A vote for President.

About four or five months ago, on a whim, I asked Tiarnan, four, an unexpected question.

“Who is smarter?” I began, catching his attention by the suddenness of my question.

His curious eyes peered up at me, in expectation.

“Daddy, or the President of America?”, I continued.

“Daddy!”, he said without even a millisecond of hesitation, as if nothing else could possibly be true.

It was sweet to hear his certainty, but then his certainty led me to reflect: not only was it most likely to be true of me, but true, too, of millions of people around the world. There are almost certainly enough people smarter than President Obama, to populate a very large country with…yet, he is President, and they are not. Is this right? Is this wise?

The question here is: should the President of America (or any other nation) be among the brightest of the bright? From the point of view of understanding the issues and making wise decisions, I would say that the brighter they are, the better. Obama has, for instance, in my view, made decisions that show a lack of moral intelligence: he just doesn’t grasp the issues deeply enough to see the essential moral problems of the questions he is called upon to answer…so he gives immoral answers (Google my prior posts on Obama and ethics). However, there is one problem: leaders have to lead – and, in practical terms, people don’t tend to follow someone who is too much brighter than they are – because they just don’t understand them.

The rule of thumb is that a leader should not be more than 30 IQ points smarter than the led, to permit effective communication. This certainly holds in the case of Singapore, for Lee Kuan Yew admitted in one interview on TV that his IQ was in the 120s…this would place him above average and still able to communicate to his followers, but does mean that he is most certainly not the brightest of the bright. He is just good enough to guide a majority of people – which is all you need in politics.

So, Obama has a brain. Yes. However, it is not the best of brains. It is an adequate one – one that allows him to bring to him, the greatest proportion of the electorate. Were Obama much brighter, he would probably have not been elected, for his way of thinking would be too opaque and unreachable to his electorate. Thus, America will have to be satisfied with Obama, the above average. Unless the electoral system changes, there will never be an “Obama the genius”, in American democratic politics.

That is why the world is the way it is. The very bright sit at home and wonder at the stupidity of the decisions made by politicians who are only bright enough to do their jobs, moderately well, at best. The very bright rarely get the chance to play a role in such arenas, simply because of the way they communicate with the world. Only if we moved away from the present form of democratic governments, would this ever be likely to change.

Until then, little children the world over, can rightfully declare their Daddies to be cleverer than the President of the United States – and in many cases, it would actually be true.

(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

To learn more of Ainan Celeste Cawley, 10, or his gifted brothers, Fintan, 7 and Tiarnan, 4, this month, 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 at http://www.genghiscan.com/

This blog is copyright Valentine Cawley. Unauthorized duplication is prohibited. Use only with permission. Thank you.)

Of beauty and ugliness.

There is a beauty in the apt expression of words. There is a beauty too, in an honest description of childhood - for in a child's mind, much is still beautiful that, by adulthood, seems no longer. I have tried to write of the beauty of the child's world, through my daily glimpses of it, in my own sons. I have tried also to choose words which, though simple, are beautiful in themselves, for how they capture that world.

So, I have been striving to embody some of this beauty, that I see, daily, in my life, on these electronic pages. To some extent, I am sure that I have succeeded - for some of my posts have captured some of the daily wonders that I encounter. It is true, however, that, at other times, I have failed to fully reflect the beauty that I see: my words do not come close to embodying those moments that are most precious - yet, at least, I have tried. Something of those times will, thus, remain for future contemplation.

Now, on the one hand we have my own striving to capture beauty - but on the other hand, I have seen much ugliness on the internet. There are truly a vast horde of stupid, jealous, spiteful people out there in the world. In particular, quite a few of them seem to come from Singapore. I say this because, on the odd forum, here and there, I have seen the most unpleasant of comments, coming from people who almost always have Chinese names, and use terms such as Ang Moh...they also have Singlish phrasing, so I can conclude that they are Singaporean. More than a few of their remarks are highly insulting about me, or members of my family - and, this is what gets me most, THEIR INFORMATION IS ALMOST ALWAYS WRONG. Yet, they spew their spite, and justify their erroneous views with what amounts to lies, on the internet. Oddly, I have seen this kind of behaviour from two nationalities only: Singaporeans, and Americans. The Americans seem to be doing so out of an extreme sense of competitiveness (ie. your son can't possibly be brighter than my son and I am going to do my damndest to prove it...). The Singaporeans are often doing it out of sinocentric racism. It is quite sad to watch what they do, online, to one of their own citizens. Yet, they don't see Ainan as a Singaporean - they see him as a MALAY...and so they feel apart from him. They think him "OTHER" and therefore unworthy of the fellow feeling that citizens of most countries, show to their fellow citizens. Singapore is a country in which anyone who is non-Chinese is never fully integrated, never fully accepted, by the majority (who are, I might point out, Chinese themselves). Indeed, the way the Chinese forum commenters treated our family is one of the big reasons we decided to leave Singapore. There was just no way that I was going to bring my family up in a country which had so much hate of its own people. Why should I subject them to daily racism, when I can easily find another country that will treat them as one of their own? So, we did...

Anyway, for me, the internet is a place of contrasts, therefore. I am making my own personal efforts to create something of lasting beauty - my thoughts on my children's childhood as they grow up - amidst a world of public arenas that are anything but beautiful. It is a strange contrast. You see the medium that allows me to attempt to express the beauty that I see, daily, is also the medium that allows these antagonists to spew their hate, their envy, their misunderstandings and their, lets be blunt, racism.

It is my hope that the beauty that I succeed in capturing, on these virtual pages, will outshine the ugliness that is found, all over the internet. Personally, I would rather a world that did not have such people in it, as I have seen writing rubbish on the net. Their minds are too crude, too uninformed, too dim and too nasty, to be allowed access to the public arena. Yet, there they are. Would it not be a better world were they not to exist? I can't help but feel that they would vanish, if they were readily identifiable on the net. My thoughts, therefore, again turn to the idea of anonymity on the net. I don't feel there should be any. Were everybody to be immediately identifiable, people such as I have seen, would not dare to write the things they do, lest they face libel charges, or other consequences. A net without anonymity would be a much better one, I think.

In the meantime, I hope my words have more power than theirs; that my thoughts have more readers than theirs - that my readers are able to distinguish truth from lies; beauty from ugliness.

Thank you for reading.

(If you would like to learn more of Ainan Celeste Cawley, 10, or his gifted brothers, Fintan, 6 and Tiarnan, 4, this month, 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.

My Internet Movie Database listing is at: http://imdb.com/name/nm3438598/
Ainan's IMDB listing is at http://imdb.com/name/nm/3305973/
Syahidah's IMDB listing is at http://imdb.com/name/nm3463926/


Our editing, proofreading and copywriting company, Genghis Can, is at http://www.genghiscan.com/

This blog is copyright Valentine Cawley. Unauthorized duplication is 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.)

Was Sidis a child prodigy failure?

William James Sidis was an American child prodigy. He lived from April 1st (unfortunate date, I would have thought) 1898 to July 17th 1944. Thus, his life was of modest length and we should remember that when we assess his achievements. He was famed for his precocity and later for his withdrawal from society. His greatest gifts were in mathematical and linguistic pursuits. Some say he knew up to 200 languages by the time of his death; others estimate it to have been 40 or so. Either way, few linguists in history have come close to such a tally. His IQ was estimated to have been between 250 and 300, one of the highest in human history. Yet, the headline of his obituary in Time magazine, in 1944 was: "Prodigious Failure". What could have led such an organ to write such a shocking headline, upon a man's death?

Part of the problem was the way the press, of the time, liked to tear down people who stood out. They were not friendly to Sidis and did all that they could to diminish him. When he had an apparent nervous breakdown at about 20, they reacted not with sympathy, but ridicule. They jumped on him when he was jailed for a year and a half for being involved in a protest (what a wonderfully free country the USA was, at the time). Basically, they hounded him throughout his adult life. His reaction was to retreat from public life and try to live as quietly as possible, away from the venom of the journalists.

They mocked him when he wrote a book on vehicle transfers and tried to portray him as a failure. They gave the impression that it was the only book that he had written - and this became the public view of him. Yet, what was the truth? Well, William James Sidis, was busy writing and publishing works under pseudonyms throughout the quiet life he led doing menial jobs, such as operating calculating machines. There is a similarity in this to other geniuses. Einstein worked in a patent office: that is no great job for a great mind - but it did give him time to think. Perhaps Sidis similarly sought a job that would give him time to think.

Since his death, quite a few publications have been found to date: five books, four pamphlets, 13 articles, four periodicals (36 issues), 89 weekly magazine columns and one invention. There are also reports of other books: one on anthropology, another on philology, and works on transportation systems, all of which are presently lost. His most important works are "The animate and the inanimate" (1925) a work on cosmology, and "The Tribes and the States" (ca. 1935), a 100,000 year history of the red indian. In research for this latter book, he learnt the language of the wampum (written Native American history) and used the wampum as sources for much of what he wrote. Another book on Native Americans was Passaconaway, In the White Mountains, written when he was 18. He also wrote a book that included plans for a super city, under a pseudonym, which also advocated one-way street systems to avoid crashes. "Collisions in street and highway transportation."

He died at the age of 46 of a cerebral haemorrhage, like his father, Boris Sidis, had done, before him (at 56). His whole life was denounced as a failure by the press.

Take an impartial look at his output. Can it be said that a man who writes books on several different areas; who learns 40 to 200 languages - and uses that linguistic knowledge in his research, can be said to be a failure? It seems strange, to me, that he should be labelled so. His achievements were worthy - but the reaction to them was not. His written output was certainly a respectable quantity for a life of his length. It is, in fact, a puzzle, that he should have been treated so. It is almost as if the media of the day wanted to diminish him, to prove him wrong, to do him down - even at the cost of the truth. Apparently, his mother once remarked that she did not recognize her son, in his descriptions in the press - they bore no relation to the reality of his intellectual brilliance, at all.

What we see here, in fact, is not the failure of a prodigy, but the failure of the media and society to accept him. Sidis found himself unwanted - and so he retreated from the world. Yet, that didn't stop him thinking, privately, scribbling away and publishing anonymously. He probably didn't want to publish under his own name because, whenever he did so, he was jumped on by the press.

What would have happened had William James Sidis been welcomed by the society of his day? Doubtless he would have opened up and flourished and probably would have contributed much more than he did. Yet, even without that hypothetical circumstance, his output is decent, given his short life and there is no way an honest person, without an agenda, could possibly criticize him for it. In total he was supposed to have written at least a dozen books, most of them now lost. A dozen books in 46 years is actually quite a high output considering that they were non-fiction.

William James Sidis is a tale not of failure - but of what happens when the media turns against a person of great gift: they retreat from the world and their achievements become private ones, not public. Sidis achieved quite a lot - it is just that no-one of his day knew about it.

Rest in peace William James Sidis, child prodigy and productive, creative adult.

(If you would like to learn more of Ainan Celeste Cawley, a scientific child prodigy, aged eight years and four months, or his gifted brothers, Fintan, four years and nine months, and Tiarnan, twenty-six 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, niño, gênio criança, gifted adults and gifted children in general. Thanks.)

The top 100 living geniuses

Who are the greatest living geniuses of today? Creators Synectics asked and answered this question. They did so by asking 4,000 Britons to list up to 10 living people they considered geniuses. They received just 1,100 nominations in reply (which would seem to suggest that many Britons are not interested enough in genius to answer a question about them). Only 60 per cent of these nominees were actually alive at the time - the dead ones being discounted owing to their poor health.

Now, I would like you to guess (without looking at the list below to cheat), which country had the most geniuses per head of population, on Earth (according to this survey)?

The answer was Britain. One Briton out of every 2.5 million is considered a living genius, by the respondents. For America, only one in every 6.9 million Americans was considered a genius.

If this survey is accurate, it would seem to suggest that something in the British culture and education system is more conducive to giving rise to genius than the American system. It may be, for instance, that the American system is insufficiently intellectually challenging in High School (and perhaps at Bachelor's degree level) to bring out the best in its students. Whatever the reason, it is something to be concerned about, for it suggests that America's intellectual pre-eminence in the world is not to be an enduring one. To make the comparison more clear, if these proportions for genius hold true, then Britain has 23 living geniuses and America, just 43. Thus, though America is far vaster in size, it does not have a comparable intellectual weight.

One reason for this could be that the people asked for their opinion were Britons. That might hold true in a world where information was not transmitted so readily. In the modern world, fame extends around the world. American geniuses are just as familiar to Britons as British ones - so too the geniuses from elsewhere in the world. So, I doubt that that is the explanation. The Britons would know of American geniuses (and those from elsewhere) and would therefore be able to vote for them.

Nor can we say that they were excluding Americans in preference for Britons, because they had up to 10 votes each: there was room for many a nationality there.

We have to consider, therefore, that this is a real difference and that American ingenuity is not, comparatively, what one would have thought. Perhaps they need to become more attractive to British immigrants.

A note: when this list was compiled, Bobby Fischer was still alive.

Other curiosities: J K Rowling is on the list. I am not sure that she is really a genius, for her work does appear to be rather derivative - yet she got the popular vote. Damien Hirst, too, has often been accused of plagiarism, by other artists - so his place, too, is questionable.

The funniest thing about the list is Richard Branson's description as a "publicist". In a way, that is exactly what he is, for he has built his Virgin empire on generating media coverage for himself.

The numbers after each listing are the score for the genius in terms of five factors that were used to rank them. The factors are: paradigm shifting; popular acclaim; intellectual power; achievement and cultural importance. It is notable that some geniuses secured a very low score. This means that though they were voted in by the people, the judges did not think them to have great power as geniuses. Quentin Tarantino best exemplifies this, on the bottom of the list with a score of 2. He, too, is known to be derivative in the extreme (a big chunk of Reservoir Dogs echoes Ringo Lam's City of Fire, very closely). Again, therefore, he shouldn't really be on the list at all.

Interestingly, the joint first place goes to two scientists: Albert Hoffman, the chemist who invented LSD - and Tim Berners-Lee who invented that other hallucinogenic distraction, the world wide web.

Please take a look at this list and give me your views, if you wish, as to whether these people should be on it, in the first place. Are they geniuses? Are they good enough to be in the top 100? Who is NOT on the list that you think should be? Is Britain truly producing more geniuses than any other country on Earth, per head of population?

I originally encountered this list on the Daily Telegraph website, from the UK.



1= Albert Hoffman (Swiss) Chemist 27
1= Tim Berners-Lee (British) Computer Scientist 27
3 George Soros (American) Investor & Philanthropist 25
4 Matt Groening (American) Satirist & Animator 24
5= Nelson Mandela (South African) Politician & Diplomat 23
5= Frederick Sanger (British) Chemist 23
7= Dario Fo (Italian) Writer & Dramatist 22
7= Steven Hawking (British) Physicist 22
9= Oscar Niemeyer (Brazilian) Architect 21
9= Philip Glass (American) Composer 21
9= Grigory Perelman (Russian) Mathematician 21
12= Andrew Wiles (British) Mathematician 20
12= Li Hongzhi (Chinese) Spiritual Leader 20
12= Ali Javan (Iranian) Engineer 20
15= Brian Eno (British) Composer 19
15= Damien Hirst (British) Artist 19
15= Daniel Tammet (British) Savant & Linguist 19
18 Nicholson Baker (American) Writer 18
19 Daniel Barenboim (N/A) Musician 17
20= Robert Crumb (American) Artist 16
20= Richard Dawkins (British) Biologist and philosopher 16
20= Larry Page & Sergey Brin (American) Publishers 16
20= Rupert Murdoch (American) Publisher 16
20= Geoffrey Hill (British) Poet 16
25 Garry Kasparov (Russian) Chess Player 15
26= The Dalai Lama (Tibetan) Spiritual Leader 14
26= Steven Spielberg (American) Film maker 14
26= Hiroshi Ishiguro (Japanese) Roboticist 14
26= Robert Edwards (British) Pioneer of IVF treatment 14
26= Seamus Heaney (Irish) Poet 14
31 Harold Pinter (British) Writer & Dramatist 13
32= Flossie Wong-Staal (Chinese) Bio-technologist 12
32= Bobby Fischer (American) Chess Player 12
32= Prince (American) Musician 12
32= Henrik Gorecki (Polish) Composer 12
32= Avram Noam Chomski (American) Philosopher & linguist 12
32= Sebastian Thrun (German) Probabilistic roboticist 12
32= Nima Arkani Hamed (Canadian) Physicist 12
32= Margaret Turnbull (American) Astrobiologist 12
40= Elaine Pagels (American) Historian 11
40= Enrique Ostrea (Philippino) Pediatrics & neonatology 11
40= Gary Becker (American) Economist 11
43= Mohammed Ali (American) Boxer 10
43= Osama Bin Laden (Saudi) Islamicist 10
43= Bill Gates (American) Businessman 10
43= Philip Roth (American) Writer 10
43= James West (American) Invented the foil electrical microphone 10
43= Tuan Vo-Dinh (Vietnamese) Bio-Medical Scientist 10
49= Brian Wilson (American) Musician 9
49= Stevie Wonder (American) Singer songwriter 9
49= Vint Cerf (American) Computer scientist 9
49= Henry Kissinger (American) Diplomat and politician 9
49= Richard Branson (British) Publicist 9
49= Pardis Sabeti (Iranian) Biological anthropologist 9
49= Jon de Mol (Dutch) Television producer 9
49= Meryl Streep (American) Actress 9
49= Margaret Attwood (Canadian) Writer 9
58= Placido Domingo (Spanish) Singer 8
58= John Lasseter (American) Digital Animator 8
58= Shunpei Yamazaki (Japanese) Computer scientist & physicist 8
58= Jane Goodall (British) Ethologist & Anthropologist 8
58= Kirti Narayan Chaudhuri (Indian) Historian 8
58= John Goto (British) Photographer 8
58= Paul McCartney (British) Musician 8
58= Stephen King (American) Writer 8
58= Leonard Cohen (American) Poet & musician 8
67= Aretha Franklin (American) Musician 7
67= David Bowie (British) Musician 7
67= Emily Oster (American) Economist 7
67= Steve Wozniak (American) Engineer and co-founder of Apple Computers 7
67= Martin Cooper (American) Inventor of the cell phone 7
72= George Lucas (American) Film maker 6
72= Niles Rogers (American) Musician 6
72= Hans Zimmer (German) Composer 6
72= John Williams (American) Composer 6
72= Annette Baier (New Zealander) Philosopher 6
72= Dorothy Rowe (British) Psychologist 6
72= Ivan Marchuk (Ukrainian) Artist & sculptor 6
72= Robin Escovado (American) Composer 6
72= Mark Dean (American) Inventor & computer scientist 6
72= Rick Rubin (American) Musician & producer 6
72= Stan Lee (American) Publisher 6
83= David Warren (Australian) Engineer 5
83= Jon Fosse (Norwegian) Writer & dramatist
83= Gjertrud Schnackenberg (American) Poet 5
83= Graham Linehan (Irish) Writer & dramatist 5
83= JK Rowling (British) Writer 5
83= Ken Russell (British) Film maker 5
83= Mikhail Timofeyevich Kalashnikov (Russian) Small arms designer 5
83= Erich Jarvis (American) Neurobiologist 5
91=. Chad Varah (British) Founder of Samaritans 4
91= Nicolas Hayek (Swiss) Businessman and founder of Swatch 4
91= Alastair Hannay (British) Philosopher 4
94= Patricia Bath (American) Ophthalmologist
94= Thomas A. Jackson (American) Aerospace engineer 3
94= Dolly Parton (American) Singer 3
94= Morissey (British) Singer 3
94= Michael Eavis (British) Organiser of Glastonbury 3
94= Ranulph Fiennes (British) Adventurer 3
100=. Quentin Tarantino (American) Filmmaker 2

(If you would like to learn more of Ainan Celeste Cawley, a scientific child prodigy, aged eight years and four months, or his gifted brothers, Fintan, four years and nine months, and Tiarnan, twenty-six 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, niño, gênio criança, gifted adults and gifted children in general. Thanks.)

No Child Left Behind Act: Is Bush One?

Is President George W. Bush a child left behind? I can't help but wonder - for he characterizes to a great degree, the very children he espouses to support in his keystone educational legislation - the No Child Left Behind Act.

For those of my readers who are not American and do not know, the No Child Left Behind Act requires education authorities and schools to focus on the weaker children - to ensure that, "No Child is Left Behind". This may seem admirable, but has its downside. The effect is that all the more capable kids - that is, almost everyone else - gets ignored, to a greater or lesser degree. In other words, most kids in the American system suffer because of the No Child Left Behind Act. The aim of the schooling system is now to bring up the performance of the worst performers, which tends to lead to the better performers being ignored. Apparently, in many school systems, the lowest scorers improve - but how about everyone else? This matter is largely ignored.

Anyway, the reason I ask whether President George W. Bush is in fact a child left behind, himself, is because of something which happened on Wednesday and which was reported by Reuters.

At a televised event, surrounded by schoolchildren and in the presence of Mayor of New York Michael Bloomberg and Education Secretary Margaret Spellings, he said: "As yesterday's positive report card shows, childrens do learn when standards are high and results are measured."

Wow. Children might learn, in such circumstances but, clearly, in the impoverished circumstances of President George W. Bush's own difficult upbringing, he didn't manage to learn basic English grammar.

Now, you might say this may be an isolated incident. But it isn't. The President's grammar is frequently original - but never insightful. He is capable of mistakes I have never heard any native speaker of English ever make - and he does it quite spontaneously - and with mind-numbing regularity. The Reuters report also noted that, the "education President" - as he thinks of himself, once asked: "Is our children learning?"

Probably not, if their President isn't and hasn't, either.

Now, President George W. Bush defends himself by saying that he was an average student at school and makes light of his tendency to mangle English grammar - but I think that poses deeper questions. He may have been an average student - but should an average student be leading a meritocratic nation? (Is America a meritocratic nation? If not, why not?)

Now I have no political opinion on Bush or any other President of America since I don't live there and am largely insulated against most of what they say and do - but I am able to make, therefore, fairly impartial observations.

Generally, a well-functioning brain does not make grammatical errors, on a regular basis, in the speaker's native language - at least, that is what I have observed in the course of my life. Does, therefore, the President of America not have a well-functioning brain? If he doesn't, surely he should.

Perhaps his intelligences are biased towards the non-verbal spheres of mental life. Sadly, I cannot illustrate any decisions, events or actions in favour of this view. Perhaps others can.

It may well be, that, mysterious as it seems, the President of America, George W. Bush is, in some ways, a child left behind. His No Child Left Behind Act, could be the work of a man who empathizes with these children who cannot keep up with their peers. Perhaps, in some way, George W. Bush cannot keep up with his own peers. He must daily be surrounded by his intellectual superiors, in his office. Perhaps that is the very source of his passion for the No Child Left Behind Act. It would seem apt.

Perhaps you, as a reader have some personal experience of the effects of the No Child Left Behind Act and might like to share them. Or maybe you have some insights into that most unusual of figures: the present President of the United States, George W. Bush - and a child left behind?.

(If you would like to learn more of Ainan Celeste Cawley, a scientific child prodigy, aged seven years and nine months, or his gifted brothers, Fintan, four years and two months, and Tiarnan, nineteen 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, College, University, Chemistry, Science, genetics, left-handedness, precocity, child prodigy, child genius, baby genius, adult genius, savant, gifted adults and gifted children in general. Thanks.)

What does "Early College" mean?

Everywhere, the world over, educational systems and standards differ. This makes it very difficult to understand what one nation's educational accomplishments mean without some research.

In America, there is a phenomenon known as "Early College". This is where a child aged under 18 goes to a "College" where the usual age of admission is 18. The procedure is undertaken not infrequently to address the educational needs of gifted children, showing precocity, who might otherwise become bored, disheartened and otherwise switched off, by an unchallenging education, at school. This seems like a good idea, therefore: but what does it mean? What is College?

Every country above the most primitive level, has Universities. Yet, not all Universities are the same. In particular, there is a divide between what an American University is and does - and what Universities in the rest of the world tend to be about - and provide.

In many countries, University is meant for an elite: it is not meant for all. In America, "College" is a much more common experience than it is for the nationals of many other countries. There is a reason for this. In most Western countries, a first degree is used for professional education. In America, a first degree is usually used for general education. What this means is that American Universities are actually doing what is done in secondary school/high school in Europe and all those countries that follow a European style of education (which includes Australia and parts of Asia, and even Africa, as I understand it).

In England, general education is completed, normally, at the age of 16. This is a typical age around the world for general education to have been completed. Then specialist education begins. In America, general education is completed by taking a four year degree: thus it is complete at the age of 22. This means that there is a very important difference between American and European education systems that must be understood if the two are to be compared. An American with a first degree has just completed their general education. A European with a first degree, has, in many cases, completed their professional education, AND their general education.

So, how may we compare the American system to the rest of the world? Well, the website of the Royal College of Surgeons of Ireland, compares requirements for admission to a medical degree, by applicants from different countries of the world. Distilling the essence of what it says is simple. A school leaver from secondary school/high school, aged 18, from anywhere in the world is, in theory, ready to start a medical degree in Ireland (if they are of good grades etc.). Yet, for an American applicant, A BACHELOR'S DEGREE is required for Admission to the normal program. Otherwise candidates have to undergo a special extended program longer than the usual degree.

This site equates an American Bachelor's degree as being equivalent to a high school education in the developed world - or in fact less. It states that an American Bachelor's degree is comparable to Year 11 of the Australian education system: that is, the age of attainment reached at the age of 17, by an Australian "high school" student.

Thus, back to my first question: what does Early College mean, in the American context? It means a high school educational opportunity, in the context of almost all the developed world. It does not mean "University-level" when compared to those who follow a European model.

As I have noted before, in other posts, this difference between the American system and the rest of the world, is due to the emphasis on breadth, at the expense of depth, in the American education sytem up to and including a Bachelor's degree. Most of the rest of the world looks into subjects at depth, much earlier on in a student's education.

This analysis of education systems helps us understand an interesting cultural observation. There are quite a few American kids in Early College, if internet boards are anything to go by. There are virtually none in University in the rest of the world. The reason for this is now clear: like is not being compared with like. An American student in Early College is studying material that a sixteen year old would study in High School/Secondary School in the rest-of-the-world system. Thus to compare like with like, we must look for rest-of-the-world students who have been accelerated to the later stages of High School/Secondary School. We do, in fact, find such students - although they are rare. (I do not have access to numerical data, but I have read of a few cases, in my lifetime). Furthermore, we also find some children who ARE in University while quite young - but these are few, in the rest-of-the-world. They are studying a Bachelor's degree in the main: this is equivalent to an American Doctoral degree.

(If you would like to read of Ainan Celeste Cawley, a scientific child prodigy, aged seven years and eight months, or his gifted brothers, Fintan, four years and eight months, or Tiarnan, eighteen 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, genetics, left-handedness, College, University, Chemistry, Science, child prodigy, child genius, baby genius, adult genius, savant, the creatively gifted, gifted adults, and gifted children in general. Thanks.)

Does College make you fat?

I remember being slim once. It was before I went to University. So slender was I, that I even had the proverbial "six-pack". Ah well. So, am I alone in my observation? Am I the only one to leave University heavier than when I arrived?

No. Not by a long way, if a 2005 study by researchers at Washington University, St. Louis is anything to go by. The work was published in the Journal of American College Health.

Principal investigator, Susan S. Deusinger, obtained height and weight data for 764 incoming freshmen at Washington University. At the end of the year, students being students (and therefore implicitly unreliable) only 290 returned for reassessment, despite being offered financial incentives.

However this was enough to decide whether the folklore of the "Freshman 15" (the number of pounds you would gain, along with your courseload in your first year), had any substance. It did. But not quite 15 pounds. Seventy per cent of freshmen students gained an average of nine pounds in their first year.

Researchers were unable to pinpoint a cause. They noted that there were no noticeable changes in dietary habits, or exercise levels from the start of the year, to the end (awful at both ends, by all accounts). Whatever the cause of the gain, it does show that going to College, does make you fat.

Parents of College going children, have, thus, one more thing to worry about: the health of their offspring. It might be wise to educate them a little in wise food choices - and other lifestyle measures, before they leave your sight.

Note, however, that this study only examined the American college student population - it did not address the issue of whether this was a global phenomenon (though it probably is).

(If you would like to read of Ainan Celeste Cawley, a scientific child prodigy, aged seven years and eight months, or his gifted brothers, Fintan, four years and one month, or Tiarnan, eighteen 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, genetics, left-handedness, College, University, child prodigy, child genius, baby genius, adult genius, savant, the creatively gifted, gifted adults and gifted children in general. Thanks.)

Mira Sorvino and scientific fame.

Bizarre as it might seem, Mira Sorvino is famous in the scientific world.

Now, you might wonder how on Earth a Hollywood actress could become known in certain quarters of the scientific community, in a scientific context. What did she discover, you might wonder? When did she find the time to fit a PhD in, in between all those films? How does her film-set schedule allow for laboratory experimentation and profound theorizing?

Well, it doesn't. You see Mira Sorvino having become famous in Hollywood, has been acknowledged by the scientific community in a way which gives her a strange kind of fame. You see, Ainan, 7, pointed out to me, yesterday, that a newly discovered chemical has recently been christened Mirasorvone.

Ainan is fond of filling his mind with rare and obscure scientific information - and this chemical fact is just one nugget. I am informed that there is a beetle called Thermonectus Marmoratus. This beetle uses the newly noted Mirasorvone as a chemical defense (so it is not, actually a very nice chemical!). The common name for this beetle is the "Sunburst Diving Beetle".

The chemical was discovered by researchers at Cornell University. These fans of Mira Sorvino decided to honour her, by naming it after her, owing to her appearance in the film Mimic, which has a strong connection to insects. Curiously, they didn't name the chemical after her character, Dr. Susan Tyler, in the film - but after the actress herself. I suppose Mira should be thankful for that - otherwise she would have missed out on a kind of fame which never dies.

It is my guess that Mira Sorvino will now be known, by some scientists, for as long as there are scientists to know anything. In this way, her scientific fame, modest though it is, being restricted to one chemical name, is certain to outlast any Hollywood fame, she accumulates. Long after all her films have crumbled away, and no-one even remembers what Hollywood was - or, perhaps even, what America was - the chemical name will persist in scientific records - and Mira Sorvino's fame, will endure - even if it is as a nasty chemical. What a strange thought that is.

(If you would like to read more of Ainan Celeste Cawley, a scientific child prodigy, aged seven years and eight months, who brought Mirasorvone to my attention, or his gifted brothers, Fintan, four years and one month, or Tiarnan, eighteen 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, child prodigy, child genius, baby genius, adult genius, savant, the creatively gifted, gifted adults and gifted children. Thanks.)

The gifted and the future of society

The future of a community and a society may be measured easily: simply ask how do they treat their most gifted?

It is an undeniable fact that almost all human advance depends on a few creative individuals. Without the input of these individuals, little new would actually occur. One need only look at the productivity of the most creative compared to those who are bright but less outstanding...the total productivity difference can be orders of magnitude. Think of Leonardo da Vinci - his productivity was equivalent to that of many creative people, the output of dozens of lifetimes.

Thus, how a society nurtures such people really has an impact on the future health, prosperity and soundness of that society. If the gifted are nurtured and nourished, encouraged and supported, then that society will flourish. However, if the gifted are opposed, discouraged, vilified and left unsupported, it is almost certain that that society will fail, in the long-term - it will slowly dwindle away due to lack of innovation; lack of creativity, lack of leadership.

I write this because of attitudes I have picked up around the world.

In America, if the gifted boards are anything to go by, support for the gifted is not what it should be: there is a lot of envy and intolerance of anyone more gifted than themselves (from "gifted" people themselves). I don't think this bodes well for the future of the USA. In the city-state of Singapore, however, we have so far, been greeted very well...it is uncanny really. For Singapore has a reputation for oppressiveness - on which I cannot comment - and America has a reputation for freedom. Yet, the country that is free has citizens that have attacked us, verbally - and the country that is reputedly not free has citizens who have been kind to us. It really is telling.

So which country has a future? The country that is "free" - but giftist...or the country that is not free - but is meritocratic?

It will be interesting to find out.

Are you giftist?

I think that "giftist" is a new word I have coined. Why do I coin it and what does it mean?

Well, I have noticed two kinds of reactions to Ainan's achievement. There have been some very positive ones. Ainan has been cheered by his school; greeted in the street with smiles and cries of "Ainan!"; congratulated by almost everyone he has known...and then there is the other type.

There is the neighbour who used to speak to me, whenever he saw me, who now finds his eyes unable to meet mine - and who doesn't reply if spoken to.

There are a few anonymous people - they are always anonymous, aren't they - who write envy filled words, trying to diminish Ainan's achievement and disparage him for it.

It is these latter two types that I call "giftist". There is something in them that loathes those of gift. The strange thing is - and the really sad, sad thing - is that many of these "giftist" people are themselves gifted. The problem is, that they have something in them that doesn't wish to be challenged. No-one is allowed to be as "great" as they are. No-one is also allowed to be gifted. There is a "gifted community board" that is filled with this kind of nonsense. It is an American board and most of the commenters are from that nation - but the hate and envy that sometimes comes off them is shocking to see. They simply will not tolerate anyone of greater gift than themselves. They seek to bring down anyone who is truly gifted.

It is this kind of giftist individual who is most poisonous. They should know better. Their own experiences of intolerance towards them, by some of lesser gift, should have taught them to be more tolerant of those of greater gift - but it hasn't. Somehow, somewhere, they have learned hate and envy. These feelings have become their core - and they vent it at every opportunity.

Giftism should not be allowed. It diminishes the world and makes the path of gifted people a much more difficult one to tread. Yet, the oddest thing is that many of these giftist people are the gifted themselves...or those who appear to be gifted because they are on a gifted board.

I find that fact the most puzzling of all.

President Bush's IQ

How smart is President Bush? The question seems to be one that troubles many American commentators.

Before I answer I would like to point out that I have no personal interest in American politics and I live outside America, I ask the question only for what we can learn from its answer.

I have done a net search and found huge variations in claimed figures, from those who suggest that he is in the retarded range of 70 or so, to those who believe him to have an IQ of between 125 and 129. The ones who suggest the latter range do so based on his SAT college scores which would correspond to that range of IQs. Let us assume that, at one time, his IQ was in the range 125 to 129, though lifestyle habits since then may have impacted it. Is this too low an IQ for the President of America?

To understand the situations we need to know how smart the average American is. According to a study of national IQs, the mean IQ of the USA is 98. That tells me something very clearly: President George W. Bush's IQ, if it is indeed in the proposed range is actually IDEAL for a leader. Why is this? Well, there is a theory that the leader of group must never have an IQ more than 30 points above the mean of the group if he is to be an effective communicator with the group. A larger IQ differential would lead to communicative failure. Thus a leader CAN be too smart to lead effectively. The IQ range proposed for Bush places him at 27 to 31 points above the mean of his electorate...an optimal IQ, therefore, for an American leader.

There is only one thing that worries me, as an observer about this analysis: Bush's personal style does not often convey this degree of intelligence. The possibility exists, therefore, that these estimates of his understanding are too high. We may never know the truth, but the principle remains that the intelligence of the electorate places a limitation on the intelligence of the leader. If the difference is too great, the leader will not be able to communicate and so will not be able to lead.

Two gifted cultures: America and Singapore

I have learnt that, in America, there is a lot of interest in IQ. In Singapore, however, one never hears of it. It is a subject that appears to hold little interest for people. In Singapore, what people are interested in is examination results. One doesn't hear, in Singapore, of parents talking of their highly gifted, exceptionally gifted or profoundly gifted children. They don't boast of their children's IQ or percentiles. Generally, they don't get them tested, either - though this could be because of the prohibitive cost of up to 1600 dollars per child, I have heard.

Why is that Americans are so interested in IQ results? From what I gather it is because the educational system requires them, to "prove" that one's child is gifted and so allow provision to be made for them. Perhaps that is the root of the matter.

In Singapore, whether a child is gifted or not is judged purely on achievement. IQ is not considered for gifted programs here, generally. Anyway, the gifted education programme is being phased out, so it is becoming a moot question. Children here are pressured to perform as well as possible on every exam. Examinations begin in Primary One and are taken at least twice a year, every year of education. It is an exam mad nation. Everything hinges on them: your higher education, your job prospects, your salary even. Higher qualifications attract bonus salaries here: just for passing a certificate you receive a monetary advantage forever. By this I mean that newspapers will even print different salaries FOR THE SAME JOB, depending on your qualifications. It is bizarre. You don't get paid for the work you do. You get paid for the qualifications you have passed.

All this leads to an incredibly pressured educational system. No accommodation is made for the very gifted: all are educated in age-lockstep from first year to graduation. There are even rules to prevent acceleration, though perhaps that is not their direct intention. It is not a system which understands much about individuality - and not a system which pays much heed to IQ, just hard work. Hard work is the main currency of education here - and of life, too.

I am not sure which is better: the excessive interest, in IQ, I read on American bulletin boards or the absolute lack of interest one feels here in Singapore. Perhaps we should strike a balance between the two extremes and take IQ as but one facet of a child, indicating but one type of function of their minds. The emphasis here on achievement, alone, as an indicator, leads to the danger that the gifted underachiever will be overlooked, in the system. Perhaps an interest in IQ would address that.

However, until testing costs are greatly reduced it is highly unlikely that IQ testing will become the norm in Singapore. Is testing expensive in America, too? Is attention paid to actual achievement in deciding who to accelerate/give access to gifted programmes? Just wondering. Your thoughts please.

(If you would like to read about my scientific child prodigy son, Ainan Celeste Cawley, six, and his gifted brothers, please go to: http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2006/10/scientific-child-prodigy-guide.html. Thanks. I also write of child genius, adult genius, prodigy, savant and gifted children in general.)