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.)

Living in a one-dimensional world.

The world is not what it used to be. Or, more specifically, PEOPLE are not what they used to be. It doesn't take much reading of history to note something odd about the people recorded there: many of them seem so much more diverse and capable than the typical modern human. Today, the world is peopled by one dimensional beings, able to do one thing, if that. Yesteryear, on the other hand, was made up of people of multiplicitous talents. They lived very diverse lives, excelling at many different things.

Perhaps I should remind you of the likes of the men of the past, that we no longer have. Copernicus, for instance, of the Heliocentric theory of the solar system, was, according to Wikipedia, a mathematician, astronomer, physician, quadrilingual polyglot, classical scholar, translator, artist, Catholic cleric, jurist, governor, military leader, diplomat and economist. Wikipedia notes that Leonardo da Vinci was a painter, sculptor, architect, musician, scientist, mathematician, engineer, inventor, anatomist, geologist, botanist and writer. Benjamin Franklin is remembered as a leading author, political theorist, politician, printer, scientist, inventor, civic activist, publisher and diplomat. Thomas Jefferson was a philosopher, author, lawyer, architect, musician, naturalist, botanist, inventor, engineer, statesman, diplomat, and political theorist - oh, and President of the United States.

Modern eminences, on the other hand, are, generally, one dimensional people. They are pop stars, who often don't write their own songs, but specialize in performing them. They are academics, so specialized that the readership of their target journals is measured in hundreds and their articles are only of relevance to a dozen people. They focus their entire lives on the tiniest corners of human knowledge and make the merest increments of progress. They are writers who, typically, cultivate one type of story line - the horror writer, the science fiction author, the vampire tale spinner, and so on - and do nothing else. They are actors, many of whom do only one type of role: the action hero, the bumbling oaf, the person with a dark secret etc. They are lawyers, who spend their lives dealing with one kind of argument on behalf of one type of client, all their lives long. They are TV presenters whose highest skill is insincerity and an easy smile. This is the world we live in. A world dominated by what would once have been seen as slivers of people, with mere suggestions of ability. Diversity of careers are not only absent, but discouraged. It is frowned upon to step outside of the domain for which one initially becomes known. An actor may not write without being viewed with some amusement; a scientist may not paint without eliciting smirks and frowns; a businessman may not be a poet, without people talking behind his back, in unflattering terms. Nowadays, everyone must safely be placed in a box with but a single label - clear, readily understood, almost stereotypical. People who wish to step outside of such constraints find that the modern world really resists them. The academic known in one field, who wishes to publish in another, may find a cool reception - or even open hostility that he should dare to speak of matters on which he is "unqualified" (as if a particular piece of paper is needed to allow anyone to think). The pop star who acts, is just not taken seriously, even if his or her performances are decent. Indeed, to stray into any field outside of the one in which one has become initially established is to evoke anything from coldness, to hostility, to being shunned, ignored or just met with amusement. There is the feeling that only those who have devoted their entire lives to a particular pursuit have a rightful place in it. Yet, this is absurdly not true. Any creative and intelligent person may be able to contribute to any area of human life, given the chance to do so. It is just that in the modern world, few are given such a chance because of the dominant belief that one must specialize in one thing and one thing alone.

Given the narrowness of modern life, in the sense that diversity of activity is difficult to achieve and is actively resisted by the society, I would say that few modern people are as interesting as the most interesting people of the past. Modern men are shallow and narrow, in experience, outlook and understanding. They each carry the smallest piece of the world around with them and that, perhaps, explains much that is wrong with this world. There are many things which become more difficult to achieve, when everyone is so narrow in their views and understandings.

I would like to see an end to the one dimensional world we live in, and a return to more plural, multi-dimensional times. Unfortunately, I do wonder if modern people have the intellectual substance to be able to do such a thing. It may be that such people are too uncommon, nowadays, for such a diverse culture to ever prevail again. We can, however, but live in hope.

(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/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.)

The limits of the world.

What are the limits of the world? How do we perceive them?

Sometimes, when people hear of Ainan and his attributes they just don't believe in them. Their response is often quite strong: "That is impossible!", they seem to be saying and point blank refuse to accept what they are told. To them, the way Ainan is, is beyond the limits of the world. He is an impossibility, for them.

Why do they think this way? I think it is because what they perceive to be limits of the world, are, in fact, limits of themselves. They are not like that. They have no personal experience of being like that. Unconsciously, they think that the human is limited in the same way that they are limited. In other words, they think of themselves as the limit of what can be. It is not within their imagination to conceive of someone more precocious or more capable than themselves.

Of course, not everyone reacts this way to Ainan. Many simply accept him for the way he is, even if a little wonderingly. Others come out with tales of their own gifted childhood and times they, too, were misunderstood. However, it is the Impossibles! that draw my attention and concern. People like that often cause stress and distress for the parents of gifted children. Gifted children are often met with misunderstanding, incomprehension and even, at times, hostility. Part of the reasons for these responses lie in this perception of limits. There is a belief in some people's minds that a child that goes beyond what they, often unconsciously, hold as limits, cannot be real. Some of them are very vociferous in expressing their beliefs to the parents of gifted children (conversations along these lines are not uncommon on parenting and "gifted" message boards). The harm to gifted families is palpable. There is the feeling, among some of them, that they cannot express, in any way, what they are going through, without meeting opposition and hostility and open doubt from some.

There is a remedy for this: everyone should accept the idea that the limits of the world are greater than the limits of ourselves or of any one person. That another can do something that is inconceivable for ourselves, should not, in itself, make that thing inconceivable. The other person is just different, that is all, and therefore bound by different constraints.

It is true that humans have limits. However, I have learnt that those limits are far less limited than many people suppose. The limits of the human world are great indeed, and stretch far beyond what we are accustomed to think of, as human behaviour. It is possible, indeed, that no-one, who has yet lived, has actually bumped up against the true limits of the human world: not even the fabled such as Leonardo da Vinci.

I wonder what those who doubt the tales of gifted children think of the tales of Leonardo da Vinci? Compared to most gifted children, Leonardo is a demi-god. How much more skepticism would that elicit, in them? Funny enough, I have had searchers arriving on my blog with the words "Did Leonardo da Vinci exist?". Luckily, however, there was a Leonardo da Vinci...and the limits of the human world are greater than many suppose.

(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 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.)

Leonardo Da Vinci on Medicine and Doctors

What did Leonardo Da Vinci think of medicine? Recently, I found out. His words make interesting reading.

In his Notebooks, the following remark is to be found: "Strive to preserve your health, and in this you will better succeed in proportion as you keep clear of the physicians, for their drugs are a kind of alchemy concerning which there are no fewer books than there are medicines."

Now, medicine in his time was a different affair to what it is now. It was only just beginning to turn away from the Ancient writings and start to learn from the world, for itself. Yet, I feel his view is still relevant. His advice that health is to be found far from the reach of Doctors and that the implication that contact with them is harmful, holds more truth, even today, than perhaps we are willing to admit.

Leonardo Da Vinci seems to have kept to his own advice and lived a long life, for his time, dying at the age of 67. Average life expectancy at birth in the 16th century was only 35 years, so Leonardo did rather well.

I just thought you might find this particular wise man's thoughts on medicine, of interest. I did.

(If you would like to learn more of Ainan Celeste Cawley, a scientific child prodigy, aged eight years and no months, or his gifted brothers, Fintan, four years and five months, and Tiarnan, twenty-two 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, 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.)

Genius and long-term relationships

Do geniuses find long-term relationships difficult to maintain? Is the state of possessing rare powers of the mind, that allow the bearer to think thoughts no-one else has thought, and create works no-one else could have created, something which permanently separates the genius from others?

I ask, as usual, for a reason. Leonardo da Vinci was a striking man in many ways. It was said, that he was physically so impressive that, when he walked through the streets in the morning, on the way to work, that people would line the streets to watch him pass. Everywhere he went he made a vast impression on others. Yet, there is a caveat. You see in all his relatively long life (given the time), Leonardo da Vinci maintained NO long-term relationships, barring that with his adopted son (who was 10 years old at the beginning of their acquaintance).

Why was it that a man of Leonardo's legendary fame - which he achieved in his own lifetime - could not cultivate a range of long-term friendships? Everyone in his life was temporary - they passed on and through, leaving him alone.

Leonardo is known in name, by all alive, in the developed world - yet, in his lifetime, he had few who knew him well - and none who knew him long.

Was this some peculiarity of Leonardo da Vinci himself - or is it the common burden of all men and women of genius?

I have considered this question and believe that the answer is that, for many men and women of genius, the gulf that exists between them, and their more ordinary fellows, is too wide to cross readily and often. They are thus divorced from society. Many of them will, therefore, succumb to solitude, rather than revel in The Other. Yet, all is not lost. People of genius usually find greatest pleasure in their creative work - which, of course, for most disciplines, best proceeds in solitude.

Thus, though sad from a human standpoint, that Leonardo so lacked long-term human contact, from the point of view of his work, and the creative abundance he gave rise to, it is undoubtedly a great blessing on the rest of Mankind, that his mind was turned, so necessarily, towards his work, than towards social interaction. It is certain that Leonardo owed a significant proportion of his creative output, to the solitude that he would have so often found himself in.

So, from a wider perspective, it is for the greater good that geniuses are not so socially engaged, as others are - even if, from a more normal perspective, one would think that they are missing one of the greatest pleasures of human life: friends and love relationships.

(If you would like to read more of Ainan Celeste Cawley, seven years and eight months, a scientific child prodigy, or his gifted brothers, Fintan, four years and one month, 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 in general. Thanks.)

Are geniuses ever satisfied?

What is it that drives a genius ever on, to deeper understandings, greater works, more complete statements? I would say that one key attribute is dissatisfaction.

Yet, dissatisfaction at the work already achieved, has a dark side to it, too. Perhaps the genius is unable to fully appreciate their own work, so high are their aims and, perhaps, so low are their achievements, in comparison.

I am led to the words of two great geniuses to support this view that they appear dissatisfied with their works.

Albert Einstein once said: "If I had my life to live over again, I would be a plumber."

Surely, only great dissatisfaction with what he had achieved - or the life that he had had to lead to achieve it - could ever have motivated such words. Looking back over his life, his personal assessment was that a life of manual labour would have been preferable.

Another, too, who expressed dissatisfaction with his creative life, was Leonardo da Vinci - whose last words I have elsewhere recorded: "I have offended God and Man by doing so little with my life."

These words, too, point to an essential dissatisfaction with his achievements: somehow, great though they appear to others, he felt that they didn't make the grade.

Are we to assess a genius on their own unachievably high standards - or on the external standards of others looking on, at their works. I think the latter is healthier. Einstein and da Vinci may not have thought much of their work - but to the rest of us, their lives seem little short of miraculous.

A genius may need that sense of dissatisfaction to drive them on to greater things. It may, in fact, be a key attribute of great minds - but we must not let their self-assessment provide us with our view of their works. The judgement should be by the standards of the rest of society - otherwise we may not be able to see geniuses for what they are at all. It doesn't seem that they see themselves as we see them. That, in itself, is interesting.

Perhaps a genius needs society to tell them just how significant their works are. That society may, of course, be one of a different time, since some geniuses are not recognized in their own times. Whenever it is, however, society should not be shy in rewarding a genius with recognition - because, more than others, perhaps, they need this positive feedback - since so many of them seem to be unable to see it in themselves.

(If you would like to read of Ainan Celeste Cawley, a scientific child prodigy, aged seven years and six months, and his gifted brothers, Fintan, three, and Tiarnan, sixteen 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 in general. Thanks.)

Leonardo Da Vinci: Musician

Someone searched today using the term: "Did Leonardo play a musical instrument?". Knowing the answer, I thought I would reply to them, lest they visit this site, again.

Leonardo da Vinci, 1452 - 1519, had many gifts, but one of them was for music. He composed music, spontaneously, improvising freely as he went - and presumably he recorded some of this. However, no written record of his music survives. So we may never know whether he was, in fact, a good composer, to add to all his other wonders.

We do know however that he had a great reputation for being able to play ANY stringed musical instrument, at first sight, even if he had never encountered the particular type of instrument before. Though, his official instrument was the lyre, he was able to play others, too. Presumably, he was physically dextrous and so comfortable with music as an art, that he could respond to the opportunities and constraints of a new instrument well enough to coax adequate music from it.

So, not only could Leonardo da Vinci play an instrument - he had shown himself able to play any stringed instrument of his time.

Leonardo's view of Humanity

Yesterday, someone from America made the funniest search I have ever seen. He or she searched with the words: "Why did Leonardo da Vinci think people existed?" This is a reversal of the question posed by one of my posts: Did Leonardo da Vinci exist? Clearly they knew of the post and were responding to it in the most hilarious of ways...yet, I thought about their words - and they have a point.

What would Leonardo da Vinci have thought of the common man, he encountered? What would he have made of the gulf in ability between himself and others? I don't think his views on the matter have been recorded but his case points up the problems the extremely gifted have of relating to others in the world. What could Leonardo da Vinci have found to interest him in the conversation of a typical person of his time? Nothing at all, I would suppose. However, he was fortunate to be famous and well-regarded for this would have given him access to other famous and well-regarded people. He knew, for instance, the King of France - no slouch himself, one would think - and many other brilliant people - so he would have found interesting minds to engage with, because of his social position. Yet, the problem of the common man would have remained. What would Leonardo have thought of their inability compared to him? The comical searcher was not only making a funny search, but making a funny point - if Leonardo was so special that others might doubt the truth of his existence, because he just seems so unlikely, we have to remember that he would have thought of himself as normal - and the others as somehow lacking (from his point of view). Perhaps, indeed, he had puzzled at this disparity - and wondered at the existence of such a difference.

All gifted children and adult must come to terms with this difference between themselves and others. Perhaps the best adjustment is just to accept others as they are - without bemoaning their lack of certain abilities the gifted one might possess. There are other reasons to find someone of interest apart from the quality of their mind. They might be sweet-natured or pleasant to be with. They might be considerate or kind, good or loyal. They might have any number of qualities to be admired that do not depend on raw intelligence. Perhaps it is in these ways that Leonardo adjusted to the world. It is in these ways that any gifted child - or adult - however gifted, can also make an adjustment to the world and its people and come to accept them for what they are.

Yet, I can't help but feel that it must have been difficult, in some ways, to be Leonardo da Vinci.

(If you would like to read about Ainan Celeste Cawley, a scientific child prodigy, aged seven years and four months, or his gifted brothers, Fintan, three and Tiarnan, fourteen 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.)

Ainan walks on water - an experiment

Ainan doesn't know about Jesus Christ. He doesn't know much about any religion, in fact. That part of his education has been omitted for we live in a mixed environment: which religion should he learn of, when he lives between alternatives?

For now, he has not been strongly immersed in any of the religions. He knows of them. Yet, he does not know them explicitly or deeply. In some ways, his scientific bent precludes much inquiry into the matter, for he takes a scientific view on all things.

Thus, Ainan doesn't know about the miracles of Jesus. He hasn't heard the stories told by christians everywhere of the loaves and fish feeding the five thousand; of the water turned to wine; or of Jesus Christ walking on water.

It was funny therefore, that Ainan independently set himself the challenge of walking on water, on Sunday, at the pool. He didn't know that this was a biblical thing to do. He didn't know it had religious overtones reminiscent of Jesus. Yet, he tried to walk on water.

Being Ainan, he adopted a scientific approach. Firstly, he took two pieces of styrofoam that he had found from some box and placed one on each foot. Then he stepped into the pool. He sank - but with a noticeable slowing. He noted this and decided to test it further. He jumped into the pool without the foam and sank quickly to the bottom. Then he tried it again, holding a piece of styrofoam in each hand. He sank to the bottom again, but was noticeably slower in doing so. He remarked on this.

Finally, he took a large float of the kind used by trainee swimmers and stepped onto it. Then he jumped into the water. He didn't sink to the bottom. His descent stopped at just below his shoulders and there he floated in the water, head above the surface, balanced on the board (quite a neat physical feat that).

So, in a limited sense, Ainan succeeded. He didn't exactly walk on water, but he didn't sink either. He was supported from below and didn't submerge.

What I found interesting about this is the precedents to the situation. Leonardo Da Vinci also tried this, unknown to Ainan. He invented shoes that would allow one to walk on water (if memory serves me right). His shoes were impractical - less so, in some ways, than what Ainan did.

The difference between Ainan and Leonardo Da Vinci, is that Da Vinci would have known about Jesus Christ. Ainan didn't. So, in a very real sense, his experiment was a creative act, from Ainan's knowledge perspective.

Anyway, it was fun to watch - especially when he half-succeeded, spookily balanced in the water.

(If you would like to read more of Ainan Celeste Cawley, a scientific child prodigy, aged seven years and three months, or his gifted brothers, Fintan, three, and Tiarnan, thirteen 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 in general. Thanks.

Leonardo's speed of perception

Leonardo Da Vinci was a man of many gifts, as is well known. I will not list them here for I have written of him in another post. There is, however, one peculiarity of this remarkable man that I wish to draw your attention to. Among Leonardo's copious surviving written documents (which may only, in fact, be about half of what he wrote, the rest being lost, by careless handling, by those he entrusted it to) there is a series of detailed drawings of a bird's wings in flight, showing the precise disposition of the feathers, as they arrange themselves, at various stages in the flapping motion.

Think about that for a moment. It is easy to overlook the special meaning of those drawings. For a typical human, a bird's wings are a blur, in flight, so fast are they. No ordinary man could see exactly how the feathers were arranged in a flapping bird's wing, but Leonardo could - and he drew them to prove it.

Clearly, Leonardo Da Vinci possessed a speed of perception beyond that of an ordinary man - for him the motion was not a blur, but a clearly visible fluid sequence of motions. Then there is the sharpness of his eyesight, which must have been far surpassed the ordinary man's to see these details in a flying bird, which could have been any distance from him.

Leonardo was not just a universal genius. He possessed abilities that place him outside the common realm of even the company of other geniuses.

It was not until several hundred years had passed and stop-motion photography was invented, that Leonardo's view of how birds actually fly, was proven to be correct: he had seen this with his naked eye.

What do you think of this superhuman speed of perception? I would like your thoughts on it, as I may write further, on some related matter.

(If you would like to read of my scientific child prodigy son, Ainan Celeste Cawley, seven years and one month, or his gifted brothers, please go to: http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2006/10/scientific-child-prodigy-guide.html I also write of child prodigy, child genius, adult genius, savant, the creatively gifted, gifted children and gifted adults in general. Note that owing to a problem with my blogger interface I am presently unable to edit posts and so cannot update the scientific child prodigy guide page. I trying to resolve the difficulty. For recent posts, you will have to go to the head page and hunt through the links on the left-hand side. Thanks.)

Are many gifts better than one?

If we look back at the past, some of the figures we most admire, such as Leonardo Da Vinci, had many gifts. He was a man who, seemingly, could do anything excellently. Is this situation the ideal one?

In one way, it would seem to be, for it lends the bearer of the gifts, many opportunities and choices: there is nothing they cannot do if they have gifts in the sciences and the arts, practical gifts and theoretical gifts, musical gifts and athletic gifts. Such people may do as they please in life. That is the clear advantage. However there is one disadvantage that is not so clear. With many gifts, there will be a tendency to dilute one's efforts among them and so reduce the likelihood of success in any of them. In the modern world, therefore, the person of many gifts may not succeed in the way that a person of one gift would: eminence requires focus and effortful attention over many years. That does not come easily to someone who has half-a-dozen areas of expertise. Such a person may sparkle brightly in one way, and not at all in another.

I have seen such a tendency in my own early life. I had many areas in which it was easy for me to shine - science, acting, writing, music, art and academia. Yet, having so many areas meant that I was pulled in several directions and so did not dig sufficiently deep in any of them to satisfy my potential in those areas. Many years were perhaps "wasted" pursuing one gift at the expense of others. Although I would say that pursuit of any of one's gifts makes one grow - and so makes the whole person more complex and more interesting.

I was a physicist for a time, with a government laboratory, at 17. It was at the National Physical Laboratory in Teddington, Middx., UK. I enjoyed it and completed two research projects while I was there - a major and a minor, if you like. I worked as an Arts magazine founder and editor, for a couple of years - and again, found it enjoyable and rewarding. I have written two non-fiction books and done major work on two others. (The process of publishing these has begun). I used to draw very distinctive compositions as a teenager...but gave up due to personal injury at 17. I have yet to return to it. Though, a piece of my performance art, "Lord Valentine the Misplaced" was global news on CNN, and Reuters, among others, in the 1990s. The interviewer at CNN, was Richard Blystone who was, or became, the European Bureau Chief. As a child, singing was one of my greatest joys. I went to Cambridge University and studied Natural Sciences, taking my B.A and later M.A. This I did not enjoy for reasons too diverse to discuss here, though I would point out that I was unlucky enough not to find a mentor there. I have also acted on stage, TV and the odd film. I appear regularly on TV in South-East Asia of all places.

Yet, there has been a price for this diversity: the cumulative effect of working in one area with focussed effort over time, is to establish a rather large presence in a field. That doesn't happen in a short time if you are working in several fields. Would I do things differently had I the opportunity? Perhaps - but then I would have paid a different price - the lack of diversity of experience that I have garnered in my varied career.

Why do I write this? Well, many parents are worried about the development of their children. They want to see them become all-rounders in some instances, or to shine at one thing in others. Is either superior? Well the first gives great flexibility of choices - but the latter could be superior from the career point of view. You see the person focussed on one thing is infinitely more likely to become a great shining success in it, than the person who has several mini-careers. That being said, of course, if the person of several mini-careers becomes famous for any one of them, he or she may become known as a polymath, and admired for that characteristic - and rewarded with opportunities in the other areas, too.

Ainan, my scientific child prodigy son, shows great focus on science, at present, although he has shown aptitude in music and art among other things. If his focus is maintained as he grows up, he is likely to make a significant impression in whichever scientific area is his choice. I don't worry that he might be less "polymathic" than I was - for I see something now which I did not understand then - there is a definite advantage in picking a strength and working with it. He has other strengths and each may develop at different stages in his life - but it is as a scientist that I think he will most readily shine - for that is the subject of his focus.

So if your child has many gifts, or just one: don't worry - for both have paths to success - and in some ways, it is the child of one great gift who has the easier path.

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

Leonardo Da Vinci's Last Words

For many years, I have mulled over the last words of Leonardo de Ser Piero da Vinci.

Leonardo da Vinci was born on April 15, 1452 and died on May 2, 1519.

As you no doubt know, he was a true Renaissance Man - a man gifted in many areas. He was an inventor, a scientist, a painter, an architect, an engineer, a military engineer, a musician, both as performer and composer, able to sing and compose songs spontaneously, a noted anatomist, a geologist, a geometer, a mathematician, a sculptor, a physicist and astronomer, a Roman Catholic and a vegetarian. He was the quintessential polymath, who could turn his hand to anything and acquit himself as well - usually better - than any man of his Age. There is much more that I could say about this astonishing universal genius - and I have written one post about him already. http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2006/09/did-leonardo-da-vinci-exist.html However, it is to his last words that I wish to draw your eyes.

I cannot read Italian in the original, nor would I be familiar with any dialectical variations attendant on the sixteenth century Italian he would have spoken, so I have had to rely on translations.

Many years ago, in a book now forgotten, in a place unremembered, I read what were stated to be the last words of Leonardo da Vinci - and it is this first version or translation of his final utterances that remains my favourite.

"I have offended God and Mankind, by doing so little with my life."

Think about that. The greatest universal genius of all time, thought that he had done nothing much with his life. Isn't that a humbling thought?

He died in the arms of the King Francis, the King of France: the highest honour that could be accorded in the situation, the King being divine.

I have since seen two other, different versions of these words and rather wish that I was familiar with the original Italian language.

"I have offended God and Mankind, by not having worked at my Art as I should have."

and "I have offended God and Mankind because my work did not reach the quality it should have."

All three versions agree that he was expressing dissatisfaction, either with himself or his work. In a way, this is tremendously sad, that he should summarize his life of struggle and achievement in this way. It seems that his inner vision of what he sought to achieve was ever higher than the result.

If only Leonardo da Vinci could know how much he is appreciated almost five hundred years after his death. Perhaps, then, he would not be so worried about having offended Mankind by his lack of personal effort. Rest in peace, Leonardo.

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

The inventor: electrical, mechanical, chemical

Have you ever seen a blueprint? I see them most days. They may not always be written in blue, but blueprints they are. You see, Ainan Celeste Cawley, my child prodigy son who has just turned seven, has had a strange habit for several years now: inventing things.

He tends to draw detailed diagrams of his inventions, with labels and arrows. The inventions are of various types: those that depend on electrical principles, mechanical principles and chemical principles. Often he mixes all three principles together. Some of his devices are very interesting indeed. However, owing to the need for intellectual privacy, I am only going to speak in generalities about them.

He will sometimes do a series of drawings to show the device in operation, capturing it as it changes through various states. He comes to me with these drawings and adds further verbal explanations of their principles. I sometimes get lost in the torrent of explanation - but there is always good scientific or technical sense in what he has to say. Basically, his devices would work, whether or not they are the most practical solution to the problem he has addressed. Some of them are highly imaginative solutions, the like of which I have not seen before. Others recreate some similar to key historical inventions - without him being aware that another has beaten him to it. Yet, this in itself, is promising - for it shows that had that other never been, Ainan would have invented it.

As I watch him draw scientific devices, I am reminded of another figure, lost in time, who had a propensity to draw scientific devices: Leonardo Da Vinci. I am left to wonder: what was Leonardo like as a child? Did he invent in childhood drawings? Did he write scientific treatises incessantly? Was he ever spouting scientific monologues, on ever changing topics?

We may never know what Leonardo Da Vinci was like as a child - but we do know that he did these things as an adult. Ainan Celeste Cawley does the same kind of thing as a child. Like all parents, I sometimes wonder what my son will become when he grows up. With him my wonderings are in the realm of science: how far will he go? Will he maintain his interest? Will this precocious scientific and technical productivity lead to great adult output?

Only the passing years will answer my questions. Yet, I can say this: just as the foundation and lower floors of a tall building determine its shape to a great extent, so too do the early years of a human life. In looking at the shape of Ainan's early deeds, it is not difficult to see an adult scientific genius to come.

That would be good to see. Carry on Ainan!

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