Throughout history, discriminatory or prejudiced systems have often been supported by the message that certain people do not belong in or are not fit for certain positions in society. Often, it is only after individuals challenge and disprove this paradigm that we recognize it as an invalid assumption with no basis in fact or logic. Vivian Malone demonstrated that an African American can excel at the University of Alabama; Jeremy Lin exposed the petty stereotyping behind the idea that a Chinese-American Harvard graduate could not be an athletic attacker as an NBA point guard. We may think we have moved past the beliefs that people of certain demographics are inherently less capable of filling some roles in our society, but the data, albeit subject to the infinite variables of society and culture, does not suggest we have truly progressed. Women have increased their representation to about fifty percent in post-graduate studies of subjects such as biochemistry and neuroscience, but fields such as philosophy, computer science, and math still have considerable disparity (only 25-40% of PhDs awarded in these fields in 2014 belonged to women, per the National Center for Education Statistics). African-Americans also have disproportionately low representation in certain fields; they hold less than 5% of PhDs in the U.S. in philosophy and physics despite making up about 12% of the population. Explicit discrimination (e.g. denying admission to a program primarily on the basis of gender or race) likely accounts for an insignificant part of this inequality due to legal controls. Hard to quantify but certainly very significant is the impact of deeply rooted systemic injustice and economic inequality. But economic equality would not instantly result in equality across all facets of life. There is a much subtler way that we set limits on what an individual can accomplish – and it occurs unintentionally, stemming from seemingly innocuous ways of thinking and speaking of intellectual achievements.

As a society, we have considered the accomplishments of certain “geniuses” – Mozart, Einstein, etc. – so distinguished that implied in this admiration is the idea that other, “normal” people cannot make significant contributions of their own in these areas. Likewise, we consider certain fields of study so esoteric that, consciously or not, we expect that success in these fields requires exceptional gifts beyond intelligence, hard work, and the right environment. Without malice or ill intention, accepting and propagating these ideas has restricted many from realizing their talents and potential. Our fascination with genius and the awe with which we approach certain topics subtly become an unknowingly placed restriction on the growth of students and society.

To put it simply, certain topics or fields of study scare potential students, whether consciously or subconsciously. The fearsome reputation of a subject like quantum physics brings to a halt any attempt to understand that subject. Were they to make some concerted effort to learn more, students may find that the given topic has many simple concepts they can grasp and use as a starting point. Furthermore, even a basic level of understanding might lead to a practical application of the knowledge or to greater insight on how the world around them works. Perhaps most importantly, this foothold of knowledge would dispel the notion that they do not have the innate ability to pursue the subject more deeply, should that be their wish.

To discredit the idea that certain concepts require special intellectual gifts to comprehend, let’s explore an esoteric concept in an esoteric field: the quantum physical property known as “spin.” In high school and college chemistry classes, the topic is explained – or not explained – the same way: think of electrons spinning in a certain direction; the directions of the spin affect stability and magnetic properties. At the same time, students are told that the electrons aren’t really spinning – the term “spin” is a metaphor – but there is no need to know what they’re really doing, so long as we know the effects. By contrast, P.M. Sutter of the Ask a Spaceman podcast responds to the question “What is quantum spin?” with a direct answer that can be summed up in 4 sentences:

1. When a particle passes through a magnetic field, we observe it being deflected in one of two directions – let’s say the field is aligned so that they either go up or down – or staying straight.

2. A particle’s spin is a description of what direction and to what magnitude the particle is deflected by a magnetic field.

3-4. The particle is not spinning – but the term originates from the following: A charged macroscopic object (e.g., a electrically charged metal sphere) is deflected by a magnetic field when it is spinning, and the direction and strength of that deflection is determined by the direction and speed the sphere spins at.

Why is it important that quantum spin is simpler than many think? Chemistry teachers unconsciously erect barriers when they decline to dive into the true nature of quantum spin and assure students that there is no need to gain that understanding. The student’s brief encounters with the concept of spin then serve as a series of reminders that quantum physics is a field beyond his or her capability and not worth his or her time. Scientific American presented research suggesting that society’s treatment of certain fields of study reinforces inequalities among us, possibly because certain demographics – specifically women and minorities – have a subconscious aversion, unfortunately ingrained in them by society, to pursuing fields associated with genius-level brilliance.

In Scientific American, Andrei Cimpian (professor of psychology at NYU) and Sarah-Jane Leslie (professor of philosophy at Princeton) describe their work trying to describe a more concrete mechanism that connects the perceptions of genius and brilliance to the disparities in higher education outlined earlier. They assume that there exists, at least to some extent “shared societal notions that incorrectly associate superior intellect with some groups – for example, white males – more than others.” This does not need to be an accusation that most members of society are explicitly or even implicitly racist; there could be many ways this notion is reinforced without anyone intending to do so. White males have historically dominated the upper tiers of the American political, business, and academic worlds. If you asked someone what an American president or a Nobel Prize winner look like and they described to you a Caucasian male, they would be correctly giving you a likely answer based on historical data. This is one example; there are many ways through which the picture of what a “genius” looks like is slowly imprinted in our population from a very young age.

Alongside the idea that there is a certain profile that geniuses fit is the tendency of certain academic disciplines to prize not just intelligence, but “brilliance”. Presumably, those that follow this tendency believe there is some distinct differentiation between these levels of intelligence. The connection that Cimpian and Leslie make and support with research is that this emphasis on brilliance correlates to, and perhaps partially causes, a lack of diversity in those fields. They measured the value that members of certain academic disciplines place on brilliance by asking academic professionals “whether they thought that some form of exceptional intellectual talent was necessary for success in their field.” As this metric increased (more respondents answering “yes” to the above question), gender and racial diversity in that field tended to decrease. This went beyond a distinction between STEM disciplines and the humanities; philosophy and psychology have a gender representation gap, and physics and molecular biology have a similar imbalance. One interesting statistic they cite is the difference between the percentage of female Ph.D holders in the fields of biochemistry (almost fifty percent) and organic chemistry (about thirty percent). Even at the undergraduate and high school levels, organic chemistry has an aura of impenetrability and difficulty that is for some reason not always ascribed to biochemistry. A reasonable conclusion is that the difference in gender representation is not due to content or applications, which have much overlap, but in the unconsciously implanted idea that there are certain people who are capable of pursuing a career in biochemistry but are for some reason not cut out for organic chemistry.

Some caveats to this criticism of the way society views brilliance: First, this is not to discount the contributions of Mozart and Einstein and others we label as geniuses; it is obvious they have gifts beyond almost any others in their fields. However, this does not mean that much more average musicians or students cannot contribute to classical music or the study of the universe. Also, whether geniuses are truly in their own category as opposed to being at the far end of a continuous spectrum is an open and unresolved question. Secondly, this is not meant to imply that everyone is equally predisposed to success in any field. Of course there are genetic and environmental factors that give some individuals greater ability to grasp musical concepts, physics equations, or any other subject.

Lastly, of course there are many factors driving why people in certain demographics tend to pursue certain careers or fields of study. It is a complex question that goes beyond the fact that society labels certain disciplines as the purview of the exceptionally brilliant. However, we should be cognizant that the way we discuss and look at certain fields of study can have far-reaching effects on an individual’s career and the development of that field as a whole. Because of these real and significant effects – which occur whether there is malicious intent or not – society must examine its words and actions regarding these fields. Additionally, we may be promoting a paradigm that is inherently flawed: the belief that it takes a distinct type of person – not just a smart, hard-working student with a passion for the subject – to make significant progress in certain fields like physics or philosophy. For many people, there are already myriad challenges to pursuing an education and career that will most effectively use and develop their talents. As a society, we would be amiss if we were to create an additional barrier.