528 ANNUAL REPORT SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION, 1958 
She arrived at her smaller list by requiring: (1) that the attained 
eminence should clearly depend upon notable personal achievement ; 
and (2) that the biographical material available should be sufficient 
to permit a reliable estimate of early mental ability. Men born before 
1450 were eliminated. The chief task of Cox’s investigation was 
to estimate the intelligence level displayed by these rigorously selected 
geniuses during childhood and youth. For this purpose the ap- 
propriate information was extracted from biographical sources 
and submitted to the judgment of three raters thoroughly experienced 
in the use of intelligence tests and the evaluation of IQ from behavior. 
Their three independent ratings, expressed as IQ’s, were combined. 
Separate estimates were made for two periods of life: from birth 
to age 17, and from age 17 to age 26. As might be expected, the 
reliabilities of the estimates increased in proportion to the amount 
of biographical information, and, in general, the 1Q’s based on the 
more adequate material were higher. Consequently, one in search of 
illumination on the early environment of genius would naturally 
turn most hopefully to the geniuses in Cox’s list who had been as- 
signed the highest childhood IQ’s. This I did. From her list I chose 
as my preliminary sample the 27 men whose IQ’s in childhood had 
been estimated at 160 or higher. The final sample of 20, as given in 
table 1, was reached by dropping out those individuals for whom the 
biographical material in the University of North Carolina Library 
appeared to be inadequate.’ As will be observed, the order of listing 
in the table is from the highest childhood IQ downward. The repu- 
tation of each man is indicated in the column headed “Fame” by his 
rank number in Cox’s sample, as based on Cattell. With respect to 
fame the sample appears to be a fair cross section of Cox’s larger 
group; with respect to IQ, as explained, it is highly selected. One 
sees at a glance that here are individuals who did extraordinary work 
in science, law, literature, or politics, and who fully deserve to be 
called geniuses. Their biographies should be relevant to the 
proposed question. 
It should be understood from the outset that Cox did not neglect 
the problem of environment. Her biographical sketches furnish some 
very pertinent information, and she states as an important conclusion 
that, on the whole, youths who achieve eminence have superior ad- 
vantages in their early days. Though she notes exceptions, she says: 
“The average opportunity of our young geniuses for superior educa- 
tion and for elevating and inspiring social contacts was unusually 
high. ... The extraordinary training for leadership received by 
Pitt the younger, John Quincy Adams, Niebuhr, and the Humboldt 
brothers; the specialized instruction of Mozart, Weber, and Michael- 
3'The seven omitted were Schelling, Haller, Wolsey, Sarpi, Constant, Brougham, Bossuet. 
In order to retain Leibniz an interlibrary loan was arranged for Guhrauer’s biography. 
