personality traits of geniuses

The   investigation  into   the   psychological   characteristics  of  eminent   scientists began  with  Francis   Gallon   (1869,1874).  His  pioneering work  was  expanded  by Cattell   (1903,   1910),   Havelock  Ellis   (1904),   Cox  (1926),   Roe   (1952),   Cattell and   Drevdahl   (1955),  Terman   (1955),   and  by  Taylor   and   Barron   (1962),   and others  (see  Jackson   &  Rushton,  1987,   and   Sulloway, 1996,   for   reviews).  From this growing body  of  research   it  became  clear  that  successful  scientists   are  not at  all  "Saint-like"  in  either  their  personality  or  work style. They  often   display reclusive  personalities,  arrogant  work  styles,  hostile  responses   to  frustration, and   intrinsic motivations bordering   on  autism. For   instance,   Terman's   (1955)  longitudinal study  of 800  high-IQ  men   found that   those  who   took   science   degrees   at   college   differed   from   nonscientists  in showing   great  intellectual  curiosity   from  an   early   age  and  in   being  lower   in sociability than average. Terman  concluded that "the  bulk  of  scientific research is  carried   on  by  devotees   of   science   for   whom   research   is  their   life   and   social relations   are   comparatively  unimportant"   (p.  7).   Cited   is  the   work   of  Roe (1952),  who  found   scientists  to  have  difficulty   in  interpersonal  situations   and  to often   try to  avoid them. Terman described   Roe's  sample  of  scientists  as  tending "to  be  shy, lonely, slow  in  social development,   and  indifferent   to  close  personal relationships,  group  activities,   or   politics"   (p.  7;  see   chapter   20  for   details). Terman   noted  that  such  traits  were   not   necessarily  defects   of  personality,   for emotional   breakdowns  were   no   more  common  than  among   nonscientists. Instead,   he   suggested   that   a   below-average   interest   in   social   relations   and  a heavy  concentration   of  interest   in the   objective world  was a  normal  departure from   average   that  was  decidedly  favorable  for the   professional  development   of a   scientist. Cattell's   (1962,   1965)   and   Cattell    and   Drevdahl's   (1955)   profile   of  the prototypic  scientist  emerges   from   both  the   qualitative study  of  biographies   and from   quantitative  psychometric  studies   of   leading  physicists,  biologists,   and psychologists.   Cattell  found   successful   scientists   to be  reserved   and   introverted, intelligent,  emotionally  stable,  dominant,  serious-minded,  expedient,  venture- some,   sensitive,   radically  thinking,   self-sufficient,    and   having   a   strong   and exacting self-concept.  He  noted that  the  physicists, biologists,  and  psychologists were  similar  in  personality  except  that  psychologists were  less  serious-minded and   more   "surgent"   and   talkative  than  nonpsychologists.  Creative  scientists differed   most  from   normals  on  schizothymia-cyclothymia  factor,  with  scientific researchers being toward  the  schizothymic  end. Cattell thus describes  scientists as  being  skeptical,  internally preoccupied,  precise,   and   critical individuals  who are   exacting   and   reliable. Several studies were carried  out by  Barren  and his  colleagues  (Barron,  1962; Taylor   &  Barron,  1962).  Barron,   for   example,  found   creative  people  generally to  be   cognitively  complex  (preferring  complexity   and   imbalance   in   pheno- mena),  to  have  a  more   differentiated   personality structure,  to be   independent in  their judgment  and  less conformist  in  social contexts such  as the   Asch group pressure  situation,   to  be   self-assertive   and   dominant,   and  to  be  low in  using suppression   as a  mechanism   for  the   control  of  impulses   and   thoughts   (that  is, they  forbade themselves  fewer   thoughts). Chambers  (1964) compared  eminent researchers  with  those  not so  eminent   but  matched   on  other  relevant   variables. Results  indicated  that   the   more  creative  scientists  were  also  more  dominant, had  more initiative, were more  self-sufficient,   and  were more motivated toward intellectual  success.  McClelland  (1962)   found   successful   scientists   to  be  not only  higher  in  need  for  achievement  but   also  to be  calculating risk-takers  in the same   way as are   successful   business  entrepreneurs.   The   risk-taking,  however, involved  dealing with nature  or  physical situations rather than social situations, for    he,    too,   found   scientists    to   be    decidedly   avoidant    of   interpersonal relationships.  Scientists,   for   instance,  indicated   a   much  higher  preference   for being  a  lighthouse keeper   as  opposed   to   being  a  headwaiter  (Item   no. 324 on the   Strong Vocational  Interest  Blank).  McClelland  also  argued  that   the   need for   scientific  achievement  was a  strong aggressive drive "which  is  normally kept carefully   in   check   and   diverted  into  taking  nature   apart"   (1962,   p.   162).   In short,   the   scientist   is  "introverted   and   bold"   (Drevdahl   &  Cattell,   1958)