A) INTRODUCTION
 
I have formed an hypothesis concerning the cause of the obvious differences in the “actualized intelligence” of the various members of the human race. This is the “volitional genius speculation”. It is a stronger version of the volitional intelligence hypothesis. I have to say right off the bat that this set of ideas of mine is mostly only idle speculation - but we must begin somewhere. And I do have some, albeit very limited, empirical evidence for the ideas that I present below.
 
My hypothesis is, to put it bluntly, that geniuses are made, not born. Self-made, that is. I speculate that there is no reason to rule out the possibility that all men, have at birth, the potential to become a genius – if only they try hard enough to develop their minds. After all – what evidence is there to assume that men of modest intelligence “could not help it”? What evidence exists that men of modest intelligence have tried as hard as reasonably possible to increase their cognitive abilities and failed due to limitations caused by genetics? I have observed countless fellow men over the years. And I have seen nada evidence that they try hard at all to develop their minds!
 
Most psychologists today just assume that intelligence is determined by a combination of nature and nurture. While most Objectivists, as I understand it, believe that there is a large component of volition involved in intelligence - but also believe that there is an upper limit to a person´s intelligence which is set by heredity, and which explains the modest intelligence of most men. So, most Objectivists, as I understand it, believe that the majority of “common men” cannot, and never could have, become such intellectual giants as Ayn Rand, Aristotle, Isaac Newton etc. by means of their own efforts. "It is not their fault that they are men of modest ability" most Objectivists would say.
 
B) SOME MODEST EVIDENCE
 
Well - just exactly why should we expect the ideas on intelligence of most Objectivists to be true?
 
How much do men´s hereditary physical potentials vary from individual to individual? Not so terribly much. How much faster than a “common man” can an Olympic sprinter run? Maybe he can run 100 yards in a little under 10 seconds. While a typical “common man” could probably, if he takes care of his health (e.g. if he doesn´t smoke, if he does not let himself become obese, if he exercises to a reasonable degree, etc.) run 100 yards in about 15 or twenty seconds or so at the age of 20 or 30. And an Olympic athlete might run the mile in a little under 4 minutes - while a typical “common man” might take 7 or 8 minutes to do it at the age of 20 or 30. So an Olympic athlete is apparently born with just, roughly, an ability to run around 50% or 100% faster than a typical “common man”. Well - why should we expect the differences in men's potential intelligence to be much greater in magnitude than the differences in their potential physical abilities such as that of running fast?
 
What if mankind´s “common men” are born with a mere 50% of the "potential intelligence”, (i.e. the intellectual potential), that Aristotle or Ayn Rand was born with? Would not that entail that each, and every one of them would at least possess the potential to become, say, a thinker on the order of a modest genius - but still a genius, such as a Thomas Jefferson or a Thomas Edison? And if so, why don´t the majority of men become great achievers, like said Thomas Jefferson or Thomas Edison?
 
I find the idea that the potential intelligence of all men equipped with physically normal brains does not vary by more than, say, 50% quite plausible. And in that case almost each, and every man would have at birth the potential to become an intellectual giant! And in that case, the only explanation that I can see for the fact that an overwhelming majority of men fail to become intellectual giants and great achievers is their own volition – close to exclusively!
 
I do know for sure that an overwhelming majority of men are born with the potential to become much smarter than they do become - and that all these men, waste said intellectual potential volitionally. For - it is perceptually obvious that the vast majority of men choose persistently to refrain from any major intellectual effort. Most men choose to only make use of a modest fraction of their mind´s innate potential. Given most men´s lack of effort it is not strange at all that most men possess only a modest (actualized) intelligence!
 
C) MY DISAGREEMENT WITH AYN RAND
 
Ayn Rand once remarked (in her introduction to the 1943 edition of the Fountainhead) that she thought the only real difference between her, and the rest of the members of the human race, was that she was more honest than they were.
 
I agree with that for the most part – but I would put it slightly differently. I would say that what set Ayn Rand apart from most other men was not a unique genetic endowment but “merely” the fact that Ayn Rand, from a very early age, chose to engage in hard thinking – as her “default” policy. I believe that it is very possibly volition which makes a genius like Ayn Rand and Aristotle. I do not think that the geniuses of mankind were just lucky to be blessed at birth with radically better brains than the rest of us. I believe that the geniuses of mankind earn their superior intelligence!
 
D) THE ORIGIN OF MY SPECULATION
 
This original idea of mine occurred to me for the first time in the year 2009, when I was looking back on my own childhood. I recalled an incident which had occurred in the early summer of the year 1967. I remembered clearly that I was standing on either the front lawn, or the driveway adjacent to it, of my best friend´s house on a sunny afternoon. I was 13 years old at the time. I was alone and I was reflecting on the idea that God had created the universe ex nihilo, an idea which I had heard in my confirmation class in the local Lutheran church.
 
I contemplated that idea. I asked myself “How could something come to be out of nothing? After all, nothing is just nothing. It does not have any attributes. And if it has no attributes - how then can it have any effects? If it is nothing, then what aspect of it can cause any particular effect instead of some other particular effect? For example, what part of nothing gave rise to the light - and what other part of nothing gave rise to the waters, according to that creation myth in Genesis?” I kept on thinking thoughts along those lines – and after a couple of minutes I came to the conclusion that the universe could not possibly have come to be out of nothingness. The universe must always have existed. I formulated my conclusion in these words “What is just is. Period!” I realized, although I do not remember whether I put it in these exact words at the time “You cannot explain the universe, i.e. what is, by reference to anything else. For there is nothing else. So, the existence of that which exists is just an irreducible brute fact.”
 
So - I had identified the axiom of existence entirely on my own, at the age of 13! I had achieved the very same feat which had taken the genius of Parmenides to achieve more than 2000 years ago.
 
Why did I do what I did?
 
I did it because, on that particular occasion, I chose to contemplate the question of whether existence could come about out of nothing. I chose to do some hard thinking about an abstract and fundamental issue in the subject of metaphysics.
 
But why did I not do more? Why did I not continue to think about fundamental metaphysical questions – the ones which concern the nature of existence qua existence?
 
Because I just chose not to! But - if I had chosen to, maybe I could have gone on to become an original philosopher. I mean that seriously. If I had followed up on my independent discovery of the axiom of existence - then I might eventually also have discovered the axiom of identity. And if I continued to work hard enough, cognitively, I might have discovered the axiom of causality, the axiom of consciousness - and who knows what else? After all, if I had it in me to discover the axiom of existence on my own, at the tender age of just 13, I might also have had it in me to discover the next logical stepping stones in the development of the science of philosophy.
 
This is just idle speculation - but it does seem to be within the realm of the possible to me.
 
E) THE CAUSATION OF THE BASIC CHOICE
 
Why did I not carry out more thinking about “deep” metaphysical issues, after that single cognitive incident?
 
Well, you cannot say that any factor makes a person choose not to think. But you can say that a certain factor motivates him not to. The factor which motivated me not to think was my preference for the feeling of "ease" (to borrow a term from the pragmatist philosopher William James) which comes with cognitive coasting. I had automatized a preference for that state during the earlier years of my childhood. Only if I had seen at the time that a major value (to me) was attached to the deep metaphysical issue at hand would I have felt motivated to continue to get off my butt and carry out still some more hard thinking right then on “deep” metaphysics.
 
So, I saw no great significance in the discovery I had made. I did realize that I had found a great argument against the religionists´ idea that their hypothesized God had created the universe ex nihilo - so my principled commitment to atheism was established on that sunny afternoon. But that was the only implication of my insight which I saw at the time.
 
I did not realize that there was any reason to care all that much about the subject matter which is metaphysics. Since I did not see any strong reason to continue thinking about abstract issues - and since I had already habituated an inclination to take it easy in the realm of cognition - I did not follow up on my discovery - and so I therefore passed up whatever opportunity I had to achieve more.
 
So, I strongly suspect that I wasted an awful lot of opportunity for personal achievement - and that I did so volitionally.
 
Ayn Rand would have acted differently in the same situation. She had automatized a preference for the "state of dis-ease" in early childhood. She experienced awareness of reality per se as being such a truly major value to her that she would be inclined to continue to get off her butt and carry out hard thinking even when the subject matter had no obvious concrete value-significance. Ayn Rand had developed a character trait which consisted of the policy "I will think on principle - because awareness of reality is a value in principle".
 
F) THE MORAL IMPLICATIONS OF MY SPECULATION
 
Most people have automatized the evaluation that the effort involved in any specific, individual act of hard thinking is never worth it - unless a major concrete value is in an obvious way involved. Ayn Rand had automatized the opposite evaluation - that the effort involved in hard thinking is always worth it even if only some value might conceivably be involved.
 
Me - I was “in between” at the age of thirteen.
 
Ayn Rand´s default position was: "Just get off your butt and do it - regardless! [`it´ being `think!´] The mere possibility of a reward is worth it!" The majority of the members of mankind have the opposite position as their default mode: "Just take it easy! No hard thinking is ever likely to be worth the effort!"
 
Me - I was inconsistent. I would get off my butt and put forth some major cognitive effort - but usually only when I saw the potential payoff clearly and saw that said payoff was sufficiently major in my hierarchy of values.
 
I am not writing about this childhood incident for the sake of boasting. Because, after all, it does not reflect well on me that I wasted an awful lot of my potential - by dint of my making the morally bad choice not to follow up on my hard thinking. The reason I am relating this incident from my childhood is that it constitutes a clue to a possible fact of reality - namely that maybe all of us have an awful lot of intellectual potential in us when we are children. And that most of us simply choose to waste that potential – volitionally!
 
Well - if so, why do we make said bad choice? (Why do most of us make said bad choice, that is to say? Ayn Rand was one of the rare exceptions who did not.)
 
Well - I made the bad choice I made, because I just did not see any compelling reason to invest time and effort in thinking about a subject that did not have any obvious practical significance to my own life at the time. I was the kind of kid who, as a rule, would only choose to think when I saw a pressing need to do so. A weak signal that I ought to think was not enough to induce me to get off my butt and think.
 
I wonder if it is not the case that every child gets into situations on occasion, while growing up, in which it has an inkling on the very edge of its consciousness that there is reason to think hard about some “abstract” issue? But that since it is not obvious (being merely on the edge of the kid´s consciousness) that the abstract issue really is important enough to be worth contemplating, most children for said reason choose not to bother to think about them?
 
But perhaps just a few children, children such as Ayn Rand, are so alert and/or so fastidious, that they do “pick up” on that signal at the very edge of their consciousness - the weak signal which is that hard thinking about abstract subjects is worth the time and effort. And - consequently they proceed to do so. And that choice leads to a heightened awareness of reality - the pleasure of which these rare children come to associate with the act of thinking.
 
And so, the "Ayn Rand-type of child" automatizes a preference for the "state of dis-ease" - because, unlike most children, it comes to value the effort-demanding awareness of reality more highly than the "pleasure" of relaxing while in the "state of ease".
 
In other words - some individuals become habituated in early childhood to being more inclined than others to choose to think. And these rare individuals proceed to become the geniuses of mankind.
 
I believe that this idea of mine is compatible with Ayn Rand´s theory of free will. For it is an issue of habit. Individuals do in fact often automatise certain choices. It happens all the time, figuratively speaking.
 
For example:
 
A thief is an individual who is inclined to choose to steal. For - stealing is a habit he has developed over time.
 
Likewise, a liar is inclined to choose to lie. Lying is a habit he has developed over time.
 
And - likewise the majority of the members of mankind are in the habit of choosing not to do any hard thinking. For that is a habit which they have developed and automatised over time – usually in early childhood.
 
That is my hypothesis.
 
Now, men who are inclined to choose to steal, to lie or not to think hard - they are not determined to make said morally bad choices. So, my hypothesis does not constitute a denial of the axiom of volition. My hypothesis merely affirms the existence of certain species of habits.
 
So - to sum up:
 
Some men develop a preference in early childhood for the feeling of ease which comes with non-effort. Whereas others, a small minority of them, develop a preference in early childhood for the heightened awareness of reality which comes from major cognitive activity and effort.
 
Most men come to prefer to take it easy in the realm of cognition - almost all the time - whereas a few men develop a preference for the awareness of reality which results from the effort of thinking hard most of their waking time.
 
The members of the former category of men are the "cognitive slackers". The latter are the “pro-active thinkers”. The former men are those who have developed passive minds. (Ayn Rand referred to these men as being the ones equipped with “anti-effort mentalities”. She also referred to them as “the ballast” of mankind.) The latter men are the ones who have developed active minds. These men tend to become members of the “long thin line of men” (in the words of Ayn Rand) who make the real difference in human history.
 
Hard thinking about abstract subject matters becomes second nature to the small minority of children who choose to engage in hard thinking. They learn, and they automatise, effective thinking skills. They begin to acquire a foundation of knowledge, at an early age, upon which they can build still more knowledge. They develop an interest in one or more abstract subject matters (such as philosophy or fiction writing or physics or whatever) - which motivates them to continue to learn more about those subject matters. In short, they develop the fitness of their minds through habitual (and volitional) repeated mental exercise - in a way which resembles the way athletes develop their physical fitness through repeated physical exercise.
 
My "volitional intelligence" idea states that the small minority of men who choose to develop active minds raise the level of their own intelligence over time by dint of cognitive exercise.
 
I hold that this idea of mine, related above, provides a plausible possible explanation for the difference between geniuses like Ayn Rand on the one hand, and most of the rest of us on the other. I believe that intelligence - in almost all cases - comes down to volition - and nothing, or very little, else.
 
G) “THE RIGHT ATTITUDE” (TO MY SPECULATION)
 
In case you are wondering - I do not waste time mourning the fact that I strongly suspect that I wasted an awful lot of my potential when I was young. The morally bad choices which I have made in my life were not metaphysically given before I made them - but now that I have made them, and they are in the past - and so they are metaphysically given seen from my point of view today. For there is nothing I can do now to change them – I cannot change the past. So, I have no valid reason to fret about those past bad choices of mine and to let the rest of my life become a "hell built on regret". I just bear in mind the fact that I am doing a pretty good job of living my life right now - and that is what counts.
 
There is the phenomenon of envious mediocrities on the political left - i.e. the "moderns" - i.e. the egalitarians - who deny that monetary wealth is earned by dint of virtue - i.e. by dint of volition. They deny it because they wish to defend their fragile pseudo-self-esteem from the threat posed by the idea that their own failures to get wealthy themselves – those failures were volitional. They do not wish to admit to themselves and others that their own lack of wealth is their own fault!
 
Well, we should not be like them and deny my speculation that genius-level intelligence is also almost exclusively volitional, if further investigation turns out to show that this is indeed the case. So what? If my hypothesis reveals that almost all of us have, when we were young, wasted an awful lot of our own potential by dint of our own volition – i.e. by dint of our own morally bad choices? We should recognize the facts of reality, whatever those facts are - regardless of any emotional and psychological considerations.
 
Honesty always pays. We should not fake reality for the sake of protecting our alleged self-esteem. If our alleged self-esteem requires the faking of reality, then it is mere pseudo-self-esteem - and then it is not worth having.
 
Me - I just love my volitional genius speculation! Since it constitutes the strongest possible answer to those whining, snivelling, envious mediocrities whom I so utterly loathe and despise! Yes - all you envious mediocrities out there! There is justice in this world we live in. Life is not unfair when you get down to it. Provided only that you live in a relatively free society.
 
And more importantly - I love my volitional genius speculation since so much would be possible if genius-level intelligence were in fact volitional! The benevolent implications of the volitional genius speculation make me feel good - just as the benevolent universe premise made Kira feel at peace with the universe when she was bleeding to death in the snow at the end of Ayn Rand´s novel We the Living. I know that I will die a happy man. Notwithstanding the fact that I evaluate my life as having been largely wasted up until the point that I reached the age of 54!