Gifted Education Conference 2012, in The Star.

On Sunday, the Star newspaper, of Malaysia, published my article on the Gifted Education Conference 2012, held by the NAGCM (National Association for Gifted Children, Malaysia) and AISM (the Australian International School Malaysia). I was one of the presenters at the conference and spoke on the topic: "Should gifted children receive special educational provisions?" My answer, in brief, was yes.

The article can be found here:

http://thestar.com.my/education/story.asp?file=/2012/12/16/education/12391292&sec=education

Please comment with your thoughts, below. Thanks.

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.) 

The dream of a genius.

Geniuses dream whilst they are awake. Thus it is that they are more asleep than everyone else.

(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.)

The second anniversary of Prodigy Blog.

I've done it. I have actually written my way to my second year of blogging. Yesterday, September 19th 2008, was the second year, to the day, since I began this blog.

At the end of the first year, I had had 33,095 visitors, who had read 105,687 pages (which consist of up to a week of postings...so the real number of pages is approximately seven times that number). I considered the first year a success given that, at that time, there were over 70 million blogs in the world and only about 700 million internet connections - so that, all being average, I would only have a maximum of 10 readers a day, assuming that people distribute their reading efforts equally and that everyone actually reads a blog every day (just one). I was rather more successful than that, averaging about 100 readers a day, after the initial start-up period.

At the end of the first year, I set myself a target for my future blogging success. It seemed, at that time, an ambitious but achievable one: I aimed to secure a total of 100,000 visitors to my site by the second anniversary of my blog. It makes me happy to write that I have met my target - in fact, I exceeded it (or should I say you, the reader, exceeded it by reading my blog). By the stroke before midnight on September 19th 2008, I had received 105,716 visitors to my blog, in total, since the day it began. That means I received 72,621 new visits in the period September 19th 2007 to the same day in 2008. Essentially, I doubled my daily visit average to about 200 per day.

My readers have been busy looking around the site and totted up 265,856 page views. Remember that a page is counting a whole week of entries. So, basically that means that around 1.8 million posts have been read around the world. Were that books, I would be a best selling author, so that puts that into perspective. New page views for the year stand at 160,169, indicating that over a million posts would have been read, in the year.

Those numbers are quite staggering, in a way, for they indicate the power of blogging to reach out, across the world, into people's minds. What other immediately accessible way is there, in the world, of enabling 1.8 million posts to be read by people in all nations of the world? None.

As it was in the first year, my readers have come from all over the world. What is noticeable this year, however, is that they - or should say you - have become much more geographically dispersed with the numbers outside of the main English speaking countries of the UK, USA, Ireland, Canada, Australia and Singapore increasing dramatically. It is odd to see that I even get people in the most far flung parts of the world searching for my blog using either my name, or that of my son, Ainan, in their search terms. This shows that word of mouth is spreading knowledge of the blog quite far afield. People know of us, before they search for us. This is a new development since, mainly in the first year, searches were for terms relating to giftedness and prodigiousness. The second year still had plenty of such searches - but there was a strong growth in more specific searches using names of the family. It is odd to think that people in countries I have never visited and may never visit, have actually heard of us, and my blog and are interested enough to search for it.

I write on giftedness and this is very much a niche interest. The people who tend to be interested are often gifted themselves, particularly the parents of gifted children, in search of answers, background, and support in their situation. Many interesting people have corresponded, through comment posts, over the two year period. I value their comments and personal tales of raising gifted children - and I am sure that my readers do, too, as they provide further tales of the gifted.

The growth of a blog is, I feel, a gradual thing. Word gradually spreads around the world and the accidental reader becomes, in time, a dedicated one. My second year was twice as successful as my first. It is my aim that my third year should be as successful as the first two years combined. This means that I hope to have as many visits in my third year, as the blog received in the first two years in total. That means that the total should be 211,432 visitors by the end of the third year. Now, that is a high aim for one reason: the number of random visitors from the search engines who are looking for giftedness is NOT going to increase. There is a typical background level of search in that area, some of which naturally comes to me, since my blog generally appears on page one of related search terms in Google. Unless the world suddenly becomes fascinated by all things gifted, that background level is not going to change much. What has to change, therefore, for me to reach my new target, is two things: the number of specific searchers who are searching for members of the Cawley family specifically - and the number of return visitors. Word of mouth will help the growth in the first area - and the second area is up to the level of richness of what I write. If I write so as to interest you, my readers, then many of you will return to read another day.

This analysis leads one to conclude that there is only one element really within the control of the blogger - and that is the blogging itself. A blogger must write, regularly, in an absorbing way, so that others who chance upon it may find it nourishing or interesting in some way. That is all. If people appreciate the writing, the blog will grow, over time, as my blog has done this past year.

I would like to thank you all for taking the time to read what I write. I would further like to thank those who actually took the time to write a comment post. Most of these comments have been rewarding to read and stimulating to receive. Commenters generally have wished to contribute in a positive way to the discussion on the matters I have raised. Some have shared personal details of their life situation, anonymously, in illustration of some point - and these comments are particularly valued since I know how hard it is to address such issues sometimes. Thank you for taking that effort.

Some of you have recommended my blog to others, by linking to it. I would particularly like to thank those who have done this since it helps spread word about the blog, and build a readership. A blog only really comes alive when there is an active, responsive readership out there - and I have that, now. Those who have linked to me, have greatly helped that growth in readership and it is much appreciated. If you, reading this, have a site, a link to my blog or any of its posts would be most welcome. If you find a post of interest or value, a link to it will ensure that others that you know will get the chance to benefit from it, too.

At the end of my second year, I am resolved to continue writing. Yet, I don't know what that writing will be. Blogging is a very spontaneous task. The blog of the day arises from my thoughts and concerns at the time and is utterly unpredictable as a result. I shall continue to write of giftedness, prodigy and related matters. I shall also write of matters relating to life in Singapore and education in general. Sometimes, I shall write of more general matters that catch my attention, for sometimes, something must be said that others might not say. That is the role of any social commentator: to be a voice to the voiceless - and, at times, I have been, and shall continue to be, that.

Some blogs have millions of visitors - or so I hear. They are always in very mainstream areas, though. I do not know how successful a blog about giftedness can become. The limit on its success is very much determined by how many people care about human excellence. In an ideal world, everyone would be concerned about excellence, but in our world, most people are more concerned about "good enough"...there is no striving to be or wish to be, great. This places an upper limit on the number of people who might seek out a blog on giftedness. Yet, that is not a terrible thing. I would rather be read by people who are interested, specifically, in giftedness, than not to be read at all.

Giftedness is not as widely understood as it should be. By definition, few experience the state personally - and so few can relate directly to it. Yet, I feel that it is important that more people understand giftedness, for gifted children can grow up to become vital contributors to their respective societies. If more people understood gifted people and their lives, perhaps the life journeys of the gifted might be made somewhat easier and more successful. I feel it is an important aim, to strive for: the understanding of the gifted. If you would like more people to understand about giftedness, please let them know about this blog, please link to it and spread the word. I will in turn share my experience and understanding of giftedness and related issues.

Thank you for reading. I hope you enjoy it, as much as I have enjoyed writing.

(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.)

Over 100,000 hits since this blog started.

Today, is a day of celebration on this blog. Today, my total number of reader hits since the blog started 23 months ago, is 100,052.

Now, 100,052 is quite a healthy number, I think, given that there are far too many blogs in the world (roughly speaking there is about one blog for every ten internet connections, according to the last figures I read. In other words, everyone has tens of millions of blogs to choose from. Getting readers in those circumstances is a definite victory.)

Most people who arrive on this blog are interested in giftedness, or education, in some way. So, that figure of 100,000 total readers since the day the blog began, is an indication of the level of interest in these subjects, worldwide. That interest is significant, if not overwhelming. There are many things that people could be interested in, many things they could read. Were I to write a blog on Tom Cruise, I am sure that the readership would be a hundred fold higher. However, I don't think such a blog would add anything worthwhile to the world. There are enough media covering Tom Cruise to make a blog about him unnecessary.

Giftedness, however, is a subject that is both of importance and under-covered, in some ways. There is much that can be said in this arena - and much that needs to be said. It is a subject of dear interest to those parents who have a gifted child to raise and, as such, is worth devoting some energy too.

I would like to thank all my readers for deciding to read some of what I have written. Please pass the word around about this blog so that others, too, might enjoy what I have written, or find value in it, in some way.

To put those figures into perspective, my readership per year has doubled so far in the second year compared to the first. 100,000 hits is a target that I had set myself at the end of the first year, for the second year - and it is one that I have achieved before the year is up. We will see what the actual total for the year comes to on September 19th, 2008 which will be my blog's second birthday.

Happy reading all.

(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.)

Determining giftedness: the meaning of tests.

Yesterday someone arrived on my blog with an interesting search. They had written: "Child referred for giftedness, but average IQ result: why?" I have an answer.

IQ tests usually measure verbal and mathematical/logical skills. Some measure spatial skills as well. Therefore the test subject has to be good in all areas in order to score well. The problem with this, of course, is that some subjects are not. Many children are what I call "spikey". They have high skill in one area accompanied by more modest, or sometimes even low skill in another. A great artist, for instance, may have good spatial skills, but be lacking in the other areas. The same applies to a mathematician: their maths skills may be stunning, but they may be poor in verbal or spatial tasks. So too, a young writer, may shine in verbal areas but be unremarkable in the other domains. This presents us with a problem.

A child may be referred for giftedness because they are showing clear strengths in some observable domain. Everyone may be convinced they are "gifted" - but on a measure of IQ they may not achieve the 130 threshold traditionally regarded as defining of gifted. The question is: are these children still gifted? By the definition traditionally used, they are not. However, in a very real sense they are. To have a talent in any one area is enough to have a real world effect on their ability to do something special. Thus, one could definitely consider them gifted.

There are examples of one sided minds in history: Picasso, for one. He showed great spatial gifts, but apparently was unremarkable in other areas. A modern psychologist might say he wasn't gifted - but this is clearly absurd. He was a genius of art.

So, if your child seems to be gifted, is very strong at something, but the IQ tests show otherwise I would suggest looking more closely at the test results. Is there a spike in one area? Is the spike high enough to reach into the gifted territory? If so, your child could very well be gifted, in the true sense of the word.

(If you would like to learn more of Ainan Celeste Cawley, a scientific child prodigy, aged eight years and four months, or his gifted brothers, Fintan, four years and nine months, and Tiarnan, twenty-six 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, niño, gênio criança, gifted adults and gifted children in general. Thanks.)

How some view the Gifted.

I stumbled upon a cartoon today that spoke, deeply, to me of how some people view the gifted.

The cartoon is a "Frank and Ernest" piece by Thaves. It features three Stone Age men. One of them is drawing what look like hieroglyphs on a slab of stone. The other two, clubs in hand, are watching him, mouths open.

The one at work on the stone turns to the others and says: "Look! I have just invented writing!"

One of the others replies rather sullenly: "Thanks a lot!...You just made everybody else in the world illiterate!"

I found this cartoon profound in its implications for how the gifted are often viewed.

In many cultures and nations of the world, the gifted are not welcomed, as one might hope. They are misunderstood, neglected, overlooked or even shunned. The motivations for doing this are various but, with the genius of great comedy, this cartoon has pinpointed one attitude, which underlies much of this response to giftedness. Instead of welcoming the creator of writing for the wonders it would do for humanity, they bemoan how bad, in comparison, it makes everyone else look. The same applies to the way the gifted are often treated.

A gifted person is someone who has the potential to make a significant contribution, in some way, in some field, for the greater good of all. Instead of seeing this, however, many people look on a gifted person and see only one thing: how bad it makes them look by comparison. This is a truly ungiving attitude that undermines the whole of society. In viewing gifted people in this way, such people tend to do what they can to oppose the gifted person, to stand in their way, or bring them down. Ultimately, they can reduce the chances of the gifted person ever reaching their potential. This is not theoretical speculation, for opposition to the gifted has happened, as far as I am aware, in all eras and in all nations, to some degree.

On seeing someone invent writing, the proper reaction is jubilation and congratulation. The proper reaction is to celebrate the advancement of mankind - and to do whatever one can to enable this step forward to succeed. So it is with the gifted. The proper reaction is to do whatever one can to ensure that the gifted person lives up to their promise. The proper reaction is to help them in whatever way one can.

That cartoon was written as a joke. Yet, how true it is, of the real world. I am left to wonder: how much better would the world be, if the reaction I advise, were predominant - rather than the reaction that the cartoon makes fun of? I rather think we would be living in a better world for all - and not just for the gifted. For a world in which the gifted flourish, is a world that is better for every human being. For there is one thing a gifted person will do, if permitted to flourish: make the world better, at least in some little way, by their contribution. Now, isn't that to the benefit of all?

(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.)

Giftedness and the assumption of provision

I read comments on gifted issues around the internet and what strikes me most is how much sheer ignorance there is in the words of many of the commenters.

The commenters are often scornful and skeptical of the issues parents of gifted children face. They doubt that the gifted parents could possibly face the difficulties they encounter in getting provision for their gifted children. Their assumption is that the gifted child, if actually gifted, would receive automatic provision. Yet, as any parent of a truly gifted child knows, this is simply not so. Provision has to be fought for, on a daily basis. Most educational systems specialize in IGNORING the needs of gifted children. I know of nowhere in the world where suitable provision is automatic. Yet, skeptics assume that this is so. They assume that any parent of a gifted child who is encountering difficulties in finding educational provision for their child is only doing so because their child cannot be gifted. How ridiculous. The true state of affairs is that the needs of gifted children are commonly ignored the world over. Neglect of the needs of gifted children is the norm. Provision is the exception.

I puzzle why people who evidently have no real experience of the situations they comment on - ie. the issues facing gifted children and their parents - actually feel able to comment on the issues such parents and children face. It does not help the situation and only, in fact, makes the situation far worse. It creates a misunderstanding of the true situation. The reasoning is rather like that of viewing starving children in Africa and observing that: "If they have no food, it is because they are not hungry." The thinking is that, if they were hungry, they would automatically be given food. This is, of course, nonsense. Children starve all over the world because of genuine hunger. So, too, do gifted children "starve" intellectually, from lack of provision, despite their hunger for educational opportunity.

To see a child without food and say they cannot be hungry, despite their evident starvation is absolute foolishness. So, too, is it to see a gifted child without educational provision and to claim that they cannot be in need of such an education, simply because they don't have it.

What is interesting is that many of these negative comments on sites around the world, are written by people who appear to be in anger. It would appear that the giftedness of the children concerned inspires jealousy and rage in them.

The big question, then is, why do the site moderators allow the comments to be posted in the first place? Perhaps they have bought into the arguments given and have no understanding of the true issues involved. I rather hope that is not the case.

Many gifted children, the world over, do not have adequate educational provision. The more gifted they are, the less adequate the provision. This is the true situation. It is about time everyone knew it - and acted upon it.

(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.)

On accepting the testimony of others

Today, I came across an exchange on a forum in which one mother rather hesitantly shared her experience of her child beginning to talk aged 15 weeks, or so.

Regular readers of this blog will not be surprised at this. However, some participants in that forum were: a couple denounced the mother as basically imagining it. Some were brutally sarcastic. One even called it physically impossible. It was quite disturbing to read the tone with which their comments were written: with an almost religious zeal to them, that, in their world, no such thing could be possible.

Now, what I find interesting about all of this is how closed-minded many people are. They seem to be reasoning solely from their own experience of the world - and not allowing for the possibility that other people have other experiences, abilities and potentials. All of the doubters seem not to know what the possibilities are for the most gifted of humans: they seem to think that all humans are much the same, that there is no great disparity between them. Nothing could be less true, of course - there are immense differences between people and that is what gives the human race vitality.

Basically, the key argument used by those who poured scorn on the mother was that they had not spoken at such an age, their children had not spoken at such an age - and they knew no child who had - therefore your child couldn't have either. I find this a marvellous display of impoverished thought. They have taken a sample of humanity amounting to their handful of a social circle - and they have generalized, from that, the entire properties and possibilties of the human race. It would make me guffaw were it not so sad in the effect it has on others. By thinking so, they prevent the gifted few among them, from being accepted or acceptable.

There are children who have talked at only a few months old - or less, as with mine. My post on the First Words of a Child Prodigy has attracted tales of such experiences from all over the world. Some children have crawled and walked very early too. These things happen. It makes no sense to denounce the mothers and fathers of such children for simply talking about their experiences.

Let us put this situation into more concrete terms. Imagine that the news media did not cover athletics. Imagine that athletics was something that happened quietly, in other peoples' houses, where no-one could see it. This is, of course, exactly the situation with exceptional child development. It is not something that, generally speaking, is ever given a mention officially.

Now imagine further that someone wrote on a forum that their son could run a hundred metres in 9.76 seconds, from a standing start. Imagine that they confided it hesitantly, seeking support for this unusual situation. Imagine then that quite a few people denounced the parent, saying that they must be hallucinating...or worse. Imagine that they had reasoned, well, my son can only run a hundred metres in 16 seconds - and the fastest runner I have ever met can do it in 14...so you must be lying or deceiving yourself. Now, we all know, in the real world, that there are people who can run a 100 metres in less than 10 seconds. There are, in fact, quite a few of them, in the history of sport. So, someone who made such a statement would probably not be denounced. Indeed, you might feel indignant about it if someone was so denounced. You would probably rush to their defence with supportive anecdotes. Yet, the strange thing is that, in the world of early child development, there are remarkable things happening all over the world - yet, if people speak about them, many a voice will rise and denounce the parents with words to the effect: "That was not the way with my children, so it could not be the way with yours!"

Why, when it comes to the raising of children, are so many people so small-minded? Why can they not allow for the full range and diversity of humanity?

I would like to see a day when a first-time mother seeking help for her gifted child is not denounced for what she shares - but supported warmly by a world community that understands and would like to help.

Looking at the kinds of things that get written on boards across the world, I fear I may have rather a long time to wait.

(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.)

When "education" becomes abusive.

Very few people understand gifted children. Most teachers don't. Most school authorities don't. Most adults don't. Why is this? Simple: because they weren't gifted themselves. Only the gifted can understand, truly, what it means to be gifted.

This notion of how understanding is circumscribed by likeness of the self to other, also applies to the gradations of giftedness. It takes a moderately gifted person, to understand a moderately gifted other - a highly gifted person to understand a highly gifted other - and so on, all the way through exceptional gift and profound giftedness. Only someone truly of a particular level can truly understand the other, of the same kind.

Why do I say this? Well, I think that the perspective, and experiences of a gifted child have to be felt personally to be truly understood. The difference between living it and reading it is rather like the difference between reading The Lord of the Rings - and actually being Frodo Baggins in Middle Earth with a rather historic ring on your finger. It is impossible for us to truly understand what it is like to be Frodo Baggins - we can only see him as we imagine him to be, from the outside.

Thus is it with the gifted and the education they receive in schools. Those who educate them only know them from the outside - through reading and what they are told in their training. They do not truly know what it is like to be them.

So, it should be no surprise that education is often inappropriate for gifted children of all ilks. The more gifted the child, the more inappropriate it becomes. Yet, it is unlikely in the extreme that the education system will ever acknowledge the inappropriateness. Most education systems live under the delusion that they know best. I have actually heard a representative of our particular education system here, in Singapore, say, in essence, that she knew better than the parents how the child should be educated. Now, there is a delusion for you.

Education often proceeds by diktat: this is the way it is and all must accept it. It is rare for an education system to actually respond to the child's individual needs. Sometimes education systems talk about responding to a child's needs - while actually not doing so. Again, it is part of the incomprehension that comes with not being gifted - yet administering to the gifted.

Ainan is presently not receiving what he needs, educationally, from the system in Singapore. I very much doubt that he ever will be. This arises in the manner described above: those who can never understand, because they have never been like Ainan, make decisions about his needs, which they think should suffice. In our case, they refuse to listen to feedback that their intervention is insufficient: they think they know better.

What is the result? Lack of challenge, boredom, restlessness in the classroom, disenchantment with school, a loss of interest in learning - and general disengagement will all result, to varying degrees, if the child's true needs are not being met. In this situation, the result can only be described as abusive. It is abusive to keep a child in an unstimulating environment. It is abusive to deny a child true opportunities for growth. It is abusive to hold back a child's development all in the name of "we know better". Why do they "know better"? Because they are not bright enough to realize that they don't.

All over the world, hundreds of thousands of gifted children are being abused in this way, by the standardized classroom situation - by the undemanding education designed for those of average ability. As a result, most of the gifted children of the world end up as under-achievers - end-up as much less than they could be. Who is to blame for this? The educational system itself, for not recognizing that a gifted child has very different needs from an average child - and the more gifted they are, the more their needs will differ.

So, when is education abusive? Whenever a gifted child is involved and the individual child's particular academic needs are not met. In every case in which this occurs, the education received is a form of suffering. The education system is abusing the child. That is what education systems do to the best minds in their care. They abuse them with boredom, lack of challenge, frustration of their desires, and denial of opportunity.

In case you are the sort who doesn't care about an issue unless it affects you personally, consider this: if the growth of many gifted children is being stifled, in this way, all over the world, what do you think it does to the future intellectual health of human society? What does it do to the pace of technological and scientific change, to medical advances and cultural complexity and diversity? All these areas are hindered when the growth of those who become their human constituents are themselves hindered in their development. This issue of the abuse of our gifted children by inappropriate eduation affects us all: it is a universal problem that impacts the lives of all who presently live and are yet to live.

(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, child prodigy, child genius, baby genius, adult genius, savant, gifted adults and gifted children in general. Thanks.)

The gifted and the standardized classroom

In most parts of the world - the modern world, at least - education is all about standardization. The same "education" is given to all, irrespective of their actual need. Paradoxically, this emphasis on the "same for all" leads to a situation where many are ill-served by it.

Those who have some degree of impairment are lost in a standard classroom. Oddly, this situation is recognized and appreciated and those who are "left of the bell curve" usually receive some special attention.

In some classrooms, there will be a child unlike the others. They are usually quieter. Often, they are a little dreamy. Their work may be erratic - capable of perfection, but often showing signs of disinterest. Teachers often don't like them. This is frequently a "gifted child". So, this, then, is another constituency to be given special treatment? In an ideal world, yes - but in the real world, no. Usually, such children are neglected, and ignored, in various ways.

A large part of the problem is that the teachers misunderstand such gifted children. They think that the gifted child should hand in perfect work, all the time, must be top of the class, in all things - and must show rabid enthusiasm for all things "School". Then, just then, might they accept that a gifted child is, in fact, gifted - and needing special attention.

What the teacher sees instead is something more commonly like: "Oh he/she has such an attitude problem...they don't do their work, they look out of the window, all the time...I can never get his/her attention..." To such a teacher, the gifted child, is, in fact, a lazy or uncooperative child: they don't see the giftedness, they just see the failure to conform to their requirements.

This is the core of the problem and the core of the misunderstanding. The teacher ascribes to the gifted student character flaws that do not exist in the student. The teacher then takes an active dislike to the student, which causes a general, further deterioration in the quality of interaction with the gifted student. What is actually happening is that the gifted student has been placed in an unchallenging class. The student is being bathed daily in what, to them, seems like utter idiocy. The triviality and superficiality of the classroom instruction is such that they endure the profoundest boredom while sitting through class after class of totally empty nonsense. That is the perspective of the gifted child - or one gifted enough to feel this disparity so strongly. A gifted child in a normal classroom may feel rather like an adult going back to primary school: it would be really, really difficult to maintain one's attention for long, in such a situation. In the long term, it would be impossible to do anything but what a gifted child, in a standardized classroom, often does: sits quietly staring out of a window, ignoring the teacher, refusing to do the homework and generally trying to tune out of the dreadful experience.

It is easy for a teacher to fail to understand this. Instead, they look at such a student and get angry at them. So, what, then, does the gifted student think: "Not only is my teacher boring...but angry, too...what a nightmare!" This leads, of course, to a further lack of co-operation from the student - and a further escalation in dislike from the teacher...and so on.

The teacher may be a good teacher to normal children. This does not make them a good teacher to gifted children. The teacher may be an interesting teacher for normal children. This does not make them an interesting teacher for gifted children. The teacher should not take this personally. Yes, they are boring the gifted child - but that doesn't mean that they are intrinsically boring to the average child. So, the teacher should not be affronted (as, surprisingly, many of them are affronted by such a gifted child) - but should understand the situation. There is a mismatch between the gifted child and the standardized classroom. The only remedy is to remove the gifted child from the standardized class and place them in a more challenging one. The simplest way of doing this is to allow the gifted child to skip a few grades - or many - as the case may be. Alternatively, the school must provide individuated instruction - but so few will do that for a small, gifted minority.

Education may be standardized - but people are not. Just as education systems recognize the needs of the mentally challenged (with such initiatives as No Child Left Behind), so too, should they recognize the needs of the mentally gifted. Sadly, they don't. Tellingly, some countries which speak loudly of serving the needs of gifted students, in actual fact provide a completely inadequate response to them. They should know who they are, so I won't name them. I just want to see them start to actually do what they speak of. Then, we might have a world in which gifted children are allowed to thrive.

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

Left-handedness and divergent thinking

My son, Ainan, 7, is left-handed. Curious to what degree left-handedness may contribute to his creative, prodigious gifts, I have been doing some research. What I have found is of interest to any parent of a left-handed person, anyone who is left-handed, or anyone who is interested in the nature of giftedness, talent and genius.

A study by Dr. Stanley Coren entitled: "Differences in Divergent Thinking as a Function of Handedness and Sex" in The American Journal of Psychology, Vol. 108, No. 3 (Autumn, 1995), pp. 311-325 doi:10.2307/1422892 looked into the matter of whether left-handedness had any association with divergent thinking, and how this was correlated with the sex of the left-handed person.

Various tests were administered to the subjects. Test 1 concerned Alternate Uses; test 2 was of Object Synthesis and Test 3 was of Ideational Flexibility. The final test was a test of convergent thinking (traditionally measured by IQ tests).

There was no correlation between left-handedness and performance on the Alternate Uses test. However, on the second and third tests (which were both measures of kinds of divergent thinking), there was a strong, positive correlation between left-handedness and performance in the test. Interestingly, the more left-handed (or sinistral, as it is termed, scientifically) the subject the better their performance in these tests. The fourth test of convergent thinking was also revealing in that there was no benefit to sinistrality in this test: subjects of both left and right-handedness performed similarly.

This experiment shows that left-handers have a distinct advantage in tasks involving divergent thinking, compared to right-handers - but show no difference in their ability to handle convergent tasks.

What, practically speaking does this mean? Well, one conclusion, that is glaring for me, is that conventional tests of ability of left-handed kids, might overlook their gifts. You see, IQ tests only address convergent thinking ability. Left-handers have a strength in divergent thinking. Thus testing for gifted programmes and the like would tend to underestimate the left-handed children because their strength - divergent thinking - will not reveal itself in conventional testing. Thus a gifted child, in the truest sense of the word, might be overlooked if they are left-handed, for they will have a hidden talent, not obvious to the conventional tests.

This evidence that left-handed people are stronger in divergent thinking agrees perfectly with what I have observed in Ainan since his birth. He has a very strong aptitude for divergent thinking (allied to a very strong aptitude for convergent thinking, too, I might add). This divergence of thinking shows itself in everything that he does - he is always coming up with new ideas and new ways and new understandings, while learning, observing or just thinking aloud to me.

Interestingly, history has many examples of good divergent thinkers who were left-handed: Leonardo da Vinci, Isaac Newton, Albert Einstein, Picasso, and H.G. Wells, for instance. It is telling that the two greatest physicists of all time, should both have been left-handed. Curious, that.

So, if your child is left-handed, do not be concerned, be happy - or even excited. Left-handedness confers a strength in divergent thinking that equips the gifted child to think in new and better ways. Such a child may grow up to do many things not open to the conventionally gifted child whose strength is convergent thinking alone.

By the way, Stanley Coren's study showed NO correlation between handedness and divergent thinking for girls. This correlation only applied to the boys.

(If you would like to read more of Ainan Celeste Cawley, 7 years and 8 months, a scientific child prodigy, or his gifted brothers, Fintan, 4 years and 1 month, or Tiarnan, 18 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, genetics, left-handedness, child prodigy, child genius, baby genius, adult genius, gifted adults, and gifted children in general. Thanks.)

International Left-Handers Day: August 13th.

Today marks an international celebration of left-handedness.

Left-handedness is found in about 7 to 10% of the population. Throughout history, left-handers have been subject to suspicion and marginalization in many cultures, yet recent research has pointed out some interesting gifts that left-handers possess.

To be left-handed is to be different in more fundamental ways than the hand which you choose to write with: it goes deep into the very wiring of the brain. A left-hander's brain is visibly different in form and structure than a right-handers. These differences are critical to understanding the fundamental differences between left and right handers.

Normally the brain, which is divided into two halves in almost all humans (in some cases it is fused, I understand), consists of two different sized halves. For a right hander, one half is larger than the other. For a left-hander, this disparity is not seen: the two halves of the brain are of similar size. There is a good reason for this that we will get onto in a minute.

The left-hander also has a thicker corpus callosum - the bridge that connects the two halves of the brain- than a right-hander. This affords the left-hander greater communication power or "bandwidth" between the left and right halves of the brain. This is key to understanding the advantage that a left-hander holds.

When the brain is confronted with a difficult challenge: either a fast or a hard task, or one that has multiple stimuli at the same time, one half of the brain may easily become overwhelmed. Here is where the left-hander wins. You see when confronted with fast and or multiple stimuli, the left-handed brain will recruit processing power from the other half of the brain. The left hander will share the task across its two fairly equal hemispheres. In this way, the task load on one hemisphere is reduced and the task is more easily overcome. Right handers don't do this well. They rely on the power of their dominant hemisphere to handle the task and are not so good at recruiting assistance from their other brain hemisphere.

Thus, in fast-moving, challenging domains, the left-hander is superior to the right hander. This may be seen in sports, gaming or in any situation that has multiple stimuli. Particular - and critical cases - of this would include fighter pilots - or indeed civilian pilots, in which they are faced with the simultaneous input of a large amount of information in which all must be dealt with at the same time.

In simple terms, the left-hander thinks quicker than the right hander, when the task demands much of them.

It should be noted that this innate advantage for the left-hander will only be noticeable when it is called upon. In slow-moving tasks, without multiple stimuli, the advantage that left-handers possess will not be seen. However, put two people in a situation in which they are pushed to handle a lot of information at the same time - and the left hander of the two, will shine. The right hander will quickly get overloaded by the excessive mental workload.

So, perhaps it is time to acknowledge the gifts of the left-handers among us. Some cultures still find it difficult to accept them as they are, and still encourage them to use their right hand, like "everyone else". This is a mistake. The left-hander is fundamentally not like right handers. They are neurologically and distinct - and have something unique to offer us all.

A left-hander is best for any task that requires a high-throughput of multiple stimuli. So that is where they should be - in fast, hard, demanding roles, with much happening at the same time. That is where they can best make their most natural contribution: the one that plays to their strengths.

This strength of left-handers is commonly known as being good at multi-tasking. So, if it is a multi-tasking role - let the left-handers, handle it.

As careful readers of this blog will already have noted, Ainan, 7, my son, is a left-hander. Most of the rest of the family is mixed handed (ambidextrous) in some way. I will write more of this topic in future.

So, if you have a left-handed child don't adopt the concern of the right handed culture in which we live, that it is somehow unacceptable or problematic: it is not. Left-handedness, as now understood, is a kind of gift in and of itself. It is a misunderstood blessing - so be happy.

This new understanding of left-handedness was written of in an article in the journal Neuropsychology, by the Australian National University researcher Dr Nick Cherbuin. It was published in November 2006.

(If you would like to read of my left-handed son, Ainan Celeste Cawley, a scientific child prodigy, aged seven years and eight months, or his gifted brothers, Fintan, four years and one month, or Tiarnan, eighteen months, please go to: http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2006/10/scientific-child-prodigy-guide.html I also write of gifted education, IQ, intelligence, genetics, child prodigy, child genius, baby genius, adult genius, savant, the creatively gifted, gifted adults and gifted children. Thanks.)

Genetic determination of all giftedness

Genes are the foundation of all our attributes. This may seem like an obvious statement for many - but for some, it is controversial. This is the core of the nature-nurture debate: are we born or made?

From everything I have read, seen and understood in life, I am firmly on the side of nature. I have seen so many instances of people with abilities and attributes that show familial inheritance, that it could not be otherwise. The gene is all: at least, it is most of the story.

I have posted elsewhere about the remarkably strong relationship between the IQ of the parents and the IQ of the children, once they become adults (a correlation of 0.8). Intelligence is not the only strongly inherited characteristic - our height, our health, our immune systems...everything is there, in the genome. Though many may dislike it, we are very much a product of our genes (though these genes interact with their environment).

I am moved to write about this, today, because of my recent encounter with a supercentenarian. Many react to such a person by asking: "What is their secret?" They believe that there is some environmental quirk which led to such a long life. Well, I have to disappoint you. Teresa Hsu, is presently reputed to be 110 years old. That is interesting and amazing in itself - but what do you think about its cause when I tell you that her mother lived to 104? It begins to look rather like another case of genetic inheritance, doesn't it? Well, how about this: her mother's grandmother lived to 103. Thus Teresa Hsu, far from being possessed of some behavioural secret, is the product of a long-line of female centenarians, in her family. It is an attribute of her family, as much as blue eyes are the attribute of other families. It is a genetic inheritance.

All human giftedness, in my opinion, backed by both observation, and reading of much scientific literature, is founded in the genome. This applies to all ways in which one person may be special compared to another. If you look at them closely enough, you will almost always be able to pinpoint a familial cause: they are the product of their inherited genes.

We should not be concerned that so much of what we are is genetically based. That actually is a cause for celebration - for everyone of us is unique (barring twins etc) - and possess a set of attributes and dispositions, given to us by our genes, that no other person in history has ever possessed or will ever possess. We are all, by genetic definition, completely unique. I find that refreshing.

(If you would like to read of Ainan Celeste Cawley, a scientific child prodigy, aged seven years and eight months, or his gifted brothers, Fintan, four years and one month, and Tiarnan, eighteen months, please go to: http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2006/10/scientific-child-prodigy-guide.html I also write of gifted education, IQ, intelligence, genetics, child prodigy, child genius, baby genius, adult genius, savant, the creatively gifted, gifted adults and gifted children in general. Thanks.)

Are gifted children offensive?

"Are gifted children too offensive?" These were the search words of a net searcher from Australia, a few days ago. In itself, it was one of the most offensive searches I have seen in a long time.

Australia is a country that has coined a phrase called the "tall poppies syndrome". This expresses the observation that, in certain quarters of the country, it has been traditional to cut down the "tall poppies". That means to attack the gifted among them. I understand that this is not the universal treatment of the gifted in Australia - for there are some programmes that address their needs - but the very fact that a culture actually has a phrase for this phenomenon is not actually a good sign - except of one thing, of course: that the society is open enough about its own nature to actually have labelled the situation. That, at least, is a step forward. In some societies, there is no name for it - but they do it anyway.

Clearly, though, this tendency still exists in Australia - otherwise the searcher above would never have searched as they have.

Let us look at what the searcher is actually saying. They are saying that gifted people offend them. How could this be? How can the possession of merit be, in any way, offensive? Only dark emotions could lead someone to be offended by giftedness. Jealousy, envy, spite and rage - these emotions are the ones that lead someone to be offended by the gifted. The question is which is more beneficial for society: giftedness - or jealousy, envy, spite and rage? Which do we want to encourage? Do we want to encourage the gifted in our society - or do we want to encourage those filled with dark emotions? Only one choice leads to a better world.

We all need to understand what is happening with regards to the gifted - how they are welcomed and how they are not. It is an issue for us all - because a society that enables its most gifted to flourish is a society that will flourish as a whole. Anyone who fails to see that, is unable to see the big picture. It should matter to all of us, if the gifted are not nurtured - for in failing to do so, the society as a whole is being undermined. Societies that do not nurture their gifted will inevitably fail to thrive. That is obvious.

(If you would like to read about Ainan Celeste Cawley, a scientific child prodigy, aged seven years and seven months, or his gifted brothers, Fintan, four years and no months, or Tiarnan seventeen 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 children and gifted adults, in general. Thanks.)

On being an academic reference

It has come to my attention, that my blog is now official reading at one school. I find this quite touching - enough to bring a smile, anyway.

One school has listed my blog as part of the term's reading list, relating to intelligence and giftedness, for a course, of some sort. I am in good company on this list, which even includes Wikipedia.

It is surprising how different people react to what is essentially an exercise in communicating my understanding of giftedness, in particular of prodigy. That a school should make my site required reading is not only positive feedback for all my efforts - it is something much more important than that: it is an opportunity to reach out to all the children at that school and broaden their perspective on education, its ways, its effects and, most importantly, its opportunities. I espouse a much wider view of giftedness than many do - and perhaps that might be encouraging to some children whose gifts are not necessarily rewarded by a conventional schooling.

To me a gifted child is any child who is better than is usual - at anything. By "anything", I mean anything. There are so many ways in which a human being can be outstanding - and I believe that all of them have their place, in a better human society. Giftedness should never be viewed as something narrow, something purely academic - for that only captures a minority of those who are exceptional. Giftedness, in its truest sense, is the potential to exceed the norm, in any positive way, in any positive endeavour - or attribute. (Sometimes giftedness doesn't have to be exerted, it just is.) Perhaps I will write more of this idea another time...but for now, I would like to welcome the readers from that school - and any other that chooses to reference my blog. Thanks...don't forget to credit any quotes, though, to their writer. (That is the way things are done.)

(IF you would like to read more of Ainan Celeste Cawley, a scientific child prodigy, aged seven years and six months, or his gifted brothers, Fintan, three, or 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 children and gifted adults in general. Thanks.)

Giftedness and "palm-reading"

There is a tradition in Europe of palm reading, whereby by a woman (usually) gazes into one's hand and tells of one's life, past, present and future.

Personally, I have never had any doubt that it was doubtful, however, a recent piece of research has thrown up an interesting correlation between the form of the hand and the form of the brain, above it.

It has been observed that there is a strong inverse correlation between the ratio of the index finger to the ring finger and a talent for maths. By this I mean that a SHORT index finger in relation to the ring finger, indicates a brain well-equipped for maths. On the other hand, a hand in which the ratio of index finger to ring finger is about one (they are of similar length) indicates more of a verbally inclined brain.

What is the cause of this relationship? Testosterone. Lots of it, in the womb, makes your index finger short and your brain biased towards visuo-spatial/mathematical tasks. Little of it, and relatively more estrogen, allows the brain to progress towards a verbal type brain.

Usually, this means that a boy will have the maths bias and a girl the verbal bias - but this is by no means universal. There are maths woman and verbal men - as shown by their hands.

So, is your child a maths child or a verbal child? To find out how their brain is actually biased all you have to do is look at their hands and see how long or short the index and ring fingers are. It is that simple.

(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.)

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.)

Understanding the gifted child

Do adults understand gifted children? I have reason to doubt that they do so. Many adults interpret gifted children as they would an adult - but this leads to a failure to understand the dimension of a child's gifts, even if the child compares well to an adult.

Why do I say this? Well, because from what I have gathered on the net, there are adults who are dismissive of the achievements of gifted young children because they expect an educated adult to be able to do the same thing! The thinking that informs such a viewpoint constitutes a special class of mindlessness, for it shows no imaginative understanding of the child's perspective at all.

Let me give you an example. Say you have a baby. This baby has perhaps recently learned to walk and is less than a year old. You note that this baby has a strange habit of touching objects and saying a particular sound to itself, as it touches the first object, a different sound as it touches the second object and so on. It does this strange procedure with many different kinds of objects, but the sequence of sounds is always the same. After a while, you come to understand that the baby is counting and has, in fact, invented its own number system. Yet, you are further puzzled, because the baby is so young that it never occurred to you to try to teach it about numbers and it has never heard counting. So, this baby has invented counting for itself. To those who understand gifted children, this would indicate a truly astonishing degree of native mathematical gift and could foretell a great mathematical mind to come. Yet, to those class of people who like to attack and diminish gifted children (and they do exist - though they are characteristically ungifted adults, themselves - and so come from a position of not understanding what gifted children are, never having been one): this is dismissed by such words as: "Sure anyone can count."

Yes, this is true. Anyone can count - but how many people could have INVENTED COUNTING?
For that is what our baby example has done: it has invented counting. The dimension of this achievement is truly huge. Yet, many adults would fail to understand this, because they impose their understandings of an adult on the child. That is not how to understand a gifted child. One must look at the world from their perspective and see what they know and what they are proceeding to think, based on their known knowledge base. If a child is demonstrating the capacity to imagine areas of thought which are new to them - even if known to adults - then that child is showing great gift. Such children may have the capacity to think of entirely new ideas, in the course of their lives - and make a creative contribution to the world. For it is the same way of thinking that leads to new ideas, that led them to discover known ones, from the much lesser knowledge that they possess (which does not include the proposition they have come up with).

So, to understand a gifted child, imagine the world from their perspective - for then you will be able to truly see the dimension of their giftedness. It is only a foolish adult who fails to do this. Such an adult will never see gifted children for what they are: gifted.

(If you would like to read about Ainan Celeste Cawley, a scientific child prodigy, aged seven years and six months, and his gifted brothers Fintan, three, and Tiarnan, sixteen months, please go to: http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2006/10/scientific-child-prodigy-guide.html I also write of gifted education, IQ, intelligence, child prodigy, child genius, baby genius, adult genius, savant, the creatively gifted, gifted children and gifted adults in general. Thanks.)

Intellectual stars and national success.

Today, I was privileged to have a conversation with a very intelligent Frenchman. I explored with him the matter of the French attitude towards intellectuals - and learnt that theirs is an enviable stance indeed.

Before I speak of what he spoke of, perhaps I should paint a little background to my perspective on his words. I grew up in Britain. This is a country where, in most schools, to be an intellectual is to suffer a kind of social disease. The gifted child will be almost universally ill-treated, if they have not developed sufficient social skills to deflect such attacks. It is a culture that made being gifted a burden indeed - and one that many children tried to shrug off, by dumbing down: they felt that they had to, because the social environment gave them no choice but to do so.

France, however, stands in contrast to this. The gifted child is, according to my French associate, respected by his fellows and, what's more, the gifted child's parents are well-looked upon, for having raised such a child. I was stunned by that. In many cultures, the parents of a gifted child are actually greeted with incomprehension and the view that they have somehow pushed their child into this "gifted" state. The idea that the parents would actually be admired for their child was a new one for me.

It didn't end there. Throughout French society there is a pervasive respect for the intellectually gifted. Intellectuals actually become media stars. They are listened to with respect and their opinions sought on every matter under the sun. To be an intellectual in France, is often also to be a public figure of some standing. How odd. I don't remember Britain being like that, in the main. Intellectuals did not have the prominence that say, a footballer would have, or a Page Three model (a "topless" model), would have. In Britain it was the "celebrity" who had a sway over the people - not those people who actually had a mind to form opinions and a will to speak them.

France actually has celebrity philosophers. That, in itself, says all that we need to know about the situation of the intellectual, in that culture.

The world would be a better place, in every way, were intellectuals received with the welcome, everywhere, that they receive in France. For a start it could begin in the world's schools. If they were like French ones, there would be no jealousy of the gifted child, from their peers - but a widely held respect. That would surely change the life stories of many gifted children for the better.

Yet, the benefits wouldn't stop there. I believe that every nation that adopted this positive attitude towards its gifted, would benefit, thereby. Their cultures would flourish and deepen, their nations would prosper. Why? Because the best among them would no longer have to hide their gifts; they would no longer have to "dumb down" to enable themselves to fit in: they could soar, instead, to the heights they were born to achieve. They could finally, fully become. How much better a world that would be.

(If you would like to read about Ainan Celeste Cawley, a scientific child prodigy, aged seven years and five months, or his gifted brothers, Fintan, three and Tiarnan, fifteen months, please go to: http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2006/10/scientific-child-prodigy-guide.html I also write of child prodigy, IQ, gifted education, intelligence, child genius, baby genius, adult genius, savant, the creatively gifted, gifted children and gifted adults in general. Thanks.)

On jealousy and policy

Sometimes I receive a comment post that I just can't post, because I know something that they seem to forget: my children read this blog too. Such posts may not be overtly unpleasant (very, very, few comments are, thankfully), but they may be inappropriate in some way, for a child to read.

One such post recently came from a reader at an Ivy League University in America. They were very careful to point out their Ivy League origin and wrote as if they spoke for the University itself. However, on reading the entire comment, it became clear that they were, in fact, an overseas Singaporean - probably sent overseas to study by their parents. There were three strands to their argumentation each of which was profoundly at odds with the reality of gifted children. I found it remarkable that such thoughts could be found in the mind of someone attending such a prestigious University. I will look at one strand, alone, in this post.

If the essential argument of their comment is extracted and generalized, it could be stated in the following simplified form: "A society should do nothing to help a gifted child succeed, because that gifted child may not do so, in the end, and the money/resources given to them would then be wasted."

I found myself utterly flabbergasted by the essential bovinity of this line of thinking. This person - male or female, I do not know - who originally came from Singapore, placed such a high value on money that they would argue against the expenditure of any of it to help a talent flourish. They would rather that such talents went unsupported so that money could be devoted to other - unstated purposes. Or perhaps, simply hoarded, and not spent at all.

Imagine a world that was run according to this commenters outlook. No gifted child would get appropriate schooling. No gifted child would get opportunities to grow and express themselves. No gifted child would realize the fullness of their talents. Perhaps, too, no gifted child would grow into a productive gifted adult, so hampered were they by their ungiving societies. What would such a world be like? It would be impoverished in every way. It would be a world of lesser culture, lesser science, lesser richness and diversity in every way. Yet, this commenter imagines that their world is a better one - because they don't expend resources on such gifted children. The exact phrase they had used to describe the situation was that money shouldn't be devoted to such children because there was "too high a risk" of them not succeeding. This supposedly educated individual clearly considers it better to waste the talents of all gifted children, than "risk" wasting money on any of them who turn out not to meet expectations.

What could underlie such a viewpoint? I think it likely that jealousy, whether conscious or otherwise, does so. Jealousy at the gifts of such children; jealousy that anything should be done to help them. Something else, too, seems to underpin such thinking: too high a value placed on the hoarding of money and resources, rather than their wise usage.

I have entitled this piece: "On jealousy and policy" for a reason. For I wish you to consider what sort of world would come to be if this jealous, abstemious, short-sighted mindset were to be the policy of a nation. Such a nation would utterly stifle its future growth. It would become a stagnant place where no ideas grew and no-one flourished. It would be a dying culture, a nation without a future. Yet, that viewpoint is held by an educated Singaporean.

If Singapore is to flourish, grow and become a great nation - as it aspires to be - it must guard against this brand of short-sighted foolishness, lest it become a nation that could have been, and nothing more.

Oh, and by the way: if this individua'ls parents held his or her view, then they wouldn't have sent them overseas to study at an Ivy League college - for isn't that "risking" resources that may come to nothing?