The genius of Ireland.

A news article, on the Irish Abroad website, was today brought to my attention by one of my readers, “Ajax”. The article is short but striking.

As everyone knows, it is not difficult to find a talkative or a friendly Irishman. But how difficult is it to find a highly intelligent one? The article suggests that that isn’t particularly difficult either. According to David Schulman, the International Honorary President of Mensa, the Irish are the most intelligent people in the world. He says this because Ireland has more members of Mensa than any other country in the world, per head of population. To put it somewhat ironically, it has a greater density of Mensa members, than anywhere else.

Now, of course, this could mean many things. It could mean that it is fashionable in Ireland to be a member of Mensa. However, his further evidence indicates that this is not so. When invited to appear on a quiz show, Mensa was unable to rustle up even two volunteers from Mensa to form a team. So, they are a shy, retiring lot and not particularly willing to come forward, or even be known as Mensa members. This does suggest there is no great social impetus to join up therefore...certainly no more than anywhere else and perhaps less so.

It should not be overlooked that joining Mensa requires the same steps everywhere and that everyone in every country has an equal opportunity to put themselves forward and be selected. The only difference between countries, potentially, is the percentage of people who cross the acceptance threshold of an IQ of 148 (according to the article...though I note the standard deviation of the test is not mentioned). Given this it does seem possible that, in Ireland, more people are above that threshold than elsewhere, though further research would be helpful to clarify this. There are two ways to achieve this: a high average and a typical standard deviation for IQ – or a more average average, as it were, and a greater standard deviation for IQ. Contemporary research would be needed to ascertain which it was, if it were either.

Whatever is the case, this statement by David Schulman, President of Mensa, does support the impressions and experiences I have of Irish people. They are a varied lot...but idiosyncrasy and “genius” are certainly to be found among them. It isn’t difficult to find a sharp Irishman (or woman) if you take a careful look.

The funny thing about this is that the Jews have the world’s greatest reputation for genius...but it could be that there is a little pocket of genius lurking in the western reaches of Europe, largely overlooked? I note that Israel was not top of the Mensa list.

Perhaps the Irish deserve a more complex reputation than that of heavy drinkers and brawlers. After all, as I noted before in another post, it wasn’t the Irish who rioted in the UK. It was the English. Who are the brawlers, then, I wonder?

For a small nation, of few people, Ireland has an interesting intellectual history, which also supports the observation of David Schulman. Perhaps I will highlight some examples in future posts.

Anyway, I am just going to get a cup of tea (note non-alcholic drink for an Irishman), to raise a toast to the genius of Ireland!

The article that references David Schulman, President of Mensa, is here:

http://www.irishabroad.com/news/irishpost/news/irelandtopsmensaleague.asp

As a final point, I note that this pre-eminence of Ireland in the Mensa membership per head of population is particularly surprising when the history of Ireland is examined. Ireland is a country with a pronounced brain drain over centuries. People left, because there wasn't the means to support them in Ireland...and so they emigrated all over the world. Typically, it is often the brightest who leave a country in disproportionate numbers, since they are the ones more likely to be able to find opportunities elsewhere. Thus, one would expect to find most of Ireland's intellectuals outside of Ireland...for their ancestors would have left long ago. Yet, enough remain, in Ireland, for Ireland to be top of the global Mensa league tables. That is particularly telling and is suggestive that there might be many more potential Irish descent Mensa members overseas. I wonder if the global records of Mensa might be scanned for Irish heritage in its global membership?

The country with a most obvious Irish influence is the United States, where about 41 million people claim Irish descent. They are particularly common in positions of influence over people, such as politics (think the Kennedys) and Hollywood (much of the "talent" seems to have Irish blood) and literary pursuits.

I shall write further, in future, on interesting Irish people of genius, in some way or other. In some cases, perhaps, their Irish ancestry has been overlooked, or is not widely known. This should be rectified, I feel. If there is genius, in someone, it should, at least, be credited to their ancestral gene pool - and that origin should be known, for it raises a whole people, thereby.

Declaration: I am Irish, by blood, on both my maternal and paternal sides. However, I haven't decided to join Mensa (though I could certainly do so, if I wished).

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.)

Genius, mortality and underachievement.

Every genius who ever lived was an underachiever. By this I mean, they died with so much more undone, that they could have done, than they ever managed to do. Such is the effect of mortality on genius. It cuts off life, before the fullness of what could have been.

So, when we look back on genius, we are not seeing people as they could have been, we are seeing them, incompletely. Thus, we will always judge them as less than they truly were. Genius is always greater than the record of their completed work supposes.

Imagine, if you will, what Leonardo da Vinci would be doing today, had he lived. If his life was measured in hundreds of years, his creativity would have poured on, in every area, and made a body of work so much greater than he ever had time to do, in his 67 years. Indeed, at the end of his life, it is recorded that Leonardo da Vinci rued how little he had done in his life, of his work. Clearly, he felt that there was much more within him, that he never managed to make manifest. So, our vision of Leonardo, great as it is, accords him to be much less than he truly was and would have become, had he immortality and could still be alive and working today.

Properly speaking, therefore, the body of work of a genius, is just a hint of what they could do, given the possibility of less limited time. Thus, if we are to properly judge a genius, we must imagine what could have been, from the hints of what was. Doing this for some more fecund or profound geniuses, leads us to conclude that they would have been very much greater indeed, had they simply more time in which to become and create.

I hope to see a day, in which genius has more time to live and create. Such a time, would be a great one indeed, for it would afford the possibility of true realization of the talents of the world’s geniuses. Until then, we must satisfy ourselves with the scraps they have the opportunity to create in their short, mortal lives. Until then, we must also learn not to measure a genius by what they did, but by what they could have done, too, had they more time in which to live. Geniuses die with so much more within them, unmade, and unsaid, than they ever had time to create. Let us credit them, with the greatness their potential uncreated works imply, and learn to see them as clues to what would have been, had they not been, like all humans, merely mortal.

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/11136175

To 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.)

The value of IQ points.

There is a legend that IQ doesn’t matter beyond 120. It is commonly told – though never with a stated source, in my experience – that once a person has an IQ of 120 or more, that additional IQ points have no real world value. The legend has it that someone with an IQ of 150 or 180 is no more likely to succeed than someone with an IQ of 120. This may be widely believed...but it is simply not true.

How much difference do you think 11 IQ points would make to life outcomes and achievements? It is a small difference in intelligence, comparatively speaking, given the huge range in human intelligence that exists. Many people would consider that it would have little value. A recent study by Vanderbilt University researchers David Lubinksi and Camilla Benbow begs to differ. They studied 2,000 intellectually precocious kids who scored in the top 1 per cent of the SAT at the age of 13. The SAT is, in effect, a form of IQ test. Thus it is a good proxy for a measure of intelligence. Lubinski and Benbow compared the life outcomes of those kids who scored at the 99.1 percentile level with those who scored at or above the 99.9 percentile. Now, that seems like a modest difference – but it corresponds to an IQ difference of 11 points (136 IQ compared to 147). At this point, I would like you to imagine what kind of difference in life outcomes the researchers found, for these two IQ thresholds. Please actually make a list, if you can of differences, if any. Perhaps you think they will be very similar.

Well, rather remarkably, Lubinski and Benbow found that children of IQ 147 and above, were three to five times more likely than those of IQ 136, to secure a patent, in their lifetime; to publish an article in a scientific journal, to publish a literary work, or to go on to achieve a doctorate. These are quite startling observations – that just 11 points of IQ could make so much difference to creative outcomes. How much more difference might 30 points of IQ make or 50? It is quite clear that IQ does contribute, in a very real way, to the likelihood of significant intellectual achievements. Being “smarter” counts for something.

There is value in this finding. Quite often, gifted kids are not given the support they need – particularly the most gifted – in education systems. They are not treasured, but neglected. There is great loss to a nation, in such indifference – for the most intelligent children are always – and ever shall be – the ones who could contribute the most to their societies, if given the right support and opportunity. Every IQ point makes a difference, to the possibilities of a child’s future. The brightest children can, one day, become the greatest adults – if they are allowed to be.

Don’t neglect the future of your country. Nurture the gifted among you – and remember just how much difference a few IQ points can make to the creative output of a life.

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/11136175

To 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.)

The pain of brilliance.

I know a very bright young Professor, in his thirties, in a foreign University, in South America. I won’t give any more identifying details, because I think he should remain anonymous to protect him. Now, he is very much brighter than a typical person. He came first in a competitive examination to determine who would be selected for his academic position. He is publishing papers at a good rate and is making a name for himself in his discipline. He is even working with a very famous University, in Europe, on a special project. This is a mark of distinction indeed, for he is doing something for them, that they are not able to do themselves. In short, he is doing well in his academic career. He has come far for one so young. Yet, it doesn’t make him happy. Why, you wonder?

Well, it is simple. He is in pain...social pain. It brings him almost to tears to have to deal with his fellow academics in his University, because they are almost all mediocre, by comparison to him. Everyday, he must try to accommodate himself to the general “dumbness” that surrounds him. Everyday, he must struggle through conversations with people who are completely unable to follow his thoughts, should he allow himself to show them to others. He is suffocating. He is enveloped in a social bubble that prevents true communication to those around him, simply because it is impossible for them to understand him. Now, I understand him well. I know this situation. Perhaps that is why he discussed it with me.

My friend’s problem is the peculiar affliction of many gifted people all over the world. If one is truly gifted, then, in a very real sense, one is also truly cursed. For with the gifts of the mind, come the curses of the social world. It is essentially impossible for my friend, to fit in, in his present environment, because the disparity in intelligence, between him and those around him, is too marked. He is brilliant. They are not. Nothing that he, himself, can do, will ever change that. The only way he can accommodate to it, is by hiding himself, and nurturing a false public self, to be accepted. However, the real him is still there, inside, hidden away, quietly suffocating, quietly tortured by it all.

I have suggested to him that he find a more elite University to join, for the average intelligence of the staff should be greater, and there are likely to be more truly bright academics there. I hope he does so, for there can be nothing but misery in his future, if he stays where he is.

Everyone who is not truly gifted, imagines that life must be wonderful for those who are. The truth, however, is rather different. Great gift is a great burden, too. With every blessing it brings, there are concomitant curses that nothing the gifted person does, will ever change. It is still a blessing to be gifted – but a mixed blessing. It is not innately a gift that brings great happiness in its wake. Happiness, as a gifted person, must be worked for. Each gifted person must come to their own accommodation with the world and must find their own path within it, that satisfies whatever personal, professional and social needs they may have. Some, like myself, find that the best solution is to become accustomed to a quiet life. If one does not need constant social contact, or gives up that need, then life is easier – for there are many other ways to be fulfilled, that don’t involve people.

I am lucky. I have a good wife who complements me well. That fulfils my primary social needs. Anything else is a bonus. I enjoy the company of intelligent people, when I have the chance to spend time with them – but I have learnt not to need such company too often. Every now and again, is enough, to meet any social need I might have.

My friend does not deserve to be in pain. He did not ask to be the way he is. He did not make himself more intelligent than the people around him. That is just the way he is. Yet, he suffers all the same. Many gifted people suffer likewise – yet their pain goes unknown, it is something overlooked, marginalized and ignored. Rather than being understood, many gifted people are envied. So, not only do they have to put up with the pain of intellectual isolation – but they receive varying degrees of social hostility too, quite often. This is sad, because, like I said, they are the way they are, through no fault of their own. One cannot blame someone for their genetic inheritance.

I hope my friend manages to change his life for the better and finds a more intelligent milieu in which to live. I hope, too, that every significantly gifted person, in the world, finds at least one other, to relate to, at the level they would wish to, in an ideal world. That is all it takes, to make the pain go away: one person to talk to, freely. Do you have that?

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/11136175

To 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.)

Is it better to be ordinary, than a genius?

Recently, someone from Concordia University, in Quebec, Montreal arrived on my blog with the search terms: “being ordinary is better than being a genius.” Are they right?

To be a genius is, necessarily, to be apart from others: their nature separates them from the mass, in ways which are unbridgeable. Yet, is this so bad?

The searcher seems to believe that it is better to be an ordinary person, unvisited by great talents. Now, from the point of view of “fitting in” this is quite clearly so. An ordinary person finds no difficulty in fitting into the mass around them. They are naturally accepted, for their evident commonalities. Their thoughts do not betray them as different. Their chosen actions are readily comprehended. Nothing that they do or are, is surprising to the general mass of people. I suppose this ready acceptance is what the searcher was thinking of. It should, therefore, be easier to be “happy” as an ordinary person, than to be “happy” as a genius. Yet is this meaningful?

A genius is, by definition, alone. They are innately singular in that their gifts distinguish them from all others. Some, therefore, might become lonely. Most however would find enough reward in their creative work, not to be overly concerned about a reasonable measure of personal isolation. Many geniuses in history were quite isolated. Yet, they lived fulfilling lives. In general, they received a great sense of achievement from their work, which, I suggest, to a great degree would have compensated for any relative lack in other areas.

Then again, even the greatest genius, usually finds enough adequate friends – adequate in the sense of sufficiently intelligent to be interesting to them – even if only by correspondence, to sustain them, socially. They may be relatively isolated, but they are usually not entirely so. The personal contact they have is enough to sustain them. After all the attention they give to their creative work, moderates their need for companionship, in direct proportion to their efforts. The more they work, the less need they have for others. Indeed, in those compelled to work creatively, the presence of others can seem, at times, to be an unwelcome distraction.

In a way, a genius can be more happy than an ordinary person. The reason is simple: a genius can find happiness in creative work, that an ordinary person could not even begin to do. Thus, the genius is not really deprived in the happiness department for they have access to sources of contentment not open to the common man. Thus, it can be seen that the genius is, in fact, luckier than the ordinary person in many ways. The genius can do what the ordinary man cannot and find pleasure in what the ordinary man cannot understand- but the genius can also do all the things that the ordinary man can do and find pleasure in all those things too.

So, the life of a typical genius might be “quieter” and more “isolated” than that of a typical ordinary person – but it is also richer, deeper and ultimately more satisfying.

So, my searcher was wrong in his or her supposition. It is most definitely better to be a genius, than an ordinary person.

(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.htmland 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/11136175

To 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.)

The fate of genius.

How do geniuses fare in life? Is their success inevitable? I ask this for a reason. Today, someone from Washingtonville, New York, arrived on my blog with the provocative search terms: "Why do geniuses often fail in life?"

Well, one wonders, firstly: do they? It is difficult to answer this question, for there are no stats to bring to bear on the matter, that I know of. However, it is easy to source anecdotes which suggest that many people, of great talent, live lives beneath their potential. We all, in fact, know such people: people whose intelligence sparkles, in conversation, but whose lives look a little dull by comparison - something is missing, something never happened.

So, let us assume that the assumption of my blog searcher from Washingtonville, is correct. Let us take it that geniuses do often fail in life. Yet, is that the right question? I think we should rather be asking why does life fail geniuses?

You see, the life of a genius is not the easy picture everyone seems to think. There is the basic assumption, of all, that the greatest of intellectual gifts mean that the possessor is blessed with an "easy life" and that, in some way, one should be envious of them. This is, I think, a misplaced envy. Genius is not an easy burden: it is to carry the weight of expectations of a humanity unwilling to help. Everyone expects great things of the "genius" - but they expect them begrudgingly, not really wanting the genius to accomplish them, for how "bad" it would make the ordinary person look by comparison. Thus, the achievement is both expected and resented beforehand. It is a strange circumstance, for the genius is resented for things not yet done: a jealousy permeates the air, for achievements not yet made and which may never be made. It is most bizarre. It is as if the whole of the rest of humanity, imagines the genius' "fated" future life and begrudges them for its lustre - then sits back and hopes desperately that it doesn't happen - or does, more to the point, everything they can to frustrate all progress.

No-one, on Earth, is more hated than a genius, in their early years. Their self-evident gift is a spur to every darker emotion in people: hate and envy gleam in every eye - and for what? Because those others, see, they know that the genius is "better" than they are - and they loathe them for it.

To be a genius is thus to be barred from acceptance by humanity. It is to be thrust out, by an essential difference, into a category of one's own. It is a great thing to be a genius - for, Humanity is only ever united in the presence of one: united in envy of the "Great One".

It is a truth, that all of significant talent, come to observe - that the only admired genius, is a dead genius. It is, you see, impossible to be envious of the dead. Thus, only when a genius is safely interred, will the envy slough away, and the admiration come to the fore. Geniuses have the bizarre distinction of being universally hated in life, and universally loved in death. Most people would rather choose the opposite condition - but it is not for the genius to choose: they were born the way they are and cannot trade it for the alternative. So long as they rise far above the common herd of man, that herd, that sheep-like mass, will despise them for it. That leads us to why so many geniuses "fail".

The only course of action, for a genius who wishes to have a happy life, is to give up being who they are. A genius who "fails" is an ordinary man, once more. A genius who "fails" may be accepted, finally. A genius who "fails" is one who succeeds, in life. For, it is clear, that if a genius fails, they come to be seen to be human again. They can, for the very first time, be embraced as "one of us" - and so, at last, at long, long, last, be befriended by the bulk of Man. A genius who "fails" is a genius who learns how to be loved in life - and forgotten in death.

So, the dilemma of a genius is a difficult one. They must choose either to succeed in becoming who they should be, in expressing what only they can see, and, therefore, step so far outside the limits of the common Man, that there could never be anything in common with that Man. Or they can choose to hide their essence, to leave their thoughts unexpressed and undeveloped, to muffle their inner longings to create and become a semblance of what others are. They can choose to be "normal" or, at least, seem normal in every functional way, by not functioning outside of the norm. If they make this choice, they lose the happiness and sense of fulfilment that attends the highest creative activity - but they gain, in return, acceptance by the wider world; they may be embraced by the community, loved as every "ordinary joe" is loved - in that diffuse kind of way, that comes from thinking that "you" are "one of us".

So, it is not geniuses who fail in life. It is life that fails geniuses. Life fails geniuses by not allowing them the space to be. A genius must choose either a life within the community - or a life outside of it, in a very real sense. You see, if your work, the products of your mind and, indeed, the fullness of your inner thought, are beyond the understanding of the common man, then you, truly, have nothing in common with that man. There is no means to find genuine mutual understanding. It is to be a natural outsider - and, as you probably know, most people never reach out to the outsiders of this world - in fact, they enjoy debarring them, from the shared discourse of all. They feel unified by their act of exclusion.

Geniuses fail, because no-one wants them to succeed - or at least, no-one wants a living genius to succeed. They are quite happy to note that a dead genius, did, since there is nothing threatening about the mental powers of a corpse. Indeed, most living people have the mental powers of a corpse - so they probably feel quite well-disposed to one just like themselves, once the genius has died.

Geniuses discover that there is nothing more adept at working together, than the whole of Man, against the genius, if they are so foolish, as to reveal themselves. Thus, the socially skilled genius (no doubt there are some), notes this and chooses dissemblance - and the most effective means of disguising genius is to do nothing with it, at all. There. Done. "Happy"...but unfulfilled.

Indeed, it seems to me that the only geniuses who would not choose to make this choice are the socially inept geniuses. These would not, perhaps, understand the problem, would not act appropriately upon it, and persist in - oh the cheek of it! - being true to themselves and continue to create their works that so offend Man, whilst they live, but shall so delight them, once they die.

Thus, it is not that geniuses lack social skills - it is just that the only geniuses that we come to acknowledge as geniuses (usually after they are safely decomposed) - are the ones who lacked the social skill to work out how to "fit in" and be socially accepted.

So, there is one thing that a genius may never do, in public, and be accepted - and that is: create! As long as the genius persists in being incapable of being a genius, then they will find themselves quite capable of being loved by all.

So, if you are a genius - what choice have you made: to be loved in life, and forgotten in death...or loathed in life, and loved forevermore, once you are no longer able to feel it?

It is not much of a choice, is it?

Well, there is a solution. Any society which welcomed genius, would suddenly find that it had more of them. Thus, the answer is in all your hands: accept geniuses for what they are, love them for what they do - and don't for a minute feel a twinge of envy. If you can manage this, if the whole of Mankind can manage this, life for all would improve at an immense rate, as all the world's dissembling, self-defeating, "fitting-in" geniuses suddenly get to work, without fear of being loathed for it.

Overnight, there would be a revolution in the fortunes of Man - and all you have to do is stop hating and start loving. Now.

(If you would like to learn more of Ainan Celeste Cawley, a scientific child prodigy, aged eight years and seven months, or his gifted brothers, Fintan, five years exactly, and Tiarnan, twenty-eight months, please go to:http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2006/10/scientific-child-prodigy-guide.html I also write of gifted education, IQ, intelligence, the Irish, the Malays, Singapore, College, University, Chemistry, Science, genetics, left-handedness, precocity, child prodigy, child genius, baby genius, adult genius, savant, wunderkind, wonderkind, genio, гений ребенок prodigy, genie, μεγαλοφυία θαύμα παιδιών, bambino, kind.

We are the founders of Genghis Can, a copywriting, editing and proofreading agency, that handles all kinds of work, including technical and scientific material. If you need such services, or know someone who does, please go to: http://www.genghiscan.com/ Thanks.

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

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

Forbes' World's Most Powerful List: a reflection.

Forbes has produced a list of the world's most powerful people. Now, I suppose there is nothing particularly wrong - or particularly novel - about such a task. However, I took exception to how Forbes defined their effort. Forbes said of its inaugural ranking, that it had narrowed the list to 67 people: "a number based on the conceit that one can reduce the world's 6.7 billion people to the one in every 100 million that matter."

Wow. So, Forbes thinks the rest of us don't matter. They are, rather crassly, defining their list as the only 67 people "who matter". Well, pardon me for a moment, for having an opinion of my own...but I don't think much of what - and whom - Forbes thinks "matters".

According to Forbes, a person matters if they are rich, powerful or both. Power is defined in terms of the ability to influence people or events. That is it. No other ingredients appear to be necessary. They completely omit all qualities of character, mind, personality, intelligence, creativity...apparently, these things just don't "matter".

Let us look at the Top 10 on Forbes' World's Most Powerful List:

1. U.S. President Barack Obama
2. Chinese President Hu Jintao
3. Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin
4. U.S. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke
5. Google founders Sergey Brin and Larry Page
6. Carlos Slim, Chief Executive of Mexico's Telmex
7. Rupert Murdoch, chairman of media group News Corp.
8. Michael T. Duke, Chief executive, Wal-Mart Stores
9. Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz
10. Bill Gates, co-chairman, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation

It is a list of people most of whom are familiar, yes. It is also notable that everyone on the list is, by most people's standards, wealthy. Many of them, are billionaires...all of them are, at least, millionaires. That Forbes...a magazine most obsessed with wealth, should compile a list of wealthy people to define those that "matter", should be no surprise. Yet, in my view, only two people on this list actually matter...the rest shall largely be unregarded by history.

Those two people are the founders of Google: Sergey Brin and Larry Page. They matter for a very simple reason: they had an idea. They created something. They contributed something new and useful to the world. Now, Bill Gates also started a company...but I don't really consider him to be a creative person - his software was bought from others, his ideas were all secondhand, observed from others. No: Bill Gates is not a great creator, but he is a great business person. However, in my view, being a great business person does not constitute someone who "matters".

The most important people in the world, the people who really "matter" are not the rich; not the powerful, nor necessarily the influential: the people who matter are those who create something new. Everyone else is dependent on these creative people - everything else is derived from their efforts. Thus, the people above, in that Forbes list are SECONDARY, to others who created that which those people are working with. They are not the key people. They are not the key drivers. They are not, contrary to what the rather shallow thinkers at Forbes "think"...at all people who matter. They are, in fact, people of no real consequence at all.

Think about it: Barack Obama, did not create the United States. He appears to have no real personal creative powers. He brings nothing new to the world. The same applies to all the other world leaders and Kings: Hu Jintao, did not create China; Vladimir Putin did not create Russia; the Saudi King Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz did not create Saudi Arabia - nor does any of them exhibit much true creativity. They are decision makers, yes...but creators, no.

Then again it should be pointed out that the role that these Presidents and Kings perform exists apart from them. They did not create the role of President or King. Anyone could be President or King...it is only a series of accidents and blessings of fortune (and perhaps in the case of Obama and the like, a personal hunger), that makes them President or King. It could easily have been someone else (though, in the case of a King, it was determined at birth). What they do, would be done anyway, by someone else, by some other blessed person. Their role is not unique, not self-created. It is simply a POSITION that they occupy. They did not create the position. All they are doing is occupying a position. To my mind, that does not mean that they matter. The position is simply a placeholder for a function in society, that any person could be chosen to perform. Being chosen to perform that function does not mean that the person who performs matters in particular...because they did not create the position that they perform. There was no creative step involved, at any stage...nor need there be at any stage of the performance of their duties. Their roles are not creative roles, they are roles of decision and power. They do, however, nothing new. They subsist on worlds created by a host of others. They are not, therefore, themselves of much significance, by this measure of significance. They do not "matter".

Apart from Ben Bernanke, all the others are business people...but like I said, in general, business people do not create that which they do business with and in: they merely sell, promote and package the creative work of others. The business people are not, therefore, in themselves, significant, by this definition of significant.

Forbes' entire list, apart the Google founders, consists of relatively uncreative men. If what matters is defined as those who are creative, then none of these people actually matter at all. They may be immensely rich; they may be immensely powerful; they may be immensely influential - but their entire lives and essence are secondary to the creators on whom they depend. They are, therefore, of no true significance, themselves. The minds they subsist on, are the significant ones. We would have to know whom they base their life work on; who has formed them; who guides them, from whence "their" ideas come. Then we would know who is of true significance.

I realize that there are those who would argue with my view that it is creative people who really matter...but consider this: everything in the human world, was created by a human mind. Most people do not create anything at all, they simply spend their lives manipulating the creations of others. Who are the most significant, who matters most: those who create and contribute something new to the human world - or those who are best at manipulating that which has already been created? To my mind, the ones who create and contribute to the world of human possibilities, are the ones who matter. The others, those so expert at manipulating this world, that they become stupendously rich, immensely powerful or unbelievably influential, do not matter at all, by comparison - for they do not add anything new to the world, all they do is take control of it. Now, as anyone would know, who has ever worked, the one in charge is often not the best person in an organization...they are just the one best suited to seizing power. So, too, is it with this Forbes list: it is a list of people most adept at "working the system", leveraging power and wealth in their own directions...but not necessarily at creating anything new. Thus, in the ultimate scheme of things, they have no true significance. They do not matter - for they did not create that which they control.

The sad thing about all of this, however, is that those who created the elements of the worlds that these men control, are, generally speaking, not known: they are anonymous inventors, unfeted thinkers, whose names have not been so much lost in time, as never known at all. Our world is one that regards those most unworthy of attention, and ignores those who most deserve our respect. We elevate the administrator, above the creator; the man of state, above the man who changes our state of understanding. In this modern world, those who do again, what has always been done, but do it well and do it loudly, are feted - but those who do, for the very first time, what has never been done before, are too often, hounded for it.

Success is easy if you don't dare to be original. However, if you wish to change the world, in any way at all, though it be for the better, the whole world will be against you. Everyone on that Forbes list, took a relatively easy path to success. By this I mean, that, though they have great power, wealth and influence, that pathways exist for people to tread to their positions. What they have achieved was, in almost all cases, something that already existed. It was a position that needed to be filled, or a product that needed to be sold. They did not create it. However, should anyone ever wish to do anything new, they will find that there is no path to success in that endeavour: there is nothing but a blocked road, with no visible way through. The creator must find their own path....indeed, more accurately, they must build their own road, where no road has gone before.

Though the creator's path is so much more difficult to travel than the politician's, or the businessman's, or the administrator's - for none of the elements exist, and all must be created along the way - our society does not regard the creator as often, or as highly, as it does the President, or the King, or the Tycoon. Oddly, we live in a world that cherishes the worthless, and yet belittles the priceless. A President is no match for a poet; a King no match for an artist; a Tycoon, no match for a writer. The merest scientist is worth more than the greatest administrator. The world was built on the bricks called ideas - and it is those that contribute new bricks to this world, who should be most regarded. It is not those who then use the bricks, to build their wealth, their power and their influence, who should be well-regarded - for not a one of the bricks came from them. They did not fashion the ideas with which their empires are forged.

Forbes is in error, to state that its 67 famous names, are the only people who "matter" in this world. Almost none of their chosen names, really matter. Forbes has chosen money men and powerbrokers, over creators. That tells us nothing of real importance about the world - it just informs us, of Forbes' value system, that is all.

A list of people who really matter, would be a list consisting purely of creative thinkers. It would be a list of scientists, writers, artists, poets, musicians, social innovators, mathematicians, musicians and philosophers. It would not contain a single President, King, powerbroker, businessman or administrator - unless that person was also one of the creative categories mentioned.

It is telling of our times, that Forbes thinks its list of the powerful important. They have completely forgotten what the Greeks learnt so, so long ago: it is the thinkers, who matter, to a civilization most. What does it say of our times, that Forbes doesn't know that?

(If you would like to learn more of Ainan Celeste Cawley, a scientific child prodigy, aged eight years and seven months, or his gifted brothers, Fintan, five years exactly, and Tiarnan, twenty-eight months, please go to:http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2006/10/scientific-child-prodigy-guide.html I also write of gifted education, IQ, intelligence, the Irish, the Malays, Singapore, College, University, Chemistry, Science, genetics, left-handedness, precocity, child prodigy, child genius, baby genius, adult genius, savant, wunderkind, wonderkind, genio, гений ребенок prodigy, genie, μεγαλοφυία θαύμα παιδιών, bambino, kind.

We are the founders of Genghis Can, a copywriting, editing and proofreading agency, that handles all kinds of work, including technical and scientific material. If you need such services, or know someone who does, please go to: http://www.genghiscan.com/ Thanks.

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

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

The problem of genius in Singapore.

Singapore is notable for proclaiming itself as "No.1" in everything it can. At times, this is amusing, as ever more minor matters are proclaimed to be supreme achievements. Yet, in the realms of true achievements, Singapore is distinctly lacking. Where, for instance, are Singapore's geniuses?

By "genius", I do not mean people adept at examinations (Singapore has plenty of those...the whole educational system is dedicated to "results")...no, I mean people who go on to make a plethora of important creative contributions. By this measure, Singapore has no known ADULT, native-born, geniuses (though, as I have pointed out, there is the odd child prodigy, who might, with support, become one).

Now, the usual excuse trotted out by Singaporean leaders when Singapore is unable to do something is that it is "too small". So, no doubt in the case of the lack of genius, they would proclaim Singapore's lack of numbers. This excuse is no excuse at all, since smaller countries (in terms of population), like Ireland (my own), have no trouble littering their history with a respectable abundance of geniuses. No: size is not the trouble...the nature of the society is. Genius cannot thrive in a society that gives it no freedom to live. Singapore is one such place. It is a place of so many restrictions, constrictions, limitations and barriers, that it is a surprise that anyone manages to thrive at all. The truth, of course, is that they don't thrive, in the ways which are important. Yes, they live prosperous economic lives, but they utterly lack intellectual lives. The average Singaporean never has a thought in their lives, that is their own. They compute by imported, second-hand thought and live, thus, second-hand lives. It is a nation of people who yielded up their rights to an inner life, sometime in early childhood. The result is clear to see: no-one here has the makings of a genius.

I came across a quote by the writer J. B. Priestley (1894 to 1984) that I thought eminently explanatory of Singapore's situation:

"We should like to have some towering geniuses, to reveal us to ourselves in colour and fire, but of course they would have to fit into the pattern of our society and be able to take orders from sound administrative types".

These words, at once, seemed to describe Singapore's situation. It is a place in which the dullest of people are in charge, resulting in dullness seeping through society, top-down. They exert themselves solely to control the lives of those "below" them; to put in place rules and structures, that make for an orderly society. Of course, the result of all this, is that anyone with the potential to be a genius, finds that they live in a society that does not welcome their nature. Singapore seems deliberately designed to be hostile to genius. It would be difficult to conceive of anywhere less likely to foster an independent thinker, than this small, anally-retentive, city-state.

Singapore will remain the natural breeding ground of "sound administrative types" for as long as it focusses on the control of its people. As long as Singapore prioritizes the "moulding" of minds (as so many of its schools disturbingly proclaim on banners, on their perimeters); rather than the freeing of them, Singapore will be a country notable as the No.1 place not to find geniuses. They will be, instead, No.1 in "Sound administrative types". Wow. What an achievement that would be...No.1 in "human dullness"; No.1 in "conformity of thought."; No.1 in "We know better"; No.1 in "That's not allowed."

Singapore is very much like Priestley's quote: they state that they would like to breed creative people...but they insist on an environment which is hostile to them. Basically, they want creative people to grow up in an environment designed to destroy them...so that they can have the benefit of their creativity, whilst not yielding up the control of people's lives, and minds. Oddly, it has never occurred to them, that their two aims, are incompatible. Singapore cannot control the lives and minds of its people, to the level it presently does - AND have geniuses. The former will destroy the latter.

If Singapore truly wishes to be the birthplace of an abundance of geniuses and lesser creative thinkers, it must become free in all ways that it is possible to be free. The first freedom should be the right for anyone to say anything they please, at anytime they please, about anything they please. This single change to the social landscape of Singapore would free tongues that have long been silent, to begin to speak. There is no telling what they might say...but one thing is for sure, it would be a whole lot more interesting and a whole lot more creative, than a nation dominated by "Sound administrative types".

As I have noted, in one post before, Singapore, as it is presently constituted, will one day be completely forgotten. I mean not just this era and these people - but the whole nation. As hard as it may be for Singaporeans to imagine, there will come a time when not one person, on Earth, or beyond, has ever heard of Singapore, or Lee Kuan Yew and the family Lee. No-one will ever have heard of them. The reason for this is that history is long and filled with too much information. As time passes, it becomes longer...until, eventually, the only things that are remembered are the greatest of events: the greatest wars, the greatest conquests...and the greatest people. There is only one way that Singapore will ever be remembered: and that is if it is the nation that gives rise to at least one true genius. So far, no adult Singaporean, in its history, has ever achieved that status (state propaganda notwithstanding). Should no Singaporean ever achieve the level of true historical genius (a Leonardo da Vinci, or an Albert Einstein, or a William Shakespeare), then there will be no reason for Singapore ever to be remembered. A nation of "Sound administrative types" is unworthy of note in the modern world, and utterly without any reason for recall for posterity.

However, the nation where Mr or Miss Genius X, was nurtured, is a cause for remembrance. The world will forever know Vinci, for its genius, Leonardo. Will Singapore have cause to be remembered in a thousand years, or ten thousand? Will it be a land of a genius? Or will it be an unregarded nation of "Sound administrative types". It is for Singapore to decide. If Singapore wishes to be remembered, it would do well to forget the notion of pervasive state control of its people. It would do well not to be overly sensitive to the comments of its citizens and others. It would do well, to let them be free, to be. Only then, will Singapore do anything worthwhile, in the ultimate verdict of posterity.

(If you would like to learn more of Ainan Celeste Cawley, a scientific child prodigy, aged eight years and seven months, or his gifted brothers, Fintan, five years exactly, and Tiarnan, twenty-eight months, please go to:http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2006/10/scientific-child-prodigy-guide.html I also write of gifted education, IQ, intelligence, the Irish, the Malays, Singapore, College, University, Chemistry, Science, genetics, left-handedness, precocity, child prodigy, child genius, baby genius, adult genius, savant, wunderkind, wonderkind, genio, гений ребенок prodigy, genie, μεγαλοφυία θαύμα παιδιών, bambino, kind.

We are the founders of Genghis Can, a copywriting, editing and proofreading agency, that handles all kinds of work, including technical and scientific material. If you need such services, or know someone who does, please go to: http://www.genghiscan.com/ Thanks.

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

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

On delayed gratification and human worth.

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(If you would like to learn more of Ainan Celeste Cawley, a scientific child prodigy, aged eight years and seven months, or his gifted brothers, Fintan, five years exactly, and Tiarnan, twenty-eight months, please go to:http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2006/10/scientific-child-prodigy-guide.html I also write of gifted education, IQ, intelligence, the Irish, the Malays, Singapore, College, University, Chemistry, Science, genetics, left-handedness, precocity, child prodigy, child genius, baby genius, adult genius, savant, wunderkind, wonderkind, genio, гений ребенок prodigy, genie, μεγαλοφυία θαύμα παιδιών, bambino, kind.

We are the founders of Genghis Can, a copywriting, editing and proofreading agency, that handles all kinds of work, including technical and scientific material. If you need such services, or know someone who does, please go to: http://www.genghiscan.com/ Thanks.

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

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