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.)

Highly educated vs. gifted.

An Australian friend of mine, related an experience to me, recently, concerning her first teaching stint in Singapore. What she learnt is very instructive of the situation in Singapore's schools.

She had been hired, as a teacher, to come to Singapore to teach "gifted children" in a special school. She was looking forward to it, and was filled with expectations of the challenges she would face, the opportunities she would have to work with talented children, and the rewards she would feel to see them grow under her tutelage. Well, all was not as she had supposed. As she began to work with these children, she noted something strange about them: they KNEW a lot, but could not seem to THINK very well. This puzzled her: it was not what she had expected of "gifted" children. Nevertheless, she did her best to challenge these kids, for she had been led to suppose that they needed challenge. Yet, this did not seem to be what they craved. If she challenged them too much, they seemed to back away from the challenge and reach for familiar territory in which they were "learned". Finally, after three months of this, the Principal of the school came to talk with her.

"Actually," he began, "These children are not gifted."

Why, she wondered, had she ever been told that they were, then?

"They are not gifted," he repeated, "They are highly EDUCATED."

He went on to explain how their parents thought of them as gifted or wanted them to be gifted, and so had DRILLED them from very young, in the basics of the academic world. Lessons had been drummed into them, as young as possible, and they had known little but long hours of study, in their short lives. Yet, all this education, produced nothing more than knowledgeable youngsters - within certain circumscribed limits (that is, if it is not useful in school exams or a school context, then they wouldn't know it). Not one of the kids could actually be described as highly intelligent - that is, being able to think fluidly, as opposed to being able to recall information.

Once she understood this, she grew to pity her students. There was a demand upon them, by their parents, and perhaps their society, that they be something they are not. Yet, not one of them seemed able to meet this demand. They had become model students and did well in standardized testing, but when challenged, in the ways she had come to expect to be able to do with gifted children, they couldn't cope. They couldn't rise to tasks that required true intelligence, because they didn't really have it. What they had was something else: an education.

I think my friend had stumbled on something fundamental about the ways in which Singaporeans misunderstand education. As far as I am aware, and believe, education cannot create a gifted child. The gift originates in something innate which is either there or is not. It cannot be readily imparted by the hitting of the books. Education imparts something else...particularly the type of education found in Singapore: knowledge. Yet, knowledge is not intelligence and, as Einstein famously observed, knowledge is less important than imagination. What these kids lacked was an imagination and a high degree of fluid intelligence - in other words, they lacked what they had been labelled to have. Someone along the way, had come to view these kids as "gifted" because of their knowledge of standard school information - but they were by no means gifted. They were a much lesser breed than that.

Perhaps, though, this misunderstanding is not entirely the fault of the parents: it is an idea that seems to imbue the entire education system of Singapore - the idea that study somehow creates this "gift" - and that one who studies well, is necessarily "gifted". This is not so. Giftedness is something apart from mere education - and may exist, I believe, in its complete absence. Giftedness is an innate quality of mind - it is not to be created at the whim of an education system. In fact, the kind of education that Singapore engages in is, in my view, of no value to a gifted person - or should I say, at best, is less than ideal for a gifted person. It is too rote, too unchallenging, too knowledge based and too short on real thinking. It is, in short, an education not worth having. Those kids my friend had to teach, had had plenty of this type of education - but none of them were any closer to being gifted than they had been before. They still lacked the essence of gift.

It will be interesting to see how long Singapore's love affair with its standardized education lasts. I don't see in it, the solution to Singapore's long term prosperity. A nation of kids like the ones my friend taught is not going to become a leading innovator in the world. Far from it. At best, they are suited only to imitating what others have done. Perhaps, indeed, that is the planned future of Singapore: No.1 in being just like the next man, a nation of "me toos".

(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.)

Old and Childless.

So many, today, are old and childless. It doesn't bode well for the future of the world, for you know who these "old and childless" people are: ones with something to offer future generations.

Personally, I know several who are old but childless, who have lived full lives but never become parents. A short description of them is enough to cause alarm among those who care for the future genetic quality of Mankind. One of them has the best autobiographical memory I have ever encountered: he remembers his life in the most exquisite detail, despite being in his late sixties. He has never had a child and never will. His gift, for profound memory, will never be passed on.

I know others, too. One is a businessman and non-fiction writer. He is very intelligent and energetic and has qualities which any child would love the chance to have inherited from a parent. He is in his seventies, has never fathered a child and never will.

I know another who is actually a well-known fiction writer, of high quality literary fiction. He is about sixty, is unmarried (though has "girlfriends") and is very unlikely to have a child: he has said he doesn't want to be a parent because he doesn't think he would make a good one. I look at his written work and see a gifted man who will never pass on his gift.

I know another who is a former physicist, who is now a well-known photographer. He is old, but doesn't reveal his age. He is one of the brightest people I know of. He too has never had a child and doesn't want one - for the same reason as the one above: he is critical of himself and doesn't believe he would be a good father. His fine mind has not and will not be passed on.

Finally, there is someone I do not personally know: Robert Sawyer, who is a science fiction author of broad and deep talent. He is not yet old but is adamant that he will never have a child. As far as I remember he prefers to live on in "memes". In other words, he doesn't want a child to interfere with his attention to his creative work. He too will die without having passed on his genetic gifts. Rather appallingly, in his case, he has no relatives who are bearing children - so his entire line is dying out, with him. I find it strange that he doesn't see tragedy in this.

There are many such bright, gifted, elderly people without children in this world. It has become almost fashionable to be "unencumbered" and able to focus exclusively on one's own interests. I think all who are like this have missed the point of life - which is that it must continue, that the line must not be broken and that one must have children, who in turn have children. Otherwise, all that one is, will pass and be no more.

My friends are all very gifted, but it saddens me that they have all either decided against children or never found the right relationship in which to have them. All that they are, will pass away and there will be no more like them. Some of them have very special gifts, but all that will be gone.

This trend began with the widespread availability of contraception in the early 19th century. It has spread throughout the world with the more intelligent of each population being more likely to have few or no children. Thus it is that the world is becoming dumber each generation (see the detailed work of Richard Lynn in this regard).

The future of Man cannot be a gifted future, a bright future, a creative future if its gifted members don't raise families. What can be seen now is that Man is in decline. The day might come when Man's civilization itself might fail for the want of intelligent people to sustain it.

The old and childless might have their reasons for being so. Yet, they are doing the future of Man a disservice if they also happen to have any special gift of any kind. The future needs such gifts.

In the light of this, I am very content to be a father. Yes, it is true that being so interferes with one's own interests, work and passions. Yes, it is true that those who have chosen to be childless have more freedoms - but, at the same time, there is a lot that they miss. Live is richer and more rewarding for a parent than a non-parent. There is a lot I get to see, witness and understand that my childless friends never do and never will. On balance, being a parent is a richer experience than being a non-parent. Even knowing the "advantages" that my childless friends have, I would not swap my situation for theirs. Indeed, having known my situation, were I placed in their situation, I would mourn for the life I had lost.

It is true that my old, gifted and childless friends are enjoying their lives. They are creating interesting things. But are they missing out on something deeper? Have they missed the real point of life? Will they come to regret what they have omitted to create: a child of their own?

I know, I would.

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

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

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

Of cheers and jeers in the classroom.

I have been in Singapore for many years. I have seen things here, that I have not seen elsewhere. Many of these things are to do with a difference of culture and mentality, a distinctness of outlook and beliefs. One of these differences is in how school children treat each other.

In two schools, now, I have seen an unusual reaction that I never once saw in the quite a few schools I attended, when I was growing up in England. In one classroom, of foreign Asian students, studying in Singapore, there was a talented student. He was the brightest boy, in one way, in the class (though not the most creative). As a teacher should, I would ask several people to speak in front of the class, either to read or think before the others. Whenever I asked anyone else, there was generally silence. Yet, when I asked this particular boy to speak, they would CHEER him. This was most unexpected when they first did it. The reason they CHEERED is that they delighted in his skill. They cherished his intelligence. They admired his gift. Whenever it came his turn to do anything academic, they would herald his words, with a universal cheering in the classroom.

Now, this boy's work was indeed consistently very good. He was the most skilful, in a conventional sense, of all of the students. Noting their reaction to him, I decided to ask another student to read - one who was less obvious, less a known factor, to the other students. It was the Indonesian boy of whom I have written before - the one I have termed the best student writer in Singapore. Now, his writing was brilliant for an unconventional reason: it was imaginative in writing, content, choice of words and originality of expressions - but it was not perfect in grammar and spelling (unlike the class hero's work).

Knowing that he would not, perhaps, be the best of readers of his own work, I took the Indonesian's writing from him and stood still in front of the class and began to read. No-one said anything before I began. There was no heralding of the work to come. I read, with care, depth and feeling. All the room was silent. As I said the last word and looked out over the classroom, a murmur of appreciation went around the room. They had realized something: this boy, this very quiet boy from Indonesia, whom they had overlooked, had something very special. They did not react with jealousy to this discovery - but with a kind of awed admiration. I had just created another class hero. He didn't receive cheers in the way the other one did - but he did, thereafter, receive a murmur of appreciation, a strange, almost inaudible communication that passed swiftly around the classroom each time I chose him. It seemed as if his quieter personality (for he never spoke in class) warranted a quieter response.

So, that class of Asian foreign students admired people of gift, and welcomed them with cheers and other cries of appreciation. I have seen the same thing in another class, in Singapore - this time of Singaporeans.

It was a Secondary One class and what struck me about it was that every time a WEAKER student had difficulty with a task, the class would urge them on. Once the task had been completed, the class would cheer the student for their efforts. This is a complementary attitude, therefore, to the response I observed in the other class - but it has, essentially, the same meaning. In both classes, the striving for greatness is appreciated and rewarded by the rest of the class. I recall one student in particular. She was the sole foreigner in the class, from China. She was older and taller than the others and it was difficult to judge her brightness or otherwise, since her English was a little too weak for a decision to be made. When it came her turn to speak before the class, the whole class cheered her on. She was quite a shy girl and I could see she was very touched by the support of the class - she didn't know whether to smile or shed a grateful tear. It was sweet to watch. Then she began to speak, unsteadily, stumbling over words and structures. Throughout, the class was silent, but intent, their eyes and their encouraging nods urging her on. I could see that she felt their support, that their united attitude of care was allowing her to do this most difficult of all tasks: public speaking. At last, she was done - and the classroom was filled with "whoops" and cheers. The tall, awkward Chinese girl walked fluidly, bouyantly back to her seat, with a smile that could not have been broader - a smile of relief to have achieved her aim and gratitude for their support.

Now, I have spent this much time on description of these two classrooms: one of Singaporeans and one of foreigners, for a good reason. I would like to constrast that with what I experienced in many different schools in England, when I was growing up. At the time, there was a common response to anyone who excelled: the jeer. The scenes I have written of above could not have happened in any school I observed in England (and I observed many, having moved around quite a bit). There, excellence of the academic kind always attracted a venomous reaction. There was no surer way to unpopularity, in all schools that I experienced, than to be brighter than the rest. If you were smart, you were an exile. That is the way it was and no doubt, given the dumbing down of the UK, since then, that is the way it remains. There is an anti-intellectualism that undermines the health of the nation, there. The best people have to learn to mask their greatness and blend in, in some way. However, should they blend too vigorously or too long, there is the risk that they will lose the essential difference that made them great in the first place. I saw many people excel, in my schools, in England. Yet, never once were such students cheered, and not a few times they would be jeered. The jeers would not come in the classroom, before the teacher, but in the playground, later, where jealousies and spite would be taken out on the gifted student who had dared to show them up, simply by existing.

Never once did I see a class in which the other students supported the most gifted members of the class. Never once did I see approval of achievement or excellence, as a general response. The teachers, too, were often poor at rewarding greatness. They would usually not comment on the relative achievements of students - and so it was that the achieving student would receive no positive feedback from the students and none from the staff, either. They would be left to generate their own positive feelings, to understand their own position in the world.

I do not know how common this phenomenon of cheering on the greater and the weaker is, in Singapore. I only know this: I have only ever seen this in a Singaporean classroom. In UK classrooms it was the jeer, not the cheer that came readily to every throat. I wonder what this means for the long term future of the UK and of Asia. I note that the classroom that cheered on its best student (academically) was a pan-Asian classroom, with children from all over Asia. The gifted boy in question was Malaysian. So, if this cheering of the great is a pan-Asian phenomenon it could very well be, that in decades to come, Asia could emerge as a greater power than one might suppose. For nothing more is likely to help the flowering of the gifted, than that they should find support from the wider community. I have witnessed that force at work in Asia - I have never seen it at work in the UK.

The UK would do better, I feel, if its students could learn to cheer the greater on (and urge the weaker to achieve). Singapore would benefit if what I have seen in two classrooms could become a property of all.

How much more likely is a gifted child to succeed if they hear cheers in their ears, rather than jeers? Correspondingly, how much more likely is the child who hears jeers, in their ears, to fail?

The answer to this question will be found in the corresponding fates of Asia and the UK in the decades to come.

(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.)

The value of being gifted.

Someone arrived on my site, today, with what I regard as strange search terms: "IQ 130 - how much money make".

It wasn't the grammatical choices that concerned me terribly, but the underlying world view of such a query of the internet. I cannot discern whether this is someone who has just had their IQ tested and is wondering how much money they will make in later life, or someone just interested in how much such a person would make. I can tell this, however: they haven't truly understood what being gifted means and the opportunities it presents.

Giftedness is not about money-making. If it was, the richest people would be the smartest - and oddly, they are usually not. They are "smart enough" to run their businesses, but not necessarily as smart as some of the people they employ. Their primary gifts are not necessarily in intellectual areas at all. No: richness and wealth do not equate. Wealth comes from a certain approach to life, in some cases one that others may not agree with - but it is not the inevitable product of intelligence. They are some rather dim rich people and some rather bright poor ones. Though, generally speaking, someone of high intelligence will do "alright" financially - though not necessarily as well as their not-so-bright but more money minded sibling/classmate.

Giftedness presents opportunities for doing things other than make money. It provides the opportunity to do something special. A gifted person who was also creative might write a novel, create a new product/invention, compose music, start a new business, in a new niche, propose a new scientific theory and any number of possible contributions. A gifted person who was not creative might make an outstanding accountant, lawyer or doctor - or any other professional in which intelligence, but not necessarily creativity, was required.

Giftedness is about doing something better than others could - or doing something outside the norm if creatively gifted. If there is money to be made by doing so, it is not usually the primary goal of a gifted person.

Gifted people are usually deeper than to choose the one-dimensional aspiration of "making as much money as possible". If someone's aspiration is to do just that, they are not usually particularly gifted, in my observation, because they have not seen a deeper meaning to life than material acquisition - and so are usually not the brightest of the bright.

A gifted person will often find a goal for their life that is unusual, a goal that others might not understand, but which, if attained, or even just pursued, will add to life in a unique way. That is a better contribution to life and the world, than just amassing the greatest possible fortune.

A gifted person is many things - but the one thing they are usually not, is a money-making machine. That latter accomplishment is usually left to those who are not as bright, but are much more switched on by the drive to amass money.

Linus Pauling, the Chemist and double Nobel Prize Winner, didn't make much money (apart from his Nobel Prizes). There are many, many far less bright people who were much richer. A typical American doctor, for instance, would be much richer than Pauling was. Money-making wasn't Pauling's primary objective: expanding the reaches of science was.

Pauling's life provides an example as to why the most gifted are usually not the richest: their life objectives are higher ones than making money. Any money they make is incidental to the higher calling that is their life's devoted goal.

Were there no people like Pauling - people devoted to their subject or cause, the world, as a culture, would be much the poorer. These gifted people make life richer for all of us, if not for themselves, by their contributions.

Gifted people will often live rich lives in ways not measurable by money. Their lives are rich in experiences, contributions, ideas, projects, new things done and great goals achieved. It is for these things that we should look to them, in admiration - not their yachts and mansions (which they probably won't have).

Society needs gifted people whose goals are other than making money. These gifted people may make ideas that change life for the better for many or for all - and such people are of greater value, therefore, than the world's plutocrats, most of whom don't make much real difference at all. (They do what would be done anyway, without adding anything new).

Some societies drill their gifted young people to aim for money as their highest goal. Singapore is one such place. I wonder how limiting that is, in the way they go on to lead their lives. If a nation's gifted people have the one-dimensional aspiration of money-making as their sole goal, then that nation will never truly shine. Perhaps that explains the way Singapore is: a nation whose gifted people are not encouraged, or even allowed, to have higher goals than the pursuit of wealth. The result is clear to see.

It is telling that the searcher who came to my site with those words: "IQ 130 how much money make" was searching from a Singaporean IP address.

It is time that the education system, here, instilled a deeper set of values than the almighty dollar and its pursuit. The dollar is not the meaning of life - and if it becomes so, the life that is led is ultimately fruitless, and shallow.

They are many other values which a nation could impart to its young. There are many other things in life of value than just money alone. Perhaps it is time for the dollar obsessed nations of the world - of which Singapore is one - to urge their young to look to these other values, too, so that some might choose a deeper path for life.

Oh, by the way, an IQ of 130 is probably enough to make as much money as you might wish for - if the moderately gifted person chooses the right area in which to apply their minds. Some very rich people don't appear to be any brighter than 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.)

The notationally gifted

What is a notationally gifted child? Well, it is a child gifted in the use of common notation: that is words and numbers. It is, in fact, what most people commonly think of as gifted.

Yet, there is a problem with this idea of the gifted person as notationally gifted. You see, many gifted children and gifted adults are NOT notationally gifted, and yet are gifted in some definite, real, tangible sense. They may have a gift for music, or art, or may be particularly good with spatial thinking. They may be gifted socially - or may have the kind of inner wisdom that allows them to understand themselves very well (intrapersonal intelligence). These latter types might be good poets or writers, or other kinds of artists who draw on a knowledge of the self. They might even be gifted in a sense that most people don't even consider to be gifted: kinaesthetically gifted - that is, gifted in movement. Such people may be fine dancers or great athletes. They, too, possess a gift. Yet, none of these categories of people might show up on a conventional IQ test, as "gifted" - for they are not necessarily notationally gifted, as well.

So, the common idea of the gifted, which coincides with the concept of the "notationally gifted" is very limiting. It constrains our understanding of what a gifted person may be, and excludes, in fact, most gifted people. There are many more kinds of gifted people out there, than are described by the ability to use words and numbers well. Yet, the problem with most gifted programs and the thinking behind them, is that giftedness will manifest in a gift for words and numbers. This is not necessarily so. Such people are just a subset of the gifted people in the world.

I am not denying the importance of notational giftedness - for such gift is the foundation of effectiveness in the academic world and all its allied professions - but there is more to giftedness than that. We deprive the world of the gifts of the many and varied gifted, if we refuse to see the full range of gifted people among us. Some who are musically or artistically or kinaesthetically gifted, may also be notationally gifted, too. However, many of them will not be. Their gift will stand apart from the more common academic gifts. Let us not exclude them from the opportunities they need to grow just because they don't fit our common understanding of what a "gifted" person is. Picasso wasn't much of an everyday student - but in his art, he shone. I doubt whether he would have been identified as "gifted" by a program that used IQ tests alone to determine membership - but that he had a gift, is self-evident, to anyone who has seen his art. The same may be said by many thousands of unknown gifted people, out there in the world. Many of them will remain unidentified and unsupported, because the educational screening systems are using too narrow a criteria to define giftedness. Giftedness is not just about pure intellect (in a notational sense) - there are other kinds of thinker and other kinds of thinking. We lessen the world, if we ever forget that.

(If you would like to learn more of Ainan Celeste Cawley, a scientific child prodigy, aged eight years and no months, or his gifted brothers, Fintan, four years and five months, and Tiarnan, twenty-two months, please go to: http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2006/10/scientific-child-prodigy-guide.html I also write of gifted education, IQ, intelligence, the Irish, the Malays, College, University, Chemistry, Science, genetics, left-handedness, precocity, child prodigy, child genius, baby genius, adult genius, savant, gifted adults and gifted children in general. Thanks.)

The pace of education for the gifted

Education should match the one to be educated, in terms of both pace and challenge. Yet, unless that child is very average, with no particular gift, they are unlikely to be educated in such a way.

The problem with education is that all people are not, despite political aspirations otherwise, made equal - at least not intellectually - though they may be equal in terms of rights etc. in some societies. Education aims to educate most people in an acceptable way - so it ends up educating for the average person. This may seem fair, but it isn't to anyone who isn't average - which is quite a lot of people - at both ends of the spectrum.

As I sometimes do, I asked Ainan, this evening, whether he had learnt anything in school.

His response was very informative. He spoke in a long-drawn out way, each syllable pronounced with infinite sloth: "Slllllooooooowwwwwmoooooowwwwww!"

He was saying "Slow motion".

For Ainan, 7, school is something that occurs in slow motion. The pace of lessons is glacial. It must be very frustrating for him because I have often observed that, when I am teaching him some quite complex or subtle scientific point, that he quite often cuts me off with: "That's obvious Daddy".

Here is the rub, as Shakespeare might have said: if conceptual aspects of College level Chemistry are "Obvious Daddy" - how does he feel in School, having to learn the most basic of things, at the most tardy of paces?

It is cruel to do that to a young mind. It is cruel to so underchallenge Ainan that he sees school as if it passes in cinematic slow motion.

(If you would like to learn more of Ainan Celeste Cawley, a scientific child prodigy, aged seven years and nine months, or his gifted brothers, Fintan, four years and two months, and Tiarnan, nineteen months, please go to: http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2006/10/scientific-child-prodigy-guide.html I also write of gifted education, IQ, intelligence, College, University, Chemistry, Science, genetics, left-handedness, precocity, child prodigy, child genius, baby genius, adult genius, savant, gifted adults and gifted children in general. Thanks.)