Prodigies' Mean Scores on the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Test by Domain
| Full Scale IQ Standard Score | Working Memory Standard Score | |
|---|---|---|
| Art | 108.4 | 132 |
| Music | 129.14 | 148.38 |
| Math | 139.8 | 134.8 |
| Mean Total Score | 126.18 | 140.06 |
This passage is adapted from David Z. Hambrick, “What Makes a Prodigy?” ©2015 by Scientific American.
What explains prodigies? How can a person accomplish so
much so fast? Psychologists have long debated this question.
According to one account, it is possible that most anyone could
be a prodigy, with the right environment. As the late
psychologist Michael Howe argued, “With sufficient energy
and dedication on the parents’ part, it is possible that it may not
be all that difficult to produce a child prodigy.” Extraordinary
opportunity is indeed a theme that runs through the biographies
of many prodigies.
However, recent research indicates that basic cognitive
abilities known to be influenced by genetic factors also play a
role in prodigious achievement. In the most extensive study of
prodigies to date, the psychologist Joanne Ruthsatz and her
colleagues administered the Stanford Binet intelligence test to
18 prodigies—five in art, eight in music, and five in math.
There was a wide range of IQs in the sample, from 100—the
average for the general population—to 147—well above the
usual cutoff for “intellectually gifted.” However, with an
average score of 140 (above the 99th percentile), nearly all of
the prodigies did extraordinarily well on the tests of working
memory. Analogous to the central processing unit of a
computer, working memory is a cognitive system responsible
for carrying out the mental operations involved in complex
tasks such as problem solving and language comprehension. It
is what you use when you compute a tip for a dinner check in
your head, or when you hold in mind the steps of a complex
skill you are trying to learn.
Working memory is measured with tests that involve both
remembering information for a short period of time and
manipulating that information in some way. For example, in
backward digit span, the test-taker is read a sequence of
random digits, such as 8 3 2 9 5 1 3 7 5 0. The goal is then to
recall the digits back in the reverse order—0 5 7 3 1 5 9 2 3 8
for the preceding sequence. As measured by tests like these,
people differ substantially in the capacity of their working
memory system—some people have a “bigger” working
memory than other people. Moreover, this variation is
substantially influenced by genetic factors, with estimates of
heritability typically around 50%.
With an average score of 148, the music prodigies in the
Ruthsatz study were especially high in working memory (the
average for the math prodigies was 135 and for art prodigies
was 132). In fact, all eight of the music prodigies were at or
above the 99th percentile, and four were at or above the 99.9th
percentile. The odds of eight randomly selected people scoring
this high on a test are essentially zero. Ruthsatz and colleagues
concluded that a superior working memory is one characteristic
that prodigies in art, music, and math have in common.
Prodigies also exhibit an unusual commitment to their
domain, which the developmental psychologist Ellen Winner
calls a “rage to master.” Winner describes children who
possess this quality in the following terms: “Often one cannot
tear these children away from activities in their area of
giftedness, whether they involve an instrument, a computer, a
sketch pad, or a math book. These children have a powerful
interest in the domain in which they have high ability, and they
can focus so intently on work in this domain that they lose
sense of the outside world.” Winner argues that this single-
mindedness is a part of innate talent rather than a cause of it—a
convergence of genetically-influenced aptitude, interest, and
drive that predisposes a person to obsessively engage in some
activity.
Consistent with Winner’s thesis, results of a recent study of
more than 10,000 twins by Miriam Mosing, Fredrik Ullén, and
their colleagues at Sweden’s Karolinska Institute revealed that
a common set of genes influence both music aptitude and the
propensity to practice—an example of a phenomenon known as
genetic pleiotropy, which occurs when one gene (or set of
genes) influences multiple traits.
Taken together, these findings add to a growing body of
evidence indicating that exceptional performance in music, the
arts, sports, science, and other complex domains is, at its core,
determined multiply—the product of both environmental
factors and of genetically-influenced traits. More generally,
psychologists who study expertise are moving beyond the
question of whether experts are “born” or “made.” As the
psychologist Jonathan Wai put it, it is increasingly clear that
“Experts are born, then made.”
What explains prodigies? How can a person accomplish so
much so fast? Psychologists have long debated this question.
According to one account, it is possible that most anyone could
be a prodigy, with the right environment. As the late
psychologist Michael Howe argued, “With sufficient energy
and dedication on the parents’ part, it is possible that it may not
be all that difficult to produce a child prodigy.” Extraordinary
opportunity is indeed a theme that runs through the biographies
of many prodigies.
However, recent research indicates that basic cognitive
abilities known to be influenced by genetic factors also play a
role in prodigious achievement. In the most extensive study of
prodigies to date, the psychologist Joanne Ruthsatz and her
colleagues administered the Stanford Binet intelligence test to
18 prodigies—five in art, eight in music, and five in math.
There was a wide range of IQs in the sample, from 100—the
average for the general population—to 147—well above the
usual cutoff for “intellectually gifted.” However, with an
average score of 140 (above the 99th percentile), nearly all of
the prodigies did extraordinarily well on the tests of working
memory. Analogous to the central processing unit of a
computer, working memory is a cognitive system responsible
for carrying out the mental operations involved in complex
tasks such as problem solving and language comprehension. It
is what you use when you compute a tip for a dinner check in
your head, or when you hold in mind the steps of a complex
skill you are trying to learn.
Working memory is measured with tests that involve both
remembering information for a short period of time and
manipulating that information in some way. For example, in
backward digit span, the test-taker is read a sequence of
random digits, such as 8 3 2 9 5 1 3 7 5 0. The goal is then to
recall the digits back in the reverse order—0 5 7 3 1 5 9 2 3 8
for the preceding sequence. As measured by tests like these,
people differ substantially in the capacity of their working
memory system—some people have a “bigger” working
memory than other people. Moreover, this variation is
substantially influenced by genetic factors, with estimates of
heritability typically around 50%.
With an average score of 148, the music prodigies in the
Ruthsatz study were especially high in working memory (the
average for the math prodigies was 135 and for art prodigies
was 132). In fact, all eight of the music prodigies were at or
above the 99th percentile, and four were at or above the 99.9th
percentile. The odds of eight randomly selected people scoring
this high on a test are essentially zero. Ruthsatz and colleagues
concluded that a superior working memory is one characteristic
that prodigies in art, music, and math have in common.
Prodigies also exhibit an unusual commitment to their
domain, which the developmental psychologist Ellen Winner
calls a “rage to master.” Winner describes children who
possess this quality in the following terms: “Often one cannot
tear these children away from activities in their area of
giftedness, whether they involve an instrument, a computer, a
sketch pad, or a math book. These children have a powerful
interest in the domain in which they have high ability, and they
can focus so intently on work in this domain that they lose
sense of the outside world.” Winner argues that this single-
mindedness is a part of innate talent rather than a cause of it—a
convergence of genetically-influenced aptitude, interest, and
drive that predisposes a person to obsessively engage in some
activity.
Consistent with Winner’s thesis, results of a recent study of
more than 10,000 twins by Miriam Mosing, Fredrik Ullén, and
their colleagues at Sweden’s Karolinska Institute revealed that
a common set of genes influence both music aptitude and the
propensity to practice—an example of a phenomenon known as
genetic pleiotropy, which occurs when one gene (or set of
genes) influences multiple traits.
Taken together, these findings add to a growing body of
evidence indicating that exceptional performance in music, the
arts, sports, science, and other complex domains is, at its core,
determined multiply—the product of both environmental
factors and of genetically-influenced traits. More generally,
psychologists who study expertise are moving beyond the
question of whether experts are “born” or “made.” As the
psychologist Jonathan Wai put it, it is increasingly clear that
“Experts are born, then made.”