Who is significant in the modern world?

Today, by chance, I noticed something which gave me pause to reflect on what it means to be significant, as a person, in the modern world. I began to type a word on Google, that began with "LEO...". Immediately, Google guessed what I was going to type. I was appalled at its suggestions. Can you guess what I saw, without actually checking for yourself, first?

So, what do you think I saw?

Well, the first suggestion was Leonardo Dicaprio. The second was Leo Burnett. The third was Leonardo da Vinci. I found this ordering of choices unsettling, for many reasons.

What sort of world puts Leonardo da Vinci - perhaps the single most creative person ever to have lived - behind an actor and an advertising agency? Why are they ordered in such a way? Well, I assumed this must have something to do with their relative fame in the modern world. Perhaps, I thought, Leonardo Dicaprio gets more Internet searches than Leonardo da Vinci. Perhaps the world is not so aware of Leonardo da Vinci, as his modern namesake. So, I checked on Google Insights. Guess what I found?

Leonardo da Vinci is four times more famous than Leonardo Dicaprio when measured by Internet search density around the world - and infinitely more famous than Leo Burnett. The search bar for Leonardo da Vinci was four units long. The search bar for Leonardo Dicaprio was one unit long. The search bar for Leo Burnett was ZERO units long.

So, this presents a big puzzle. The world's Internet searchers are four times more interested in Leonardo da Vinci than in Leonardo Dicaprio - and vastly more interested in him, than in Leo Burnett, yet, still Google puts Leonardo da Vinci after the other two. There is something sad in this. One of the world's greatest geniuses overshadowed by a film star. It isn't right. I am left to wonder whether this ordering of search results is a function of a computer algorithm or hand ordering by a human. If it is a computer algorithm, is it biased towards more recent events? If it is a human is it overly impressed by fame and commerce? (Dicaprio and Burnett.)

Whether it is a human decision or a computer decision to place Leonardo da Vinci third in the list, the effect is the same: to judge genius as less significant than celebrity and commerce. So, our world seems to value (or those behind this ordering, anyway), familiarity and money, over intellectual and creative substance. Yet, this ignores the data found in Google insights - that the world's Internet searchers are four times more interested in Leonardo da Vinci, than in Leonardo Dicaprio.

My response to this is to propose a test, which I hope some distant readers, in future times, might be able to conduct. It is quite simple really. Leonardo da Vinci's time was about five hundred years ago. My question is this: will Leonardo Dicaprio and Leo Burnett be as famous in five hundred years time, as Leonardo da Vinci is, now? So, I invite my future readers in the twenty sixth century (if the Internet still exists and Blogger is still hosted), to Google (or the equivalent) "Leo..." and see what is suggested. Does it suggest Leonardo Dicaprio above Leo Burnett, above Leonardo da Vinci? Does it even suggest Leonardo Dicaprio at all? My guess is that Leonardo da Vinci will still be one of those suggested, but that the other two will have been replaced by new "Leos" of some kind. So, the present prominence of Leonardo Dicaprio over Leonardo da Vinci is likely to be a temporary phenomenon. Google is not measuring true worth by its search results. Were it doing so then Leonardo da Vinci would be the top result for Leos...and would be likely to stay that way, even in another five hundred years time.

Anyway, please conduct the test at the appropriate time. I may not be around to hear the results...but I can at least make the suggestion that you do so. Thank you.

Posted by Valentine Cawley

(If you would like to support my continued writing of this blog and my ongoing campaign to raise awareness about giftedness and all issues pertaining to it, please donate, by clicking on the gold button to the left of the page.

To read about my fundraising campaign, please go to: http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2011/01/fundraising-drive-in-support-of-my.html and here: http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2011/01/fundraising-drive-first-donation.html

If you would like to read any of our scientific research papers, there are links to some of them, here: http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2011/02/research-papers-by-valentine-cawley-and.html

If you would like to see an online summary of my academic achievements to date, please go here: http://www.getcited.org/mbrz/11136175To learn more of Ainan Celeste Cawley, 10, or his gifted brothers, Fintan, 7 and Tiarnan, 5, please go to: http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2006/10/scientific-child-prodigy-guide.html

I also write of gifted education, child prodigy, child genius, adult genius, savant, megasavant, HELP University College, the Irish, the Malays, Singapore, Malaysia, IQ, intelligence and creativity.

There is a review of my blog, on the respected The Kindle Report here:http://thekindlereport.blogspot.com/2010/09/boy-who-knew-too-much-child-prodigy.html

Please have a read, if you would like a critic's view of this blog. Thanks.

You can get my blog on your Kindle, for easy reading, wherever you are, by going to: http://www.amazon.com/Boy-Who-Knew-Too-Much/dp/B0042P5LEE/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&m=AG56TWVU5XWC2&s=digital-text&qid=1284603792&sr=8-1

Please let all your fellow Kindlers know about my blog availability - and if you know my blog well enough, please be so kind as to write a thoughtful review of what you like about it. Thanks.

My Internet Movie Database listing is at:http://imdb.com/name/nm3438598/

Ainan's IMDB listing is at http://imdb.com/name/nm3305973/

Syahidah's IMDB listing is at http://imdb.com/name/nm3463926/

Our editing, proofreading and copywriting company, Genghis Can, is athttp://www.genghiscan.com/This blog is copyright Valentine Cawley. Unauthorized duplication is prohibited. Use only with permission. Thank you.)

On delayed gratification and human worth.

There is a tendency to hail those who come to prominence quickly. By this I mean not child prodigies, who obviously are noticed early, for their unusual precocity - but adults who "succeed" quickly. So, the young chief executive, the TV presenter in her early twenties, the "novelist" just out of school, the teenaged film star...these types of people are all thought praiseworthy and somehow more eminent for their rapid rise. Yet, something has been overlooked in this perception: the difficulty of the task.



You see, some people do not rise to early prominence, not because they do not have the ability, but because they set themselves much more difficult tasks than those of the ones who come quickly to our attention and praise. It is much more difficult to write a great 750,000 word opus than it is to write a 70,000 word "novel". Yet the latter accomplishment might take a few weeks or months, be published in a year or two and make a "star" out of a twenty year old writer. Yet, the question must be asked - who truly is more worthy of our esteem: the writer who chooses to work on a book, quietly, for twenty years - or the one who churns out light, quick, easy reads to popular acclaim? I know that only one of them is likely to be remembered by posterity - and for a very good reason - for only one of them will have done something truly difficult. Yet, during their lifetime, the one of lighter, fainter achievement may, actually, be the more "famous".

I observe this because of the way I have seen people of great merit treated and greeted by others, online. Sometimes, I have noted mocking criticism of those whose achievements I know to be great, but not yet widely known. They have been directly and unflatteringly compared to others of much lesser achievement, who happen to be widely known for it. I think what is happening here is that people are making a judgement based on what they know, without realizing that there may be much that they don't know. They are also attaching merit to quick superficial achievement because it is "in their face", rather than slower, deeper, more profound achievement which may, in fact, take decades to mature and perhaps a lifetime or more to be appreciated.

It is a simple fact that no modern TV presenter, for instance, is going to be remembered in 100 years time - not one of them. Yet, there are poets, writers, artists, philosophers, scientists, composers and thinkers at work in the world who may live their lives utterly unknown, yet who will be remembered in millenia for what they do, in fact, achieve, unknown to their contemporaries and unappreciated by them. Instant fame, does not mean lasting renown. Yet, instant fame is what people most appreciate. I find it strange that people make judgements on each other, based on the assumption that what they know is all there is to know. They think that by comparing person A, who is famous for a certain set of achievements, to person B who is not famous for their unknown achievements, that they can conclude that person A is superior to person B and that person B is a "failure". This kind of thinking makes me laugh, for it shows the mental shortcomings of the one who "thinks" - and nothing more. You see person B may, in fact, have achieved something of much greater worth than person A - but their work might not yet have been published. The reason that person B has been quiet for ten or twenty years, may in fact be because they have been at work on something that takes ten or twenty years to accomplish. Just because they are silent, it doesn't mean that they are not productive. Person A, however, may be someone whose "achievements" are shallow and quickly put together, each taking but the effort of weeks or months - and so they may seem more industrious, productive and creative - yet the actual comparative merit of the works in question could put person B way ahead, when the final judgement of posterity is made.

Now, this all comes down to my title: delayed gratification. Some people - in fact, most - are unable to delay gratification sufficiently to achieve anything of real merit. They need a quick fix, an immediate return and fast results. They need to see that they have "achieved" something overnight. These people - and they are far more common than the other breed - always aim at shallow targets that are easily achieved, for these are the only things that are achieved quickly, without much struggle. Journalists, for instance, can be like this. I knew one who was: he needed an instant response to his writing and so never did what he always promised himself he would: write a real book. The problem with book writing from his point of view was that the response to it could take years in coming. He wasn't constituted to delay gratification to that extent. He would write fast and see his work in print the following day. The praise would then follow for his eloquent phrasing and he would be happy. Yet, this instant mindset prevented him from ever achieving any work of depth or lasting meaning. He is dead now, so his chance of ever doing so has passed. During his lifetime, he was very famous, yet I rather feel that his fame will not endure for the products of his mind were too quickly crafted, too "of the day", to have any permanent interest. Had he, however, been of a mind to wait, to endure the silence between creation and publication, a silence that can stretch for decades, then he might have achieved lasting renown. Certainly, whether he achieved lasting fame or not, his work would have been more worthy if it had been crafted over years, rather than minutes.

So, this explains my division of people into those who succeed quickly, but whose achievement is often shallow and those who take time to come to note, but whose achievements tend to be more profound and of lasting interest. The difference between them, is that the former cannot delay gratification and aim for shallow achievements, easily achieved; the latter are able to delay gratification, sometimes even beyond the scope of their lives (so that they never personally feel the gratification that is rightfully theirs), but who, ultimately, achieve far greater success and enduring fame. The former are like flashbulbs; the latter are like stars that take millions of years of slow accretion, before they finally ignite in atomic flame. Like stars, the latter burn for ages - and the former are forgotten even as their afterimage fades from our eyes.

The next time you find yourself being critical of someone's achievements ask yourself this: do you actually know much about the person? Are they, perhaps, at work on creations unknown to you? Are they stars, one day to ignite, who will far outshine the flashbulbs to which you compare them?

The tinsel of life, as it were, those who are shallow and bright and famous today, will all, largely be forgotten. Even the greatest of film stars will largely fade from memory, in a handful of decades. The ones who will be remembered may now have much lower profiles, but whose names will grow over time, as their contributions are appreciated. We speak now not of the actors of Ancient Greece, but of their thinkers. We know not their "stars", but their creators. So, too, will it be for our times. The people who will be remembered in ages to come are those we do not, perhaps, fully appreciate in their lifetimes. The deeper the work, the longer it takes to create and the longer still it takes to be appreciated. Yet, eventually, those who have created the deeper works, are the ones who make the greatest contributions, and who are thought of, in ages to come. All the others are forgotten, no matter how "famous" they are in their own lifetimes. An example would be Dan Brown. No-one on Earth will know who he is in 150 years time: not one person. Of that I am sure. Yet, there may be a poet, whose works are not yet published, who has been read by just himself, his mum and his girlfriend, who will be on everyone's lips in a 1,000 years. The difference is that one is a flashbulb, the other is a star. One achieved easy prominence, through shallow achievement - the other a lifetime's quiet, accretive work, building a body of work that changes language, thought and literature. Only one of these is worthy of long-term remembrance - even if that very same one is ignored in its own time.

If you wish, therefore, to have a sense of the "worth" of a person, a good clue would be in their ability to sustain delayed gratification. I rather think that the greater the capacity for this delay, the greater the actual achievements are likely to be, of that person. The ones who thrust themselves early to our attentions, as young adults, are likely to be UNABLE to delay gratification - thus these people are ultimately likely to be shallow in their achievements. The ones we should look out for, however, are those who work steadily away, for years and decades at a time, without a word of encouragement from anyone. It is these people who will surprise us by their work and ultimately be respectfully remembered for millenia to come.

Which would you rather be: a flashbulb or a star? If you have said "star" - do you think you have the patience to wait decades to achieve it? Do you know anyone who has that endurance? What are they like? Are they creating something of interest? Any comments or thoughts on the topic would be interesting to read. Thanks.

(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.

IMDB is the Internet Movie Database for film and tv professionals. If you would like to look at my IMDb listing for which another fifteen credits are to be uploaded, (which will probably take several months before they are accepted) please go to: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm3438598/ As I write, the listing is new and brief - however, by the time you read this it might have a dozen or a score of credits...so please do take a look. My son, Ainan Celeste Cawley, also has an IMDb listing. His is found at: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm3305973/ My wife, Syahidah Osman Cawley, has a listing as well. Hers is found at: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm3463926/

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

The decline in general knowledge

Perhaps I am imagining it, but it seems to me that people of my generation (and earlier) had greater general knowledge than many of the young people of today. Quite simply world culture, history, events, significant people, science, art and all kinds of sundry knowledge seem to have passed young people by - or become rather confused.

Today, provides a good - and true - example.

Teacher, to class: "Can anyone name a famous artist?"

One eager Mongolian foreign student raises her hand: "Leonardo..."

Excellent, thinks the teacher.

"...Dicaprio." continues the confident, young student.

It is quite galling to think that Mr. Dicaprio, a man whom one person I know, who once met him, at a film gala opening, described as a "complete meathead", is credited, in this Mongolian student's mind, with creating the works of Leonardo Da Vinci.

It is not in this girl's mind, alone, that Da Vinci has been eclipsed by Dicaprio. If you type "Leonardo" into the Yahoo search engine, the first suggestion that comes up is Leonardo Dicaprio. Leonardo Da Vinci is second. Most of the remaining suggestions are related to Leonardo Dicaprio.

It is sad that even the world's search engines - and not just the world's Mongolian students - categorize Dicaprio above Da Vinci. The former is a hearthrob actor who will be completely forgotten, in all probability, in fifty years time. The latter is arguably the greatest, most universal creative genius that Mankind has ever produced. Yet, he is eclipsed by a mere heartthrob.

Modern minds are filled with nonsense which pushes out material of any real significance. I would feel far more comfortable if a typical student was familiar with Leonardo Da Vinci's works, inventions and ideas, rather than an actor from the film Titanic. The former made an enduring, timeless contribution to the development of human culture - the other made a passing entertainment. Yet, in the modern mind, Dicaprio eclipses Da Vinci.

So, not only do the youngsters of today seem to know less, of fewer things - but what they do know is preponderantly trivial and not worth knowing in the first place. I fear for the future when minds imbued with such trivialities come of an age to be in charge of the world around them. One day, they will be the backbone of their society. I only hope they deepen their general knowledge of the world around them, before that time comes - and come to learn the difference between Dicaprio and Da Vinci.

By the way, Da Vinci was the better looking of the two (he was famous for his looks, too). So much for heartthrobs.

(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.)