“Childhood Physical and Mental Health Records of Historical Geniuses”, 1936 (; similar):
The enigma of genius presents no more perplexing problems than those implied in the definition of its psychophysiological constitution. The health and more especially the mental health of men of genius has proved to be not only the most fascinating but also perhaps the most provocative question involved. Definitions of genius are generally of two kinds: in terms of intrinsic quality and in terms of extrinsic achievement. The question as to the qualifications for the highest human classification is still in the fascinatingly vague region of thought where subjective exploration attracts one to pleasant excursions without limiting effort in terms of a prescribed scientific goal. We perceive that the criterion of intrinsic quality is in an important sense more rigid than that of world recognition and we would prefer a definition which explicitly emphasizes both. Genius in the intrinsic sense demands not only “the highest conceivable form of original ability, something altogether extraordinary and beyond even supreme educational powers”, but also “inexplicable and unique endowment.” Genius in terms of achievement requires “the ability to create special values bearing a personal stamp; such values include novel ideas and forms of expression and the production of factors which initiate new historical efforts.” The studies of many investigators seem to show that a rigid definition of the intrinsic kind makes objective agreement regarding any considerable group of qualifying persons practically impossible. Results, in terms of the names of geniuses, selected with primary emphasis on qualitative divergences in endowment indicate that common agreement is not attainable for any very large number of persons in recent or in more remote centuries. It would perhaps prove more interesting and would seem to some also more profitable if there were in the qualitative sense of unique superiority a group of “certified geniuses” to whom study could be devoted. Because there is no recognized group of this kind, one must attempt either subjectively to select in terms of uniqueness of endowment as Lombroso, Lange-Eichbaum, and Nisbet have done, or else objectively to measure in terms of eminent achievement following the method of Galton, Ellis, and Cattell. For the present study we have followed the second course. This procedure implies what is perhaps a less rigorous definition of genius but it offers a more objective method, depending as it does upon the world’s cumulatively discriminating estimate with respect to eminence.
…It is not essential that our scale agree with Olson’s at every point. The substantial finding in the comparison is, we believe the evidence which it gives that the mental health of 50 geniuses was on the average no less satisfactory than is shown by unselected children today. If there is a subtle relationship between genius and insanity it is not shown in the childhood records of this group of 50.