The fall of the tower of Babel.

There are, according to UNESCO over 6,900 living languages today. Unfortunately, however, 2,500 of them are endangered. Both numbers surprised me, and the latter number, shocked me.

A language is more than a set of sounds. It is a way of seeing the world, a way of understanding the world, it is a codification of the world. Each language is a unique perspective. That 2,500 languages should be in danger of being lost, is terribly tragic. If unrecorded, each loss of a language is a permanent loss of a human perspective, of a world view that will never be, again. Each language is also part of the puzzle of how language came to be, to spread and to become so diverse. All languages are intertwined in one complex "evolutionary" whole. To lose one part of the puzzle is to make the whole forever more difficult to understand: it is to impoverish our understanding of what it is to be human.

Many languages are near their end, preserved in the minds of only a few people. One hundred and ninety-nine languages are spoken only by fewer than a dozen people. These include Wichita, spoken by just ten people in Oklahoma and Lengilu, spoken by only four people, in Indonesia. The deaths of a few people, will push these languages to extinction.

One hundred and seventy-eight other languages are spoken by between ten and one hundred and fifty people. Though somewhat safer, it wouldn't take much to extinguish these tongues either. Indeed, the last three generations of mankind has seen the loss of over two hundred languages - including Manx (from the Isle of Man) in 1974.

India stands to lose one hundred and ninety six languages; America, one hundred and ninety two languages and Indonesia, one hundred and forty seven languages.

With the death of the last speaker of these tongues, so too, dies the language, probably forever.

I do not know, as I write, whether efforts are being made to preserve these languages. If not, there should be. Linguists should be sitting down with these last speakers of exotic tongues and recording, in as exquisite detail as possible, each of these languages before they are lost. In some ways, the task is as urgent and as important as the preservation of species - for the loss of a language is as irreplaceable as the loss of a species.

I feel a certain ambivalence about this situation, for I know one cause of it: the spreading of global languages. I love English, and was born into it - but I would not that English bestrode the world and pushed every other language to extinction. That would be too sad. For though I appreciate English for what it is, I also appreciate that there is great beauty in all the languages I have never heard and never known - each is a world of its own and each deserving of conservation.

Philosophically I like diversity - in people, in ideas, in things. I am, actually, very uncomfortable with conformity. What greater conformity could there be than that all spoke one language? It is a hideous thought and I hope it never happens. I would like the world to continue to be a diverse place, with diverse people, thinking diverse thoughts and living in diverse ways. One of these important sources of diversity is the languages they speak. I don't want a world reduced to Mandarin, English, Spanish, French, Japanese and Arabic. That would be awful.

So, I would urge the nations of the world, to appoint sufficient linguists to capture the essence of every language now living, so that none is fully lost, when its last speaker passes on. As for the speakers of exotic tongues: why not teach it to others? Teach it to linguists if no-one else will listen...or better still, have a child, and speak to it in the crib, with the almost dead tongue you speak, so that one more person might live, to pass it on.

I do not want to see a future in which all Man's great diversity has been lost. All should be conserved...for we are all diminished by the loss of each type of diversity. When a language falls silent, Man has forgotten one way to speak about the world. In a sense, one whole world dies with each dead tongue.

Let not Babel fall, but let the world babble on, and be rich in its diversity.

(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.

This blog is copyright Valentine Cawley. Unauthorized duplication prohibited. Use Only with Permission. Thank you.)

Singaporean schools are destroying our children.

It doesn't take much observation of Singaporean children, trying to be creative, to realize that they just can't do it. Now, the question is: whose fault is it? I would say the schools themselves.

I have had the privilege of conducting drama classes, at times, with Singaporean children. I say "privilege" because these opportunities have afforded me a chance to learn what is going on inside the minds of young Singaporeans. What I have found there has been disappointing.

Drama is about freedom of the spirit; freedom to express the self and tell the tale of an inner life. Therefore, those who are most free, are most adept at it. Those who know themselves best, are most capable of deep performances. Those most familiar with finding answers within themselves usually have the most to show, dramatically. Yet, in Singaporean schools, I find not freedom, but entrapment. These children are trapped within a prison we cannot see: one made of structures and rules, requirements and regulations. They live in a prison that demands silence and subservience, submissiveness and self-denial. When given the chance to speak, these children have nothing to say.

Teaching drama in Singapore is a painful exercise. The children have no familiarity with their imaginations. They don't know how to summon the imagination to their aid. They don't even, perhaps, know what an imagination is. They give hollow expressions of emotion, that have no feeling. They make pathetic gestures at self-expression. In a class of twenty students, there might be one who is able to focus on their own inner thoughts and do something of modest interest. The others are, almost entirely, incapable of expressing themselves. It is as if they have NO SELF TO EXPRESS. Perhaps there is truth in that, perhaps these children have no selves or are not familiar with themselves. When asked to do something simple, like pretend they have hurt their knee, none of them show any pain; none of them show any discomfort even, they just moan without conviction - it is really quite a pathetic spectacle. When asked to show an emotion, such as sadness, or happiness, they are unable to seem to feel it, they give comic book characterizations, filled with exaggerations. They seem not to be able to reach their feelings. When asked to act out a simple scene, they seem to be unable to become involved in it, unable to consider it real, unable to behave in a way consonant with the situation they have been given. Their actions are half-hearted, and stereotyped, their words are mumbled and unclear and devoid of emotion or conviction and, they don't work together very well - they don't share the imagined space as if each of them occupies it. In short, they do none of the things an actor would normally do to express the inner life of a character, or its outwardly expressed form. Nor do they do any of the things that would normally be required to tell a story.

With work, time and effort, they do improve. Yet, what is clear is that the whole area of using their imagination is foreign to them. The children I have worked with are in their teens - yet it is clear that, despite being relatively mature, they are not acquainted with their own imagination and its powers. They are empty of inspiration. They have no experience in self-expression. It is as if they have lived their whole lives in a cell with no-one to talk to, or share their lives with, so impoverished are their communication skills and sense of how to convey an emotion, a story, an idea. It is, in fact, saddening to witness.

I enjoy, however, trying to open them up, trying to show them how to access their imaginations and make something of it. Some of them respond...others are frozen, unable to go beyond limp, ineffective efforts at stereotyped shells of emotional and ideational portrayal.

What is very, very obvious on seeing the way Singaporean children are, is how impoverished their imaginative skills are compared to children I have seen in other countries. It is just not normal to see so little imagination in teenagers. At least, it is not normal in my experience of life and teaching.

Singaporean schools leave no space for the child to be. There are too many academic demands on them, too many rules, too many regulations, too many fixed behaviour patterns to follow. There is too much emphasis on conformity and there is no permission to be individual or creative. The result is clear: Singapore is producing children whose minds have been amputated. The parts of them labelled "individuality", "creativity" and "imagination" have been cut off, leaving half a child behind.

The political masters, in Singapore, call for more creativity for one reason only: they see money in it. However, what they fail to see is that the educational system they have implemented GUARANTEES that Singaporean children will NOT be creative, will NOT be imaginative and will NOT have much a sense of self.

The only way to make Singapore a more creative place is to throw out the present education system entirely and replace it with a more humane, open, less competitive, more tolerant, welcoming system that is not consumed with rules, regulations and codes of conduct and behaviour. Singapore needs a system that allows children to breathe and be themselves. Then, and only then, will Singapore begin to nurture creative children.

It would be a better world, were this so, for such children would be happier and, ultimately, Singapore would be richer for it - for new things only come from creative children. The rigidified robots presently being produced by Singapore's education system will never, ever do anything in life apart from take orders from someone. Perhaps that is all that the system really wants: components in the economic system, unable to think for themselves or, preferably, think at all.

I would like to see a different system. I would like to see children who live and whose minds come alive when given the chance to express themselves. Perhaps an early sign of success would be drama classes that have some drama in them.

(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.

This blog is copyright Valentine Cawley. Unauthorized duplication prohibited. Use Only with Permission. Thank you.)

Don't become a teacher, in Singapore.

Teachers are, supposedly, a respected profession but, in speaking to expats, here, in Singapore who have taught, respect is not always what they receive.

Two different people have had very similar experiences, here. One of them had done many senior and interesting jobs in the US before coming to Singapore: he had covered a variety of types of work and responsibility, after all he had been working for over twenty years before he got here. His CV was, therefore, full and interesting.

In Singapore, he had no contacts and thought that teaching would be a straightforward job to get given that he could offer native English. So, he began to teach English. He was good at it, and the years passed and he secured quite good teaching jobs, ones that might be termed "sought after" (by teachers, at least), however, he began to grow bored, describing every day as "the same". Thus, he decided to send out his CV to potential employers. Surprisingly, very few got back to him. For the few who did, the conversations tended to go a little like this: "But you are a TEACHER...what makes you think you can work for us?"

He tried to direct their attention to his vast prior experience of relevant work obtained in the US...but it was all to no avail. They could not see his experienced past. All they could see was his most recent work as a teacher. The way they used the word "teacher", you'd swear they were saying "handicapped". It was clear that they had no respect for, or understanding of the skills that a teacher is adept in - particularly the communication skills which were directly relevant to the recruitment manager position he was applying for. They couldn't see any of that: all they saw was some stuffy guy in a classroom.

This dismissive experience of his, with employer after employer, eventually made him give up trying to seek other types of work in Singapore. He continues to be a teacher but is presently making plans to return to the US. He is an expat leaving precisely because he cannot find a congenial position, here, in Singapore, despite having a lot of experience to offer.

Another expat I am aware of had a similar problem. He was dismissed with the words: "What do you have to offer besides teaching?" by someone with whom he was to work. Again, all they could see was the most recent work as a teacher - somehow being unable to read the fifteen years of relevant experience on his CV. It is notable that, again, the word "teaching" was used as if it were some kind of defect.

Now, that two expats of my acquaintance should have had the exact same experience in Singapore suggests either one or both of two things. Firstly, it could be that employers, in Singapore, only see the relevance of one's most recent job and are unable to realize that any job that has been done before, could be done again - or any related job, for that matter, or one that used similar skills. If this is the case, then Singaporean employers lack imagination (but then, that wouldn't be a surprise, would it, in a nation that lacks imagination?) Secondly, it could be that there is genuine prejudice against teachers and former teachers in the Singaporean marketplace. It is possible that there may be the erroneous impression that teachers can't do anything else. They forget that Socrates was a teacher, that Aristotle was a teacher, that Richard P. Feynman was a teacher. Sometimes, teachers are among the best of people...not the worst, as some local Singaporeans seem to think. Perhaps they had bad experiences in school and are taking it out on job candidates.

Whatever is the case, it would seem to point to certain difficulties in the Singaporean job market. Foreigners coming here to work would be well advised to be careful what kind of work they chose, lest that box them in. It may be that local employers will not be able to see you doing any other kind of work after a few years.

This raises one thought in my mind. It may be that local Singaporeans generally are only able to do one kind of work and that they may be projecting this characteristic onto foreigners for whom doing many kinds of work is normal. There could be a lack of cross-cultural understanding going on.

So, stride carefully in the Singaporean marketplace - and, just to be on the safe side, don't ever become a teacher here - for it may be the last job they allow you to do.

(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.

This blog is copyright Valentine Cawley. Unauthorized duplication prohibited. Use Only with Permission. Thank you.)

The miraculous power of selective memory.

Memory often has a miraculous power: that of being selective. Sometimes it reveals things to us, sometimes it hides them from us.

A few months ago, I was speaking to an American man of similar age to myself. He had journeyed across the world to Singapore from Chicago, for the love of a woman and was now father to her child. His son was the same age as my eldest, so, in a way, I felt an echo of my own tale, in his.

"Will you ever return to the US?" I asked him, one day.

"Oh yes. Sure!", his lips everted strongly and there was a certain determination in his features.

"In fact, I think I made a mistake in staying here.", he went on, his lips pursing as his tongue fell silent, his brow furrowing.

"What about the gun problem, though? You don't have that here.", I said, my eyes sweeping the room to indicate Singapore as a whole.

"Guns?", he snorted, "Oh I have never had any trouble with guns, in the US." He seemed defensive, a certain pride in America rushed to fill his gestures and puff out his frame. I had clearly said something a little unacceptable. He turned to speak to another, present in the room and didn't look back at me, as he did so.

I watched and listened, quietly, not satisfied with his answer, for I had read the statistics on gun violence in the US and wasn't convinced that someone could reach middle age, in Chicago and not encounter a problem or two with guns.

The other guy present was also an American. For reasons known only to himself, but perhaps because he, too, was dissatisfied with his friend's answer, he swung the conversation back to violence in America.

The Chicago resident's answer was most revealing. "I have had guns pulled on me, twice.", he revealed to his fellow American.

I said nothing. I didn't point out the inconsistency between his defensive denial to me, that he had ever had any gun problems in America - and his admission to his fellow American that he had twice had guns pointed at him. Apparently, they had pointed them at his head. But, heh, this qualifies, when speaking to me, as "Never had any trouble with guns".

I marvelled at his essential inconsistency. He had contradicted himself within the space of ten minutes on an issue on which no-one could ever forget: that of being held up at gunpoint. To the non-American, he had never had any trouble, to the American, he had been held up twice, at gunpoint. I noted that, to me, he had defended his nation - but to his fellow American he had, perhaps, told the truth - or remembered the truth. I wonder, now, which it was: was his memory being selective, to me, when he defended his country - did he genuinely not remember the hold ups? Or was he lying to me, to defend his country? Did he suddenly remember the incidents when talking to his fellow American, perhaps because he had no need to defend the reputation of his country against a fellow citizen, for both would know the true deal?

I shall never know. However, I shall also not forget the lesson of apparently selective memory he taught me. His life was one thing to one person, one thing to another. His nation was one thing to one person, one thing to another. With such a one, I think one would have to observe him in many different situations to have a chance in getting at the truth of things. Then again, which tale would be the truth? He would be selective to each listener, depending on whom that listener was.

I am glad I said nothing, for that allowed me to continue to observe him, whenever I encountered him. Had I pointed out the contradiction, no doubt he would have altered his manner in front of me. Perhaps, in fact, he would have become actively hostile had I pointed out his own self-contradiction. Often, it is better just to listen, and not to speak one's mind: more is learnt that way and fewer friends are lost. Nevertheless it is funny what might be observed if you simply allow people to be themselves in company for a while. Sometimes, you even learn the truth.

(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.

This blog is copyright Valentine Cawley. Unauthorized duplication prohibited. Use Only with Permission. Thank you.)

Creative students in the classroom.

Are creative students valued in the classroom? Do teachers like creative students or do they move against them, at every opportunity?



From my own personal observations, I would say that it depends on the teacher. Some are open to creative students and others are positively hostile to them. However, that is just a personal sampling of the situation - what does the research say?


Well, I found an abstract of a most interesting article in the Creativity Research Journal, from the January 1995 issue (Volume 8, Issue 1). It was entitled: "Creativity: Asset or Burden in the Classroom?" by Dr. Erik L. Westby and Dr. V. L. Dawson. It is, basically, a direct answer to my question.



These two researchers used prior research that described the characteristics of a creative person. They then got the students in a school to rate each other on these characteristics, so as to identify those that fit the model of what a creative student was like. The teachers were asked if they liked working with creative students: they said "yes". Then, not taking their word for it, they got the teachers to reveal which students they liked and which they did not. Rather worryingly, there was a negative correlation between creativity and being liked by the teachers. There was also a positive correlation between being creative and being disliked by the teachers.



Something strange was going on. The teachers SAID they liked creative students, but the ones who had been identified as creative were actually the ones that they DISLIKED. A closer examination of the situation revealed that the teachers thought of creative students in a different way. The ones teachers thought of as creative had a different set of characteristics to the ones research had identified as being associated with creativity. So, it seems, that teachers don't know who the creative students are.



Erik Westby and V. L. Dawson reexamined the situation in the light of the new understanding of the teachers' view on creative students. It was found that there was a nonsignificant correlation between being a favourite student and fitting the teachers' idea of what a creative student was. The favourite students tended to be more like the teachers' stereotype of what a creative student was. (Though, of course, this was unlike what a creative student actually is.)



This paper struck me as deserving of more attention. People really should know that it has been shown that teachers tend to dislike creative students (even though they think they like them). This finding rather accords with my own observations of school life.



This situation presents a problem. If creative students are actively disliked by their teachers, then school will be, for them, an unpleasant experience. They might experience active hostility from their teachers (as I did sometimes, myself). Their ideas might be attacked, simply because they are ideas. (Just like my essays meeting a hugely hostile response from some Cambridge University staff). Indeed, it may be that the creative student would not benefit from school in the way that non-creative students do.



Teachers should be professional. They should not allow their personal likes and dislikes to influence their behaviour in the classroom. So, the remedy to this situation comes down not only to instilling an understanding of what a creative student is, in the teachers - but in training them not to respond negatively to ANY student, no matter what they do or how they are. It is not the teacher's role to be partial. They should be fair to all and unkind to none. That should be a basic tenet of any teaching life.



The schools of the world are a long way from coping effectively with the challenge ( I won't call it a "problem") of teaching gifted children. Many gifted children are under-challenged in school. This paper, however, points out a different problem: the creatively gifted child might not just be ignored by the school (as many gifted children are) - but experience active hostility from it. This particular minority, therefore, deserves greater attention and protection. For, is it not so that it is the creatively gifted who ultimately have the most to offer our societies? They are also the ones who may be least well served by the educational systems that presently exist.



A good step forward would be simply to teach teachers to identify such creative children - and treat them well and welcome them. That, alone, would cure most of the ills that the creative put up with, in school.



(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.



This blog is copyright Valentine Cawley. Unauthorized duplication prohibited. Use Only with Permission. Thank you.)