People Magazine's 100 Most Beautiful People List.

People Magazine has published their 100 Most Beautiful People List for 2009. Now, I haven't been one to pay particular attention to this list, in the past, but something made me take notice this time. The list is full of people who shouldn't be on it.

What does it mean to be one of the world's "most beautiful" people? Well, to me, it means to have such great visual appeal, in the aesthetic sense, that almost no-one approaches it. It is clear, however, that this is not what "most beautiful" means for People Magazine.

The biggest surprise of the list is that Michelle Obama, the First Lady, is featured. Now, I have nothing against the woman, but "most beautiful" she is most certainly not. She is well-dressed and well presented and smiles a lot...but that does not make her one of the world's most beautiful women. To say that she is diminishes all the other women who are more beautiful than her - who, in my estimate, would constitute about 45% of the world's women. Michelle Obama, is slightly above average in appearance - and no more. She does not, if one is being truthful, honest and unbiased, have the physical wherewithal to be accounted one of the world's most beautiful people.

There are other surprises, too. Timothy Geithner, Treasury Secretary, appears on the list, as does White House Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel. Again, these men are well presented, and very polished...but that only makes them well presented and very polished, not "most beautiful" - though it has to be said that both are much better looking people than Michelle Obama, relative to other men. Perhaps this list should be renamed to: the Most Influential but Not Ugly, list, or The People we Most Need to Suck Up to list, or Well Dressed Famous People list.

Other inclusions in the list have more justification: Robert Pattinson, vampiric star of Twilight, has a place, as does Halle Berry. Also present are others, such as Angelina Jolie who is widely considered very beautiful but of whom I have never thought so (some of her features are disproportionate).

A walk down the high street of any major city in the world would reveal better looking people in half an hour, than are contained on this list. The only difference is that such "beautiful people" are unknowns. This People Magazine list is a meaningless annual rite, in that it does not live up to its name. It would be great if it did...it would then be truly of interest, to see who were the most beautiful humans on Earth. However, the Most Beautiful People list is not even remotely a catalogue of the world's greatest beauties. It is a catalogue of well presented famous people, nothing more. It is a list that confuses fame with beauty, that confuses being well-dressed, with beautiful, that confuses influence with being beautiful. Beauty does not come from fame, good clothes, or influence...beauty is in the person, innately, if it is there, at all. It comes from a perfect symmetry of the features, a balanced proportion of the body, a quality of skin and hair, an overall aesthetic perfection of form. It is something immediately obvious when seen - and it is also immediately obvious that quite a few of the Most Beautiful People, do not have it. The most obvious case is Michelle Obama who does not remotely qualify, in the Most Beautiful People category, if one were to be truly impartial. She belongs on other lists: lists of influential people, of well-connected people, of famous people...she does not belong on a Most Beautiful People list.

What worries me about such lists is that they tend to influence the way people think. A principle is at stake here, even though who is beautiful or not, is not a particularly important issue. The principle is that when accolades are given they should truly represent what they are stated to be. Otherwise, people get a distorted idea of the world. In this case, the Most Beautiful People list does not truly represent the world's most beautiful people - it represents a selection of well-presented famous people, at least one of whom is perfectly AVERAGE in appearance. To say that it is a true record of the world's most beautiful people is to lie to the world's people. This is unfortunate, for there are people who will read this list and believe it...they will not trust their own eyes, which might say otherwise, but will actually believe that not only is Michelle Obama, lucky enough to be First Lady, but that she is also lucky enough to be one of the world's top 100 most beautiful people.

In another sense, Michelle Obama's inclusion trivializes her position. Being First Lady should not be about being beautiful - it should be about her role in support of her husband's leadership of a great nation. That People Magazine think she must also be beautiful, is an illustration of what Americans think is important. For modern Americans, looking good is considered to be of immense value. It seems, from this example, that it is of more value than being married to a President and supporting him in his daily role.

I would like to see a very different kind of "Most Beautiful People" list. I would like to see a list populated not with well-dressed famous people...but the 100 people who are truly the world's most beautiful. I wonder how many of them would be completely unknown to the public before their inclusion? I strongly suspect that many of them would be. Now, that would be a list worth looking at.

(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.)

Celebrity: gift or creative genius?

We live in a celebrity obsessed world. A world of Tom Cruise, Katie Holmes, and baby Suri; a world of Brad Pitt, Angelina Jolie and baby Shiloh Nouvel Jolie-Pitt; the world of Mel Gibson, Madonna, and Sharon Stone. A world in which Marilyn Monroe, Elvis Presley, James Dean and Marlon Brando are still remembered. From the coverage these people receive, one would think they were the most important people on Earth: but are they? Are they the best of people? Is celebrity the product of natural gift, inner creative genius - or is it a gift of luck, itself?

Some celebrities are certainly gifted. James Woods is profoundly gifted, with an IQ of 180. He may well be the brightest working actor in Hollywood, though perhaps not in the wider world. Madonna's IQ, I once read, is 140 - so she is moderately gifted, on her way to highly gifted. Sharon Stone's is apparently around 150 making her highly gifted. One could argue whether or not these people were geniuses - in the creative sense - and decide, most probably, that they were not: but they are definitely gifted in the sense of IQ.

Is it necessary to be gifted to be a celebrity? The short answer is a clear no, as most would have observed if you have watched celebrity interviews. Many of them are clearly not very intelligent. It seems that luck and perseverance alone, are enough. A pretty face helps, too.

Is celebrity a reward to giftedness? Most certainly not. Most gifted people live relatively successful lives, but few attain fame - there are so many factors involved in that besides talent, or gift, or even simple intelligence.

Ainan Celeste Cawley, my six year old son, is a scientific child prodigy, with a prodigious gift in science, and a grasp of conceptual matters beyond most adults. He is not, however, a celebrity. Scientists generally don't achieve acclaim, even if they produce volumes of quality work. Why is this? Fame is determined by what the public want to know and generally they don't want to know about scientists or science. Apart from Linus Pauling, Stephen Hawking, Albert Einstein and Robert Oppenheimer, how many scientists, in modern times, have truly made an impression on the public? Very few compared to the vast numbers of scientists who have lived and worked in that period.

Fame, then, is not an inevitable reward for giftedness. To be gifted, a genius, a child prodigy - or a savant - is its own reward. These gifts confer the ability to see more in life, understand more, feel more - and contribute more to life, than the ungifted, untalented, ordinary are able to.

Who is more important to the world: a celebrity, who is ungifted, but famous, or a gifted person who is talented, but unknown? I would say the gifted person, for though they may not be leading a high-profile life, their actual true contribution to life is likely to be greater. This becomes clear once we see through the glamour of fame, and judge the actual merits of their achievements.

Whether or not my children become famous for their achievements, their genius, prodigy, gift provides the only significance that is necessary. That they are gifted is significant. Being a child prodigy, is significant, whether or not that is recognized widely, it does not change their intrinsic worth, which could not be higher.

For me Ainan Celeste Cawley, 6, Fintan Nadym Cawley, 3, and Tiarnan Hasyl Cawley, 9 months are my pantheon of celebrities/little Gods. That few know them, matters little, for their worth and their unique gifts are most evident.

If your children are gifted, or show genius, or prodigy of any kind, then know that that makes them as important to life as anyone. Though the creative among us may often not receive the acclaim they deserve, they remain the most important of people: a world of god-like celebrities notwithstanding.

(If you would like to learn more Ainan Celeste Cawley, six, a scientific child prodigy, and his brothers, go to: http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2006/10/scientific-child-prodigy-guide.html )