Sydney Spies and the Curse of Beauty.

Sydney Spies is, in most eyes, a beautiful girl. She is also, alas, seemingly quite unpopular at her High School. The reason? She wants to be seen in a certain way – and the authorities, and it seems, her fellow students, don’t want her to be seen in that way.

Sydney Spies is suffering from what I call the Curse of Beauty. This is the counterpart to the hostility that very intelligent people often receive from their more ordinary fellows. Truly beautiful people are rather loathed by their same sex colleagues (except the gay ones I expect). An instinctive enmity exists between people of ordinary looks, and people of exceptional looks, of the same sex. This is, in my view, what Sydney Spies is experiencing. Basically, the ugly people around her, can’t stand her. (Let’s be blunt.)

Sydney Spies attempted to have a picture of her in a yellow skirt and black off the shoulder top placed in the Durango High School yearbook as her Senior Year photo. This was refused by Durango High School, whose authorities were of the opinion, in the words of Brian Jaramillo, that it would be unprofessional. He said: “We are an award winning yearbook. We don’t want to diminish the quality with something that can be seen as unprofessional.”

My reaction to this is quite simple: the Durango High School is run by conformist, narrow-minded morons. The rejected photo is not too strong for inclusion, in my view. It just shows something that is not allowed in Durango High School: a personality. Sydney Spies is showing her innate personality in the construction and composition of the photograph. She is showing herself as she would like to be seen. However, at Durango High School, it seems that everyone must conform to an ideal of what is “professional” - that is strait-jacketed within a narrow set of rather dull rules and limitations about what is an acceptable photograph.

A school yearbook should show the people of the school as they really are. It should show them in all their diverse character. It should not be a robotic showpiece in which everyone is presented in the same set of limited ways to create an overall “look” that is deemed “award-winning”. It should be true to the personalities in the school. Quite clearly, the Durango High School yearbook is not true to the personalities of the students. It is actually a constructed lie, that seeks to present the Durango High School students in a certain way that is deemed “acceptable”. It is a photographic fraud, thereby. I would suggest that the only truthful photograph in the Durango High School yearbook may be the very ones they rejected of Sydney Spies. In fact, they rejected three of her submitted photographs – all for pretty much the same reason one intuits – she is just too attractive. (Though they said the last one missed their deadline). Instead, they used her school ID photograph!

There is one positive side to this controversy, from Sydney Spies’ point of view. She wished to be seen in a certain way. She wished to present her personality through a particular kind of image. Well, now she has, to the whole world – for one of those rejected yearbook photos has been run by news agencies around the world. So, the wish for Durango High School to censor their student, Sydney Spies, has had the unintended effect of making her much more famous than a yearbook would have done. That strikes me as suitably funny.

There is a not so funny side to this though. Sydney spies has experienced considerable bullying from her fellow students at Durango High School since all this fuss began. This is characteristic of the Curse of Beauty, as I describe it. I am certain...100% certain that ALL the bullies are ugly in comparison to her. This controversy around her yearbook photograph is just giving an excuse to the ugly ones to take out their resentment for her beauty, on her. A beautiful person would understand her position and viewpoint and would, in my view, be very unlikely to bully her. I am sure that the resentment she has experienced at Durango High School has come from those who are challenged in the looks department. This is parallel to the kind of resentment gifted kids often receive, from their less intelligent colleagues. It is always the dumb ones who hate the smart. Just so, it is always the plain, or even ugly ones, who hate the beautiful.

I wish Sydney Spies well and hope that she becomes the successful model she aspires to be. No-one should ever be in the position of being bullied because of their innate gifts as Sydney Spies is being – not if that gift is beauty, intelligence or any other gift. All who are gifted, in whatever way, should be welcomed for their gifts – for those gifts make the world a better place. Durango High School has forgotten that. It has proven itself, in this “scandal”, to be an ugly place – ugly at heart and, no doubt, ugly by sight, too.

Best of luck Sydney Spies. I hope you get to be seen as you wish to be.

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.)

Gifted discrimination in the workplace.

How are gifted people treated in the workplace? In particular, how are former child prodigies welcomed, or not?

Recently, I heard of an interesting experience of a former child prodigy, in the corporate work place. He had attended a world famous University at 13 and graduated in Physics at 16. All his life he had excelled in all things academic. He had started work in the corporate world at 16. I was struck though, by how he was treated. Do you think he was welcomed or appreciated by his corporate bosses? Did they value him?

Well, to my eyes, they discriminated against him in a very odd way. Knowing of his intellectual brilliance, he had been specifically told that he would NEVER get promoted, unless he received an A grade evaluation in all areas, in his work performance. He was rather puzzled by this, you see, because he knew of others, whose evaluations were two levels below his, who were getting promoted. These were "ordinary" people, who had not been child prodigies, or gifted in any way. They received promotion on reaching a much lower standard than he did.

Understandably, this former child prodigy was unhappy at being held to a different standard than everyone else in the workplace...so he duly left his job. He felt that it was wrong that they should treat him differently, in this negative way, because of his academic history. The imposition of a higher standard, for him and him alone, meant that he could not enjoy the job. He was always under pressure to do better, be the best. It meant that he could never relax in the job, never give up pushing himself. It made the job, in short, hellish to be in. He had to leave.

I am curious. Do you, my reader, know of any other cases of gifted discrimination? Are they similar to this one, with gifted people being held to higher standards, before they can be promoted? Or are they experiencing other forms of discrimination? Please let me know in the comments below.

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 gifted disclosure dilemma.

Often, being gifted feels like a secret. More pointedly, being the parent of a gifted child feels like a rather complicated secret, with many layers of burden.

The big issue for parents of gifted children, is whether to disclose their child’s giftedness to those they encounter socially. You see, the reactions to such knowledge can range widely, from interest, and approval, to shock, envy and open dislike. Often, one cannot judge the reaction, before the news is imparted – so there is ever a dilemma: “Should I tell, or not?”

I generally don’t discuss our lives much, directly, with those who are not close to us. I am typically a little reserved – a listener, more than a talker (though I can talk quite abundantly if I so wish!); a watcher, more than an interlocutor. Again, of course, this can be misunderstood as aloofness, rather than introversion. It seems that everything about the gifted and being gifted, carries its own penalty, if one is not careful to communicate one’s essence, effectively: misunderstanding awaits at every step.

So, being rather quiet, in my own life, I am left to wonder just how quiet I should be on the part of my children, in a social context. Today, for instance, I brought Ainan to a new social group of homeschoolers. The people were very nice. They had a relaxed quality that comes to youngsters brought up at home with their parents, rather than in the conformist, often stressful surroundings of a school. However, there was one question that I didn’t know how to handle, very well.

“What is Ainan studying?”, asked a curious Australian lady, with an encouraging smile.

I wasn’t encouraged, I was a little hesitant.

Should I tell the truth or not? If I did, she might react disappointingly – if I didn’t, I was storing up trouble for later, when she eventually found out.

My words tripped a little on my tongue. “Well… he is at a University, now.”

“What?”, she asked, in a very strange way: she seemed both shocked, and sure she had misheard.

I didn’t answer. I didn’t know whether it was wise to repeat what I had just said.

My silence seemed to answer her.

“Oh.”, she said, as if that said a lot. “I see.”

Again, I didn’t answer her, not knowing how.

It was time for her to pause. I let the silence linger for a while between us.

“Is he the one I read about on the homeschooling website?”, she pursued, more gently now, calmer, perhaps over her shock.

“Yes.”, I said, aloud, “Probably”, I said, to myself, not knowing for sure which article she was referring to.

Then she became very curious and motivated. Something seemed to come alive in her.

“Do you have other children?”, she asked, looking thoughtfully at her own three sons.

“Yes. I have three sons.”

She lowered her voice. “One of my sons, even homeschooling, is obviously more gifted than the others – but I don’t want to focus on just one: how do you cope with that?”

“Give each son what they need. Their needs will usually be different.”

She nodded at that, as if seeing differences in her own children.

“Never compare them. Never say: “Look at your brother, look at what he can do.” If you do that they will hate each other.”

Again she nodded.

“A lot of parents do compare. They think it will goad the others on. It won’t. It is very destructive.”

“I make sure they do different things.”, she revealed.

“It doesn’t have to be different – though it usually is. You just have to make sure you never compare.”

There were other questions, all delivered with the same intensity.

I needed a drink, so I said so.

“Of course, I have more to ask, but I don’t want to keep you.”

Her parting gaze seemed very meaningful and evaluatory. There was much thought in her unvoiced, perhaps many questions unasked and unanswered.

I recognized that look. I have seen it many times before. It comes to people who want to find out how and why Ainan became the way he is. (Or at least, her look seemed like that look.)

The answer, of course, is one that they wouldn’t like very much: the largest part of what made Ainan occurred at the moment of conception, when particular genes from the mother joined up with particular genes from the father. It was this natural endowment that gave him all the potentials we have seen unfold, to date. Without his native gifts, I don’t think it would be possible for any child to do as he has. Still, however, that doesn’t prevent people from asking, from trying to find out some hidden “secret” about what made Ainan, Ainan. Of course, I don’t think I can ever really satisfy them, since there is nothing that can be imparted to them, readily, to magically transform their child, in an instant. Though, I often sense that that is what they are looking for.

I rather regretted my openness with the Australian lady. I felt her attitude change from the casually friendly to the intently interested and it made me uncomfortable: I would prefer it, if she had remained casually friendly. Perhaps some of my discomfort comes from my own quietness of person: I prefer to be left in peace. To speak of Ainan’s particular gifts is to invite a lack of peace into one’s life. Then again, once people know that about him, the way they see him is likely to change. Perhaps they will come to expect certain behaviours from him, certain mannerisms, words and deeds. I don’t think it is fair for him to have such expectations. He should be free to be as he is – a child of eleven – even if one particularly blessed in one particular way.

Maybe I will decide on total silence on the issue, in future social meetings. I might decide on secrecy, as the best policy, moving forward. It seems a pity, however, to have to do that – but, at times, I feel that it is not helpful for people to know that about him, at the outset. Perhaps, they should gradually find out over time, by simple acquaintance and observation of their own. Of course, there would not be a need to even be considering secrecy on the issue, if people could just quietly accept him as he is. More often, however, one sees an elevated interest in finding out ever more about him and what made him the way he is. That, I find discomfiting, largely because it is misplaced interest: they are looking in the wrong place, for his essence. With Ainan, nature is stronger than nurture. That is clear looking back to the beginnings of his life. He was always unusual, right from the very first glance, out of the womb. That is something people consistently fail to understand. I wish they understood that. Then they could go about befriending him, rather than being interested in decoding him.

Up until now, I have been honest and open with people when they ask about what my son is studying and other matters of academic development. However, today’s experience has made me pause to re-evaluate my stance: am I doing the right thing? Should I just give noncommittal, empty replies, that evade the issue? Should I learn to obscure, rather than reveal? Do I risk isolating Ainan by being open about him? Would it be better to be cloaked?

Even these questions are uncomfortable for me, because I am not one to dissemble. Though reserved, I am open when I speak. Yet, witnessing the reactions of people to news of Ainan’s nature does make me think that perhaps I should learn to be a little obfuscatory on the issue. I haven’t tried it, so I don’t know if it would make me more comfortable. It remains to be seen whether I will adopt that stance in future. I shall continue to observe people’s reactions to him and allow that to inform my decision. In the meantime, perhaps readers who have had similar experiences might like to discuss them, with me, in the comments below. Do you think it is better to keep silent about a child’s giftedness, in new social situations – or to be frank and open about it? Does being open risk isolating the gifted child, further? Is it better for the child to be accepted for what people come to see them as, rather than viewed in a certain way, because of what they learn of them, at the outset?

Your views, thoughts and feelings below, please…

(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.)

Gifted or Impaired?

Today, I am led to wonder why the gifted are called "gifted". You see there is a basic assumption in that labelling that may not be immediately apparent - what is assumed is a perspective. The term "gifted" is a perspective on the more able from the point of view of the less able. It is the majority of less capable people who are, in effect, labelling the minority of the more capable as "gifted". At least, that is the viewpoint of the label. It is a comparison between the average people and the more capable people, using the average as a base line to form the description. Yet, why is it that way? It seems, to me, that, in some way, this way of looking at the world ignores and sidelines the way of looking at the world that the gifted people themselves may come to form, in the course of their lives. It is a view of the gifted from the non-gifted. It, therefore, fails to understand what life for the gifted is like.

What does an average person look like to a gifted person? Well, that is something rarely publicly considered. However if one reflects on it, for a moment, it will be seen that a gifted person must, at times, be puzzled by others - particularly in childhood, when they have yet to come to understand the world. You see, from the point of view of a gifted person, the average person does not seem "average" or "normal", they seem IMPAIRED. Many a gifted child - in fact all gifted children, if they speak to others - will have had the experience of not being understood by others. They will have spoken their minds, perhaps with great enthusiasm, about their latest ideas, understandings or insights - and met with a frown, perhaps, or scoffing, even. The other child simply did not and could not understand them. Now, the gifted child, who has not come to see this as usual, might be immensely puzzled why he or she was not understood. You see, from the point of view of the gifted child, understanding what they understood, or seeing what they saw, would not appear a difficult thing to do. It might, in fact, be immensely obvious to them. It might be something they understood immediately, without much effort - it might have come in a moment of joyful insight, typified not so much by effort, as by an involuntary state of instant conception. To the gifted child, therefore, the last thing they might expect, is that others wouldn't understand them. However, more often than not, the gifted child is not understood by the "average" children they encounter. From this comes so much pain, of course and so much sorrow - for it leads to the gifted child being intellectually isolated, unless they can find suitable companions from among their gifted peers (increasingly difficult to do for the more gifted categories) or, perhaps, understanding adults.

Now, think for a moment what the life of a gifted child is like - say one whose gift is relatively rare - a highly gifted child, or above, say. Such a child may not know ANYONE in their childhood of comparable intellect. They may NEVER encounter any other child on their level, in the time that they grow up. What perspective would they have on life and people? They would puzzle that everyone seems rather slow in understanding. They would wonder at how little others see or understand or think or create, or, even feel, since the gifted often have intense feelings, too. They would, after a while, conceive an understanding: that they, themselves, are NORMAL - and that everyone else seems IMPAIRED. You see, a gifted child is not "gifted" from their own point of view. They will always see themselves as the "normal" in their own world. It is EVERYONE ELSE who seems abnormal and somewhat lacking. So, even though the world may label a gifted child as "gifted"...surely, the deeper truth here, unpalatable as it may seem, is that, from the point of view of the gifted child's experience of the world - all the other children seem "impaired".

I realize that it would be politically incorrect to use the term "impaired" to describe the average person - yet, that is the reality of the experience of the gifted, in the world, as they grow up. They will not, usually, see themselves as particularly abnormal, since no-one likes to conceive of themselves as abnormal. They will, instead, more likely, conceive of themselves as NORMAL - and everyone else as ABNORMAL. They are not "gifted" to themselves - it is just that they happen to be surrounded by "impaired" people.

Children are often jealous of the gifted. They often treat them poorly. Yet, this is just another sign that the average child doesn't understand the "gifted". To the gifted child, the world is impaired. Few people seem able to understand their thoughts - perhaps no-one really "gets" them. Then again, many of the average children will be spiteful towards them, out of jealousy for their gifts - yet what, exactly, was the gifted child's crime: simply to be, to exist, to have been born. The gifted do not CHOOSE to be gifted, no more than the average choose to be average: it is just the way it is. So, it is profoundly wrong, to be hostile towards someone simply for the way they were born to be, having had no choice in that matter. It is precisely the same type of thinking that leads to racism over skin colour. The colour of one's skin, Michael Jackson, notwithstanding, is beyond our choice: it is the way we were born to be. Thus, one should have a certain pity for the gifted child, if they do not find peers to relate to. They will be surrounded daily by people whom to them, appear "impaired" - and from whom they receive much hostility based on nothing more than their natural inherited nature over which they had no choice. Long ago, I labelled this as "giftism" - the dislike of and ill treatment of those who are gifted. At the time, there were no google hits for the term, in the world, so it is clear that I coined the term, for the first time.

The gifted child is subject to "giftism", from an impaired world that does not understand them. That is a sad situation and one that is not fully appreciated. Yet, think of it the other way around: how often does a typical gifted child show "impairedism" towards the "normals" around them? I have never heard of that behaviour. Typically, a gifted child is quite introverted, a little shy perhaps, frequently a bit awkward socially - and they try, desperately, in their own way, to reach out to the world and be understood by it. Thus, a typical gifted child is trying to connect to the world - but is the world trying to connect to the gifted child? I think not. By singling them out as "gifted" the world shows that it is not trying to include the child, so much as exclude them. It is saying, "you are apart from us...you have been given what we have not". The gifted child does not say "you are apart from me, you have had taken from you that which I have." Yet, the gifted child could say that, and could think that. Generally, they don't however: they just feel somewhat alone in a world that cannot understand them.

I am moved to remember my son, Ainan's remark when I asked him what he thought about himself, in relation to other children. He said: "I am average". I understood what he meant. He is his OWN "average", his own "normal". He was saying that he felt "normal" for him. I reported his remark and he was much attacked for it, by anonymous strangers on the internet. They thought that he must be disregarding the nature of others, to make such a remark. They accused him of lacking social skills. Well, no: it shows none of these things - it just shows what I have been saying - that a gifted child will typically see themselves as the normal way to be - and everyone else as the abnormal way to be. They are usually defined as "normal" by themselves.

I find this interesting. The whole world goes around defining these children as "gifted"...that is distinguished from the average by the presence of "gifts"...whereas these children probably, in fact, see themselves as "normal" as my son does, despite his prodigious childhood. (The fact that he spends so much time among adults may have something to do with it, of course). Indeed, it seems healthy to conceive one's own way of being as "normal" even if it is not. Conceiving of oneself as "abnormal" cannot be a good stressor. Yet, also interestingly enough, I don't think that gifted children go around defining, consciously, others as "impaired". The term, "impaired" has never entered any human language I know of, to describe the average person. Thus, the perspective of gifted people has never entered common language. The world is defined, therefore, not by the gifted minority, in this descriptive sense - but by the ungifted majority.

What I am trying to convey is that, to the gifted, they do not seem "gifted" to themselves they seem "differently normal". They know they are DIFFERENT - but that difference feels NORMAL. It is the way they are. It is the way they have always been: how else could it feel but normal?

So, perhaps, instead of marking out the gifted as apart from the rest of the world and subject to jealousies and hates, as a consequence, perhaps they can be reframed as "differently normal" - and accepted as just another way of being. After all, a gifted child has to learn to accept, as they grow up, that the impaired people they see around them, everyday of their lives are, in fact, the most common type - and conceive of themselves as "normal". The gifted child has to learn to accept them, as "normal". Yet they also conceive of themselves as "normal" - for how else could they think of themselves when that is the way they are involuntarily? Yet, they can also see that they are different from the others. The way to resolve this is to see that each type of person - the "gifted" or the "impaired" is "differently normal" - normal from their own point of view. Perhaps this way of looking at things will allow all people, of all gifts or otherwise, to get along.

At least, that is my 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.htmlI 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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yahoo Search downgrades service.

Yahoo Search has downgraded its service. Oddly, for a tech company, it has, instead of forever advancing its offering, to entice new customers, and keep old ones, decided to reduce its standard search offering, to all.

Until a few days ago, Yahoo Search offered a very useful service, to anyone who used its search box: any search term would evoke an offering to "explore related concepts". This was, I thought, a marvellous tool. Entering anyone's name, for instance, would instantly suggest to you, other matters that this person is somehow related to, through being mentioned in those contexts on the internet. It was very useful for getting an overall picture of anyone or anything. Now, however, Yahoo Search has decided that there are two types of people: the famous ones, and the "little people" who must be sidelined and ignored, like the uninteresting, pointless people they are - or at least Yahoo Search thinks they are.

You are free to check your name, in Yahoo Search, if you wish. However, unless you are a globally famous person, you will, at most, just receive the list on the left hand side of common searches related to you. There will be no suggestion, any longer, of "related concepts" to explore.

I find this a puzzling decision by Yahoo Search. You see, the internet is eminently suited to compiling interesting information on everything - and that means even relatively obscure matters - and not just the "blockbuster" topics. In redefining what its computers will now look for related concepts, to, Yahoo Search, is making it clear that it considers anyone or anything less than a "blockbuster" topic, as unimportant, and inconsequential. This is a key strategic error and shows that Yahoo Search fails to understand the realities of the modern world. You see the number of non-blockbuster topics and not so famous people is SO inordinately greater than the blockbuster topics and the globally famous people, that the total interest and search volume in the more "minor" topics will, in aggregate, be much greater than that of the blockbuster topics. Thus, Yahoo Search is closing access to its searchers, to the information that many of them actually want. It is making the mistake of thinking in an old paradigm.

Perhaps it is costly to devote the necessary computer resources to defining related concepts for everything...but I think that the true cost is neglibible compared to the additional traffic I am fairly sure this service has been drawing to Yahoo Search. Yahoo must weigh against that computing cost, the loss of regular searchers that will develop as people come to realize that they have downgraded their service.

So, Yahoo, if you ever read this blog: why not put back your "explore related concepts" search service, for ALL searches, and not just very famous people. Frankly, very famous people are not as interesting, anyway, as somewhat less famous people, for the simple reason that information is more accessible for the most famous anyway. It is the somewhat less famous, but interesting, people, that we need search engines to find out more about for us. So, too, for the more obscure topics in life and learning.

Then again, there is another angle. Yahoo Search has unwittingly insulted the hundreds of millions of surfers, whose names used to summon related concepts, but who now do not. Yahoo Search has made it clear that it considers these hundreds of millions of people, unimportant - and beneath acknowledgement. Perhaps, in response, some of these people - which may number in millions - may decide that other search engines, serve their needs better and show more respect, by being less divisive and exclusive.

So, come on, Yahoo Search: be fair to all people and concepts, not just the famous. The best search service would be the one that offered the most "related concepts" type responses...because that makes search easiest. You used to offer such a service...so why not offer it again? I think you will find that people actually liked the service - and valued it.

(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 flight of the Malays.

Malays are leaving Singapore. Now, this is no news, but what may be news, is their relative abundance in those who emigrate.

A few days ago, I posted on the remarkable inflow of Chinese PRCs into Singapore. I wondered, in that post, "The secret Singaporean Teleportation Device", whether this deepening of the Chinese nature of Singapore, was prompting more Malays to leave, as they found themselves further marginalized. I had no figures to back up my intuition - well, now, I have.

Today, on reading the New Paper, I came across a little snippet of information in an article on Malay emigration to Australia. There was a quote from a Singaporean Chinese "immigration consultant"...or should it be "emigration consultant? This Mr. Sim remarked that fully 30 % of his clients were Singaporean Malays. That is a surprisingly high number for two reasons. Firstly, the proportion of Malays in Singapore is only 13.6%, so this abundance in his clientele was 2.2 times greater than expected by chance. Secondly he is a CHINESE consultant, and therefore presumably less well-connected to the Malay community than a Malay agent would be. Thus, his clientele may UNDERESTIMATE the proportion of Malays who are leaving Singapore, for other countries.

Recently the Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew, spoke of the "privileged position" of the Malays in Singapore and of the importance of maintaining that privilege. I thought this an eminently funny speech, because anyone who knows anything of the real situation, in Singapore, for Malays, knows that they are not privileged, in any real sense - they are, in fact, disadvantaged and discriminated against. So many jobs, for instance, in Singapore require that the applicant be of Chinese race. They call it "Chinese speaking"...but if a Malay fluent in Mandarin applies for the job (or an Indian for that matter), I have heard that they get turned down. I have even heard of minorities fluent in Chinese being told that they are not being hired because a Chinese person is wanted - despite their Mandarin fluency.

The real test, of course, as to whether a minority feels at home, in their nation, is whether or not they leave and the relative proportion of those who depart, who are from the minority in question. By this measure, and by the evidence of Mr. Sim's clientele (which we have no reason to believe is unusual or atypical of other agents' clientele in any way), the Malays certainly don't feel privileged. They clearly feel that they will have a better life elsewhere - which is why so many of them are leaving.

What do they find overseas? Well, one thing which is refreshing, for many Malays, is that they don't experience the active discrimination in the workplace that is present in Singapore. They don't see job adverts for "Must speak Mandarin"...they are only required to speak English (in the places they tend to go to, like Australia), which, of course, they do. I have heard, on the grapevine, many success stories of Malays who couldn't really "make it" in Singapore, who found it very much easier to do so, in other countries. Tellingly, the person, in question, is no different and no more able - all that has changed is the environment and the set of social forces they are up against.

Of course, Singapore won't be bothered about this loss of Malays. They will just be replaced by PRCs from China. However, we should be concerned, because one day, there may not be any Malays left in Singapore. That will be a loss of diversity and plurality that will change the character of Singapore - and not for the better. In no way, in my view, is uniformity (which shall prevail) superior to diversity. Yet, the future of Singapore shall be rather more uniform than it is today. We can see it with our own eyes, on a daily basis, on the streets of Singapore. The national demographic statistics, too, show a steady reduction in the proportion of Malays, every decade, since the foundation of Singapore. Now, this is strange, since Malays, as it is well known, like to have children rather more than Chinese Singaporeans do. That they have more children and yet there are fewer of them, relatively, owes itself to two forces: higher relative emigration of Malays, and higher relative immigration of Chinese PRCs (plus Chinese from Malaysia, Indonesia and anywhere else they can be found).

What I find curious is that Singaporean politicians mumble about the need to maintain the Chinese population (MM Lee himself, is famous for this view). Yet, one doesn't hear any of them drawing attention to the decline of the Malays. I suppose it is, actually, one and the same thing. The decline of the Malays, implies a relative increase in the Chinese - which is what is quite clearly sought, anyway.

Were a future Singapore to lack Malays entirely, I think the Government, here, might suddenly realize their value. You see, the Singaporean Malays allow better integration of Singapore into the rest of South-East Asia. After all, Singapore's Malays speak the language of Malaysia and Indonesia. They also share cultural, religious and ideological understandings. It is one of Singapore's strengths that some of its people share the language and culture of its nearest neighbours. This helps Singapore with trade and survival, both. Were Singapore to become a solely Chinese state, two things would happen: firstly, its ability to communicate with and integrate, effectively, with its neighbouring states would be impaired. Secondly, there would be much greater likelihood of conflict with those very same neighbouring states. Whilst Singapore remains a partially Malay nation, its Malay neighbours will continue to feel they have something in common with it. Once, however, it becomes entirely Chinese (or almost so), the possibility of conflict and resentment will be much heightened. A Singapore without a Malay minority, is a Singapore that invites its own extinction. There will, of course, be a certain irony in that. A state which makes the Malays feel so unwelcome that they decide to leave, until none remain, thereby extinguishing them, will, actually have extinguished itself.

It is best not to listen to what political figures say of a country, it is preferable to watch what the people do. It is not politicians that tell the truth, by their words, but people who tell the truth, by their actions. Singapore's leaders talk of equality for all races, yet, if Singapore's races felt truly equal in opportunity and life chances, the numbers who emigrated would be in direct proportion to their relative racial abundance in the nation. We can see from the New Paper article and Mr. Sim's experience of his clientele that this is not so. Vastly more Malays than expected, are emigrating. This can only be because Malays feel that their lives would be better elsewhere. If they thought that their lives, in Singapore, would be as equally good, as their fellow non-Malays, they would not emigrate in disproportionate numbers.

Countries which make minorities feel welcome are healthy countries, socially and psychologically. They also tend to be successful ones (just think of the demographics of America). Would not Singapore be better off matching the welcome of an America, than the monoculture of China or Japan?

(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.)

Genetic discrimination against the gifted

Racism is discrimination based on genetics. It is almost universally decried and fought against. Discrimination against the disabled is also, often, based on genetics - and universally fought against. Giftedness is genetically determined, and often the subject of discrimination - but who fights against that? Virtually no-one. "Giftism", as I have coined it, is both common and not thought of as a real issue. It is OK in many societies to be hostile towards the gifted; to deny them appropriate educational opportunity and generally deny them receiving what they need to receive - by simply ignoring them.

The gifted child is often resented by other children - and socially isolated as a result. That is a form of discrimination. Most schools who saw a child of minority race being shunned would get the school together and give them a talk about it - and try to persuade them to be more inclusive. No such talk will ever occur to protect gifted children from ill-treatment. Their situation is simply not recognized - or if it is, no-one, who has the power to do something about it, cares enough to act.

Discrimination of all kinds must be opposed in a civilized world. If your nation does not oppose discrimination against the gifted - then it is not yet fully civilized: there is at least one more step to take.

It is not just the intellectually gifted who receive this directed envy of their fellows. Children - and adults - gifted in other ways also receive it.

Brad Pitt, of all people, made a relevant comment on the issue, by being quoted as saying:

"I am one of those people you hate because of genetics."

So, even, the famous among us, feel it: the hate of others, simply because of who we are.

Really, everyone, everywhere, who understands this issue should do what they can to oppose it and make this world a more civilized, inclusive, place.

(If you would like to read about Ainan Celeste Cawley, a scientific child prodigy, aged seven years and six months, or 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.)

On disability and ability: society's obligation

It is taken as obvious that the mentally disabled should receive assistance in developing the skills and behaviours necessary to allow them to function in society. Yet, it is seen as controversial, in some countries, to make any special provision at the opposite end of the ability spectrum. Is this rational?

What does it mean to be disabled? It means one's abilities are different from the norm, in the sense of being lessened. What does it mean to be gifted? It means one's abilities are different from the norm, in the sense of being heightened.

You will note that the situations have a logical identity and a logical difference. It is the identity to which I wish to draw your initial attention. With both the disabled and the gifted, there is an essential difference from the norm. These people are not typical of humanity in general - and it is their lack of typicality that requires that they be given special attention. The general provision of society for its members is equally inappropriate for both classes of individual: the disabled and the gifted (or the enabled, as one might call them).

There is a view, often stated, though never intelligently held, that the gifted do not need special provision because they are MORE able than others. This view fails to understand the ways in which extreme ability can be a kind of disability, too. The truly gifted child will be set apart by their gifts, from those around them. They are likely to be isolated not only in being mentally different to those around them, but also in terms of being rejected, by them. They are unlikely to fit in. They may have communication difficulties. They may have difficulty in both being understood and in understanding those they meet in the everyday world. Think about my last four sentences. They could have been written about a mentally disabled person - and they would still hold true. The gifted and the disabled both a share a communication gap - they both share a social disability. To be in either state is to be divorced from society - and this is a burden whether it is at the lower or upper ends of the spectrum. The difference, in many societies, is that the burden of the disabled is recognized by all, but that that of the "enabled" or gifted, is recognized only by those who have experienced it for themselves, in most cases.

To both constituents, the gifted and the disabled, a humane society must make a special effort to reach out to and accommodate them and their needs. The key phrase is "humane society". So many voices on the internet seem to be espousing an inhumane, uncaring, cold society - well, I for one, would not vote for such a society.

Both kinds of people need special help in fully integrating into society: the disabled with basic functioning, the gifted with, if you like, "optimal function" - finding the niche that best expresses their abilities and least encumbers them.

A society that ignores either constituent is at the very least inhumane - but it is also something else: it is a society which will fail for obvious logical reasons. A society which does not enable the disabled to function, is one that will be burdened by them; a society which disables the enabled by not allowing them to function at their best - is one that will never enjoy the benefits of such people in their midst.

I will write more on this in future, for otherwise this post would become too long.