“It seems the ability we’re so fond of calling talent or even genius arises not from innate gifts but from an interplay of fair (but not extraordinary) natural ability, quality instruction, and a mountain of work.”

That is a sentence from here, via Feminist Chemists, who posted the following:

This is a great article from New Scientist, which summarizes years of research on how to be a genius. Apparently, having an extraordinarily high IQ is not the predictor of great achievement, but rather having a supportive, encouraging environment (including a great mentor along the way), and working your ass off!!!

We have, unfortunately, heard the sexist argument from our male (of course) Ph.D. chemistry colleagues that the reason women don’t have more nobel prizes and prestigious academic positions is because they are statistically not found in the top 1% of IQs to any great extent. (This argument was also used in a recent article in The Economist). This research calls”BULLSHIT”on that argument.

The only flaw in this genius article is that the MALE author only highlights elite MALE scientists, athletes, and chess grandmasters, and then refers to his mother (the only female reference in the piece) as”blathering.” However, the sexist bias of the writer aside, the fact that genius is nurtured and worked into existence, rather than springing from some innate genius, is good for all of us feminist chemists to know. …

This entry was posted in Academia, Feminism and Culture, Reproductive Rights, The Underrepresentation of Women. Bookmark the permalink.