Lee Kuan Yew on Assortative Mating.

Lee Kuan Yew is fond of graduates. For him, a graduate is a superior being to be courted. Recently, he expressed his views on the assortative mating of graduates, in a televised interview.

Lee Kuan Yew said that graduates should only marry graduates and that one should not form a graduate, non-graduate partnership. For him, such a partnership would jeopardize the chances of giving rise to "graduate children".

It seems clear that Lee Kuan Yew thinks that the state of being a graduate is somehow inherited. I feel that this comes from a misunderstanding of what, exactly, is inherited. Being a graduate is an ACQUIRED characteristic. One is not born a graduate. To become a graduate one must interact with the educational bureaucracy for a certain number of years, suppress one's individuality to a greater or lesser extent (depending on the system), conform to the rules and generally do what is expected of one, for a set number of years. At the end of this period, if you have been a good (conformist) boy or girl, you will be awarded a piece of paper that has social meaning: that is you are a "graduate" - and non-graduates can thereafter look up to you in awe of your greatness.

Now, that is all very well, but the fact that being a graduate is an acquired characteristic, based on many factors - money for educational fees, not being dyslexic (it is more difficult to be a graduate if you are one), being motivated by examinations, finding the courses interesting enough to study, hard work for some, talent for others etc. etc. - means that being a graduate is not a very good marker for intelligence, which is, I assume, Lee Kuan Yew's real concern.

Lee Kuan Yew wishes graduates to marry only graduates to create a super class of smart people. However, there is a problem with this. University degrees are not directly inheritable - that is Lamarckian inheritance (that of inheriting acquired characteristics) does not apply. Just because your mum and dad are graduates of Cambridge University, that does not mean that you, too, will be a graduate of Cambridge University. It is not something that can be inherited. If LKY believes that it is inheritable directly, then he is making a Lamarckian error (belief in the inheritance of acquired characteristics). What can be inherited, however, to a great degree is intelligence and various aspects of character. These inheritances can predispose one to become a degree holder one day - but there is no guarantee that this will be so - since it depends on many factors that have nothing to do with intelligence. There are some very smart non-graduates (I know plenty) and there are some VERY stupid graduates (I know plenty). Being a graduate doesn't mean you are smart, it means that someone else is stupid enough to give you a degree.

At the heart of LKY's contention is that people should marry their own kind. This is, actually, an age-old trend in humans. People naturally tend to seek out others with whom they have many things in common. So, in urging this, LKY is just stating what people tend to do anyway.

I think, however, that he is making a fundamental error in categorizing graduates as superior to non-graduates. That is simply not so. A graduate is just someone who has conformed to an education system long enough to actually be given a piece of paper by it. It does not mean that they are more special than someone who decided NOT to conform to the education system long enough to receive a piece of paper. In fact, the NON-conformist could be SUPERIOR to the conformist graduate. Education in Singapore is a case in point. I have worked within the system and it is strongly conformist. I think that it is likely, in such a system, that many who conform to it are inferior to those who escape from it. Truly smart people do not conform readily in their thinking - they escape to make their own territory.

People are better judges of whom they should marry than LKY is. Lee Kuan Yew is using the short-hand of "graduate" to decide that people are of sufficient merit to marry. Well, many graduates are dull people. A man or woman seeking a partner can see that. They can decide for themselves that "dull graduate A" is not as marriage worthy as "interesting non-graduate B" - and they can select B. What they may actually be selecting FOR is the quality of genuine intelligence that LKY seeks anyway. A person who looks at another carefully will see more about them, in terms of intelligence and character, than any piece of paper could tell them. Sometimes, the non-graduate will be smarter and more interesting - and better in many ways - than all available graduates. In such circumstances, it would make sense to REJECT the graduates and marry the non-graduate.

I find it funny, in a way, that LKY should be so concerned to create brighter people in Singapore. You see, from our own experience, we have learnt that Singapore doesn't do all that is necessary to look after the bright citizens it DOES have. We had to struggle very hard to get the right educational provisions for our son, Ainan. It took a year and a half of wasted time to get him a Chemistry lab, for instance. There is NO POINT AT ALL in bringing more bright children into the world of Singapore, if the ones it already has, have to struggle to get the resources they need to optimize their talents. I think Lee Kuan Yew is not fully aware of how his nation actually behaves towards its brightest children. We had to talk to many, many, institutions before we got any positive response. Generally speaking, institutions here will do nothing out of the ordinary, for an extraordinary child. No-one wants to make any exception. Furthermore the Gifted Education Programme is mis-named, for they do very little to help the gifted child in any real way (they talk a lot, study the child like a lab animal - then do little).

So, I would advise LKY: first ensure that your country actually welcomes bright children, before you worry about how many of them you have.

Note: I graduated from Cambridge University in Natural Sciences. I don't consider it a fruitful time. Nor did I meet anyone at Cambridge that I considered marriage material: they weren't up to my standard, at all. (They were too conformist). So much for the "marry a graduate" theory.

(If you would like to learn more of Ainan Celeste Cawley, a scientific child prodigy, aged eight years and seven months, or his gifted brothers, Fintan, five years exactly, and Tiarnan, twenty-eight months, please go to: http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2006/10/scientific-child-prodigy-guide.html I also write of gifted education, IQ, intelligence, the Irish, the Malays, Singapore, College, University, Chemistry, Science, genetics, left-handedness, precocity, child prodigy, child genius, baby genius, adult genius, savant, wunderkind, wonderkind, genio, гений ребенок prodigy, genie, μεγαλοφυία θαύμα παιδιών, bambino, kind.

We are the founders of Genghis Can, a copywriting, editing and proofreading agency, that handles all kinds of work, including technical and scientific material. If you need such services, or know someone who does, please go to: http://www.genghiscan.com/ Thanks.)

The perils of shaking hands.

Shaking hands is a social requirement in many countries: a gesture of friendliness with which to greet an acquaintance - yet, should we do so?

I was moved to wonder this at something I saw the other day. I was in a bathroom, in a shopping mall, waiting for a cubicle to become free. It was a few minutes wait. Finally, a toilet flushed, a door opened and a Chinese man emerged. He was quite large, for an Asian. He passed me without looking at me - and then, instead of washing his hands at the sinks, walked straight out into the shopping centre.

Yuck, I thought. Just imagine shaking hands with that guy: he had just spent ten minutes in a cubicle, on the toilet. His hands could really in be quite a bad state - yet he had walked straight out without washing.

His unhygienic act is not the only time I have seen this done. It seems that more often than not, a man, in Singapore, who uses the urinals, will walk out without washing their hands. Then, as with this man, there are those who will walk out without washing their hands, after using the cubicles. These two occurrences are very common in Singapore.

Clearly, this situation creates a conundrum for everyone who lives here. Knowing that many people here do not wash their hands after going to the toilet, should you shake hands - and maintain friendly relations - or refuse to shake hands, and risk seeming impolite?

Normally, I shake hands. But having been reminded by this incident of the hygiene situation here, in Singapore, I think it would be better not to offer to shake hands, at all. It would be better to risk seeming impolite, than to shake the hands of someone who had used a cubicle without washing themselves, afterwards.

This is an issue of health, too, for not only is the situation unpleasant to consider, but it risks spreading disease. Who knows what, apart from dirty hands, you might catch from shaking hands with someone else?

I wonder what the situation is in other countries? Is it normal in your country for men and women to wash their hands after the toilet - or do they just walk out, unwashed, as the man I observed did? Comments please.

(If you would like to learn more of Ainan Celeste Cawley, a scientific child prodigy, aged eight years and seven months, or his gifted brothers, Fintan, five years exactly, and Tiarnan, twenty-eight months, please go to: http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2006/10/scientific-child-prodigy-guide.html I also write of gifted education, IQ, intelligence, the Irish, the Malays, Singapore, College, University, Chemistry, Science, genetics, left-handedness, precocity, child prodigy, child genius, baby genius, adult genius, savant, wunderkind, wonderkind, genio, гений ребенок prodigy, genie, μεγαλοφυία θαύμα παιδιών, bambino, kind.

We are the founders of Genghis Can, a copywriting, editing and proofreading agency, that handles all kinds of work, including technical and scientific material. If you need such services, or know someone who does, please go to: http://www.genghiscan.com/ Thanks.)

An unexpected architect.

Ainan has long been a designer of buildings, either drawing them or making them. The other day, however, I discovered something unexpected.

I came across Ainan sitting in the kitchen. Next to him, on the dining table was a model of a building - a most exotic construction. It was of the most otherworldly design, looking at it felt like one had glimpsed a tower from an alien city. It was both bizarre and beautiful.

"That's lovely, Ainan." I said, assuming him to be the creator of the work.

"It's Fintan's.", he said, looking at it with respect.

"Fintan's?" I said, to check what I had heard.

"Yes. Fintan's."

I felt, perhaps, we were both impressed. There was something very sophisticated about the design - and something original too. This building had a vision all of its own. It was unlike any building I had ever seen. Fintan had taken the idea of a building and made it his own.

Fintan is only five years old. Yet, I can see something happening in him, that happened in Ainan, too, when he was a younger boy: his mind is starting to come alive, he is starting to express himself and show a unique character and viewpoint. Fintan's viewpoint is different to Ainan's. That building, for instance, which Fintan had designed, was unlike any that Ainan had ever made. Fintan's was made to fulfil an inner aesthetic, Ainan's were always designed to be structurally sound and solid. Fintan designed for beauty, Ainan designed for longevity. They had a different outlook on what a building should be - but each also had their own viewpoint as to what a good building was. Ainan's buildings had their own characteristic personality and flavour - and now I had discovered that Fintan's did, too - but a very different one.

It is funny to think that they are brothers and therefore share 50% of their genes - because there are both great differences and great similarities between them.

I don't know how Fintan is going to develop, but I am already seeing the beginnings of a boy taking his own path, in his own way, to his own destination - even if it is not yet clear, to us, where that might be.

It is interesting to note, though, that Fintan is showing high spatial skills - for that is one of Ainan's attributes, too. Yet, they each make different use of those skills.

Though I wonder at the future, the present is interesting enough as a parent. It is good to see each of them flower in their own way, yet also just as interesting to see the inter-relationships and commonalities between them. They are brothers, after all...

(If you would like to learn more of Ainan Celeste Cawley, a scientific child prodigy, aged eight years and seven months, or his gifted brothers, Fintan, five years exactly, and Tiarnan, twenty-eight months, please go to: http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2006/10/scientific-child-prodigy-guide.html I also write of gifted education, IQ, intelligence, the Irish, the Malays, Singapore, College, University, Chemistry, Science, genetics, left-handedness, precocity, child prodigy, child genius, baby genius, adult genius, savant, wunderkind, wonderkind, genio, гений ребенок prodigy, genie, μεγαλοφυία θαύμα παιδιών, bambino, kind.

We are the founders of Genghis Can, a copywriting, editing and proofreading agency, that handles all kinds of work, including technical and scientific material. If you need such services, or know someone who does, please go to: http://www.genghiscan.com/ Thanks.)

A peculiarly American tragedy.

America is a strange place, I think. It is a place where eight year olds get to play with guns - even if it kills them.

A peculiarly American tragedy occurred on Sunday afternoon at the Machine Gun Shoot and Firearms Expo at the Westfield Sportsman's Club, co-sponsored by C.O.P. Firearms & Training.

At this odd event (odd for me, because it would seem surreal for such a thing to even be held in the countries of my youth - the UK and Ireland - or my present country of residence, Singapore), a boy of just 8 years old was given his first machine gun to hold. It was an Uzi 9 mm micro machine gun. His father said it was selected because it was "small with little recoil". The boy duly pointed it at a pumpkin, and pulled the trigger. Well, it turns out that the recoil wasn't so little after all - the gun jerked back and up and he managed to shoot himself in the head. He died.

Where was the boy's father throughout all this? Well, he was about 10 feet behind him, fumbling for a camera to capture this proud moment of seeing his little boy handle his first machine gun. He got to witness something rather different.

The boy's father is director of emergency medicine at a local hospital in Stafford, Connecticut. I am sure he has seen enough gun wounds in his time, to know that guns are dangerous - but he doesn't seem to have learned much from his emergency room experience. He said: "This accident was truly a mystery to me. This is a horrible event, a horrible travesty, and I really don't know why it happened."

I think the poor father is not facing up to his own responsibility in this situation. There is no mystery as to how this happened. A little boy fired a gun rather too big for him to handle. That is all. That it was an exceptionally dangerous thing to do should have been obvious to all - especially to his emergency medicine trained Dad.

It is incidents like this that make me think that America is a truly mad place. It seems, to an outsider, to have social rules planned by a lunatic. Who, on Earth, could allow little boys to fire machine guns? What social madness leads people to believe that this is even a reasonable thing to allow? Yet it is done up and down the American land: kids fire guns, adults play with guns - and people die. It never seems to occur to them that if America were an unarmed society that they would have a murder rate similar to other unarmed societies - that is, approaching zero. It is much harder to kill someone when you have to do it up close and the most readily available weapon is your bare hands. Hence, murder rates in unarmed countries tend to be pretty low.

I have watched the American Tragedy (for America is a tragedy in many ways), for many years, wondering just when the American people are going to wake up and realize that guns are not the answer. I have wondered just how long it is going to be before they realize that if no-one had guns, that everyone would be a lot safer. There are those that object that if guns were taken away from law-abiding citizens that the criminals would have no-one to oppose them. That is easily answered: you just bring in a severe penalty for gun ownership - such as a mandatory death penalty (Singapore has the death penalty for use of a weapon: it works. Almost no-one ever uses a weapon: I have seen one case of weapon use in EIGHT YEARS. They caught him - and hung him, within a few weeks. Note he wasn't on "death row" for decades.) If this were done, America would not have to suffer tragedies like this little boy's pointless death. His name by the way was Christopher Bizilj. All his family have now, of him, are photos, memories and that name. I bet they wish guns were not part of American culture, now - but did it really have to take this lesson to teach them that?

The reaction of the authorities is particularly stupid. They are interested in whether people had the proper licenses for the gun use. They are interested in whether a crime had been committed (that is, not having the proper license). It never occurs to them that there shouldn't be such weapons in America in the first place. It never occurs to them that the whole idea of an armed citizenry is itself unwise. They are just worried about whether the proper PAPERWORK had been filed. It is bonkers, completely and utterly bonkers.

I wonder if I will ever see the day that America becomes an unarmed - and safe - nation? I rather doubt it. I have the feeling that not even my grandchildren will see that. There is too much inertia on the issue in America. There, there is the "right to bear arms"...well that leads to the risk of tragedies like Christopher Bizilj's. They will continue to happen as long as Americans have anything more dangerous than their fists to play with.

(If you would like to learn more of Ainan Celeste Cawley, a scientific child prodigy, aged eight years and seven months, or his gifted brothers, Fintan, five years exactly, and Tiarnan, twenty-eight months, please go to: http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2006/10/scientific-child-prodigy-guide.html I also write of gifted education, IQ, intelligence, the Irish, the Malays, Singapore, College, University, Chemistry, Science, genetics, left-handedness, precocity, child prodigy, child genius, baby genius, adult genius, savant, wunderkind, wonderkind, genio, гений ребенок prodigy, genie, μεγαλοφυία θαύμα παιδιών, bambino, kind.

We are the founders of Genghis Can, a copywriting, editing and proofreading agency, that handles all kinds of work, including technical and scientific material. If you need such services, or know someone who does, please go to: http://www.genghiscan.com/ Thanks.)

Become a scientist - and be poor.

Why, I wonder, are scientists so poorly paid in the United States? I was somewhat stunned to learn of the way scientists are treated in the US, today.

Here is a typical career profile of a successful scientist in America:

age 18-22: shelling out high tuition fees as an undergraduate
age 22-30: at graduate school, living on just $1800 per month
age 30-35: working as a post-doc for $30,000 to $35,000 per year
age 36-43: professor at an OK university for $65,000 per year
age 44: a parent of young children, yet "denied tenure" by the university - that is, fired

Thereafter is anybody's guess, depending on how able the former scientist is to secure another job in a market that doesn't like to take on middle-aged newcomers.

Given the economic conditions above, is it any wonder that most Americans don't want to be scientists? So, who does the science in America, then? Immigrants. America dangles the tiniest of carrots to Indians and Chinese nationals, "30,000 to 35,000 a year" - and they arrive in droves, for such small sums have seemed like riches to them.

However, there is a problem, here, which puts in question the whole future of American science - and consequently, the success of America itself. China and India are beginning to do very well for themselves. They have more to offer their own people...so the US doesn't seem so attractive anymore - especially since they must become aware, in time, that the wages offered are little more than a con. I don't think those Indian and Chinese immigrants are going to be coming to America for very much longer.

America has treated science as something to be offered to slave labour immigrants, at pitiful wages. The thinking seems to have been that, since these immigrants are willing to do the work for so little, why should they offer more? Well, there are very good reasons to offer more. If salaries in science are so far below what a professional could secure with similar training (ie. $500,000 a year), then the best people will not be drawn to science, but will be lured away. Science is far too important to the future of Man, to allow it to be unable to secure the best and brightest.

Science should be competing for the best minds there are. It should not be satisfied with "we can get somebody to do that for 30K...so that is how much we will pay." It should pay as much as law or medicine, or any other professional job, so that the best people will strive to be scientists - and not put those people in the position of choosing between science and making even a basic living.

For contrast to the figures above, I have read that a law graduate from a good University in the US, can expect to start on 125K - that is double the earnings of a typical science professor, a couple of decades older.

We can conclude from this that America does not value its scientists, or science - but that it likes to argue a lot.

Perhaps, when the immigrants stop coming to the US, because their home countries offer a better deal, America will start paying its scientists what they are worth - if, that is, they haven't all left for Europe and Asia.

Given the present state of science in America and the way American scientists are (not) remunerated, I don't think Ainan, for one, will work there (unless conditions improve a lot). It would be foolish of him, to do so, given the conditions that prevail there. No doubt, there are many young scientists, who think similarly about prospects in the US.

The present American financial crisis - combined with their lack of respect for scientists - makes me wonder at whether America is going to go into a permanent decline. A country where post-doc researchers make 30K and the head of Lehman brothers was paid several hundred million dollars in the past few years, has got something seriously wrong. Lehman is not more important than a scientific researcher. Science is more fundamental to the long-term future of the nation, than the financial games of the Lehman's of this world. Yet, the market says otherwise. The market values the man able to destroy 150 years of banking history by himself, more than the young scientist able to bring something new into the world. Therein lies the problem with America, today: the wrong things are valued. That which is of true value is sidelined.

I don't think it is going to work out well, in the long-term.

Good luck, USA.

(If you would like to learn more of Ainan Celeste Cawley, a scientific child prodigy, aged eight years and seven months, or his gifted brothers, Fintan, five years exactly, and Tiarnan, twenty-eight months, please go to: http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2006/10/scientific-child-prodigy-guide.html I also write of gifted education, IQ, intelligence, the Irish, the Malays, Singapore, College, University, Chemistry, Science, genetics, left-handedness, precocity, child prodigy, child genius, baby genius, adult genius, savant, wunderkind, wonderkind, genio, гений ребенок prodigy, genie, μεγαλοφυία θαύμα παιδιών, bambino, kind.

We are the founders of Genghis Can, a copywriting, editing and proofreading agency, that handles all kinds of work, including technical and scientific material. If you need such services, or know someone who does, please go to: http://www.genghiscan.com/ Thanks.)

Happy Birthday, Syahidah.

Today is Syahidah's birthday. For those who don't know, she is my wife and mother to my three sons.

Happy Birthday Syahidah! Today is a big one...but I am not letting on, which: any guesses?

Space colonization and the survival of Mankind.

How long will Mankind endure? Will humans live to see the embers of the Universe die...or will we only last a few more brief decades and then be gone?

One thing is for sure: if Mankind stays on Earth, we are doomed. This is not to say that the Earth is immediately imperilled, but it is to say that nothing that lives on Earth can endure forever. No lifeform that exists on but one planet, could ever be immortal. At some time, a catastrophic event - such as asteroid impact, war, or epidemic, will ensure the end of humanity, on Earth.

It is fashionable to decry space exploration. Many people who should know better speak of space exploration as if it had no value or purpose at all. They say that the money would be better spent on alleviating third world poverty, etc. What they do not understand, however, is that we have no choice, where space exploration is concerned, if we wish to see the long-term survival of Mankind. Without space colonization, Mankind will not survive, that is for sure.

What, for instance, does establishing a colony on the Moon, or better still, Mars, achieve? As long as the number of people on the Moon or Mars, is above the threshold of about 150 to 180 people required for long-term survival of the colony (through prevention of too much inbreeding) and as long as the colony is self-sustaining, it would achieve a very important goal, indeed: a backup for humanity, itself. Were humans to be wiped out, on Earth, enough would survive on the Moon or Mars, to allow Mankind to continue on the colonized world - or to replenish Earth, itself in a reverse colonization (an idea first suggested, I believe, by Paul Davies).

One colony gives humanity two chances of long-term survival. Simply having one, single, viable colony greatly enhances the prospects that humanity will have a long-term future. More colonies would further increase the probability that Mankind will endure. The best kind of colonies will be those in other star systems, for that would increase the measure of security even further. Interstellar colonies will, however, be further in the future, being rather more difficult to establish.

So, if you want humanity to survive ino the distant future, do what you can, today, to influence decision-makers, to back space colonization. Do what you can to ensure that Moon and Mars colonies (which are envisioned) get the funding they need. Back politicians who back space exploration. Space colonization should be one of humanity's top priorities, but it isn't. The war in Iraq is reckoned to have cost 3 TRILLION dollars, according to an article in March, 2008 in the Washington Post, by Linda J. Bilmes and Joseph E. Stiglitz. Given that, what would you guess NASA's annual budget to be? Have a good guess. Well, it is just 16 billion dollars a year. The Americans have just spent 187 years worth of NASA's budget on a war without end. Just imagine what spending that money on space colonization would have achieved: Mankind's long-term future would have been assured. Does killing people in Iraq ensure the long-term future of humanity? Or does it ensure long-term turmoil on Earth? I would rather have seen every single war dollar spent as a space dollar: for then Mankind would have a better future, indeed.

Wherever you are in the world, vote for those who are backing space ventures. The future of Man depends on it. If you can think of any other way to support space colonization...then do so. I, for one, would like the comfort of knowing that Man was not just a one planet species - for then we would have a chance of enduring.

The technology we need to do this, already exists: all that is in doubt is the funding and political vision. Why not try to open the eyes of decision makers, to a deeper view of Man's future?

(Interesting footnote: Three well known physicists have each spoken in favour of space colonization as a means to safeguard humanity: Stephen Hawking, J. Richard Gott III, and Paul Davies. The first two, in particular, have stated that this is an urgent matter which needs to be done, soon.)

(If you would like to learn more of Ainan Celeste Cawley, a scientific child prodigy, aged eight years and seven months, or his gifted brothers, Fintan, five years exactly, and Tiarnan, twenty-eight months, please go to: http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2006/10/scientific-child-prodigy-guide.html I also write of gifted education, IQ, intelligence, the Irish, the Malays, Singapore, College, University, Chemistry, Science, genetics, left-handedness, precocity, child prodigy, child genius, baby genius, adult genius, savant, wunderkind, wonderkind, genio, гений ребенок prodigy, genie, μεγαλοφυία θαύμα παιδιών, bambino, kind.

We are the founders of Genghis Can, a copywriting, editing and proofreading agency, that handles all kinds of work, including technical and scientific material. If you need such services, or know someone who does, please go to: http://www.genghiscan.com/ Thanks.)