張菊

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·韋納坐下來寫新書的時候，必須首先解決一個大問題：如何定義天才？

“那可沒聽起來那么簡單?！彼麑γ绹珖矎V播電臺的雷切爾·馬丁說，“我的定義略微有點兒不同尋?！觳啪褪俏覀兌颊J同是天才的人，這是一種社會認定。”

為了調(diào)查天才如何扎根和成長，韋納走遍了世界各地：希臘、意大利、蘇格蘭和硅谷。他的著作《天才地理學(xué)》探討的就是偉大思想家如何受所處時空的影響。

關(guān)于天才是先天既定還是后天培養(yǎng)的

都不是。我認為，天才是逐漸長成的。并且我覺得，我們真的是被最先那兩種看法給框住了，慢慢就信以為真了。舉個例子，假如看到一個像莫扎特一樣的小孩小小年紀就表現(xiàn)出驚人的天賦，我們會堅定認為，這明顯就是基因在起作用。要說必定全是基因的作用，我真覺得事實并非如此。越來越多的證據(jù)表明，在天才構(gòu)成之謎中，遺傳僅占相對較小的一部分。天才是后天培養(yǎng)的，沒錯。勤奮很重要。我不否認需要付出汗水，但這沒法解釋為什么天才會扎堆出現(xiàn)。為什么文藝復(fù)興時期的佛羅倫薩、古雅典或今天的硅谷，有那么多天才聚集？他們?nèi)际浅壟Φ娜藛?？我覺得這么解釋不通。我認為是環(huán)境里有某種東西在起作用。

關(guān)于競爭所起的作用

我認為有一個條件很重要，那就是競爭必須是良性的?？纯次乃噺?fù)興時期佛羅倫薩那樣的地方，競爭十分激烈。米開朗琪羅和萊奧納多·達·芬奇互相鄙視。他們真是沒法忍受對方，但那使他倆才華盡展。事實證明，現(xiàn)代社會科學(xué)在某種程度上支持我現(xiàn)場調(diào)研的發(fā)現(xiàn)。比如，一項研究表明，我們往往會與曾經(jīng)的競爭者更好合作。這種情況很常見：競爭對手變成了合作伙伴。

關(guān)于“最佳摩擦點”

弗洛伊德是個局外人，不僅是猶太人，還是個移民，他所生活的維也納局勢確實緊張。他的觀點被看作“童話故事”。他還不得不真正對抗體制。但世事幾乎總是這樣，天才扎堆的地方就有摩擦。天才對此很適應(yīng)，但這并不是一種完美的適應(yīng)，而是一種不完美的適應(yīng)。至于最佳摩擦點，我認為，正是適量的摩擦促生天才。

完全著眼于當下的人成不了天才。我覺得這么說挺公平，因為那樣的人不會惹麻煩。他們幾乎始終是局外人。但我想說他們并不完全是局外人。他們是我所稱的局內(nèi)的局外人。弗洛伊德就是個很好的例子。他并沒有被完全接受，而人們對他的接受程度正足以讓人們愿意傾聽他的觀點，否則我們現(xiàn)在也不知道西格蒙德·弗洛伊德這個人了。

關(guān)于史蒂夫·喬布斯是否是個天才

在為這本書做研究的過程中，我做過類似雞尾酒會問題的測試——我走進一個房間問：“各位，史蒂夫·喬布斯是個天才嗎？”根據(jù)我的經(jīng)驗，在這種非常不科學(xué)的調(diào)研中，答案幾乎總是一半一半。有些人會說：“哦，是，他絕對是個天才。”他們通常還會立刻拿出自己的蘋果6s手機或其他什么蘋果產(chǎn)品說：“看看這個，棒極了。它改變了世界。”其他人則會說：“不，他不是天才。他沒有真正發(fā)明任何東西。他竊取了別人的點子。他跟亞里士多德、愛因斯坦和弗洛伊德他們根本無法相提并論。”

關(guān)于天才與時尚的相似性

我認為，要是按照我所說的天才的“時尚理論”（即天才是一種共識，就像時尚是一種共識——沒有什么好壞之分，就是時尚）來評判，你就得承認史蒂夫·喬布斯是個天才，因為我們很多人，也許是大多數(shù)，都認為他是天才。你知道，我們可以得到我們想要或應(yīng)得的天才。這就是我們關(guān)心的東西，我們關(guān)心技術(shù)。

關(guān)于出生所處的時代和文化如何塑造天才

想一想：為什么現(xiàn)在沒有像貝多芬或者莫扎特這樣的古典音樂作曲家了？這個時代有很好的作曲家，但我們認為都無法與貝多芬或莫扎特比肩。這并不是人才庫枯竭了，也不是基因突變減少了人才儲備，而是因為有抱負的年輕人今天更可能去硅谷闖蕩而不是去維也納學(xué)習(xí)古典音樂。

在莫扎特的時代，18世紀的維也納，他的觀眾極善接受新鮮事物，眼光頗高，并且?guī)缀蹩梢哉f同樣具有天分。我們往往認為是天才造就了這種輝煌。而我們，作為觀眾，只是被動接受。我認為事情并非如此。莫扎特對觀眾及其要求的感知很敏銳。觀眾則欣賞他的音樂，希望他創(chuàng)作出更好的作品——要是今天我們之中有更多人像彼時觀眾那樣對待古典音樂，我想我們會有更多的莫扎特。

（譯者單位：北京化工大學(xué)）