The Genius Famine: Why we need geniuses, why they’re dying out, and why we must rescue them

by Edward Dutton

Geniuses are rare and exceptional people; but the great ideas, discoveries and inventions of human history, which have allowed the development of civilization itself, were the products of geniuses.

The Genius Famine finds that a genius combines extremely high intelligence with a unworldly, intuitive personality. Geniuses will seldom fit-into normal society, they will seldom want to. And we shouldn’t want them to, because it is their unusual and socially-difficult nature which drives geniuses to come up with original ideas, and solutions to otherwise unsolvable problems. But modern society has been hit by a genius famine. There are ever-fewer geniuses and, to make matters worse, modern society has become actively hostile to those few geniuses we still have.

The Genius Famine explores the nature of genius, why the genius famine has happened, how the famine will lead to the decline of civilization, and what we can and should do to overcome it.

Genres: Psychology, Sociology

232 pages, Kindle Edition

First published January 21, 2016

Reviews

[James · Rating 5 out of 5]

I've been following Dutton for a number of months on his YouTube channel - The Jolly Heretic. It's tremendous fun and uber un-PC. Serious research crossed with cutting humour delivered in high brow yah yah. Woodley of Menie, who is referenced quite often in the book, is the Wise to Dutton's Morecambe so to speak. I recommend it.
Not for the sensitive however.
And so to the book. Dutton and Charlton are basically hereditarians. The belief that intelligence or G is born not made. Mainstream science seems to believe it's 50/50 environment versus genes. I myself think it's 2 to 1 in favour of nature over nurture. I.E. The experiences of East and West Germany, North and South Korea being the equivalent of economic twin metastudies showing the importance of environment in economic and social outcomes on near identical groups.

Dutton and Charlton are on the periphery of the curve in this respect. They believe the environment is of minimal effect. The genes are everything , not only in transferring intelligence or raw G but also personality. Essential for geniuses is, what they call, the endogenous personality type. They argue that the prevalence of men such as these (the solo genius is nearly exclusively a western male) is in serious decline and those that do exist are suffocated by a politically correct bureaucratic polity.

This rings true. The Flynn Effect has most certainly reversed in the West and we are in a time of falling IQs which can only end one way. The Global Dumbing that is coming is going to have far more serious consequences for Mankind than Global Warming.

I do have a criticism of the work however. There is to my mind an insufficient explanation for the technological gains of the 20th/21st centuries. Only one page is devoted to this. They maintain the gains are not genius driven but system improvements on a very large scale. That feels wrong intuitively to me. Inventiveness must have been necessary. Armies don't win wars on their own. Generals or geniuses still need to be at the helm. Hopefully, this will be addressed in a later edition.

In conclusion, The Genius Famine is informative, clearly written and most importantly enjoyable.I look forward to further books from Dutton and Co on this and other topics in the future.
Ps. If you're a fan of Carl Jung, be warned, the chaps are not.

[Ivy · Rating 4 out of 5]

Thought provoking! I agree with the overall idea of the book. It also has some very insightful ideas like the description of intuition and phenomenology of genius.

My reservations with this book are:
1) Availability bias and Western ethnocentricism: written by European men, they paint Europe as the hub of genius. I wonder how much the authors have delved into other cultures to really tease out genius in other cultures (that are beyond what's available in the English and Finnish languages).

2) Linear thinking: the authors in their description of Good and Evil genius make underlying assumptions that progress is linear, that the society cannot proverbially "take two steps back, to take a step forward". My personal take is that progress is cyclical or spiral. Destruction is very much a part of creative and growth -- as is death.

3) Doesn't discuss plausible alternatives -- that perhaps this form of genius is antiquated and future of humanity needs another form of genius. (Personally I'm inclined to believe their hypothesis but I like playing devil's advocate to ensure robustness of my ideas).

[Marduk · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book lacks proofreading and focus and occasionally runs into unnecessary tangents, but I cannot give it anything other than 5 stars. The amount of insight into genius is just unparalleled. All of the critique I had, the authors had resolved in the very last chapters, so it seems they really covered all of the ground.

The biggest takeaway and direction for further research should be the fact, that it is both geniuses that build civilizations, and geniuses that deconstruct them. This is accompanied by a kind of demoralization, variously noted and described throughout history. The author proposes it's due to an easy life and a decline of religion. The next question should be how exactly does this work and what can be done about it, if anything at all.

[Илья Дескулин · Rating 3 out of 5]

I love Ed and his Youtube show but his books are not of very high quality. People who are into HBD stuff certainly will find some good insights there. But I would not recommend his books to people who are new to intelligence research or for some reasons against it. You should be more careful with your assertions on the one hand, and present more evidence on the other. Using his own terminology Ed is probably some kind of "local genius". Or just a great popularizer of geniuses and their ideas.

[Shad Aijalon · Rating 4 out of 5]

I don't have much to say. The book makes quite a few suppositions that are backed by the study showing a correlation between reaction time and overall intelligence. The real meat of the book is based on the authors belief that society is not receptive or is no longer as receptive of the endogenous personality type - an extremely asocial, difficult personality that shuns social pressures. That society rewards exogenic "normies;" people who are driven by social pressures related to sex and power and do not have the internal motivation: the monomaniacal fixation that grips those who are exceedingly bright.

I will say that I partially agree insofar as we accept the presupposition that modern society is driven more by short-term rewards/goals. Anyone can see that education awards those with high levels of conscientiousness and that the existence of that trait doesn't necessarily imply the existence of vast, wild creativity. Though one can argue that a truly intelligent person could force themselves into a rigorous schedule á la Jack London, it cannot be said that an endogenous person would put the effort. Genius is zealotry, and a zealot is not one to distract their overall vision with annoyances.

Overall the book is interesting. I would recommend reading from their bibliography rather than this book alone.

[Filipe Araujo · Rating 5 out of 5]

Very provoking, I'm not so sure about the assumption that average intelligence is dropping. The arguments make sense, but I have some trouble with the evidence that supports this assumption. I found the book worth reading nevertheless.

[Albert Wrigglesworth · Rating 5 out of 5]

Must read!!!

This book has been in the coming of age for a long time.
Ignore it at one’s own peril.
In Canada we are already in the throws of the final episode of the Genius Famine, but it can be turned around if there are enough who want it turned.

[Philipp Hartmann · Rating 3 out of 5]

I'm torn when it comes to this unusual book: while it does offer interesting insights into what constitutes a genius, what type of personality he (or she, but mostly he) harbours and how he behaves, it remains strangely vague when arguing for the necessity of geniuses. Simply stating "because geniuses are the only ones capable of getting us out of this mess" - without providing any evidence substantiating the claim - won't do it.
While there is little to disagree when it comes to taking stock of the societal and political environment regarding human excellency, PC culture and academia for anyone with open eyes and minds, the authors have surprisingly little to offer in terms of concrete actions to take to at least remediate the situation relating to the treatment and furtherance of geniuses.
This book is outstanding in that it confronts mainstream opinions about human achievement and egalitarianism head-on. However, it does little more than merely describe some interesting features about geniuses and the way Western societies have developed since the Industrial Revolution. So, while the diagnoses can hardly be argued with, there are no real conclusions drawn - other than stating that geniuses - while annoying on an individual level - are tremendously beneficial to societies. Yet, there is no suggestion how to reverse the trend of declining intelligence as to produce more geniuses.
I think this book is okay to read for people genuinely interested in the topic of intelligence and genius, but only for those who have not yet read anything in particular on the subject. I consider a later book of Dutton, with Michael A. Woodley of Menie Yr. as a co-author a much better read. It's called At our wit's end and offers a much more compelling overview on the subject.

[Marco · Rating 1 out of 5]

WTF did I just read?

So, the book is fairly short. It has been recommended by a very intelligent person which I have a high regard of. I was super disappointed to be honest.
I've read the bio of the authors, one is a professor of "Antropology of Religion" and the other is professor of "Theoretical Medicine".

This is basically a book about eugenics, or the good of it.
The main idea is that population is dumber overall, intelligent women = college educated according to them, are not making children, while less educated people are doing many more children, like in the movie idiocracy.
Ok, this may or may not be it, but I'm sure a genius it's one of a kind, one in hundreds of millions or perhaps one in a billion. So basically they conflate the average population, the normal distribution, with the outliers. I don't know if that's because they lack the statistical background or because they do it out of ingenuity or malice...

To be honest I don't know what's up with their worry about not having "new" geniuses, or better yet, it seems like that according to them the "normal" population wants to oppress the geniuses and/or not allow them to thrive. This is nonsense.
The internet provided an easiness of spread of ideas without precedents.
Good ideas will thrive and travel. Bad ideas will do so as well, unfortunately, but that's because people are easily manipualble.
In the past only the rich or some talented people who had a patron had the chance to spread their ideas/products, today anybody can do it... Perhaps this abundance has made us undervalue them...

[James · Rating 5 out of 5]

A Great Primer on Intelligence and Personality and the Unusual Phenomena of Genius

This book presents a fantastic (clear and concise) primer on general intelligence and personality and how they relate to the endogenous personality (from which genius is derived); high intelligence and intuition and inward focus (leading to relatively low levels of social agreeableness, conscientiousness and empathy combined with a high degree of self-determination, creativity/psychoticism which is conducive to both thinking and acting outside the box), and how the modern world ("politically correct" by definition) is discouraging genius just when it is needed most. Highly simulating and recommended read no matter where you fall on the socio-political/personality spectrum.

“…although high intelligence is a component of genius, and although the average pro-social personality type is useful, and perhaps essential, for successful industrial societies: the high GFP (General Factor of Personality)/pro-social personality is almost the opposite of that required to make a genius. And yet, late Medieval and Renaissance Europe was a veritable hotbed of genius, and it was these geniuses who enabled and triggered the Industrial Revolution.” (p. 34)

[danielle; ▵ · Rating 1 out of 5]

I am not sure if this book is supposed to be self-help for people who think of themselves as geniuses or a shallow nonfictional account of genius, but either way, it tried for far too long—and in a very short book, furthermore—to define genius rather than discussing the genius famine.

I think that, as a reader, I was supposed to get swooped up in the thesis that genius is stifled in today’s society and to relate to the description of a genius, which was as flimsy as a weekly horoscope.

I do think that American society favors mediocrity (more specifically, it favors a shallow, youth-driven, mass-market culture) and that it is difficult for an intelligent American to appeal to the average American (especially if that intelligent American is also low in agreeableness), making the intelligent American undesirable or just plain unlikeable, but nevertheless, I do not want to read a shallow discussion of a deep problem just to put my ego at ease.

Most importantly, it was far too carelessly written to be considered a serious work of nonfiction. DNF.

[Vagabond of Letters, DLitt · Rating 5 out of 5]

****1/2

[Karl]

If you combine this book with Peter Thiel's take that technological progress has stagnated ...

[Alexandra Martins · Rating 3 out of 5]

Some very useful insights, but I’d be careful - some dubious affirmations are made in this book, which can cause more harm than good. Even so, an extremely interesting reading!

[Celeste]

Since intelligence is correlated with genetic quality...

It works. At the price of a little too many half-assumptions. I can't dismiss it as innocuous scientific experimentation, if the overall picture acquires disturbingly eugenetic traits.