“Geography of Genius” Explores How Surroundings Influence Ideas《天才地理学》探讨环境如何影响思想

张菊

When Eric Weiner1 sat down to write his new book he had to tackle a big question first： How do you define genius？

“That’s not as easy as it sounds，” he tells NPR2’s Rachel Martin. “I have a slightly unusual definition... that a genius is someone we all agree on is a genius. It’s a social verdict.”

Weiner traveled all over the world—to Greece， Italy， Scotland and Silicon Valley—to investigate how genius takes root3 and grows. His book The Geography of Genius is an exploration of how great thinkers are affected by the places and times in which they live.

On whether a genius is born or made

Neither. Genius is grown， I believe. And I think we really are hung up on those first two theories. And we have really become to believe that. We really believe that if you look at， say， a Mozart who shows his prodigious talent at a young age， clearly there must be something genetic. It must be all genetic. And I really don’t think that’s true. Increasingly the evidence shows that genetics makes up a relatively small part of the genius puzzle. Geniuses are made， yes. Hard work matters. I don’t deny that some sweat is involved but， it doesn’t explain why you see genius clusters. Why would you see places like Renaissance Florence or Classical Athens or Silicon Valley today having such a concentration of geniuses？ Are they all extra hard workers？ I don’t think that explains it. I think there’s something in the soil4.

On the role competition plays

I think it’s important with the proviso5 that it has to be healthy competition. If you look at a place like Renaissance Florence， there was fierce competition. Michelangelo and Leonardo da Vinci despised one another. They really couldn’t stand one another. But that brought out the best in both of them. And it turns out that the modern social science sort of backs up6 what I found on the ground7. For instance， one study found that we tend to cooperate better with whom we once competed. And you see that time and again. Competitors turned into teammates.

On the “sweet spot of friction”

Freud was an outsider， he was a Jew， he was an immigrant and there was real tension in Freud’s Vienna. His ideas were considered “fairy tales.” And he had to really push against the system. But that’s almost always the case. In these genius clusters there’s friction. The genius fits， but it’s not a perfect fit. It’s an imperfect fit. And that sweet spot of friction， the right amount of friction is， I believe， what produces genius.

Someone who is fully invested in the status quo8 is not going to be a genius. I think that’s fair to say， because they’re not going to rock the boat9. They’re almost always an outsider. But I want to say they’re not fully outsiders. They’re what I call insider-outsiders. Freud is a good example. He was not fully accepted. But he was accepted enough that people listened to his ideas， or we wouldn’t know the name Sigmund Freud today.

On whether Steve Jobs was a genius

While I was researching this book， my sort of cocktail party question10 was to go into a room and say， “So， was Steve Jobs a genius？” And in my experience， in this very unscientific survey， it was almost always split right down the middle， 50/50. Some people would say， “Oh， yes， absolutely he was a genius.” And they would usually whip out their iPhone 6s or whatever and say， “Look at this thing， it’s amazing. It’s changed the world.” And other people would say， “No， he wasn’t a genius. He didn’t really invent anything. He stole ideas from others. And he really doesn’t belong on the same pedestal11 with Aristotle and Einstein and Freud.”

On how genius is like fashion

I think if you go by what I call the “fashionista theory” of genius... this idea that genius is a consensus， almost like fashion is a consensus—there’s no good fashion or bad fashion， there’s just what’s fashionable... you have to say that Steve Jobs is a genius because a lot of us， perhaps a majority， think that he was a genius. You know， we get the geniuses that we want and that we deserve. And this is what we care about; we care about technology.

On how geniuses are shaped by the time and culture in which they are born

Think about it： why are there no classical composers the likes of the Beethoven and Mozart out there today？ There are very good ones， but we don’t think that there’s a Beethoven or a Mozart. It’s not that the talent pool is dried up or there’s been some weird genetic fluke that’s diminished the talent pool. It’s because if you’re a young， ambitious person， you’re more likely to head to Silicon Valley than to Vienna to study classical music.

During Mozart’s time， in Vienna， 18th century， he had an extremely receptive audience， he had a demanding audience， and his audience was almost a co-genius with him. We tend to think that the genius produces this magnificence. And we， the audience， just passively receive it. I don’t think it works that way. Mozart was acutely aware of his audience and the demands that they had. And the audience appreciated his music， demanded better music from him—if more of us were like that today， vis-à-vis12 classical music， I think we would have more Mozarts.

埃里克·韦纳坐下来写新书的时候，必须首先解决一个大问题：如何定义天才？

“那可没听起来那么简单。”他对美国全国公共广播电台的雷切尔·马丁说，“我的定义略微有点儿不同寻常……天才就是我们都认同是天才的人，这是一种社会认定。”

为了调查天才如何扎根和成长，韦纳走遍了世界各地：希腊、意大利、苏格兰和硅谷。他的著作《天才地理学》探讨的就是伟大思想家如何受所处时空的影响。

关于天才是先天既定还是后天培养的

都不是。我认为，天才是逐渐长成的。并且我觉得，我们真的是被最先那两种看法给框住了，慢慢就信以为真了。举个例子，假如看到一个像莫扎特一样的小孩小小年纪就表现出惊人的天赋，我们会坚定认为，这明显就是基因在起作用。要说必定全是基因的作用，我真觉得事实并非如此。越来越多的证据表明，在天才构成之谜中，遗传仅占相对较小的一部分。天才是后天培养的，没错。勤奋很重要。我不否认需要付出汗水，但这没法解释为什么天才会扎堆出现。为什么文艺复兴时期的佛罗伦萨、古雅典或今天的硅谷，有那么多天才聚集？他们全都是超级努力的人吗？我觉得这么解释不通。我认为是环境里有某种东西在起作用。

关于竞争所起的作用

我认为有一个条件很重要，那就是竞争必须是良性的。看看文艺复兴时期佛罗伦萨那样的地方，竞争十分激烈。米开朗琪罗和莱奥纳多·达·芬奇互相鄙视。他们真是没法忍受对方，但那使他俩才华尽展。事实证明，现代社会科学在某种程度上支持我现场调研的发现。比如，一项研究表明，我们往往会与曾经的竞争者更好合作。这种情况很常见：竞争对手变成了合作伙伴。

关于“最佳摩擦点”

弗洛伊德是个局外人，不仅是犹太人，还是个移民，他所生活的维也纳局势确实紧张。他的观点被看作“童话故事”。他还不得不真正对抗体制。但世事几乎总是这样，天才扎堆的地方就有摩擦。天才对此很适应，但这并不是一种完美的适应，而是一种不完美的适应。至于最佳摩擦点，我认为，正是适量的摩擦促生天才。

完全着眼于当下的人成不了天才。我觉得这么说挺公平，因为那样的人不会惹麻烦。他们几乎始终是局外人。但我想说他们并不完全是局外人。他们是我所称的局内的局外人。弗洛伊德就是个很好的例子。他并没有被完全接受，而人们对他的接受程度正足以让人们愿意倾听他的观点，否则我们现在也不知道西格蒙德·弗洛伊德这个人了。

关于史蒂夫·乔布斯是否是个天才

在为这本书做研究的过程中，我做过类似鸡尾酒会问题的测试——我走进一个房间问：“各位，史蒂夫·乔布斯是个天才吗？”根据我的经验，在这种非常不科学的调研中，答案几乎总是一半一半。有些人会说：“哦，是，他绝对是个天才。”他们通常还会立刻拿出自己的苹果6s手机或其他什么苹果产品说：“看看这个，棒极了。它改变了世界。”其他人则会说：“不，他不是天才。他没有真正发明任何东西。他窃取了别人的点子。他跟亚里士多德、爱因斯坦和弗洛伊德他们根本无法相提并论。”

关于天才与时尚的相似性

我认为，要是按照我所说的天才的“时尚理论”（即天才是一种共识，就像时尚是一种共识——没有什么好坏之分，就是时尚）来评判，你就得承认史蒂夫·乔布斯是个天才，因为我们很多人，也许是大多数，都认为他是天才。你知道，我们可以得到我们想要或应得的天才。这就是我们关心的东西，我们关心技术。

关于出生所处的时代和文化如何塑造天才

想一想：为什么现在没有像贝多芬或者莫扎特这样的古典音乐作曲家了？这个时代有很好的作曲家，但我们认为都无法与贝多芬或莫扎特比肩。这并不是人才库枯竭了，也不是基因突变减少了人才储备，而是因为有抱负的年轻人今天更可能去硅谷闯荡而不是去维也纳学习古典音乐。

在莫扎特的时代，18世纪的维也納，他的观众极善接受新鲜事物，眼光颇高，并且几乎可以说同样具有天分。我们往往认为是天才造就了这种辉煌。而我们，作为观众，只是被动接受。我认为事情并非如此。莫扎特对观众及其要求的感知很敏锐。观众则欣赏他的音乐，希望他创作出更好的作品——要是今天我们之中有更多人像彼时观众那样对待古典音乐，我想我们会有更多的莫扎特。

（译者单位：北京化工大学）