How to make a genius according to László Polgar II
Enter László’s genius-raising methodology
Let’s cut the chase and continue from last week (over here ✋). If you didn't read it, you should do so now.
László documented his methodology of raising a genius in a book titled Raise a Genius! The book was written in 1989, but it was not quite popular until it was translated into English by a blogger in 2017. The book is not a detailed instructional manual on raising geniuses but rather a persuasive argument for why parents should aspire to raise a genius.
László emphasised that genius is nurtured, not innate and that raising a prodigy is straightforward — only if parents commit to it. As I mentioned in part I, László argued that every child born healthy is a potential genius, but whether they achieve this potential depends on circumstances, education, and their efforts.
Something worth mentioning in László’s methodology is that there is a time frame for implementation — just like most things in life. Let me quote a part of László’s book verbatim:
“Eighty percent of individuals are potential geniuses in their first year of life. By the third year, this decreases to 60%, and by the fifth year, it drops to 50%. At twelve years of age, 40% retain the potential for genius, declining to 30% by the sixteenth year, 20% by the eighteenth year, and just 5% by the twentieth year.”
So, you see that some things are already too late if left for later. If parents miss ingraining what’s necessary into their child at the appropriate stage, it may be lost for life. The older a child gets, the lesser the potential to be a genius. Somehow, László is echoing King Solomon’s words:
“Train up a child in the way that he should go, so when he is old, he will not depart from it.”
Now, let’s get to it.
Please pay attention to the words in bold.
The first key step to raising a genius, according to László, is early education. He advocated that learning should start as early as possible, describing ages three to six as a vital phase of a child’s development. He described this period as crucial due to the heightened plasticity of children’s brains — a description of the brain’s ability to change and reorganize itself in response to new experiences and stimuli.
László also stressed that learning shouldn’t just start early, but the kind of learning should be specialised learning. Parents should identify a specific field of interest early for a child by age three or four so that their focus can be channelled and built early towards that field. The area of specialisation a parent chooses for their child may be at their discretion, however, it should align with the child’s interests as they develop. Remember László chose Chess for his daughters.
László also added that in these early stages of a child’s development, learning should feel like play. Hence, he discouraged pushing children too hard, advocating for an enjoyable and playful learning environment. However, they will need extra motivation and a little push after their sixth birthday to introduce structure and discipline — but it must still be without separating work from play or hobbies. He believed that pursuing meaningful work should feel enjoyable at all stages of life. In a more simple terms, it is a unification of work and play, which you’ll read more about later.
I agree with László and I have evidence living with me. Children can begin serious learning much earlier than traditionally believed, starting as young as four or five. Adults, whether parents or teachers, must be mature and equipped to guide this early education, treating instruction as a serious yet playful process to prepare children for the future. The onus still falls back on a parent. Parenting starts with changing yourself before your children.
What is the role of play in a child’s life?
I have left László’s statement a bit unchanged here so that I don't dilute it with my thoughts. Look what he said about the role of play in a child's life below:
“When we think of a child, the image of play naturally comes to mind. My concept of childhood differs in this respect from the traditional one. Perhaps this often causes people to misunderstand me and my daughters.
“In fact, I think of play as a very important phenomenon, perhaps more important than many psychologists who put it on a pedestal. However, play is not the opposite of work. Play is crucial for a child, but within play, there is also an element of work. These two factors should not be separated in a child’s value system. For example, if a child hears at an impressionable age, ‘Play, son, don’t work!’ This can later result in the child feeling that work is alien.
“On the contrary, it is my belief that children do not enjoy only play. For them, it is equally enjoyable to acquire information and solve problems. A child’s “work” can also be enjoyable, just as learning can be — if it is sufficiently motivating and provides a constant supply of problems appropriate to the child’s developmental level. In my opinion, one can learn through play, and the acquisition of valuable information can be embedded in play.”
So, László is saying that we shouldn’t separate work from play, but unify them. So, you don’t tell your child, “Stop playing, get to work” or the popular saying that “All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.” László argued that saying that will make the children think work is the opposite of play — which he said is not the case. He says work must be blended with play.
‘Daddy’ László’s philosophy, although unconventional, produced results that continue to fascinate educators and parents worldwide. It is a testament to the power of dedicated parenting and the potential within every child to achieve greatness.
Another unconventional knowledge in László’s early learning playbook is that in early childhood, children should spend five to six hours a day studying a single subject. I guess this was why he home-schooled all his daughters as we discussed in the first part of this article. It might have been difficult for this to happen if they went to traditional schools.
Objection!
Despite the significant success and convincing proof of László’s methods, it faced objections from various quarters. A common objection is whether specialising at such a young age might lead to children becoming one-dimensional and not well-rounded. Critics often argue that focusing so intensely on one subject could result in missed learning opportunities and experiences.
I think the results of László’s methodology overrules this objection. First, all of László ’s three daughters were multilingual, speaking between five and eight languages, and were exceptional athletes. At age four, they could all speak Russian and Hungarian fluently. Another instance is Judit, his last daughter, who could have pursued a professional table tennis career if she had chosen to. They were also great conversationalists, wrote articles and books, and had a range of interests. Sophia even became a painter, showing they were far from being “chess robots.” Their experiences suggest they were anything but one-dimensional or deprived of significant life opportunities.
László also argues that specialisation does not lead to narrow-mindedness. Instead, mastering one thing teaches both parent and child how to learn effectively, setting the stage for success in other fields. He emphasised that dabbling into everything often prevents true proficiency in anything. A degree of specialisation, he suggests, creates a more rounded individual than aimless generalisation.
To put specialisation in content, if you educate your child early towards maths, the discipline and intelligence they have acquired will help them excel in biology. Although they may not be as good in biology as in maths, they’ll still be far better than most bright biology students who have not built discipline for biology. I find that fascinating because it’s like using ‘one stick to pluck many fruits.’
Let me summarise what we have said so far: START EARLY, SPECIALISE, and UNIFY WORK WITH PLAY. These are the three main methods of creating a genius according to László Polgar.
He also offers additional minor insights into what he calls “genius education,” which further complements his main principles of starting early, specialising and unifying work and play.
László emphasised the importance of forming an intensive and collaborative connection between a child and an adult in educational settings. He argued that in the right education environment, a child must feel respected rather than subordinated. This kind of relationship fosters confidence and early success while avoiding frequent failure, which could undermine a child’s self-esteem. In other words, children should be placed in an environment where they can have more wins than losses to help their confidence and self-esteem.
For example, if a child is learning basketball, placing them in a highly competitive league where they are constantly outplayed by older, more skilled players could damage their confidence. Instead, it’s better to start them in a league that matches their current abilities, allowing them to experience success and build their skills. As they grow and improve, they can gradually move to higher levels where they are ready to compete effectively.
László also suggests that all children should learn chess and a foreign language, no matter what their main interests are. He believes these skills are simple ways to help children improve their learning abilities and understand how to gain knowledge. This fits into his wider teaching approach, which focuses on starting early, specialising in certain areas, and combining work with play — an approach backed by historical success stories.
There are many success stories that demonstrate the value of an early start in developing exceptional skills. For example, Mozart began composing music by the age of five, building on piano lessons he started at four, showcasing the impact of early musical training. Similarly, mathematician John von Neumann displayed extraordinary talent, solving advanced equations by age six, indicating a foundation of rigorous study from a young age. Picasso, guided by his father — a painter and teacher — started informal painting lessons at around five and formal training by seven, setting the stage for his artistic genius. In the realm of sports, Serena and Venus Williams received intensive tennis coaching from their father starting at age four, which provided them with a competitive edge. Their father later reflected on whether it was too early, but László believed this early start provided them with a significant advantage in the sport.
History is full of examples of geniuses who began honing their crafts early, reinforcing László ’s belief in the benefits of intentional early specialisation. However, his book doesn’t just focus on examples but also defends the broader concept of deliberately nurturing extraordinary talent.
The BIG question
If geniuses are so valuable, why do only a few parents aim to raise one? There are several common objections, which László addresses. One claim is that geniuses are not well-rounded. However, this doesn’t have to be the case as I wrote briefly about earlier. For instance, there is a high chance that Olympians read more than the average person. If they can be that disciplined in their sports, they can translate it to other areas of their life. Don’t you think so? People who excel in one area often show strength in other disciplines too.
Look at the Polgár sisters — who are at the centre of this piece. They weren’t just chess champions; they were also talented linguists and athletes. Their energy came from blending work and play, spending hours on activities like chess, which they loved and found energising.
Another concern is that geniuses might lead unhappy, overworked, or isolated lives. László disagrees with this notion. He says his daughters are happy and fulfilled, their lives shaped not by parental pressure but by their joy in learning and achieving. Critics often mistake structured development for forced ambition, but the Polgár method centred on the child’s happiness.
Finally, some argue that people being a genius is “weird.” While this may be true, greatness often sets people apart. It’s precisely this uniqueness that defines a genius. Historical figures like Alexander the Great or Thomas Edison were extraordinary, not ordinary, and their differences were key to their success. To stand out, one must embrace being different.
We should all dare to be different.
