THE CONSERVATION OF TALENT THROUGH UTILIZATION
BY PROFESSOR JOHN M. GILLETTE
STATE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH DAKOTA
TO raise the question of how to conserve talent is not an idle inquiry.
We are in no immediate danger of famine. Yet there is an
enormous interest being devoted to what is known as the conservation
of soil. Our forests contain an abundance of timber for near purposes,
and when they are gone we shall probably find a better substitute in the
direction of concrete. Still agitation and discussion proceed relative
to the conservation of our timber supply. We hear of conservation of
childhood, of conservation of health, of conservation of natural scenery.
It is a period of agitation for conservation of resources all along the
line. This is all good. Real intelligent foresight is manifesting itself.
Civilized man demonstrates his superiority over uncivilized man most
in the exercise of anticipation and prescience.
As compared with other natural resources, genius and talent are
relatively scarce articles. This is at least the popular impression as to
their quantity. Even scientific men, for the most part, incline to this
opinion. Unless we are able to demonstrate that they are quite abundant
this opinion must be accepted. I shall seek to show that the estimate
of the amount of talent in existence which is usually accepted is
too small. However, we are in no peril of so inflating the potential
supply of talent and genius in the course of our remarks that they
may be regarded as universal. Nor are we likely to discover such a
rich lode of this commodity that the world may run riot in its
consumption of the visible supply. Talent promises to remain so scarce
that, granting for the moment that it is a useful agent, its supply
must be conserved.
I shall use the term talent so as to include genius. Both talent and
genius are of the same kind. Their essential difference consists in
degree. Increase what is commonly called talent in the direction of
its manifestation and it would develop into genius. Genius is commonly
thought of as something abnormal, in the sense that it is essentially
eccentric. A genius is generally spoken of as an eccentric, erratic,
unbalanced, person. The eccentricity is then taken as constituting the
substance of the quality of genius. This is undoubtedly a mistake.
Because some geniuses have been erratic, the popular imagination has
formed its picture of all genius as unbalanced. The majority of the
world's men of genius have been as balanced and normal in their
judgments as the average man. We may think of a genius as like the
ordinary man in his constitution. He has the same mental faculties,
the same emotions, the same kind of determinizing ability. What makes
him a genius is his power of concentration in his given field of work.
The moral quality, or zeal to accomplish, or energy directed toward
intellectual operations stands enormously above that of the average
individual. If we could confer this quality of moral will on the common
normal man possibly we would raise him to that degree which we term
genius.
In order to determine the worth of conserving talent we must estimate
its value as a commodity, as a world asset. I shall, therefore, turn
my attention first to discovering a method of reckoning the value of
eminent men.
One method open to us is what may be called the individualistic test.
Under this method we think of the individual as individual or of his
work as a concrete case of production. One phase of this is the individual's
estimate of his own powers. We may inquire what is the man's
appreciation of his own worth. This is precarious because of two difficulties.
There is an egotistical element in individuals. It is inherent
as a historical agent of self-preservation. Most of us are like primitive
groups. The ethnologist expects to find every tribe or horde of savages
claiming to be the people. They ascribe superior qualities to their
group. In their names for their group they call themselves the people,
the men, and so on, indicating their point of view.
Again, an individual, however honestly he might try, could not
estimate his own worth accurately. Let any of us attempt to see
ourselves as others see us and we shall discover the difficulty of the
undertaking. We are not able to get the perspective because our personal
feelings, our necessary selfish self-appreciation, puts our judgments
awry. Others close to us may do little better. They are likely to either
underrate us or to exaggerate our qualities and powers. In the United
States we are called on to evaluate Mr. Taft and Mr. Roosevelt. Is
either of them a great man? Has either of them been a great president?
Opinions differ. We are too close to them. We do not know.
We give them credit, perhaps, for doing things which the age would
have worked out in spite of them. Or we think things would have come
inevitably which their personal efforts, it will be found, were responsible
for establishing. We have not yet been able to determine accurately
just how great Abraham Lincoln was. It is almost half a century
since he did his work. But we live in the presence of the personal
relative to him yet. Sentiment enters in and obfuscates judgment.
If we turn to the product itself as mere product we are at a loss.
Unless we ask what is the import of the work we confess we do not
know. A man in Connecticut has made a manikin. It walks, talks,
does many of the things which human beings do. But it is not alive,
it is not serviceable, it can accomplish nothing. Suppose the maker
passes his life in making probably the most intricate and perfect
mechanism which has been made. Is he a genius? We may admit that
the products manifest great ingenuity on the part of their creator, yet
we feel repelled when we think of calling the maker a genius.
The community method of rating talent is far more satisfactory. The
inventor is related to his time or to human society by means of the
usefulness of his invention. The statesman is rated by means of the
deep-seated influence for improvement he has had on his age. The educator
finds his evaluation in the constructive spirit and method he displays
in bringing useful spirit and methods to light. The scientist is measured
by the uplift his discovery gives to the sum and substance of human
welfare. If a product which some individual creates can not be utilized
by society, its creator is not regarded as having made a contribution to
human progress. As a consequence he does not get a rating as genius.
To get the appraisal of mankind the product of the man of talent must
get generally accepted, must fill the want of society generally or of some
clientele. If a man produces something merely ingenious, something
which does not serve a considerable portion of humanity in the way of
satisfying a want, if his creation does not pass into use, he does not
step into the current of the world's history as a fruitful factor, he fails
to attain to the rank of talent.
This objective measure of the value of the producer puts talent into
direct relation to the concept of social evolution and progress. Society
has been an evolution. Collective humanity has gone through distinctive
metamorphoses. Distinct strides in advance have been made,
tendencies have manifested themselves, conditions have changed so
that larger satisfactions have ensued, democracy in the essential wants
of mankind has been wrought out. Society is more complex in its quantitative
aspect. It is more serviceable by reason of its greater specialization.
Since progress stands for improvement it has come to be
regarded as a desirable thing.
In the sociological conception of things the genius possesses a
specific social function. He is not a passing curiosity. He is not
produced for amusement. He does not stand unrelated. He is
the product of his age, is articulated with its life, performs an
office which is of consequence to it. He is the connecting link between
the past and the future. He takes what was and so combines
it anew as to produce what is to be. He is the innovator, the
initiator, the agent of transformation, the creator of a new order.
Hence he is the exceptional man. The masses of men are imitators.
They make nothing new, add nothing to the mechanism of social structure,
introduce no new functions, produce no achievements, do nothing
which changes the order of things. The common people are quite as
important for the purposes of society as are the talented. Society must
be conserved most of the time or we should all float down the stream of
change too rapidly for comfort. Hence the function of the great mass
of individuals is to seize and use the achievements which the creators,
the talented have brought into existence. We may conclude, therefore,
that if society is to be improved and if the lives of the great body of
human beings are to be endowed with more and more blessings, material
and spiritual, we must look to the men of talent, the men of
achievement, and to them 'alone, for the initiation of these results.
We may say, then, that we have discovered not only the method of
estimating the value of talent, but also in what its value consists. If
progress is desirable, talent by means of which that progress is secured
is likewise valuable. And, like other things, its value is measured by
its scarcity. It is now incumbent on us to attempt to discover the
extent of the supply of this commodity, both actual and possible.
I shall refer to two estimates of the amount of talent in existence
which have been made because they differ so much in their conclusions
as to the extent of talent, and because they exhibit quite different
view-points and methods.
The great English scientist and benefactor of the race, Sir Francis
Galton, in his work entitled "Hereditary Genius'' made a computation
of the number of men of eminence in the British Isles. This estimate
was made nearly a half-century ago and has generally been accepted
as representing actual conditions. One means of discovering the
number was by taking a catalogue of "Men of The Times'' which contained
about 2,500 names, one half of which were Americans and
Europeans. He found that most of the men were past fifty years of age.
Relative to this he states:
It appears that in the cases of high (but by no means in that of
the highest) merit, a man must outlive the age of fifty to be sure of
being widely appreciated. It takes time for an able man, born in the
humbler ranks of life, to emerge from them and to take his natural
position.[1]
After eliminating the non-British individuals he compared the
number of celebrities above fifty with males of the same age for the
whole British population. He found about 850 who were above fifty.
Of this age there were about 2,000,000 males in the British Isles.
Hence the meritorious were as 425 to 1,000,000, and the more select
were as 250 to 1,000,000. He stated what he considered the qualifications
of the more select as follows:
The qualifications for belonging to what I call the more select
part are, in my mind, that a man should have distinguished himself
pretty frequently either by purely original work, or as a leader of
opinion. I wholly exclude notoriety obtained by a single act. This is a
fairly well defined line, because there is not room for many men to
become eminent.
Mr. Galton made another estimate by studying an obituary list published
in The Times in 1868. This contained 50 men of the select class.
He considered it broader than his former estimate because it excluded
men dying before they attained their broadest reputation, and more
rigorous because it excluded old men who had previously attained a
reputation which they were not able to sustain. He consequently
lowered the age to 45. In Great Britain there were 210,000 males who
died yearly of that age. This gave a result of 50 men of exceptional
merit to 210,000 of the population, or 238 to the million.
His third estimate was made by the study of obituaries of many
years back. This led to similar conclusions, namely, that about 250 to
the million is an ample estimate of the number of eminent men.
He says:
When I speak of an eminent man, I mean one who has achieved a
position that is attained by only 250 persons in each million of men, or
by one person in each 4,000.
The other estimate of the amount of talent in existence has been
made by one of our most eminent American sociologists, the late Lester
F. Ward. The elaborate treatment of this matter is found in his "Applied
Sociology,'' and offers an illustration of a most rigorous and thorough
application of the scientific method to the subject in question. The
essential facts for the study were furnished by Odin in his work on the
genesis of the literary men of France, although Candole, Jacoby and
others are laid under contribution for data. Maps, tables and diagrams
are used whenever they can be made to secure results. Odin's study
covered the period of over five hundred years of France and French
regions, or from 1300 to 1825. Out of over thirteen thousand literary
names he chose some 6,200 as representing men of genius, talent or
merit, the former constituting much the smaller and the latter much
the larger of the total number.
The object of Ward's investigation is to discover the factor or factors
in the situation which are responsible for the production of genius.
In the course of examination it was seen that certain communities were
very much more prolific than others in producing talent. Paris, for
instance, produced 123 per 100,000; Geneva, Switzerland, 196; certain
châteaux as many as 200, and some communities none at all or very
few. After considering the various factors which account for the high
rate in certain localities and the low rate or absence of merit in others
the conclusion is reached that we should expect the presence of the
meritorious class generally in even greater numbers than it has existed
in the most fruitful regions of the French people.
Mr. Ward's studies have led him to conclude that talent is latent
in society, that it exists in greater abundance than we have ever dared
to expect, that all classes possess it equally and would manifest it
equally if obstacles were removed or opportunities offered for its
development. Education is the key to the situation in his estimation. It
affords the opportunity which latent talent requires for its promotion,
and if this were intelligently applied to all classes and to both sexes
alike instead of securing one man of talent for each 4,000 persons as
Mr. Galton held, we would be able to mature one for every 500 of our
population. This would represent an eight-hundred-per-cent. increase
of the talented class, an eight-fold multiplication. It is an estimate of
not the number of the talented who are known to be such, but of society's
potential or latent talent.
[2]
Because these estimates are so divergent, it may be worth while to
consider the reason for the difference. And in taking this up we come
to the fundamentally distinct point of view of the two investigators.
Mr. Galton's work is an illustration of the view which regards talent
as a product of the hereditary factors. Mr. Galton believed that heredity
accounts for talent and that it is so dominant in the lives of the
talented that it is bound to express itself as talent. In his estimation
there is no such thing as latent genius, because it is in the nature of
genius that it surmounts all obstacles. He says:
By natural ability, I mean those qualities of intellect and
disposition, which urge and qualify a man to perform acts which lead to
reputation. I do not mean capacity without zeal, nor zeal without
capacity, nor even a combination of both of them, without an adequate
power of doing a great deal of very laborious work. But I mean a nature
which, when left to itself, will, urged by an inherent stimulus, climb
the path that leads to eminence, and has strength to reach the
sum-mit—one which, if hindered or thwarted, will fret and strive until the
hindrance is overcome, and it is again free to follow its labor-saving
instinct.[3]
This in reality amounts to saying that the genius is omnipotent.
Nothing can prevent the development of the genius. He is master of
all difficulties by the very fact that he is a genius. It is also equivalent,
by implication, to saying that obstacles can have no qualifying effect on
the course of such an individual. A great difficulty is no more to him
than a small one. Hence no matter in what circumstances he lives he
is always bound to gain the maximum of his development. He could
not be either greater or less than he is, notwithstanding the force of
circumstances, whether obstructive or propitious. The energy of a
genius is thus differentiated from all other forms of energy. Other
forms of energy are modified in their course and effects by preventing
obstacles. Add to or subtract from the impediments and the effect
of the energy is changed by the amount of the impediments. But this
doctrine completely emancipates human energy, when manifested in the
form of genius, from the working of the law of cause and effect.
It is especially noteworthy that it is not what we should expect in
view of the place and function of the environment in the course of
evolution. To say the least environment enjoys a very respectable influence
in selecting and directing the forces of development. Some men
have gone so far as to make the external factors account for everything
in society. Discounting this claim, the minimum biological statement is
that the environment exercises a selective function relative to organic
forms and variations. It opposes itself to the transmission strain, and
if unfavorable to it, may eliminate it entirely. To be able to accomplish
this it must be regarded as having an influence on all forms. And as
there are all grades of environment from the most unfavorable to the
most propitious, similarly constituted organisms living in those various
environments must perforce fare differently, some being hindered
others being promoted in varying degrees. That is, should the most able
by birth appear in the most unfavorable environment they could not be
expected to make the same gains in life as similar congenitally able who
appear in the most favorable conditions.
Mr. Ward, on the contrary, holds that genius, like all other forms
of human ability, is the product of circumstances. It is determined in
its raw form by heredity, to be sure. In similar circumstances it will
affect more than the average man. But like all other forms of energy
it is subject to the law of causality. It is not omnipotent so that it is
able to set at naught the effects of opposing forces. Nor can it develop
in the absence of nourishing circumstances. Deprive it of cultural
opportunities and it is like the sprout of the majestic tree which is
deprived of moisture, or the great river cut off from the supply of
snow and rain. In other words, it is a product of all the factors at work
in its being and environment, and the internal can not manifest itself
or its powers without the presence of the external. Modify the external
factors to a perceptible degree and the individual is modified to the
same degree.
In seeking to find the factors which are accountable for the development
of talent Mr. Ward takes into consideration those of the physical
environment, the ethnological, the religious, the local, the economic,
the social, and the educational. Each one of these items is given a
searching examination as to its force. I shall briefly deal with each of
these in turn, giving the import of the findings in each case and as
many of the basic facts as possible in a small space.
By a consideration of French regions by departments, provinces,
and principal sections, as to their yield of talent, the physical environment
was found to have had no perceptible influence. The mountain-situated Geneva
and the lowland Paris produced alike prolifically
talented men. The valley of the Seine and that of the Loire competed
for hegemony in fecundity. The facts contradicted the highland
theory, the lowland theory, the coast theory, and every other theory of
the dominance of physical environment.
To get at the influence of the ethnological factor the Gaulic,
Cimbrian,
Iberian, Ligurian and Belgic elements of the population were
examined as to their fecundity in talent. Odin confesses to being
unable to discover "the least connection between races and fecundity in
men of letters.'' Attention was paid likewise to races speaking other
than French language. Again there was a conflict of facts. Inside of
France ethnological elements exerted "no appreciable influence upon
literary productivity.'' In Belgium and Lorraine, where the German
language dominated, it was found that French literature mastered the
situation, thus indicating that a common language does not necessitate
a common literature. The conclusion ethnologically is that races possess
an equality in yielding talent.
The religious factor was found to have been more influential formerly
in bringing to light talent than at the close of the five-hundred-year period.
From 1300 to 1700 the church furnished on the average
37.8 per cent. of all literary talent. Its fecundity dropped to 29 in the
period from 1700 to 1750. Between 1750 and 1825 it produced but 6.5
of the talent. As Galton has shown, eminent men were killed or driven
out during the period of religious persecution in Spain, France and
Italy. The celibacy of the clergy which gave undisturbed leisure may
have been an element in making the church productive in the earlier
years. On the other hand, the quieting effect of family life of the
protestant ministry seems to have had a propitious influence in later
times, as there appeared a relative increase among protestant clergy of
talent, while the output among the catholic clergy continued to decline.
In this investigation the local environment appeared to have the
most influence in the production of talent. Odin gave witness to having
a suspicion that somewhere there was a neglected factor. The facts
connected talent with the cities in an overwhelming manner. The
statement that genius is the product of the rural regions seems to have
had no legs to stand on. The majority of the talented were born in the
cities and practically all of them were connected with city life.
In proportion to population the cities produced 12.77, almost
thirteen times as many men of talent as rural regions. The whole of
France produced 6,382, the number selected by Odin as the more meritorious
of the men of letters. If all France had been as productive as
Paris it would have yielded 53,640; if as fecund as the other chief cities,
it would have produced 22,060; but if only as fertile as the country the
number would have fallen to 1,522.
It would seem that the matter of population has something to do
with the production of talent. Aggregations of population offer frequent
contact of persons, division of labor, competition between individuals,
a better coordination of society for cooperative results, neutralization
of physical qualities, and the ascendancy of innovation over the
conservative attitude. It is not the mere density of population which
is the effective element. It is rather the dynamic density which is
productive, that is, the manifestation of the common life and spirit.
City life is specialized in structure and function, rendering men more
interdependent and cooperative. Specialization means moral coalescence
The châteaux of France are very prolific in producing talent. They
yielded 2 per cent. of all the talent of the period, seemingly out of
proportion to their importance.
Why are certain of the cities and the châteaux more fertile than
most cities and the country in producing the talented? We have a
general reply in the statement as to the dynamic density of cities. A
further analysis finds those communities are possessed of elements
which the country does not have. Odin calls them "properties.'' They
are the location of the political, administrative and judicial agencies of
society; they are in possession of great wealth and talent; they are
depositaries of learning and the tools of information. The avenues
which open upon talent and the tools and agencies by means of which
the passage to it is to be made segregate themselves in cities and towns
As the result of his investigation into the distribution of men of
science in the United States, Professor Cattell arrives at nearly the
same conclusion. He writes:
The main factors in producing scientific and other forms of
intellectual performance seem to be density of population, institutions
and social traditions and ideals. All these may be ultimately due to
race, but, given the existing race, the scientific productivity of the
nation can be increased in quantity, though not in quality, almost to
the extent that we wish to increase it.[4]
It is interesting to note that nearly all of the women of talent have
been born in cities and châteaux. This means that women had to be
born where the means of development were to be had, as they were not
free to move about in society, as were men.
The economic factor has been an important one in offering the leisure
which is necessary for the development of talent. Men who have to
use their time and energy wholly in the support of themselves and
families are deprived of the leisure which productivity and
creativeness
Periods | Rich | Poor |
1300-1500 | 24 | 1 |
1500-1550 | 39 | 4 |
1551-1600 | 42 | — |
1601-1650 | 84 | 5 |
1651-1700 | 73 | 4 |
1701-1725 | 36 | 3 |
1726-1750 | 53 | 7 |
1751-1775 | 86 | 8 |
1776-1800 | 52 | 12 |
1801-1825 | 73 | 11 |
| — | — |
Total | 562 | 57, or 9 per cent. |
in work demands. Of the French men of letters 35 per cent. belonged
to the wealthy or noble class, 42 per cent. to the middle class, and 23
per cent. to the working class. Odin was able to discover the economic
environment of 619 men of talent. They were distributed by periods
between the rich and poor as shown in the table on page 169.
Of one hundred foreign associates of the French Academy the
membership of the wealthy, middle and working classes were 41, 52
and 7. A combination of two other of Candole's tables yields for those
classes in per cents 35, 42 and 23. In ancient and medieval times
practically all of the talented came from the wealthy class. On the whole,
but about one eleventh of the men of talent had to fight with economic
adversity. But when we remember that the wealthy class formed but
a small portion of the population in each period, probably not more
than one fourth, this means that as compared with members of the
working class individuals of the wealthy class had forty or fifty times
as good a chance of rising to a position of eminence. The contrast is
so sharp that Odin is led to exclaim, "Genius is in things, not in man.''
The social and the economic factors are so closely intertwined that
the influence of the social environment is already seen in treating the
economic. The social deals with matter of classes and callings. The
upper classes are of course the wealthier classes so that the social and
economic measures largely agree. In Mr. Galton's inquiry into the
callings of English men of science which he made in 1873, it appears
that out of 96 investigated 9 were noblemen or gentlemen, 18 government
officials, 34 professional men, 43 business men, 2 farmers and 1
other. Unless the one other was a working man the workers produced
none of these 96 men of science. Odin's classification of the French
men of letters gives to the nobility 25.5 per cent., to government
officials 20.0, liberal professions 23.0, bourgeoise 11.6, manual laborers
9.8. Only a little over one fifth of the talented were produced by the two
lower classes. Yet in numerical weight those classes constituted 90
per cent. of the population. Data from four other European countries
show very much the same results, except that the workers and bourgeoise
classes make a better showing. It is unquestionable, therefore, that the
opportunities for developing talent or genius are largely withheld from
the working class and bestowed on the upper classes.
We have yet one other factor to treat in the production of talent,
namely, the educational. The facts relative to the education of the
talented contradicts the assumption usually made that genius depends
on education and opportunity for none of its success, but rises to its
heights in spite of or without them.
Of 827 men of talent (not merit class) Odin was able to investigate
as to their education he found that only 1.8 per cent. had no education
or a poor education, while 98.2 per cent. had a good education. This
number investigated was 73 per cent. of all men of that class, and it is
fair to assume that about the same proportion of educated existed in the
other 27 per cent. whose education was not known. Of the 16 of poor
or no education 13 were born in Paris, other large cities, or châteaux,
and three in other localities. Thus they had the opportunities presented
by the cities. Facts as to talented men in Spain, Italy, England and
Germany indicate that anywhere from 92 to 98 per cent. have been
highly educated, and probably the latter per cent. is correct.
These figures can have but one meaning. They indicate that talent
and genius are dependent on educational and conventional agencies of
the cultural kind, as are other human beings for their evolution. Otherwise
we should expect the figures to be reversed. If education and cultural
opportunities count for naught, then we should expect that, at a
time when education was by no means universal, the 90 or 98 per cent.
Of genius would mount on their eagle wings and soar to the summits of
eminence, clearing completely the conventional educational devices
which society had established.
Our conclusion, therefore, is that social and economic opportunities
afford the leisure as well as cultural advantages for the improvement of
talent; that the local environment is of vital importance, offering as it
does the cultural advantages of cities of certain kinds and of
châteaux,
and that of the local environment the educational facilities are of the
supremest importance. Consequently, it appears that Mr. Ward's estimate
of one person of talent to the 500 instead of Mr. Galton's estimate
of one to the 4,000 does not seem strained. Produce in society generally
the opportunities and advantages which Geneva, Paris and the châteaux
possessed and which gave them their great fecundity in talent, and all
regions and places will yield up their potential or latent genius to
development and the ratio will be obtained.
This position is likely to be criticized, unless it is remembered that
we admit that there is a hereditary difference at birth, and that all we
seek to establish is that, given these differences, what conditions are
likely to mature and develop the men of born talent. Thus after the
appearance of my "Vocational Education'' I received a letter from
Professor Eugene Davenport in which he makes this statement:
Ward's arguments as here employed seem to show that environment
is a powerful factor in bringing out talent even to the exclusion of
heredity. I doubt if you would care to be understood to this limit, and
yet where you enumerate on page 61 the reasons why certain cities are
fecund in respective talents, you seem to have overlooked the fact that
if these cities have been for many generations centers of talent to such
an extent as to provide exceptional environmental influences, the same
conditions would also provide exceptional parentage, so that the
birthrate of talent would be much higher in such a region than the
normal. In other words, the very same conditions which would provide
exceptional opportunities for development also and at the same time
provide an exceptional birth condition.
This is the rock on which very many arguments tending to compare
heredity and environment wreck themselves.
[5]
We have arrived at a point where we are able to consider the question
of the conservation of talent. A position of advantage has been
gained from which to view this question. For we have seen that talent
has a decidedly important and indispensable social function to perform.
It is the creative and contributive agency, the cause of achievement, and
a vital factor in progress. Its conservation is consequently devoutly
to be desired. We have also discovered the fact that, while a rare
commodity, it is present in society in a larger measure than we have
commonly believed. If progress is desirable in a measure it is likely to
be desirable in a large measure. If talent is able to carry us forward at
a certain rate with the development of a minimum of the quantity that
is in existence we should be able to greatly accelerate our progress if all
that is latent could be developed and put into active operation. Further,
we have obtained some insight into the conditions which favor the development
of talent and likewise some of the obstacles to its manifestation.
If it abounds where certain conditions are present in the situation and
fails to appear where those conditions are absent, we have a fertile
suggestion as to the method of social control and direction which will
bring the latent talent to fertility.
We must undoubtedly hold that if a larger supply of talent exists
than is discovered, developed and put to use that, since, as we have
seen, it is so valuable when estimated in terms of social progress, we
are dealing wastefully with talent. We are allowing great ability to go
to waste since we are leaving it lie in its undeveloped form. Therefore
one of the problems of the proper conservation of talent consists
in finding a method of discovering and releasing this valuable form of
social energy.
When we come to inquire how this may be done, how this discovery
is to take place, we must take for our guide the facts which were found
to bear on the maturing of talent in the above studies. We discovered
that the local environment seemed to contain the influential element in
bringing forth talent. When that local environment was analyzed it
turned out that the items of opportunity for leisure and the facilities
for education were the most fruitful factors. Leisure is absolutely
essential to afford that opportunity for self-development which is required
even of the most talented. This can only be had when the income
of the individual is sufficient to give him a considerable part of his
active time for carrying out his intellectual aspirations. We have
great numbers of people whom we have reason to believe are as able on
the average, have as large a proportion of talent as the well-to-do,
whose poverty is so crushing and whose days of toil are so long and so
consuming of energy that the element of leisure is lacking. It is only
an occasional individual of this class of people who is able to secure the
wealth which means a measure of leisure by which he is able to mount
out of obscurity. An improvement in the physical conditions of life
of these people, together with an increase in their economic possibilities
is a necessary means to the proper conservation of the talent of this
group.
The cultural factor is one which must be made more omnipresent
than it is now before we shall be able to awake the latent talent of the
masses of people. There are certain sections of all nations, and more
especially of such nations as the United States, where the population
is widely scattered over vast areas of farming regions in which the
opportunities for education and stimulative enterprises and institutions
are lacking or meager. The same is true of very large sections of the
populations of the cities. In both cases large neighborhoods exist in
which the lives of the people move in a humdrum rut, never disturbed
by matters which arouse the creative element in human nature. Especially
is this important in the early years of life where the outlook for
the whole future of the individual is so strongly stamped. To come into
contact with no stimulus and arousing agent in the home, or the
neighborhood in the earliest years is to become settled into a life-long
habit of inert dullness.
When we revert to the schools which so generally abound, we fail to
find the stimulating element in them which might be regarded as the
necessary opportunity to develop talent. The vast majority of elementary
teachers are persons whose intellectual natures have never been
aroused. Their imaginative and sympathetic capacities lie undeveloped.
Their work in the school is conducted on the basis of memory.
It is parrot work and ends in making parrots of the pupils. The
rational and causal as agencies in education are hardly ever appealed to.
Until our teaching force is itself developed in the directions and capacities
which alone characterize the intellectual we can not hope for much
in the way of recovering the rich field of latent talent from its infertility.
Something remains to be said about the proper utilization of talent
which has been developed. Did all genius depend on the hereditary
factor and consequently we had developed all individuals possessing
exceptional ability into contributors and creators, the question of their
complete utilization by society remains. That all able men and women
are working at the exact thing and in the exact place and under the
exact methods which will yield the greatest and most fruitful results for
society only the superficial could believe. Herbert Spencer used up a
very large part of his superb ability during the larger portion of his
life in the drudgery of making a living. The work of the national
eugenics laboratory of England is carried on by a man of great talent,
Professor Carl Pearson, in cramped quarters and with insufficient equipment
and support. The enterprise is as important as any in England,
that of discovering the conditions and means of improving the human
race. The laboratory was built up in the first instance by the sacrifice
of Sir Francis Galton, and it is maintained by means of the bequest of
his personal fortune.
These are but instances of the many which exist where talented
individuals are working under great handicaps which neither promote
their talent nor secure fecundity of results to collective man. In nearly
every line of human endeavor gifted individuals are consuming in an
unnecessarily wasteful manner, from the point of view of social improvement,
their splendid abilities. In educational institutions trained
experts and specialists are doing the work which very ordinary ability
of a merely clerical kind could conduct, sacrificing the higher and more
fruitful attainments thereby. I have known a faculty of some forty
members who were compelled to register the term standings by sitting
in a circle and calling off the grades of several hundred students student
by student and class by class for each student as it came their turn,
while a clerk recorded the grades. The process consumed about ten
hours per member each term, or something over a thousand hours a year
for the whole faculty. Both economically and socially it was expensive
and wasteful because a cheap clerk could have done the whole far better
and have released the talent for productive purposes.
We shall be wise when we realize the worth of our workable talent
and so establish its working conditions that it may secure the full
measure of its productiveness. If scientific management for the mass
of laborers of a nation is worth while how much more serviceable would
it be to extend its fructifying influence to the most able members of
the community.
But how to proceed in order to make the discovery of the latent
talent is the pressing problem. For a long time our methods promise to
be as empirical as are those we employ for the advancement of science.
Relative to the latter, after enumerating a large list of conditions for
promoting science of which we are ignorant, Professor Cattell says:
In the face of endless problems of this character we are as
empirical in our methods as the doctor of physic a hundred years ago or
the agricultural laborer to-day. It is surely time for scientific men to
apply scientific methods to determine the circumstances that promote or
hinder the advancement of science.[6]
Since the discovery and utilization of genius and talent in general
are so closely related to the problem of the promotion of science, his
statement may be adopted to express the demand existing in those
directions.
[1.]
Cattell's investigations of American men of science
disproves this statement for Americans. He finds that only a few men
enter the ranks of that class of men after the age of fifty, and that
none of that age reach the highest place. The fecund age is from 35 to
45; ("American Men of Science,'' p. 575.)
[2.]
Investigations made on school children by the Binet
test indicate Ward's estimate is conservative. It has been found that
from two to three out of every hundred children are of exceptional
ability, thus belonging to the talented, or at least merit class.
[3.]
"Hereditary Genius,'' pp. 37-8.
[4.]
"American Men of Science,'' Second edition, p.
654.
[5.]
This is a criticism that needs to be met. Mr. George R.
Davies of this institution has submitted facts in a paper which appeared
in the March number of the Quarterly Journal of the University of
North Dakota, which fills in the gap. He shows relative to
American cities that there has been little or no segregation of talented
parentage.
[6.]
"American Men of Science,'' p. 565.