Unconscious confirmation.

Sometimes people reveal truths they are unconscious of, by the way they speak. It is not the words they say, that betrays them, but the other information hidden in tone and pitch and facial expression.

Just over a week ago, I was at a conference, in Malaysia. One of the speakers was from Australia. She was a slightly withered looking lady, with prematurely graying hair, who emanated a sense that disapproval came easily to her.

In a way, I thought her rather bizarre. You see, she was on the platform as a speaker on behalf of gifted education. However, her deepest feelings on the matter were not, exactly, consonant with her job description.

She was asked a question, by Zuhairah Ali, President of the NAGCM (NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR GIFTED CHILDREN, MALAYSIA).

“What do you think of child prodigies in the media?”, Zuhairah enquired.

“I don’t think much of parents who move countries for the education of their children.”, she replied, with an expression somewhere betwixt distaste and annoyance.

Oddly, she didn’t answer the question, but seemed to be answering another.

“That,”, she continued, stabbing at the word, “Is going too far.” Disapproval shone from her, like a very black light.

“There was one case,” she began, seeming to get more worked up as she thought about the case, “In Australia, of the parents of a sports prodigy – a 16 year old gymnast – who actually moved to New Zealand, because, they said, the Australian team wasn’t being friendly to her and the Kiwis were much nicer.”

I might have laughed, had this been a personal conversation. Her tone was so unfriendly, as she spoke of the emigrant gymnast, that it was almost beautiful to see how much she was confirming the correctness of their decision. There was such scorn in her face, that I can only say how pleased I was that the family had taken the decision to emigrate.

It was worrying, however, to see someone ostensibly working in gifted education with so little personal insight into the issues the gifted face, or the decisions families are led to take for the sake of their children’s futures. She saw the commitment to the children, that that Australian gymnast’s family showed, to be evidence of some kind of dysfunction: she couldn’t see it for what it is – parental love seeking to remove all obstacles in the way of their child. I have no doubt that if the parents are saying they moved countries because the Australian team was unfriendly to their child, then I am pretty sure that they must have been truly awful in their behaviour towards her. Now, which parent would stand by and do nothing in the face of such ill-treatment? Any good parent would seek to remove their child from the source of distress, either by quenching the torment, or changing the surroundings: they chose the latter, perhaps since it was likely to be their only option.

Any family that changes countries for their children’s future and present education, is showing a commitment to the child that many families do not have. Such commitment is to be admired and understood – not scoffed at, in a rather unfriendly fashion.

I deliberated whether to confront her with our own story – that we, too, had moved countries for our children. However, I decided not to, for I wanted my day to be a relaxed one, unriven by argument. She seemed too shriveled to be fun to talk to anyway – it would probably be a dispiriting experience I would be better off without. On the other hand, I doubt whether my conversation, which would have sought to enlighten her as to why parents do such things, would have any effect. Her very face, seemed stuck in an air of disapproval, so it seemed that she had practiced that emotion a little too often. My words would be unlikely to transform her.

I let her alone. However, she did give me the perfect memory of an Australian scoffing at the idea that Australians could be unfriendly enough to chase someone out of the country – delivered in a most unfriendly fashion, that quite convinced one that they could so be.

I hope the emigrant gymnast is happy with the New Zealand team. I further hope that all families who move countries for the sake of their children, find success.

We hope to, too.

(If you would like to support my continued writing of this blog and my ongoing campaign to raise awareness about giftedness and all issues pertaining to it, please donate, by clicking on the gold button to the left of the page.

To read about my fundraising campaign, please go to: http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2011/01/fundraising-drive-in-support-of-my.htmland here: http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2011/01/fundraising-drive-first-donation.html

If you would like to read any of our scientific research papers, there are links to some of them, here: http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2011/02/research-papers-by-valentine-cawley-and.html

If you would like to see an online summary of my academic achievements to date, please go here: http://www.getcited.org/mbrz/11136175

To learn more of Ainan Celeste Cawley, 10, or his gifted brothers, Fintan, 7 and Tiarnan, 5, please go to: http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2006/10/scientific-child-prodigy-guide.html

I also write of gifted education, child prodigy, child genius, adult genius, savant, megasavant, HELP University College, the Irish, the Malays, Singapore, Malaysia, IQ, intelligence and creativity.

There is a review of my blog, on the respected The Kindle Report here:http://thekindlereport.blogspot.com/2010/09/boy-who-knew-too-much-child-prodigy.html

Please have a read, if you would like a critic's view of this blog. Thanks.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is creativity encouraged in the classroom?

I ask this question because my own life supplies the answer.

Looking back over my schooling, my childhood and my education, I see something, in the young boy and man I was, that I have rarely seen in the students I have taught in the decades since. I used to approach every task given me, not from the point of view of what have other people thought about this problem, or question, but from what did I think of it? I always did my own thinking. It was not something I made myself do, it was something I did naturally, anyway. Indeed, I think I would have found it much harder to do it the other way, the way almost everyone else did it: with reference to the thoughts of others. I couldn't do that. I didn't think that way. I wasn't built to absorb the thoughts of others and make them my own, undigested and uninterpreted. Yet, that was the way of most people.

So, when given a question to answer, I would answer it in my own way. Typically, this would result in an original answer, because I was not influenced by other people's prior thoughts. Yet, how was this creativity received? Was it welcomed by my teachers?

Well, the short answer is sometimes, yes, but often no. Even the times when it wasn't spurned, it wasn't really respected.

Once, for instance, I gave the beginnings of a book I had written, to my favourite English teacher, Mr. Stephen Kerruish, so that he could read it and give me feedback. He smiled his customarily broad smile on receiving it, took it from me, and listened as I asked him to let me know what he thought of it. I would like you to guess what he did with it. Have a good think.

I expected Stephen Kerruish, being my favourite English teacher, and one whose opinion I valued, to read my science fantasy story and perhaps provide some helpful comment. I hadn't shown it to anyone else and I trusted his opinion. He was the only person in the world, I let read my work. Not even my family got to read it. Well, I asked him about it, a week or so later, but he hadn't read it yet. He just nodded, and smiled and didn't commit himself to anything. A few weeks later, I still hadn't heard from him, so I asked again. He nodded again, smiled and didn't commit. I decided to be patient. Weeks became months and soon the months stretched to the end of the year. He never got back to me about it - and he never returned it. In time, I forgot to ask him anymore and I never saw my work again. Now, it had been perhaps a sixth of a book, written very quickly, over a few days. So, its loss was, to me, at the age of 15 or so, quite a loss, indeed. I never got the chance to read it again and I never got the chance to finish it. Of course, it was not anywhere near as well written as my later works - but, you know what, I would give anything to have it back, again, so I could have the chance to read my teenage thoughts and once more, come to know the boy I had been.

I found Stephen Kerruish's response discouraging. Clearly, my creative efforts meant nothing to him. He didn't even value it enough to return it to me - even if he couldn't be bothered to read it. The saddest part of it was that I respected him as an English teacher and really would have liked his opinion. In asking for it, I lost my work, because I never saw it again. How disenchanting.

That was my best experience, with teachers, with regards to creativity. So, at best, I received a smiling indifference.

I had an art teacher called Jeremy Bournon, who used to do something very demoralizing whenever I discussed my art ideas to him. He would laugh at me. He would laugh in my face. Now, I understand what he thought was funny. He thought my enthusiasm for my ideas was funny, he thought my passion was funny. He found it hilarious that I should care so much about my ideas - so he laughed at me. What is more he would encourage anyone else who was present to laugh, too. So, I would end up being laughed at, for ideas which were, actually, very original and striking (so much so that they were typically plagiarized and used professionally by others, in later years). I remember those discussions well. Jeremy Bournon would begin with a smirk, and end in a mocking laughter - and any others watching, would join in the general amusement at my expense.

That was how creativity was encouraged at my school, King's College School, Wimbledon.

Jeremy Bournon had another habit, too. He was forever mocking me for my name. He would try a dozen different variations on it, in one conversation. He would never get my name right. He would pretend that he couldn't remember it and would pretend to struggle to recall it. He would refer to me with a long list of wrong names, finding my irritation at being misnamed, most amusing. Again, he would invite witnesses to laugh with him. So, everytime I met him, he would go through this routine. He never failed to find it funny - perhaps because I never failed to find it irritating. I would, of course, supply him with my correct name, and he would pretend it was news, to him, and stop the chain of misnomers.

Another interesting habit of Jeremy Bournon was that he never attended his own lessons. I took A level art, but this "teacher" never showed up to teach me. So, I had no art teacher for A level at all. I don't know why this was so. Perhaps the school, in all its administrative efficiency, had not informed him of when my lessons were supposed to be. Who knows...or maybe he just couldn't be bothered.

The only interest he ever took in my art was to present it at a public showing, without my permission, to make it look like he had been doing some teaching. The art works were cut and framed up (thus permanently altering their characteristics in a way I had not chosen). Furthermore, I was not allowed to take them home, despite repeated enquiries. After I had left the school, I asked for my art back and no-one seemed to know where it was. There were indications that, perhaps, it had been thrown out. So, there went all my painstakingly created adolescent work. It should be noted that I had a very detailed style in those days, and would sometimes spend months on a single work. What a waste.

Then there was Cambridge University, which I have written about before. I would just like to remind you though, of the incredible hostility I received, from the academic staff, whenever I handed in a creative essay. Staff guilty of this included, Dr. Barbara Politynska, a psychologist of little apparent intelligence, who crumpled up my essay, most intently, and handed it back, after ironing it flat again. In the margins she had written comments like: "Is this a moral thesis or an extract from the Sun?". She behaved as if she had been highly offended by what was, after all, nothing more than an analytical work offering a different, perhaps challenging, perspective on some established thinkers. When she handed it back, she HAD TEARS IN HER EYES and said I was "precocious". Now, why being precocious would make her angry and tearful I have no idea. It was a most disturbing experience for me.

I never saw her again. Nor did I have a supervisor for the rest of the year, in Psychology. It was most bizarre.

Another terrible supervisor was Dr. Robert Lee Kilpatrick, who refused to mark my essay, called its 22 pages, a "work of inappropriate length", made an OFFICIAL COMPLAINT ABOUT ME to my college, for writing it, blamed me for Barbara Politynska's disturbed personality problems - and I ended up being disciplined, in a special hearing, for my "misconduct". Oh, and he never returned the essay, so I could not benefit from all the work I had put into what amounted to a thesis.

What had I done wrong? I had written essays based entirely on my own thought - and not that of others. That is all. It was really perturbing.

From that moment forwards, I wanted nothing more to do with Cambridge "University". It had shown itself to be positively inimical towards anyone with any thoughts of their own.

This post has been deliberately brief. It is little more than a precis of the events in question, a suggestion of what happened. Much more detail would make it too long to read. However, the lesson of my own educational experience, at school and University is this: creativity is NOT welcome, in the present education systems, in the UK at least. Being creative won me indifference at best and a venomous, seemingly jealous hostility at worst. I was even punished for being creative, at Cambridge. Now, how is that for encouraging creativity in the young?

The best place for a creative person is out of the school and University system altogether. There is no place for the creative person in the education system I grew up with. "Education" might as well be spelt "ERADICATION", where creativity is concerned.

So, what advice can I give to a creative person? Firstly, don't expect a positive response from authority figures, of any kind, if you choose to reveal your creativity to them. Expect jealousy and consequent hate from the more insecure and competitive ones. Expect to be plagiarized. Expect to be marginalized, for it. Secondly, find a quiet place of your own, secure from the interference of others, where you can work on your ideas and creative products, yourself. Work in peace. Expect no help from others. When you are ready and feeling strong, you may show your work, to someone in a position to bring it to the wider world (a publisher, a gallery, a scientific journal etc.) but preferably not someone who would be in a position to feel competitive towards you.

It won't be easy, but this is, unfortunately, the only safe way to proceed, if you are creative and wish to build any kind of creative career. You have to be tough - and you have to be immune to the discouragement that you will, inevitably, receive along the way, from the insecure, the jealous, the spiteful, the incomprehending, or the simply indifferent.

Don't give up, however. If you have something to say, make sure you find a way to say it - but like I have said, don't expect the journey to that point to be a happy one or an easy one. It won't be.

Best of luck.

(If you would like to learn more of Ainan Celeste Cawley, 10, or his gifted brothers, Fintan, 6 and Tiarnan, 4, this month, please go to:
http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2006/10/scientific-child-prodigy-guide.html

I also write of gifted education, child prodigy, child genius, adult genius, savant, megasavant, HELP University College, the Irish, the Malays, Singapore, Malaysia, IQ, intelligence and creativity.

My Internet Movie Database listing is at: http://imdb.com/name/nm3438598/
Ainan's IMDB listing is at http://imdb.com/name/nm3305973/
Syahidah's IMDB listing is at http://imdb.com/name/nm3463926/

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

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

On the ordinary and the extraodinary.

He Pingping, the shortest man in the world (at 75.6 cm) has died. He was just 21. Now, he is the second person to die, within a year of shooting a series in which Ainan also appears. The other was Kim Peek. That is pretty uncanny in its own way. Yet, that is not what moves me to write, today. What does is more chilling, than uncanny.

I came across a site, today, reporting on the death of He Pingping. One comment leapt out at me. It went a bit like this: "It's awful that these "different and unusual" people get to be rich and famous, when us "normal" hardworking people find it almost impossible to become rich and famous". I could barely believe my eyes. The young man had just died, but some commenter was expressing jealousy at his fame and how it was acquired. What a callous world we now live in. Let us, however, look beyond the callousness, to the core of what the commenter is saying. He is saying that "different and unusual" people should not be famous, but that "normal" hardworking people should be. He is actually begrudging the fame that attends difference. That he does so, shows that he fails to understand what fame, traditionally, was a sign of. To be famous, was to be special, in the sense that one is famous because one is special, and not special because one is famous. There is a key distinction there that is usually overlooked in the modern world. It used to be that ONLY special people became famous - that is why they became noted, talked about, written of and ultimately famous. Now, however, there has been a subversion of that. The ordinary, undistinguished, uninteresting, even BORING person, can become famous through reality shows, and the like. Fame has lost its connection with distinction. Yet, the commenter goes beyond the modern fetish for the ordinary and the dull - he is saying that it is the ORDINARY person who should be famous and NOT the special person. This goes one step beyond the present state of affairs in which not only can the special person become famous, but the ordinary person, too. He would have it that only the "normal" person should be famed and that the "different" or "unusual" would not be given any regard at all. This, I think, is a kind of madness. It is the ultimate end of dumbing down the world in which standards become ever lower. His standard would not allow the special any regard, at all - and only those UNWORTHY of regard, would be regarded. It is, if you like, the ultimate revenge of the proletariat over the natural aristocrats. It is the elevation of the idiot, to the highest status in society: that the utterly ordinary should be held in the highest regard and the extraordinary ignored. It is, of course, bonkers - but it is the logical end of those who think jealous thoughts that would tear down anyone or anything greater than themselves.

Yet, I am led to a darker understanding. The world we now live in is not so far from the world which this envious commenter would wish upon us. Now, people of great quality do not necessarily receive the recognition that would once have been theirs. The heroes of our time are not geniuses, but footballers, pop stars and "glamour" models. Already the elevation of the ordinary has proceeded to overwhelm our society. If present trends continue, it may not be long, indeed, before we become a world incapable of appreciating the best among us and only able to praise the lowest common denominator, the basest among us all.

Were fame apportioned with justice, many of the "names" today, would not be known and many people of which we have never heard, would be household names. The scales have become inverted such that those of least merit, often gain most attention, perhaps because the masses are comforted by their closeness to themselves in talent and natural gifts - that is little or none. Yet, for some, at least, even this situation has not gone far enough. One man today, begrudged the fame of a man who had just died, because his fame had come from his difference. Think about that, for a moment. What a life He Pingping must have lived, in which he was set apart from all, because of his size, yet he may have encountered people who resented the little compensatory fame, it won him.
Given this, one cannot help but feel that not only is the culture of the world in decline (for making famous the worthless, and making unknown the worthy), but that the people themselves are in decline.

Wikipedia: a strange case of the disappearing entry.

On two occasions, over the past couple of years, someone, unknown to me, has gone to all the trouble of listing Ainan Celeste Cawley, my son, in the "list of child prodigies" on Wikipedia. On both occasions, he was listed under "Chemistry". Now, he certainly qualifies for such a listing - yet, something odd happened to that listing on both occasions: it disappeared.

I have watched this saga of Wikipedia with some amusement. You see whatever ends up on Wikipedia reflects the workings of many anonymous contributors. Clearly, there are contributors out there who would like to see Ainan listed. However, also clearly, there is someone out there who keeps taking his listing down. What is most curious about this is that by the criteria of entry, Ainan's listing should definitely remain. However, someone doesn't wish this criteria to be obeyed. On the first occasion, a query was raised that references should be provided for the statements made. Now, I could have provided the references but for two reasons: firstly, I don't care either way, whether there is, in fact, a listing - and two: I don't know how to use Wikipedia, so I am not in a position to contribute any information, without the probably not inconsequential labour of finding out how it works.

So, the first time, I sat by and watched whilst no-one provided the references requested - even though Google provided them, immediately, at one search of his name. In due course, his listing was deleted - probably for lack of such references, I assumed (though anyone who had deleted it did so negligently, since they didn't even use Google to check whether the references were out there: a single search would have answered them.)

The second time Wikipedia listed Ainan was over the past few days. This time, however, someone provided a full reference to the statement claimed. Yet, rather inexplicably, the listing was deleted again - even with the reference (a media source). This, I find most revealing. Someone, somewhere, clearly doesn't want him to be listed - even if the statements are sourced and properly referenced. That, it would seem to me, goes against the spirit on which Wikipedia is built.

Yet, I don't mind. If there is someone out there, who finds it necessary to go to all the trouble of deleting Ainan's Wikipedia entry, every time someone puts one up - then I really don't care. You see, whether or not there is such an entry doesn't change anything about Ainan's life - or mine. Nor does it make it any harder to find out about him: Google has seen to that.

However, it is a bit sad, that anyone would actually go to all that trouble, each time he is mentioned - especially since he has met the criteria for entry these past three years. I can't imagine myself deleting information on someone I didn't know, for reasons that couldn't objectively be justified. It all seems a bit strange.

So, if you have arrived on this page looking for Ainan's Wikipedia entry - he probably doesn't have one - not because no-one has ever started one, but because someone doesn't want it to exist. Why not read this blog instead?

Thank you.

(If you would like to learn more of Ainan Celeste Cawley, or his gifted brothers, please go to:
http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2006/10/scientific-child-prodigy-guide.html

I also write of gifted education, child prodigy, child genius, adult genius, savant, megasavant, HELP University College, the Irish, the Malays, Singapore, Malaysia, IQ, intelligence and creativity.

My Internet Movie Database listing is at: http://imdb.com/name/nm3438598/
Ainan's IMDB listing is at http://imdb.com/name/nm/3305973/
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.)

A child who pulls.

There is the widespread view...and a poisonous view it is, too...that the parents of gifted children must somehow be pushing the child. Now, this view is based on nothing but people's assumptions, but it is a view that does great harm throughout the gifted community.

I have seen some very worrying comments, on the internet, levelled at the parents of gifted children. Some of the commenters were clearly angry at the parents. They assumed that the parents were somehow bullying the child into high intellectual performance. Some even threatened violence towards the parents. It is really quite mad.

Now, in an effort to understand why people often think such things of the parents of gifted children, I can only think that the accusers are trying to understand the situation from their own limited experience. In their experience, it is impossible for a child to do the things that the gifted child or prodigy is credited with. Those things simply cannot be. Therefore, they conceive that the situation must somehow be "forced". They think that the child must be under some kind of huge pressure to perform, from the parents, and that is why they are able to perform in this way.

I find their view and understanding quite horrifying. In my experience, I just don't think it is remotely possible to force a child to perform at a high level intellectually. Either such performance is in the child, or it is not. Either the child will naturally gravitate towards such a level of performance or they will not. There is no possibility of force in the situation. Indeed, I think force could only be counter-productive in that it would produce resentment by the child, of the parents, which would lead to resistance to co-operation.

The only situation, in my view, in which a child will perform at a prodigious level, is if the child is not pushed, but PULLS. It is the child who pulls the parent towards their own, inner objectives and not the parent who pushes the child towards theirs.

If the child exhibits a pull towards a subject which arises naturally in themselves, then that child will, naturally, perform at a high level in that subject. It is possible that such a child will become a prodigy. However, when that child does become a prodigy, many people will assume that the child was pushed into achieving what they achieved. So, instead of receiving approval from others, for being a supportive parent who has enabled the child's interests to flourish, the parent of a prodigy, will more often receive hostility, sometimes very extreme hostility, from people who believe, without any evidence whatsoever, that the child has been pushed into it.

Of course, this is all very sad. The more the parent helps the child achieve their goals, the more others will insist on misunderstanding their support and malignly characterizing their nature. The more the child is parented successfully, the more others will come to be unfriendly towards the parents. It is really quite bizarre. What is happening is actually very different from what people assume. What is happening is that the parents are being better parents, in enabling their child to grow, than parents typically are. The parents are being MORE caring, MORE supportive, MORE present for their child. It is, in fact, a scenario opposite to the one people assume. The parent of a prodigy, or any gifted child, is, more often than not, making more of an effort to be a good parent, than the parent of a typical child. A prodigy demands more support. If that prodigy is flourishing then, usually, the parent is providing that support.

It seems to me, that no parent should be censured for having a gifted or prodigious child. They should be accepted as the caring parents they almost always are.

There is an irony in this, of course. The ones who accuse the parents of gifted children of pushiness, are the ones with poison in their hearts. The parents are being what the accusers are not: supportive of their children.

(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.)

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.)

Jealousy at NUS High School

As you may know, Ainan attended NUS High School for a time. As you probably won't know, we took him out after three weeks because it was clear that he wasn't going to be learning much there. The class offered was not of a level to teach him anything new. They also weren't willing to give him practical chemistry classes, they said: "All our classes are full: we have twenty-five students a class and can't take one more." That is what the Vice-Principal Suresh said to us. So, we didn't send him again.

Anyway, today someone from NUS High School, of about eighteen, wrote a very jealous blog about Ainan and my children. He attacked Ainan, 7, Fintan, 4, and Tiarnan, 1. He said we weren't "decent people". Is this a racist attack, I wonder, given that my children are half-Malay? (The boy in question is Chinese and so this is a potential factor, since "racial harmony" isn't perfect here. His comments were also rather strong.)

I am not going to refer you to the blog. If you have come from it, you should know which I mean. It is clear that he has no idea what a prodigious child is - or how it is defined. A prodigy is a child of adult capability, in an adult area, by the age of 11. By that criteria, Ainan, 7, should be considered a prodigy - for his studies are equivalent to an American Bachelor's degree (A level equivalent - for that is the academic standard of an American Bachelor's degree).

The funny thing is, Ainan is doing a subject at a level of someone the boy's age - yet he argues that Ainan is not "prodigious" for doing so. Ainan is ELEVEN years younger than this boy appears to be. I have not yet read a more jealous piece of writing on the internet.

I am glad, given this boy's attitude, that we took Ainan out of NUS High School: for one boy like that one, is one too many, in a whole nation.

He argues that education is not about allowing children to reach their peak capabilities. He says it is about teaching them to be "decent people" - so stating that my son, and all of us, are not. That is a libel, in itself, and no doubt actionable.

Ask yourself, is this boy an example of a decent person, when he attacks 7, 4 and 1 year olds - and their parents - on the internet? If that is what a decent person is considered to be, what an horrendous society he must come from.

(Note inserted: January 2008. I felt this post was necessary because I had been receiving a lot of traffic redirected from his libellous and offensive post. A defense of the situation was therefore necessary.)

(If you would like to learn more of Ainan Celeste Cawley, a scientific child prodigy, aged seven years and ten months, or his gifted brothers, Fintan, four years and three months, and Tiarnan, twenty 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.)

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 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?