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(lái)寫(xiě)新書(shū)的時(shí)候，必須首先解決一個(gè)大問(wèn)題：如何定義天才？

“那可沒(méi)聽(tīng)起來(lái)那么簡(jiǎn)單?！彼麑?duì)美國(guó)全國(guó)公共廣播電臺(tái)的雷切爾·馬丁說(shuō)，“我的定義略微有點(diǎn)兒不同尋?！觳啪褪俏覀兌颊J(rèn)同是天才的人，這是一種社會(huì)認(rèn)定?！?/p>

為了調(diào)查天才如何扎根和成長(zhǎng)，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(shí)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(rèn)為，天才是逐漸長(zhǎng)成的。并且我覺(jué)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(gè)例子，假如看到一個(gè)像莫扎特一樣的小孩小小年紀(jì)就表現(xiàn)出驚人的天賦，我們會(huì)堅(jiān)定認(rèn)為，這明顯就是基因在起作用。要說(shuō)必定全是基因的作用，我真覺(jué)得事實(shí)并非如此。越來(lái)越多的證據(jù)表明，在天才構(gòu)成之謎中，遺傳僅占相對(duì)較小的一部分。天才是后天培養(yǎng)的，沒(méi)錯(cuò)。勤奮很重要。我不否認(rèn)需要付出汗水，但這沒(méi)法解釋為什么天才會(huì)扎堆出現(xiàn)。為什么文藝復(fù)興時(shí)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?jí)努力的人嗎？我覺(jué)得這么解釋不通。我認(rèn)為是環(huán)境里有某種東西在起作用。

關(guān)于競(jìng)爭(zhēng)所起的作用

我認(rèn)為有一個(gè)條件很重要，那就是競(jìng)爭(zhēng)必須是良性的。看看文藝復(fù)興時(shí)期佛羅倫薩那樣的地方，競(jìng)爭(zhēng)十分激烈。米開(kāi)朗琪羅和萊奧納多·達(dá)·芬奇互相鄙視。他們真是沒(méi)法忍受對(duì)方，但那使他倆才華盡展。事實(shí)證明，現(xiàn)代社會(huì)科學(xué)在某種程度上支持我現(xiàn)場(chǎng)調(diào)研的發(fā)現(xiàn)。比如，一項(xiàng)研究表明，我們往往會(huì)與曾經(jīng)的競(jìng)爭(zhēng)者更好合作。這種情況很常見(jiàn)：競(jìng)爭(zhēng)對(duì)手變成了合作伙伴。

關(guān)于“最佳摩擦點(diǎn)”

弗洛伊德是個(gè)局外人，不僅是猶太人，還是個(gè)移民，他所生活的維也納局勢(shì)確實(shí)緊張。他的觀(guān)點(diǎn)被看作“童話(huà)故事”。他還不得不真正對(duì)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(duì)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(diǎn)，我認(rèn)為，正是適量的摩擦促生天才。

完全著眼于當(dāng)下的人成不了天才。我覺(jué)得這么說(shuō)挺公平，因?yàn)槟菢拥娜瞬粫?huì)惹麻煩。他們幾乎始終是局外人。但我想說(shuō)他們并不完全是局外人。他們是我所稱(chēng)的局內(nèi)的局外人。弗洛伊德就是個(gè)很好的例子。他并沒(méi)有被完全接受，而人們對(duì)他的接受程度正足以讓人們?cè)敢鈨A聽(tīng)他的觀(guān)點(diǎn)，否則我們現(xiàn)在也不知道西格蒙德·弗洛伊德這個(gè)人了。

關(guān)于史蒂夫·喬布斯是否是個(gè)天才

在為這本書(shū)做研究的過(guò)程中，我做過(guò)類(lèi)似雞尾酒會(huì)問(wèn)題的測(cè)試——我走進(jìn)一個(gè)房間問(wèn)：“各位，史蒂夫·喬布斯是個(gè)天才嗎？”根據(jù)我的經(jīng)驗(yàn)，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(huì)說(shuō)：“哦，是，他絕對(duì)是個(gè)天才。”他們通常還會(huì)立刻拿出自己的蘋(píng)果6s手機(jī)或其他什么蘋(píng)果產(chǎn)品說(shuō)：“看看這個(gè)，棒極了。它改變了世界?！逼渌藙t會(huì)說(shuō)：“不，他不是天才。他沒(méi)有真正發(fā)明任何東西。他竊取了別人的點(diǎn)子。他跟亞里士多德、愛(ài)因斯坦和弗洛伊德他們根本無(wú)法相提并論?！?/p>

關(guān)于天才與時(shí)尚的相似性

我認(rèn)為，要是按照我所說(shuō)的天才的“時(shí)尚理論”（即天才是一種共識(shí)，就像時(shí)尚是一種共識(shí)——沒(méi)有什么好壞之分，就是時(shí)尚）來(lái)評(píng)判，你就得承認(rèn)史蒂夫·喬布斯是個(gè)天才，因?yàn)槲覀兒芏嗳?，也許是大多數(shù)，都認(rèn)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(shí)代和文化如何塑造天才

想一想：為什么現(xiàn)在沒(méi)有像貝多芬或者莫扎特這樣的古典音樂(lè)作曲家了？這個(gè)時(shí)代有很好的作曲家，但我們認(rèn)為都無(wú)法與貝多芬或莫扎特比肩。這并不是人才庫(kù)枯竭了，也不是基因突變減少了人才儲(chǔ)備，而是因?yàn)橛斜ж?fù)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(lè)。

在莫扎特的時(shí)代，18世紀(jì)的維也納，他的觀(guān)眾極善接受新鮮事物，眼光頗高，并且?guī)缀蹩梢哉f(shuō)同樣具有天分。我們往往認(rèn)為是天才造就了這種輝煌。而我們，作為觀(guān)眾，只是被動(dòng)接受。我認(rèn)為事情并非如此。莫扎特對(duì)觀(guān)眾及其要求的感知很敏銳。觀(guān)眾則欣賞他的音樂(lè)，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(shí)觀(guān)眾那樣對(duì)待古典音樂(lè)，我想我們會(huì)有更多的莫扎特。

（譯者單位：北京化工大學(xué)）