Roeper Review, 26, 14–15.
[iv] Silverman, L.K. (2005). I’m not gifted, I’m just busy: unrecognized giftedness in women. Retrieved from: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.579.7363&rep=rep1&type=pdf
[vi] Chomsky, N. (1959). "Review of Verbal Behavior, by B.F. Skinner". Language. 35: 26–57.
[vii] Neisser, U (1967) Cognitive Psychology Appleton-Century-Crofts, New York.